Play at Your Own Risk.

By Tom Rhodes, 5/31/2013

In USAToday Linda Valdez wrote an opinion piece titled "Border Wall Causes Serious Injuries." This article is hart felt rhetoric that concludes that we should take ownership for these injuries. This is typical of the feminist emotionalism that permeates our statist society. That we must do something so nobody suffers the consequences of their life choices.

The basis of the entire article is that it doesn't matter that the people in question are criminals, they are people who are suffering from falling from the wall that separates the US and Mexico. The fact that they are breaking the law and the injuries come because of the voluntary risks they choose to take is not relevant. Her interview with Dr. Lynn Gries, emphasizes that the results of risky illegal behavior is "awful to watch," ignoring the voluntary nature of the risk taking.

The article says that "The wall is a constant source of injuries." This is a rhetorical lie, the wall is an inanimate object, the source of the injuries is the voluntary risky and criminal behavior of individuals who choose to attempt to climb over the wall. If you crash your car into a telephone pole and are injured no reasonable person would say that the source of the injury was the telephone pole or even the car, the source of the injury was the failure of the driver to maintain control of the car.

Valdez's whole position is like saying it's the fault of a homeowner for not having a night light that the burglar slipped and broke his arm. The general sentiment is that it is more important that nobody suffer consequences of bad decisions then be responsible for their own actions. Typical of feminists, they want to be able to make any choice and never suffer the consequences of that decision, they also don't want to see anybody else suffer the consequences of their decisions (unless it's a WASPM).

This is a root problem in the USA and world. The entire premise of this article and viewpoint is diminishing and eliminating individual responsibility. Her article clearly is using emotions to override logic and reason, those in power are capitalizing on emotions not truth. In essence she is saying that it is more important that criminals don't suffer the consequences of their actions than holding them responsible for their criminal acts.

Of course this is the same thinking that removed monkey bars, tall slides, big swings, etc. from our playgrounds. I remember when slides were a thousand feet tall and falling off the top would result in certain death, it took forever to climb to the top and you were going 100mph when you hit the bottom so there was no way you could stay on your feet and avoid the mud bog as you tumbled off the end of the slide. The slide was a scary adventure; of course I was 5 so the size may be relative.

Don't forget giant teeter totter's that could propel you miles high, and the jungle gym (monkey bars) went up 4 or 5 stories, was made of metal, and bolted to concrete, falling from the top meant certain death, therefore climbing them was and adventure and risky.

The signs read PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Feminist - mommy - thinking has lead to today
there is no risk involved or allowed, children aren't taught the consequences of taking risks; rather are not allowed to take risks, and if they get hurt it's somebody else's fault. The playgrounds of old are gone, because rather than assuming the parent and child as being responsible for the risks they take, it was assumed the school or city who put up the park was responsible. We traded liberty for security, made the government responsible, thus in control, so now playgrounds are nice save secure and relatively risk free.

Mommy logic prevailed, it's better that no child suffer than have challenging and exciting playgrounds. Next thing you know we'll be arresting kid for riding their bike to school.

The greatness of this country came from risk taking, not risk aversion. We have become so risk averse, that we now want to protect criminals from their risky behavior, rather than let them suffer the consequences of the risk they take. This is the irrational thinking of feminist logic, it leads to giving every kid who competes in sports a trophy, even when they lose. Of course if we are not allowed to suffer for risks, then we also accept the idea that nobody should benefit from the risks they take. Risk aversion is the giant slide to tyranny, where the government assumes all risks, and lets everybody suffers for the risks government chooses to take, and nobody is allowed to benefit from individual risks.

It's about Security vs. Responsibility. Right now all the PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK signs have been taken down.

R.I.P. Rule of Law, Established 1776 - Died 2013

By Tom Rhodes, 5/30/2013

The Rule Of Law is dead in America. The very basic underpinnings of our system of governance have been undermined to the point where we now live in a neo-feudal society not a Republic. The ruling elite are now unaccountable for the laws that they severely punish the rest of us. One of the very basic principles to the rule of law is that the government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law. This is obviously no longer the case, and instead we live in a neo-feudal society where the oligarchy is rules like prohibition era gangland Chicago.

These are the facts:

On May 15, 2013 addressing the US Congress in a congressional hearing, Attorney General Eric Holder speaking in his official capacity said: "With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I have ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy."

