Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Monday, January 23, 2017

How to Destroy Two Lives with One Choice

by Tom Rhodes, 1/23/2017

Some things are gray, meaning they exist on some continuum without clear and distinct boundaries, good and bad, short to tall, light to heavy, dark to bright. Other things are distinctly binary and clear, top and bottom, on or off, yes or no, alive or dead.

To determine if a life is human is simple, if that life has human DNA, it is a human being. The life stages of a human being are from fertilized egg, to embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric, and finally death. This is not controversial science, it is the same for all mammals.

To determine if something is alive or dead, scientifically when talking about cellular life it's simple, if it takes in food, eliminates waste, respirates, and cells are dividing, it's alive not dead. Until politics forced the change the definition of life so abortion could be rationalized, that was how cellular life was defined. Even more simply, The Dead Don't Grow.

Abortion kills a living human, PERIOD!

The sick and evil part is that in almost all cases, abortion is the killing of a living human simply because the mere existence of that human is inconvenient.

You can make up all the excuses you want, you are just rationalizing the killing of one human whose mere existence is inconvenient another. The new life being killed did nothing, is totally innocent, and only exists, because of the actions of others. Rationalizing the killing of an innocent, who is incapable of initiating actions against another, is immoral, wrong, and evil.

Knowing how detrimental abortion is to women, and knowing that pregnancy compromises their feelings, memory, and thinking, why do we allow pregnant women to choose to kill another human, because they "feel" they be better off, if that other human was dead? The men who would coerce a pregnant woman to make such a choice, don't have the excuse of being pregnant, and are just selfish and self-centered and should be held more culpable.

Pregnant women are emotionally and mentally compromised, the chemistry involved with pregnancy dramatically affects their brains. This has been observed for countless generations and is so well documented as to be uncontroversial.

"There is 15 to 40 times more progesterone and estrogen marinating the brain during pregnancy," Louann Brizendine, MD, director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, says. "And these hormones affect all kinds of neurons in the brain." We don't fully understand all the effects of pregnancy on the brain. Glynn and her colleague Curt A. Sandman, of University of the California Irvine, are doing something about that. Their review of the literature in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, discusses the theories and findings that are starting to fill what Glynn calls "a significant gap in our understanding of this critical stage of most women's lives." At no other time in a woman's life does she experience such massive hormonal fluctuations as during pregnancy. Dr. Glynn is clear saying, "There may be a cost" of these reproduction-related cognitive and emotional changes.

Letting women whose brains are influenced by hormones to such an extent that they sometimes cannot control their emotions, make life and death decisions for another person is criminal. The woman making the choice is not criminal, rather society is criminally negligent, for allowing a person whose emotions are known to be compromised due to the chemical imbalances associated with pregnancy make such decisions.

This is not to say that most women are not and cannot be rational during pregnancy, but anybody who's been around a pregnant woman KNOWS that their emotions and thinking are affected by the pregnancy. Letting a person who has a temporary condition known to compromise their thinking make life and death decisions is wrong. We don't let people who are temporarily drunk, choose to drive. We even hold bartenders culpable for allowing compromised people to drive. Yet we allow women known to be temporarily mentally compromised, choose to kill another human.

In a 2010 study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that women who underwent an abortion had a 98 percent increased risk for any mental health disorders compared to women who did not have an abortion.

The Study, "Aborted Women - Silent No More" (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger. The science and research are clear with study after study showing that without doubt that abortion is linked with increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal bonding with children born subsequently. These factors are closely associated with child abuse and would appear to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse.

The vast majority of women who abort regret doing so later in life. The guilt and emotional turmoil of realizing that she choseto kill her own baby, destroys and gnaws at the psyche of a woman her entire life.

We know abortion kills a human being. We know that abortion is detrimental to women both physically and mentally. We know that pregnancy compromises a woman's feelings, memory, and thinking. Knowing all this, why would a rational civilized society allow pregnant women to choose to destroy two lives.

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Embracing Barbarism: The Death of a Nation

By Tom Rhodes, 12/28/2016

Why should Modern Western Civilized Societies take barbarians, who don't value civilization, nor want to become civilized, who want what civilization produces, but reject what Modern Western Civilized Societies require? Why should barbarians be allowed to reap the benefits of Modern Western Civilized Societies , without conforming to the norms of that society?

Societies that don't value treat all people as equal in their laws and customs are not civilized. Modern Western Civilized Societies are based on the idea that all men are created in God's image, therefore by the basis of being an image bearer of God should be treated equally under the law, and be allowed all the same rights as any other person, regardless of race, class, sex, etc. etc. etc.