On Thursday May 23, 2013 President Obama speaking on national security stated, "Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law."

On Friday May 24, 2013 The US Department of Justice released information to NBC News that the truth was that Attorney General Eric Holder personally authorized seeking the search warrant for Rosen's personal emails. Over the 2013 Memorial Day weekend the DOJ confirmed that fact.

The IRS Commissioner has met with the White House more than other Cabinet Member (157 times)

The fundamental second principle to the Rule of Law is that the laws are clear, publicized, stable and just, are applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.

We know that the US Government has been systematically using its power to attack groups that do not support the president. If Attorney General Eric Holder isn't personally held accountable it will prove beyond a doubt that the law is not applied evenly to all individuals, rather in neo-feudal nature is applied as the ruling elite see fit to reward those they favor, and unjustly punish those they don't.

Simply put if Eric Holder isn't removed from office and prosecuted it is proof we no longer live in a nation of laws where all individuals are created equal, where we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In as much as our Government no longer secures these rights, we must ask ourselves if we will continue to grant consent to be governed by this government.

If we work under the assumption that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the We 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 us shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness. Prudence, dictates that our long established Government should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that We the People are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right ourselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed.

The question we must ask ourselves is do the actions of our government over the past 20 years amount to a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism? If so it is not only our right, but our duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security.

The history of the present ruling elite in Washington is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over We the People. How long will We the People remain patient and continue to suffer before we consider it a necessity to alter our existing system of Government?

Is the death of the Rule of Law in America also a coffin nail for our Republic?

Plausible Deniability

By Tom Rhodes, 5/31/2013

The term, Plausible Deniability, has been in the lexicon of the USA since the Kennedy administration. Most often used in movies or TV to justify not telling the President something or other. Recent news eliminates the possibility that President Obama has "Plausible Deniability" regarding the IRS targeting individuals and groups he doesn't like. No rationale or reasonable person can conclude the actions of the IRS were unknown to the President - PERIOD.

It has been publicly released and verified that the Former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, has visited the White House at least 157 times during under Obama. That's more than even trusted cabinet member Eric Holder. Of those 157 visits 118 occurred during the period where the IRS was targeting tea party and conservative nonprofits for extra scrutiny and delays on their tax-exempt applications.

Let's be real, under Bush the IRS commissioner only visited the White House once in four years. The volume of visits suggest only one thing, the IRS and Obama's White House were working together, the IRS's actions point to the conclusion they were working together in a campaign against the president's political opponents. The IRS and the Obama Administration met far more often than did the Sec. of State, Treasury Sec., etc.

No rational person can conclude Obama didn't know the IRS was targeting his enemies. In fact no reasonable person could conclude anything other than Obama targeted his political enemies using the power of the state. Targeting political enemies with official tax collectors, etc. is the hallmark of third world governments. Obama is again showing his actions are more like those of third world despots than those of a first world republic.

Solar Moochers

By Tom Rhodes, 5/29/2013

This is a tale of how being green puts a disproportionate burden on the poor and those on fixed incomes. That’s right putting solar on your house makes electricity cost more for the poor. So if you have the $50K upfront costs to spend to hook your house up to solar, and sell electricity back to the power company while using electricity from the grid at night and during storms etc. You can save a bundle and actually end up with the electric company sending you an annual check. (Read about it here)

This is well and good and green if you have the money. What many people don’t realize is that the power grid costs money, not just when it delivers watts of electricity to your home at night when your solar isn’t working, but towers, power lines, generating stations, all cost money to operate and maintain regardless of energy consumption. By law the power company must have enough power to supply you when you are not generating your own power, so whether you use it or not, if you are hooked up to the power grid the power company must maintain and be prepared to provide all the power you need, even if you don’t buy it. That means the power company must have capacity to replace all solar power instantly whether they need that capacity or not.

The result is that those consumers of electricity who rely fully on the power company shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost to maintain a reliable power grid as compared to those who only require the company’s services on an as-needed basis. Put another way: Customers with their own solar installations side-step the real cost of having access to the grid. That leaves those who can’t afford a $50K solar system to pick up the tab. Under the current regulations, low-income and fixed-income customers, and the vast majority of the middle class not rich enough to take advantage of personal solar generation, are subsidizing those who do.