The result of not being willing to stand up against barbarian invasion is plainly evident in Europe. Violent crime, especially rape, is rising as the barbarians who’ve been allowed to enter unfettered, take what they want and not only refuse to conform to the norms of Modern Western Civilized Society, but demand that society conform to their barbarism.

Embracing barbarism, hedonism, and rejecting our Christian heritage, is bad enough. On a global scale this rejection and model for society is a direct way to the degradation and primitivization of culture. This has led to a demographic and moral crisis in the West.

Even Vladimir Putin has recognized, and observed this fact. In a recent speech he stated;
Without the moral values that are rooted in Christianity and other world religions, without rules and moral values which have formed, and been developed, over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity and become brutes. And we think it is right and natural to defend and preserve these Christian moral values.

One has to respect the right of every minority to self-determination, but at the same time there cannot and must not be any doubt about the rights of the majority.

“At the same time as this process plays out at a national level in the West, we observe on an international level the attempts to create a unipolar, unified model of the world, to relativise and remove institutions of international rights and national sovereignty. In such a unipolar, unified world there is no place for sovereign states. Such a world needs merely vassals.

From a historical perspective, such a unipolar world would mean the surrender of one's own identity and of God-created diversity.

It is sad indeed when Vladimir Putin better articulates the value of diversity, sovereignty, and liberty, than our own democratically elected leaders in the west. Modern Western Civilized Societies refusing to stand up and protect the norms of their culture, are doomed to lose their culture.

“If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.” ~ Thomas Sowell

John Stuart Mill is often quoted by Libertarians. Mill's philosophical treatise, On Liberty, makes a very strong case for the radical permission of individuality. The problem is that libertarians skip and ignore other parts of that same treatise where he also makes strong claims for restrictions on barbarians. Even this permission of individuality had legal limits. In the first chapter of On Liberty, Mill recognized that barbaric peoples were to be placed under great restriction. Recognizing that radical liberty entrusted to barbarians is disastrous.

If Modern Western Civilized Societies are to confront the barbarian, even supposing that the civilization is in theory a liberal democratic republic, certain aspects of individuality must be condemned according to that nation's identity, with the majority acting for the whole. Whether these aspects are challenged by the state or by social means is dependent upon the circumstances, but reason and order demand that they cannot simply go unchallenged.

if America, as a Modern Western Civilized Society, is not wise nor strong enough to return to the God of her fathers, or to the Law which gave her liberty, then as her borders become meaningless, from both within and without those borders, will come forces she cannot oppose. They will come with smiling faces and murderous intents - to conquer not with the sword, but instead by pressing upon the hollow shell of a once civilized nation. The veneer that is our post-modern culture unsustained by its barbaric tenants, will give way. Then, like with Europe, our cities raped and pillaged and America's daughters will be at the mercy of the barbarian.

Let’s not forget that John Stewart Mills in his treatise, On Liberty, also said:

"A civilization that can thus succumb to its vanquished enemy [barbarism] must first have become so degenerate, that neither its appointed priests and teachers, nor anybody else, has the capacity, or will take the trouble, to stand up for it. If this be so, the sooner such a civilization receives notice to quit, the better. It can only go on from bad to worse, until destroyed and regenerated (like the Western Empire) by energetic barbarians."

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Citizens United is a Red Herring

By Tom Rhodes 12/20/2016

This Election proved one thing. Citizens United is a Red Herring. Corporate money in politics has little or no effect. Big Oil backed Clinton, not Trump. The Stock Market backed Clinton, not Trump.

Hillary spent double what Trump did on the election. That means with ½ the money Trump got 1/3 more electoral votes. Money doesn’t matter, spending big money on TV is a waste of money. Things have changed. A virtually free tweet is worth more than a 30 second spot on ABC, NBC, and CBS during prime time combined. People can and do fast forward and skip the commercials. Things have changed and limits on spending money on “electioneering” are clearly wasted and restrictive for no benefit.

YouTube Twitter, Facebook, blogs, GAB, etc. are all more effective today than, old-line network audiences. A good tweet is more effective than $Millions on TV. TV audiences are far smaller technology allows people to skip TV ads altogether. The Democrats' obsession with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which allowed corporate political communications, is utterly beside the point. The fact is major corporations don't take partisan sides. If they do public relations departments always pick the PC choice.