To be fair for those who want to be able to hook up to the grid, regardless of how much power they use should be billed their fair share of the operations and maintenance associated with the most reliable power grid in the world. The reality is if you hook your solar system to the grid what you are doing is using the power company to store your solar power for when the sun isn’t shinning. That energy storage has costs.

The business model used by power companies last century, billing customers for kilowatt-hour consumption won’t work to cover the fixed costs associated with a reliable power grid that people only use as needed. There are fixed costs associated with reliability and service that do not vary with energy usage. What consumers pay for electric service needs to better reflect fixed costs versus consumption costs.

As it stands, unless you go totally off grid, “green” solar energy on your house is paid for on the backs of those who can’t afford tens of thousands of dollars to supplement their electricity with solar power. Most of the rich won’t go off grid because it adds tens of thousands of dollars to an already expensive system, and additionally adds significant maintenance costs associated with large battery banks (which will take up a big part of your garage).

The unintended consequences of government subsidies to individual solar power on homes is that not only are tax dollars used to help rich people go green, but the electricity costs to power the homes and apartments of low-income and fixed-income consumers are increased to cover the costs of the power grid so that the rich can have reliable power when the sun doesn’t shine, or their home system breaks down.

Solar power is a quaint way for the rich to mooch off of everybody else. We need to take government subsidies for solar power and stick them where the sun doesn’t shine.

Following the Law is not Enough

By Tom Rhodes, 5/28/2013

A company that pays $16Million in taxes has its CEO brought before US Congress and publicly accused of keeping children out of early education, and the cause some seniors go without meals. WTF, that's outrageous! For breaking such laws the company should be fined to death. . . . Oops, they didn't break any law, they paid all the taxes they were required.

Senator Carl Levin denounced Apple CEO Tim Cook for contributing to the federal deficit, by following the law. To make is sound like Apple is some kind of evil corporation Levin used words like "loopholes" and "gimmicks" to describe the legal actions Apple used to minimize its tax burden. While grilling Tim Cook for obeying the law, Sen Levin noted that because of "gimmicks" used by businesses to reduce their taxes, "children across the country won't get early education from Head Start. Needy seniors will go without meals. Fighter jets sit idle on tarmacs because our military lacks the funding to keep pilots trained."

Tax loopholes and gimmicks are provisions in the tax law that let tax payers keep more of the money they earn than they would have if they didn't use those provisions in the law to minimize their taxes. Congress put those provisions into the law, how can they then berate and call before a Congressional committee people who follow the law.

Obviously Senator Carl Levin doesn't believe that people should be allowed to do what is legal if it isn't something the government wants. If Apple CEO Tim Cook has broken the law, then arrest him. If Apple as a corporation has broken the law, then fine them. If however they have not broken the law, then leave them alone.

The rule of law is a system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:

1) The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.

2) The laws are clear, publicized, stable and just, are applied evenly, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.

3) The process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient.

4) Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

What is evident is that the US Government, including the US Senate as represented by Sen. Levin, no longer operates on the Rule of Law. The current scandal laden administration is not holding government officials and agents accountable under the law; nor is the current tax code clear and stable and applied evenly; nor is the process which tax code applied fair and efficient; and nor is justice delivered timely by ethical people who reflect the communities they serve.

Apple paid all the taxes it was legally required to pay. Apple did not violate the law. If Congress doesn't want corporations or people to use loopholes and gimmicks then don't put them into the law. Senator Levin, and Congress need to stop trying to bully people and instead apply the law equally to all people and corporations, don't put any loopholes into laws that exempt some and not others (including themselves).

Sen. Levin seems to work under the assumption that all money is the Governments, and the people and corporations are only allowed to keep what the government allows. He ignores the fact that Apple earned every dollar it's earned in the USA by trading products to others voluntarily in exchange for money. The Money is theirs not the governments. Apple has a legal and moral obligation to only pay those taxes it is by law required to pay. It is under no legal or moral obligation to pay more in taxes than the law says it must pay.

If you used gimmicks like, saving in a 401K, the mortgage interest deduction, or student loan deduction, or state sales tax deduction, took advantage of an earned income tax credit, or even itemized to reduce your taxes, then you are just as guilty as Apple, and it is because you took those advantage of those loopholes put into the tax law by Congress that "children across the country won't get early education from Head Start. Needy seniors will go without meals. Fighter jets sit idle on tarmacs because our military lacks the funding to keep pilots trained."

Another Scandal - HHS Again

By Tom Rhodes, 5/24/2013

So far we've got more Obama scandals than a rational person can track, they include but aren't limited to: GM-Chrysler Bankruptcies, Fast&Furious, IRS Affair, Benghazi-gate, AP Phone Record Scandal, FOX News Warrantless email searches, Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius was guilty of violating the Hatch Act but not only no criminal charges she kept her job, and the list goes on and on. It looks like there is another one the liberal press is ignoring.

Do you remember Oliver North, he went to jail for funding one of the presidents pet projects that congress refused to fund, the result of the famous Iran-Contra scandal. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appears to be doing the very same thing. Now that it's passed we know what's in it, parts of Obamacare that Congress doesn't like they aren't funding. To get around congress U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is raising money from the private sector-including from health-care executives-for use by a private entity that is helping to implement ObamaCare. The entity, Enroll America, is run by a former White House aide.

OK, I'll admit Iran-Contra, funding an illegal war in Nicaragua, isn't the same as corporate cronyism to implement Obamacare; North was facilitating illegal drugs while Sebelius is facilitating legal drugs, but the principle and the legal prohibitions are the same. It is clear that Constitution prohibits receipt and collection of funds by the government absent an appropriation by congress, and that such appropriations may not be evaded by use of a nominally private entity if the entity is in reality an arm of the government and the government is able to direct how the money is spent. Congress has exclusive control over the expenditure of funds cannot legally be evaded though the use of private funding. In the Iran-Contra findings it was noted the "Were it otherwise, a president whose appropriation requests were rejected by Congress could raise money through private sources or from other countries for armies, military actions, arms systems or even domestic programs."

This is part of "checks and balances" that Obama often laments limits him. That's right without Congress's approval he can't spend money, regardless of the source. Last week five separate congressional committees in both houses of Congress asked the Government Accountability Office to find out the facts on Enroll America.

It looks like Sebelius is raising funds for a private entity from organizations she regulates and coordinating with that entity to do something Congress has refused to appropriate funds. Oliver North went to jail for that, why shouldn't Sebelius?

Liberal Logic . . . NOT!

By Tom Rhodes, 5/22/2013

Liberals consistently use the mantra "If it will only save one life" to promote the idea that guns in the hands of private citizens is bad. This is not based on logic or reason, but an excuse to disarm the public so that tyrannical liberal government can flourish. Kind of like Michael Bloomberg who campaigns and promotes the idea that that adults aren't capable of making sound decisions concerning guns, cooking oil, sugar, salt, and the size of soda containers, but insist that teenagers should have free choice on making decisions about terminating the life of their babies through abortion without parental consent or even awareness. Logic and reason are not properties of liberal thought.

Theodore Beale wrote a great piece on public schools, noting that by amassing our children into schools results in far more deaths of children than if schooling were dispersed, like maybe into everybody's home; noting, " in the past four months, we have seen multiple incidences of multiple fatalities due to acts of Man and Nature, but the thought that perhaps it is not wise to congregate large numbers of vulnerable children together never seems to enter the national discourse." Considering the proven fact that as a group, by every measurable standard, homeschooled children out perform government schooled children his logic is sound.

Homeschool or Die vol. XXXLVI

I can't help but notice the difference between the way fatalities are treated depending upon whether the children killed are being educated at home or at public school. If seven children were killed by a demented homeschool mother, this would spark a national media outcry and demands for more restrictions on homeschooling.

And yet, in the past four months, we have seen multiple incidences of multiple fatalities due to acts of Man and Nature, but the thought that perhaps it is not wise to congregate large numbers of vulnerable children together never seems to enter the national discourse.

According to Wikipedia, there have been 278 tornado-related deaths at school since 1885. That is nearly 2.2 deaths per year, which is a trivial percentage of the 48 million or so children attending the public schools. And yet, they are entirely avoidable deaths; under the oft-cited "if just one life can be saved" metric, it cannot be denied that children who are not forced to congregate en masse at school cannot be killed by tornadoes there.