The people are so tired of being told what they can and can’t say, not being politically correct and saying what you feel can and will win votes over carefully crafted politically correct pablum. Hillary wasted a lot of dollars pointing out that Trump is a man, and in private talks like other men. Yawn, nobody cared.

Big money on polling with polls carefully crafted to shape a message also proved to be another waste of money. The polls were wrong and most of the country won’t even participate in what they know are polls rigged by big money.

The Democrats continued whining about big money in politics is just a Red Herring designed to keep people distracted form their desire to control everybody from cradle to grave and not have any opposing ideas heard or shared. That’s why they want to control the news, and label as “fake” anything they don’t think you should know or hear about. They are up in arms about Russia, but have yet to prove anything they exposed is false. Why exactly wont’ the FBI tell congress the details of how they came to change their mind and support the CIA’s claim that Russia hacked the US elections. The same CIA who claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, thought waterboarding was OK, etc.

From the US Presidential Election to the Hugo Awards, the events of 2016 proved that Freedom of Speech and the Press are more powerful than big money. Government restrictions only and always support what big money wants. So why does big money want to restrict small money speech? This election proved Big Money no longer works and was proof that liberty and protecting the rights of all people to equally, provides the best way for more people to be heard and ideas to be shared.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Civil War is Here

By Tom Rhodes, 7/8/2016

Our government has just confirmed that we are no longer a nation of laws. Once we were a "nation of the people, by the people and for the people." Today we are a “nation of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite.”

It took less than a week for the people to respond. Not only seeing Clinton's get away with ignoring the law, but coupled with another example of the repeated problem of the police shooting innocent people and not being held accountable was demonstrated.

The results were seen in Dallas, 11 police shot, 5 dead. The people will not tolerate the continued different set of rules for the elite and their minions, than the ones they must follow or be killed.

I wrote about this coming for the past few years
(here’s one). Retaliation for the elite and their minions abandoning the rule of law was inevitable.

President Obama is aghast that the people would respond this way. Like any despot, the idea that people would retaliate against the government is inconceivable. Saying from Warsaw, “There’s no possible justification for these kinds of attacks or any attack on law enforcement.” When the elites minions (cops) can and do get away with murder routinely the outcome in a free society is clear. When the rule of law no longer applies, and there is no justice through the courts, the people are left with no recourse. When law enforcement can routinely shoot unarmed people with no accountability, they not only justify, but invite attack on law enforcement.

Obama made it clear today, that the idea that the people have powerful weapons that they can use to resist the minions of the elite is the problem. Clearly the reason for the Second Amendment was so that the people, even urban blacks, would have the means to combat a tyrannical unaccountable government.

This week when the government said, Yes, Hillary broke the law, but we’re going to let her get away with it. They clearly said, the laws are to control the little people and don’t apply to your betters. Because police (minions of the elite) can and do get away with murder, and our government has declared that the elite and their minions are exempt from the law. After such a clear declaration of oligarchic despotism, violent retaliation and rebellion is all that is left.

The police created the climate by constantly and systematically protecting their own. Every cop who has seen another officer abuse the rights of a citizen, and kept their mouth shut rather than cross the thin blue line, is an accomplice not a good cop. Everyone should be held accountable for their mistakes, even cops. Especially when it costs someone their life.

The problem isn’t people having guns, it is the actions of the elites minions (cops). If we don't fix the general problem of cops literally getting away with murder, people will be sniping them all over. It is obviously a systemic problem; everyone knows nothing is going to happen to a cop who kills someone. You can’t keep shooting little girls sleeping on their couch(Aiyana Jones), and claiming you were scared as an excuse, and expect the people to tolerate it.

Last year hundreds of unarmed people were killed by the police, over 1000 people in all, but if the dead body had a pocket knife, they were classified as “armed.” The people may be stupid, but not that stupid, and can easily recognize when for every cop shot there are 30 people shot, and see the disparity noting the fact of police being trained to lie, and not notice that the Evil Minions of the Elite (cops) obfuscate, and pretend that they are in danger when they are not.

Why should the people trust the police when the law says it’s legal for cops to lie to suspects and the people, but a crime for the people to lie to cops?

As long as the minions of the elite maintain their quasi-military attitude, their us vs them mentality, and their legal unaccountability, they will increasingly find themselves at war against the American people. It is a war they cannot win.

The shooting of 11 minions of the elite in Dallas is not remotely surprising. What is surprising is the sheer number of people who won’t sympathize with the Dallas police and their families. The police consider themselves above the law, but they are not beyond the reach of an justly outraged public.