Two tornado-inflicted deaths per year isn't much, but add to them the 26 schoolbus deaths per year, the 600 school-automotive deaths per year, and the 34 violence-related deaths, and it soon becomes readily apparent that school cannot reasonably be considered a safe place for children.

Forget the superior education received by homeschooled children. Doesn't saving the lives of more than 662 children every year make banning school a moral imperative?

Especially in light of the fact that 119 children under the age of twelve, (and 565 under the age of 18), were killed by guns. School is literally more lethally dangerous than guns; something you might want to remind your average pro-public school, pro-gun control left-liberal.

Guns secure freedom at a lower cost in children's lives than the public schools manage to deliver inferior educations. We don't need gun control, we need school control.

Tyranny of a Third World Despot

By Tom Rhodes, 5/20/2013

Obama's Hubris is now legendary. Compare the speech he gave at Ohio State with the official comments his minions at the IRS are stating.

On May 5th to Ohio State University graduating class Obama said "Still, you'll hear voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's the root of all our problems, even as they do their best to gum up the works; or that tyranny always lurks just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, creative, unique experiment in self-rule is just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

Last week Obama's IRS Commissioner said, It Is Absolutely Not Illegal For IRS To Target Conservatives.



Obviously Obama is acting like a third world despot who controls the media, forgetting that in the USA he doesn't. Getting caught monitoring AP's reporters phones and having the fact that his FBI monitors ALL electronic communications without a warrant pretty much confirm the existence of a tyrannical government. Now what are we going to do about it?

Science Haters

By Tom Rhodes, 5/20/2013

No longer do you hear much about "Climate Change" in the news. You certainly haven't heard about "Global Warming" lately. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that we've had a snowy spring. The reality is the facts and science doesn't promote the theory of AGW, that's Anthropogenic Global Warming, or manmade global warming. The models the global warming scare-mongers used to promote one world government and elitist control over everything in the name of saving the earth from manmade global warming have PROVEN to be wrong. Real scientists are abandoning the political theory of AGW faster than working people are leaving Detroit.

What the elitists who clearly have a political agenda, not a scientific agenda, want is for the masses to accept the “fact” that man is ruining everything and we must all live how they dictate or the world will come to an end. When real science get’s in the way they resort to a Fahrenheit 451 solution.


Associate professor at the Department of Meteorology and Climate Science at San Jose State University, Craig Clements, is holding the book while the chair of the department, Alison Bridger, sets it on fire. Obviously the idea of having to deal with applying the scientific method takes a back seat to the message they want to confer. Two public university climate scientists though it was a good idea to post a picture of themselves getting ready to burn a book filled with what they consider to be apostasy. This was/is a sick joke that confirms their fear of scientific debate.

This video is 12 minutes long, it uses very well documented science to pretty much destroy the models governments and leftists are trying to use to control the everyday lives of every person on the planet. If the embedded player isn’t working go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc



Despite the rhetoric (not dialectic) from Obama and his minions and environmentalist groups about the urgency of global warming, real climate scientists are clearly recognizing the objective truth that there in a distinct lack of evidence to support claims of catastrophic global warming induced by man. Even former NASA scientist and environmental activist James Hansen has been forced to recognize the fact that the earth has not been warming for over a decade.

CO2 is now over 400ppm as a component of our atmosphere, yet the temperature has not risen, the fact is there is a distinct objective and observable divergence of the real world observations from the multi-decadal climate predictions. The MSM cannot support the official manmade global warming narrative, while reporting zero net increase in average global temperature and the abject failure of the models to meet their predictions. Looking at monthly temperature anomalies from the University of East Anglia it is clear that there is no significant trend in any direction going back to the fall of 1996. That means there is nearly two decades without no global warming trend. The earth is not flowing the scaremongers predictions, and it looks like current studies claiming current temperatures are the ‘hottest ever’ are facing a full scientific retraction.

Book burning and Fahrenheit 451 type attempts to control the message in the age of the internet are a failure. The elitists who want to use the climate to further control the masses cannot and do not control all the news and what ideas people are exposed. The objective truth is that when people apply the scientific method to AGW models, those models fail. If you are true to science and the scientific method those climate models which spell doom and gloom if we don’t do something to stop global warming must be discarded. When a theory which makes a prediction fails that theory is proven wrong, then the theory is discarded. Politics not science is the only thing keeping the idea AGW is a valid theory. The objective scientific truth is that the theory that considers manmade CO2 as a cause of global warming has been falsified. Only science haters who put the message ahead of the objective truth say otherwise.

You Trust Government . . . Have I Got A Deal for You

By Tom Rhodes, 5/17/2013

If you trust the government, specifically the Obama run federal government, I've got a deal for you. For a pittance you too can own an electric car only driven on Sundays by a little old lady that only needs recharging once every week. Such a deal.

If you believe the Internal Revenue Service has been completely honest about low level bureaucrats were responsible for the targeted attacks of the IRS, then I assume you'd be willing to purchase great homestead land I have available just Southwest of Lake Okeechobee.

If you believe that IRS' targeting Tea Party, Patriot, and Constitutional educations groups for special scrutiny for years wasn't politically motivated, then I assume you're interested in purchasing the shares in the Brooklyn Bridge.

If you believe the "apology" by the IRS should excuses the Obama administration of any legal responsibility for the IRS's actions, then I'm sure you'll be willing to send me a check so I can check out of the hotel where I'm being held until I can pay my bill after my wallet was stolen.

If you believe the Obama administration only knew about this abuse last week and quickly cleared the air publicly last Friday afternoon, then for a small upfront fee I'd be glad to conclude the research and facilitate the paper work to get the inheritance from you long lost uncle who recently died here in Nairobi?

If you believe the Obama administration has taken decisive action to ensure that all political abuse of and by the IRS has ceased, then I'm sure you'd be happy to send me a $250 annual fee for your pre-approved credit card, once I receive your check you will be issued a VISA with a 10,000 credit limit from the First Bank of Cyprus.

Let's face it; the credibility of Obama's administration has been reduced to that of Nigerian 419 Scam artists. Like Jon Stewart said, the burden of proof now lies with the Obama administration, not the tin-foil hat conspiracy nuts.

You are a Target

You know it's bad when Jon Stewart, has to spank Obama for confirming the fact that the conspiracy theorists are right. The government is targeting conservative groups.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Diversity Principle - a Lie

By Tom Rhodes, 5/9/2013

"The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department." ~ Thomas Sowell

If you dared to ask if "diversity" as an institutional goal has worked and delivered the benefits promised, you will be denounced and declared a heretic. Diversity is the religion of the left, but if you dare compare it to reality, you are regarded as a bad person. If you dare to cite hard provable evidence noting that places with more racial diversity have worse race relations will get you labeled a racist. Failing to have uniformly accepted thought on the benefits of "diversity" is verboten.

Look at education; in the USA over the past 50 years we have allowed an increase in our population of about 20% from diverse third world countries. Compare the results of our education system, now seeped in diversity, to countries that are more homogenous, like Japan, the Netherlands, etc. The plain truth is that we are now routinely out performed from many nations, all with far less "diverse" populations. Japan, is a very racially homogenous country which doesn't allow Muslims into their society at all, and makes acceptance of any non-Japanese into their society very difficult. How does Japan achieve such high quality education without the strength of diversity, for which there is a "compelling" need, according to the leftist academics of our nation?

Leftists often try to compare the US's health care, education, and other systems to the Dutch. The Dutch have a high standard of living, excellent state run health care and education, etc. In trying to implement similar programs in the USA leftists ignore one very important fact. The Netherlands is 96% Dutch, not just white, not just northern European, but Dutch. They have a very small very homogenous population with a unified and homogenous culture. What they don't have is diversity. The French have allowed massive immigration from Muslim Countries, not to denounce Muslim culture, but Muslim Culture isn't French culture and is not compatible with traditional French Culture, so what their embracing of diversity has brought them is violence, instability, and are bordering financial ruin.

Look at violence; It is hard to argue that India isn't one of the most diverse nations on earth. Its various groups of people are so intolerant that its violence is worse than the US during the days of Jim Crow. Why do the diverse religious beliefs in Arab nations continuously keep them at war?

If you dare ask these questions, leftists, especially leftist academics will attack your motives and not answer the question. Even thinking that diversity may not be all it's cracked up to be cannot be tolerated. Don't point to the research.

In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down," avoiding engagement with their local community-both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.
Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:

Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

Lower political efficacy - that is, confidence in one's own influence.

Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.

Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

Less likelihood of working on a community project.

Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

Fewer close friends and confidants.

Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

More time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment".

Demographics are measurable; when you see some meme on Facebook or other internet source decrying how these "red states" are some kind of evil compared to these "blue states". Go compare the Demographics makeup of those states. After you do the comparison, don't note it unless you are prepared to be labeled a racist. When you see some meme on Facebook or other internet source noting how much better XXXX is in other countries compared to the USA, compare the demographics. Note that most comparisons will exclude third world nations, and exclude more diverse nations.

What you aren't allowed to reference is the simple fact in the last 50 years the USA has allowed a nearly 20% increase in our population from third world countries and thus we are looking more like a third world country. Accepting "Diversity" as a "Compelling National Interest" means we are willingly abandoning the homogenous culture and values that created the freest country in the world with the formerly highest standard of living the world ever saw, and embraced diverse third world attitudes, cultural norms, and values.

Diversity isn't just racial; compare Northern European Protestant culture, values, and success, to Southern European Catholic culture, values, and success. Look at the expansion of the Western hemisphere and compare those colonized by Northern Europeans to Southern Europeans. Now don't think about the stereotypical phrase that is no longer acceptable to utter, "Protestant Work Ethic." There is no corresponding term "Catholic Work Ethic" or "Orthodox Work Ethic." Other countries decry the fact that Americans work more and play less, ignoring the fact that it is that unifying shared "ethic" that created a country where even the poor have an obesity problem.

Researchers examined whether protestant societies and individuals are more adversely affected by unemployment than others. Countries identified as being historically Protestant included the UK, Australia, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Switzerland and the US. Researchers allowed for a number of factors that could have skewed their results including age, gender, income, education, health, and marital status.

The results show that unemployment reduces happiness and well-being regardless of religious denomination, but that it has a 40 per cent additional negative effect for Protestants. "The negative effect of unemployment on self-reported happiness was twice as strong for Protestants compared with non-Protestants."

Dutch economist Dr André van Hoorn, who led the study said, "We found that the work ethic does exist, and that individual Protestants and historically Protestant societies appear to value work much more than others. At the individual level, unemployment hurts Protestants much more than it does non-Protestants."

Diversity will result in diluting the core values and beliefs that built this country, it already has. It can be seen in our slow march towards socialism and dismissal of the values that we once held uniformly as a nation. Diversity will lead to more violence here as it has in other parts of the world. The truth and hard evidence do not support the liberal mantra "diversity is strength."

Out Of Control

By Tom Rhodes, 5/7/2013

Whether the ruling elite like it or not, whether utopian thinking liberals like it or not, controlling who has guns is beyond their control. Totally Out of Control. Unless they advocate an openly tyrannical government that is not subject to elections by the people, and totally do away with the bill of rights there is no longer any way they can institute "gun control." Period. Not just because of the hundreds of millions of guns already in our country, and wont' voluntarily give them up, or because sheriffs across the nation are refusing to honor or enforce more gun restrictive laws, but because without doing away with the first amendment, it is now impossible to get rid of the ability of the people to acquire arms. Correct! Like it or not the first amendment clearly enables every person to obtain firearms without going through any government controlled entity. This week the 'Liberator' was test fired by VideoDefense Distributed founder Cody Wilson; it is the world's first 3D printed gun. It used a nail for a firing pin, and to keep it legal, a piece of metal was added so it would be detected by metal detectors. So for the price of 2 good AR15's you can purchase what you need to print your own firearm without any government interaction.

For a while now people have been able to create their own firearms that don't have serial numbers, and are not traceable by the government. About a year ago all you needed to do is rent a CNC machine, and machine the receiver of an AR15 or similar gun, purchase the trigger, barrel, and other parts, and assemble your own AR15 from the parts. The receiver is the component that has the serial number and is tracked by the government when manufactured by a ATF approved gun manufacturer. ATF without any direction from your elected officials has made this illegal unless you personally own the machine; but . . . liberty loving people in the US have already found a way around that. Austrian Anarchy Heavy Industries, can and does sell AR15 Blanks that are incomplete and legal. Thanks to the Free press they also point to a video that shows you how to take an already made lower receiver blank, a template, and a drill press to make your own AR-15 style rifle. If you're interested, you can go down to your local Home Depot, Lowes, Sears, or Harbor Freight and purchase a drill press with cash and no government paperwork.