Dallas is an unnecessary tragedy. The specific officers that were shot and killed, in all likelihood did nothing to deserve the violence inflicted upon them. The way for them to avoid future attacks is to stop pretending that being scared is sufficient reason to shoot a member of the public, to erase the thin blue line and hold their fellow officers accountable.

No sane person would celebrate the current situation, it has been predicted, but the repeated calls to hold the police and our government accountable have gone unheeded. When the FBI boldly proclaims that yes the elite did break the law, but we won’t prosecute, and cops routinely (hundreds of times a year) shoot the unarmed public without accountability, it clearly demonstrates to the people that the rule of law is dead, and the people cannot expect justice from the government. The people can, and will, seek justice through other means when the government refuses to enforce the rule of law.

Buckle up people, civil war is here, and things are going to get worse before it gets better.

Monday, July 4, 2016

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
John Hancock
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Magic Dirt Theory

By Tom Rhodes, 6/30/2016

The dirt in the USA is not magical. Duh!!! By a person changing their geographic location to the USA the dirt under their feet won’t magically change that person into an American. Even if born in the USA, if their parents don’t embrace modern western civilization and the culture of America, that child won’t magically become American. The

There are certain cultural beliefs that simply do not mix in the West. If an American immigrant from Afghanistan believes in Sharia law (abusing women and killing gays for who they are - as an example) those cultural beliefs will never mix in our country. If we allow that individual to immigrate to our nation, they will be unassimilated, unsuccessful and will develop a great deal of resentment or even rage.

Is it unfair to consider if a potential immigrant plans on adopting it’s new countries culture or keep their old culture and work at changing the culture of their new geographic location to match their own?

If we look at places in the world where large numbers of Muslims have migrated, do those Muslims adopt their much if any new locations local culture, or do they maintain the culture from where they came and expect the locals to accept and/or adopt the foreign culture of the new immigrants?

The FACTS are clear but not politically correct. When large numbers of Muslims migrate to a new geographic location, they do not adopt the local culture, but keep their old culture and insist on it becoming the new culture. There is no evidence that the dirt under their feet magically transforms them into the local culture.

Countless dollars have been spent trying to create a predictor of a person becoming a terrorist. All the money and research spent is spent on the condition that the answer not point to Islam. The New York Times reported earlier this year:

"What turns people toward violence -- and whether they can be steered away from it -- are questions that have bedeviled governments around the world for generations. Those questions have taken on fresh urgency with the rise of the Islamic State and the string of attacks in Europe and the United States. Despite millions of dollars of government-sponsored research, and a much-publicized White House pledge to find answers, there is still nothing close to a consensus on why someone becomes a terrorist."

The most common trait of terrorists in the world today is that they are Muslim. That common trait is not allowed to be noted. The British MI5 undertook its own highly sophisticated study, after the July 7, 2005, London subway bombing by Muslim terrorists that killed 52 people. The study determined that terrorists are a very diverse group, and worshipped at a variety of different mosques. The only predictive factor MI5 found was being Muslim.

Muslim leaders have declared a war on western civilization, they openly state their goal is to end the decadence that is modern western civilization. We know from 8 to 15% of Muslims hold radical beliefs and will commit violence in the name of Islam if given the opportunity. We know fairly accurately that if we admit 1 Million Muslims into the country about 80,000 will hold radical beliefs and if given the opportunity will commit acts of violence. Just FACTS, not politically correct but true none the less. From rape to mass murder they will commit violence against infidels. We only need to look at Europe to see it. The government is telling it’s citizens if they don’t want to be raped or assaulted don’t go where the Muslims live. The amount of violent crime by Muslims against local cultures is massive wherever large numbers of Muslims Migrate. PERIOD!

Omar Mateen, was born in the USA to Afghan parents, who upon moving to the USA were not affected by our magical dirt and did everything they could to remain Afghan, and raise their sun as an Afghan Muslim. The US State Department led Overseas Security Advisory Council report reads that “martyrdom during the month of Ramadan may hold a special allure to some.” It noted that during Ramadan there is a “persistent threat of (ISIS) attacks, both inspired and directed.” The fact is Omar Mateen is a Radical Islamic Democrat, who during the month of Ramadan carried out the most effective Islamic Terrorist Act on US soil. He was not an American, the magic dirt of the USA did not make him one.