The Genie is out of the Bottle, and we the people are "Out of Control." You as an individual are free to make a gun yourself; that pesky constitution protects your right to do that. Formerly this wasn't a big deal because to have the skills to create a receiver, or entire gun, took training and was way too costly to be realistic for the vast majority of people. Not anymore.

All you need is the raw materials, and computer program, and a computer controlled machine. The computer program to build your own receiver, and now an entire firearm, are freely available on line. Download the program run it on your computer hooked to a CNC machine or 3D printer and you can make a gun. OK, you will need to put in some time learning to run the CNC machine, but if the guys at Orange County Chopper can do it chances are you can. All it takes is money, and not that much; for less than $10K you can purchase a CNC mill to make all the AR15 receivers you want. Unless you're willing to outlaw the ownership of computers and machining tools by private individuals you have already lost control.

Why is it so easy for anybody to get the program and designs to build their own weapon? Because transferring ideas is called speech, and in the USA the government is prohibited from creating laws that infringe upon people exchanging ideas. Computer programs are speech. A series of court cases; including Bernstein v. United States, Junger v. Daley, and Universal City Studios v. Corley establishing that computers source code counts as free speech. The Courts rightly concluded "Computer programs are not exempted from the category of First Amendment speech simply because their instructions require use of a computer. A recipe is no less "speech" because it calls for the use of an oven, and a musical score is no less "speech" because it specifies performance on an electric guitar. Arguably distinguishing computer programs from conventional language instructions is the fact that programs are executable on a computer. But the fact that a program has the capacity to direct the functioning of a computer does not mean that it lacks the additional capacity to convey information, and it is the conveying of information that renders instructions "speech" for purposes of the First Amendment. The information conveyed by most "instructions" is how to perform a task ... programmers communicating ideas to one another almost inevitably communicate in code, much as musicians use notes. Limiting First Amendment protection of programmers to descriptions of computer code (but not the code itself) would impede discourse among computer scholars, just as limiting protection for musicians to descriptions of musical scores (but not sequences of notes) would impede their exchange of ideas and expression. Instructions that communicate information comprehensible to a human qualify as speech whether the instructions are designed for execution by a computer or a human (or both)"

Cory Doctorow wrote a book Titled: Makers which creates and focuses on a near-future imagining of members of a Maker subculture, a group Doctorow characterizes as being composed of "people who hack hardware, business-models, and living arrangements to discover ways of staying alive and happy even when the economy is falling down the toilet." The ability to "Print" products, be they cups, plates, toys, or even guns, is going to change our society. Just as the Gutenberg press radically changed society, and just as the internet has radically changed society, so too will 3D printing and CNC Machining.

The ruling elite are trying to desperately put the genie back into the bottle. Soon after Gutenberg made it so that ideas could be affordably changed between people, we saw a time called "the age of enlightenment" resulting in the formation of a nation like no other, where the people restrained the government, rather than the government rule the people. Liberty and it's ideas and the plainly obvious benefits resulting in the most prosperity for the most people ever in world history is not going to go away. The internet exploded what the printing press did. No longer can the ruling elite by monopolizing the press control the ideas people are exposed, thus the liberal ruling elite are routinely exposed. In 1934 they successfully used the news and controlled the message to exploit rare but tragic gang violence to crush part of the second amendment and outlaw machine guns. Today they cannot control the news, as it is no longer expensive to reach millions of people, with the internet the people could and did successfully thwart the ruling elite from further disarming the people using the tragic but rare event at Newton as an excuse. That's why Hillary Clinton wants a gatekeeper on the news, to control what information is available to the people; the people are "Out of Control."

The 3D printer is going to do the same in ways the government can't fathom. My prediction is that they are going to try and control access to all raw materials and destroy property rights. Soon you won't be able to buy aluminum or steel or plastic without government approval because you might make something they don't like, or worse yet create something that carries a high tax. Imagine if people could print a toilet that used more than 1.6 gallons and effectively flushed instead of having to purchase the prescribed, crappy, government mandated toilet design. The horrors that would occur if people could make their own stuff without government control. Big corporations are going to try and put the 3D printing genie back into the bottle, like the idea of liberty and the benefits it has bestowed upon the people, this too will fail. The people are Out of Control (of the ruling elite) and that is a good thing.