Leftists and political elite have only made themselves look like controlling manipulative liars, trying to blame guns in America as the root cause, when all the evidence clearly points to Islamic Terrorism. Only a blind idiot would think anything but Radical Islam is the cause of the 6/12 Orlando massacre. Only an idiot, or a manipulative liar, would declare Mateen as an American. The magic dirt he was born on does not make him an American. He overtly rejected everything, including the culture, that makes a person American. An African Lion (Panthera leo) born in an American zoo doesn't magically become an American lion (Puma concolor).

The dirt under the feet of the USA is not magical, it does not and will not change Muslims into Americans. Dumping a million Muslim immigrants on the country every year, some percentage of whom we know will commit mass murder, is insane. It will result in the same violent rape, assault, and mass murder that has accompanied every migration of Muslims in history.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Why are the Govt and MSM lying to us?

WHY - Are both the MSM and Govt trying to cover up 6/12 as an Islamic Terrorist Act?

Some facts are clear, enough facts are know so we can say that the Orlando 6/12 massacre meets all the criteria to be identified as an Act of Islamic Terrorism.

The mass murderer was a non-state actor (he was not acting on behalf of any government), he explicitly identified the United States government’s intrusions into the Islamic world as his reason for murdering en masse. He disclosed his motive: He wanted to affect changes in government policy. The mass murderer indiscriminately slaughtered non-combatant civilians in the private sector as the means by which he sought to retaliate against and to change American policy. This clearly meets all the requirements to identify 6/12 as terrorism.

The following are also known facts: The terrorist followed jihadi protocol and informed the police that he pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and the terrorist shouted praises to Allah as he shed the blood of civilians. This clearly meets all the requirements to identify the act of terrorism on 6/12 as an Islamic Terrorist act.

The readily available facts are clearly know. Why is our government trying to make 6/12 about guns, homophobia, or America's fault? Why is the MSM supporting the government in making 6/12 something other than the largest Islamist Terrorist Attack on US soil since 9/11???

When the government publicly states it will edit the 911 tapes so that it doesn't point to Islamic Terrorism, says they don't know the motives, despite the clear declaration of motives by the terrorist, we have a problem. The MSM should have been screaming to get the truth, but it was pressure from everyday citizens and the new media of the Internet that forced the government to release the 911 tapes which clearly showed that 6/12 was an Islamic Terrorist Attack.

Guns, homophobia, etc. are all red herrings. 6/12 was Islamic Terrorism. Refusing to call it that, doesn't make it anything else. Refusing to recognize that a sizeable portion of the Islamic world has publicly declared war on the West, and specifically the USA, doesn't mean we are any less at war. It takes 2 sides o fight, but it only takes one side to declare and wage war. Choose not to fight or defend yourself, and you will lose the war.

Why are the Govt and MSM lying to us?

WHY - Are both the MSM and Govt trying to cover up 6/12 as an Islamic Terrorist Act?

Some facts are clear, enough facts are know so we can say that the Orlando 6/12 massacre meets all the criteria to be identified as an Act of Islamic Terrorism.

The mass murderer was a non-state actor (he was not acting on behalf of any government), he explicitly identified the United States government’s intrusions into the Islamic world as his reason for murdering en masse. He disclosed his motive: He wanted to affect changes in government policy. The mass murderer indiscriminately slaughtered non-combatant civilians in the private sector as the means by which he sought to retaliate against and to change American policy. This clearly meets all the requirements to identify 6/12 as terrorism.

The following are also known facts: The terrorist followed jihadi protocol and informed the police that he pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS) and the terrorist shouted praises to Allah as he shed the blood of civilians. This clearly meets all the requirements to identify the act of terrorism on 6/12 as an Islamic Terrorist act.

The readily available facts are clearly know. Why is our government trying to make 6/12 about guns, homophobia, or America's fault? Why is the MSM supporting the government in making 6/12 something other than the largest Islamist Terrorist Attack on US soil since 9/11???

When the government publicly states it will edit the 911 tapes so that it doesn't point to Islamic Terrorism, says they don't know the motives, despite the clear declaration of motives by the terrorist, we have a problem. The MSM should have been screaming to get the truth, but it was pressure from everyday citizens and the new media of the Internet that forced the government to release the 911 tapes which clearly showed that 6/12 was an Islamic Terrorist Attack.

Guns, homophobia, etc. are all red herrings. 6/12 was Islamic Terrorism. Refusing to call it that, doesn't make it anything else. Refusing to recognize that a sizeable portion of the Islamic world has publicly declared war on the West, and specifically the USA, doesn't mean we are any less at war. It takes 2 sides o fight, but it only takes one side to declare and wage war. Choose not to fight or defend yourself, and you will lose the war.

Friday, January 8, 2016

Science says Multiculturalism is a Failure!

Science says Multiculturalism is a Failure!
By Tom Rhodes, 1/8/16

Liberals are so proud and arrogant about "science" be it global warming, or whatever. You probably haven't read or seen in the news the studies that look at the social aspects multiculturalism (diversity) have on societies. The science is clear, MULTICULTURALISM is bad for society. The reality is as mentioned in many non-PC sources is that not only is the observation by people who see large number of immigrants from dissimilar cultures lead to violence and social unrest, but the SCIENTIFIC CONCENSIS is that:
Diversity + Proximity = WAR

  • Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity, case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present. Read Here.

  • Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust. Read Here.

  • "In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust." Read Here.

  • Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest. Read Here.

  • The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal. Read Here.

  • In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn't maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy. Read Here.

  • "Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by both physical and political boundaries." Read Here.

  • Diversity hinders between-group cooperation at both the one-on-one and group levels. Read Here.

  • The best chance for peace in Syria is better borders (intrastate or through the creation of new states) "suited to current geocultural regions", and tribal autonomy. Read Here.

  • Using data from US states, study finds a negative relationship between ethnic polarization and trust. Read Here.

  • Diversity is associated with more White support for nationalist parties, except at the local level where large immigrant populations cut into vote totals for nationalist parties. Read Here.

  • In Australia, ethnic diversity lowers social cohesion and increases "hunkering", providing support for Putnam's thesis finding the same results in the US. Read Here.

  • After controlling for a self-selection bias, study finds that ethnic diversity in English schools reduces trust in same-age people and does not make White British students more inclusive in their attitudes towards immigrants. Read Here.

  • In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives' trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants' trust but through a different pathway. Read Here.

  • Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence. Read Here.

  • "[E]thnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship more or less applies to all 187 countries.. . . [E]thnic nepotism is the common cross-cultural background factor which supports the persistence of ethnic conflicts in the world as long as there are ethnically divided societies." Read Here.

  • Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism. Read Here.

  • Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century. Read Here.

  • Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are "a lost cause". Read Here.

  • The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation. Read Here.

  • Using data from Copenhagen school registers, researchers found that native Danes opt out of public schools when the immigrant population concentration hits 35% or more. Read Here.

  • In the most liberal region in the US, San Francisco and surrounding suburbs, White parents are pulling their kids out of public schools that are becoming increasingly asian. Read Here.

    list stolen from CH's Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List and will be updated as new science is reported

    The science that says multiculturalism is a failure, Scientific studies illustrate the way the world is, not how leftist elites think it should be.

    The massive sexual assault happening to women in Europe (which the MSM is trying to ignore) is at the fault of those European leaders who have allowed massive migration from places with drastically dissimilar cultures.

    Much of the strife and violence in the USA (which the MSM is trying to ignore), is at the hands of those leaders who refuse to enforce our immigration laws, and insist that we must let large numbers of third world people invade our country.

    To the leftists that denounce Trump, Coulter, Savage, Voxday, etc. because they are stating how the world is, not how they think it should be, the question is: Where is the scientific studies supporting multiculturalism?

    Finland like Germany has experienced massive sexual assault on New Years Eve. The MSM are doing their best to cover it up. Just like they are doing their best to cover up rape and sexual assault by third world criminal aliens in the USA. Both Islamic culture, and the Machismo culture of Latin America use rape to subjugate and force their culture on others. The evidence is that massive third world immigration results in rape culture, there will be no peace as long as Western Civilization continues to allow massive numbers of third world migration.

    I'd like one example where massive migration of people didn't result in the destruction of the native culture. Japan recognizes this, look at their immigration laws and rules. Ask the American Indians how allowing the British to invade America worked out. Oh that's right, Europeans raped, slaughtered, and crushed that culture. What makes us think that other cultures won't do the same to ours?
  • Tuesday, December 22, 2015

    Star Wars: The Farce Awakens

    By Tom Rhodes, 12/22/2015

    I’ll start by saying I’m an old Star Wars fan and ‘The Force Awakens’ is entertaining and action packed but fails if you even attempt to think about it. The funny scenes and homage to the original Star Wars make it worth seeing. . . . . after it’s in the $5 DVD bin at Walmart. Stop reading if you haven’t seen it and don’t want any spoilers. The Farce Awakens is a feminized retelling of first Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope.

    Let’s start with a great positive. TMZ and others have been trying to get Mark Hamill to reveal or hint at Star Wars participation. His dismissal of Star Wars as movies he doesn’t watch, and elusion to not being a part of ‘The Force Awakens‘ and other crap he’s thrown at the press , was acting for the paparazzi. Showing up in the last scene looking like Luke turned into Obi Wan, was a great ending to the movie. Hamill’s treatment of the press and paparazzi is arguably better acting than any of the acting by other characters in the movie except R2D2, and neither Luke or R2D2 speak. The only redeeming acting of a speaking part must be given to Harrison Ford, who pulled Hans Solo with style, and the Chewy-Solo relationship was still the best developed character relationship in the movie. It should be the last we’ll ever see of Hans Solo, unless they do the ghost thing like they did with Kenobi episodes V and VI.

    Droid aside, thank God there was no Yoda, Jar-Jar, Ewok, or other cutesy supporting character.

    Problems in no particular order:

  • Darth Vader, Luke, Kylo Ren, Obi Wan Kenobi, and all other force using experts in any previous Star Wars story, needed training based on years of apprenticeship with a 24/7 mentor to master the force. The entire premise of Jedi powers is that they must being “learned” and they develop over time with practice. Our heroine Rey, hinted heavily as being Luke’s daughter, instantly and without training or foreknowledge gets abilities with the force that took all other Jedi, Sith, decades to develop. So with no Jedi’s around, how does she even know the force can control weak minded storm troopers, much less use the old “you don’t need to see his papers” shtick.

  • How can Rey without any training best Kylo Ren, the emo Darth Vader, with a light saber, while Kylo Ren has had years of training with the force? Even though Vader, Anakin Skywalker, in his youth like Rey showed signs of mechanical genius and native ability with the force, to become proficient took years of training and a mentor? When Luke first picked up a light sabre, he couldn’t deflect a laser pointer from a training drone much less use it effectively. After training with both Kenobi and Yoda, Luke got his hand chopped off by Vader. The whole “force” in Rey defies the entire premise of the Jedi and use of the force in the previous 6 movies. How come the only character to get the ability and skill to use the force without putting in the work and effort is a girl? Rey’s abilities make a farce of the force.

  • Rey is the most developed character in the whole movie and she has virtually no character development. We have no idea about her past, motivations, anything. Who or what was support system that enabled her to survive on this planet? Why is she in such good health and obviously well fed when she can only scrounge up half rations daily? At least little Anakin was a slave with his mother and we have some idea how and why he survived and turned out the way he did. Who and why is she waiting on a junkers planet? No story, and no reason to actually care for or about her other than the hint she’s Luke’s daughter.

  • How many times can we see a movie blowing up the Death Star, with the Millennium Falcon flying out of the fiery explosion in the last second. Both in its size and scope, Starkiller Base makes the Death Star and it’s rebuild look like a Sunfish in the America’s Cup. There is a pathetically small Tie Fighter fleet to fleet to protect it? After 40 years both the good guys and the bad guys have made zero developments in fighters, Xwing’s and Tie fighters. Would be like the USA still flying F4 Phantoms instead of F35 Raptors. Hell our navy today has better anti-air guns than the ineffective turbolaser batteries on the Starkiller Base? If the rebel’s launched half their Xwing Fleet, why so few, it’s not like the computers at Lucas Light and Magic, couldn’t have added in a few hundred more fighters for both sides. Even the prequel had new fighters and cooler space ships. Even Jar-Jar had access to cooler underwater ships. The future seems to regress technologically not advance.

  • With no character development, Rey treats her aunts husband Hans Solo as like her missing father and is motivated by his death at the hands of her cousin Kylo Ren. At least there was some character development in episode IV to explain Obi Wan Kenobi and Luke’s relationship before the DarthVader/Kylo Ren kills the old mentor Kenobi/Solo.

  • Fin former storm trooper beats decades of brainwashing as a storm trooper and develops a conscience. This happens after his exposure in one battle, and why is a sanitation worker also an armed storm trooper? And why is the main supporting character and black guy, a garbage man, isn’t that racist? What happened to Storm Troopers being Clones? Why are all other Storm Troopers fearless and willing to run right into the fight and Fin runs away until he has a princess to serve?

  • Trained ever since taken as a child to be a fighting machine, or maybe sanitation worker, nothing Fin does is related to or congruent with Ray, but somehow devotes most of the film to trying to protect her. The bigger problem is this character is a typical feminization of an old male hero tale. ‘The Farce Awakens’ retells the original Star Wars with a woman in the man’s role, only the woman gets the farce without all the hard work, and the male despite his years of training is a bumbling shadow of a man obsessed with the female hero.

  • How did Rey know the history of the Millennium Falcon since it was stolen from Han Solo?

  • The emo Darth Vader, Kylo Ren, hates his dad Hans Solo. He hates him enough to kill him; Why? What happened? What turned him to the Dark Side? He is a flat, emo, undeveloped character with no rationale for why he is where he’s at. He’s just a cardboard cutout of an evil emo kid mad at his Dad.

  • Princess Lea, aka Carrie Fisher, has so much botox her face is a plastic shell and shows no emotion. Her acting is flatter and not even worse than her lame part in the “Blues Brothers.”

  • How can a mere Captain, Captain Phasma, know how to lower the Starkiller’s shields and be able to do it without any higher level of approval, or the immediate knowledge of General Hux and emo-Ren? What part of the “Don’t create a system where the shields can be lowered remotely by low level people, thus allowing the rebels to blow up our world killing weapon memo,” didn’t they get after two Deathstar screw ups. And how did the evil empire, now “First Order” end up allowing women to be captains? When did the entire evil empire become politically correct?

  • Storm Troopers go to the planet and run around, no walkers, no big turbo lasers, no presence on the backward planet, etc. Even the backwater Tatooine out on the outer rim had Storm Trooper’s around and heavy weapons. Etc.

  • Han and Lea breakup, no reasoning; Luke training Han’s son, Kylo Ren in the farce, why, where, etc; Luke abandoning his light sabre, and a bunch of other stuff are either bad writing or teasers for possible future movies, the problem is that there are so many holes and missing plot motivators that the follow up movies are going to be worse than ewoks.

  • Lea still a general in the Resistance after 40 years. Didn’t the Rebels defeated the Empire. Changing the name of the Empire to the First Order is kind of lame. How did the First Order/Empire get so powerful again, and regain control of the Storm Troopers? Since they have been raising Storm Troopers from children it’s obvious the Empire/First Order in control has been around again for a while. Why is Lea still general of the “Resistance” shouldn’t that be the Republic?

  • After 4o years as a general in the “resistance couldn’t the First Order/Empire have her assignated or blow up her planet? Look, even the USA got Osama Bin Laden, no way she could be active in the rebellion and not be targeted and destroyed. Boba Fet wasn’t the only assassin in the galaxy. I guess you could say she’s like Castro, he lasted about that long. The difference being Castro was pretty much contained and had no ability to actually hurt the USA. Her position as rebel general, unlike Han Solo returning to smuggling is unbelievable.

  • C3PO – has a red arm and quips about it being why Han Solo doesn’t recognize him. Who cares that over a period of 40 years a cyborg gets a new arm and whoever paid for that arm was too cheap to strip off the red paint. The entire C3PO character in ‘The Force Awakens’ is a cameo just to keep the pattern of him, R2D2 and Chewy being in every Star Wars movie. Here, unlike episodes IV and V, C3PO adds nothing to the story.

    Disney did “Guardians of the Galaxy,” a sci-fi movie with as much action, wit, and humor, with great special effects, and a ton of character development with an equal number of characters. JJ Abrams did better character development in his Star Trek rehashes. We know the studio, director, and other people involved have the skill and ability to tell good stories with great characters, why with such good material and a good base to use, did they create such a poor story and such cardboard characters? The overt effort to make a female centric retelling of the episode IV, detracts from and gets in the way of a good story.

    I only like Episode VII, The Force Awakens, as a homage to the first two Star Wars movies. Like Ewoks go wild (Episode VI), and the 3 movie Anakin is a spoiled brat (episodes I-III) prequel, episode VII, The Force Awakens, is not a good story. I think it’s just a hacked add for Disney’s StarWars rides and merchandising to further Disney investment and freshen up the StarWars brand and give Disney another princess. When episode VII comes out on BluRay, I won’t waste any money to it to my collection (maybe when it’s in the $5 Walmart video bin). I hope episode VIII tells and shows a better story, but I’m pretty sure I spent my last theater dollar for any Star Wars movie on ‘The Force Awakens,’ and I’ll wait for Episode VIII to be streamed, or the BlueRay costs less than a movie ticket.