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

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Dept. of Education – Success Story

By Tom Rhodes, 6/25/2014

For years I’ve be lamenting and documenting the historic fact that as we increase central control of education actual student performance and observable student knowledge has dramatically decreased as evidence of the failure of the Dept. of Education. We’ve spent gazillions of dollars for not only no improvement but statistically less educated students, who can’t critically think and don’t understand even the basics of history, science, etc. I was wrong, the Dept. of Education and centralized government control of education is a success. It produced exactly the results the ruling elite wanted.

We now have a nation of individuals who are easy prey to government hucksters and quacks. Americans now are easy prey for big business charlatans of all stripes. The education establishment has succeeded in dumbing down the nation. In a similar observation Dr. Walter Williams notes that historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. wrote in "The Disuniting of America": "History is to the nation ... as memory is to the individual. As an individual deprived of memory becomes disoriented and lost, not knowing where he has been or where he is going, so a nation denied a conception of its past will be disabled in dealing with its present and its future."

The idea that the expression of some ideas that are not politically correct should be labeled as “hate speech” and outlawed, or the actual purpose of all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights us unknown to most high school graduates. If we knew and understood the why and reasoning behind the Bill of Rights, and Declaration of independence, and the values that create the USA then special interest groups and politicians couldn't run roughshod over our liberties.

Right now if a college or university doesn’t assume people are guilty and deny them the right to defend themselves of certain crimes, the government is actually withholding funding. Think about that, government run universities are required to do away with the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution in order to receive government funding. Imagine being charged with a crime, not allowed to cross examine witnesses, not allowed to have a lawyer, and not allowed to defend yourself, not allowed to face and question your accuser, and judged in closed court with secret proceedings. That is what Eric Holder and the Obama Justice department are demanding of universities. It is allowed because people don’t know our basic rights, much less the reason behind them. If you don't know what I'm talking about google the latest George Will articles.

Of course a full third of people surveyed when asked the origin of the statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" responded by saying it's from our Bill of Rights. If you don’t know it’s origins, you too are part of the problem.

The Dept. of Education has been successful. I just didn’t understand it’s goals. They were not to produce a more educated citizenry, but produce technically adept workers who have no understanding of how to think, of our history, or of the values that this country was founded. Making them easily manipulated and controlled. Obviously the system as designed does work.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Mike Adam's Free Speech College Entrance Exam

Mike Adams is a college professor who recently won a first amendment case aganst the University of North Carolina. They denied him tenure because he was not liberal and chose to exercise his freedom of speech. In hopes of preventing other such free speech problems from infecting college campuses he's offered the follwoing solution.

College campuses are becoming increasingly hostile towards certain forms of speech. One of the main reasons for the hostility is the admission of students who are too emotionally immature to tolerate dissenting opinions. In addition to lacking emotional maturity, many of these students lack humility. They believe that their emotions trump the ideas of others. Obviously, I disagree. In fact, I think that these students need to be weeded out early in the college application process. I think I have a specific plan that can help make that a reality.

We already ask students a lot of questions in the typical college application process. Some of the questions deal with diversity issues. But, strangely, no one ever tries to assess the prospective students' willingness to tolerate dissenting opinions. I propose adding ten questions to every college application in order to do just that. Because they are simple true/false questions, they will not take long for admissions committees to grade and evaluate. But they will help us weed out those students whose admission would impede the free flow of ideas on the campus. My proposed entrance exam questions are as follows:

1. Feminist students have a First Amendment right to chant the word "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues (note: please assume that no one is required to attend).

2. Anti-feminist students have a First Amendment right to criticize feminists for chanting "vagina" in the annual performance of the Vagina Monologues.

3. Liberal students have a First Amendment right to advocate for same sex marriage.

4. Conservative students have a First Amendment right to argue against same sex marriage.

5. Female students have a First Amendment right to argue that abortion is a constitutional right.

6. Male students have a First Amendment right to argue that aborting a man's children without his consent is an unconscionable act of murder.

7. Marxist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment applies only to militias.

8. Anti-communist students have a First Amendment right to argue that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right.

9. Black students have a First Amendment right to argue for race-based affirmative action.

10. White students have a First Amendment right to argue that affirmative action should be banned altogether.

The grading for this portion of the college application is pretty simple since the answer to every single question is "true." In fact, I would propose that this test is so easy that anyone missing a single question should fail the exam and be prevented from attending the university. This plan may sound harsh, but it would have numerous advantages. Here are just a few:

1. It would protect conservative students. Most conservative students hold ideas that are fully protected by the constitution but that somehow end up being defined by some students as “hate speech.” These filter questions will likely keep students who cry "hate speech" from enrolling at the university. Conservative students will therefore feel more comfortable expressing their views is discussions with fellow students.

2. It could protect liberal students, too. This test will also filter out any conservative censors of liberal speech. I've never seen one at my university, but there's nothing wrong with taking a little extra precaution.

3. It would prevent public relations headaches for college administrators. Students who cry "hate speech" are also more likely to file false charges of sexual and racial harassment. Getting rid of these students will likely reduce lawsuits. It will also likely reduce the number of false accusations of rape on college campuses. People who abuse speech codes in order to hurt people are also likely to do so the same thing with the criminal code. Sociopaths tend to be resourceful.

After we administer the test to prospective students, we should also administer it to the entire faculty. And we should fire those who fail the test. This would likely result in the need to shut down the departments of Sociology, English, Women's Studies, Social Work, and the entire School of Education.

In other words, my free speech entrance exam would weed out the most emotionally immature and intellectually insecure members of our university community - thus leaving the university in the hands of serious people committed to debating serious ideas. It would be hard to imagine a greater service to the cause of genuine tolerance and intellectual diversity.

The above was stolen from a Prof. Mike Adams article. I hope he doesn't get too mad, but it needs to be repeated everywhere it can be.

Monday, June 23, 2014

Caught Again, Cooking the Science Books

By Tom Rhodes, 6/23/2014

What is plainly obvious is that global warming is nothing more than a pseudoscience concocted to justify global government. We continue to see lies, fraud, and fictitious data to support the idea that the globe is warming because of man’s undue influence on the climate. Soon we will see the foundation of AGW theory to fabricated and fraudulent.

This is the truth, before government statists got ahold of the data.

The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

What we have now is yet another example condemning stastists. Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science provides this example shows how shamelessly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has manipulated the graph of US surface temperature records, which has been one of the world’s most influential climate records.

This is yet more proof that skeptics of global warming (aka deniers) have been consistently correct.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Moore's law is going to explode

By Tom Rhodes, 6/16/2014

Looks like Moore’s law is going to get blown apart soon. The idea that due to miniaturization and faster transistors that computing speed will double every 18 months has held true for a while. New discovery that will allow to not only measure the polarity but also the spin of electrons in electronics will move us from a binary systems to quadratic systems using both spin and polarity. So instead of every position on a bus or in storage representing either + or – you’ll have each position resulting one of 4 representations, +S +D –S or –D. that will be the initial improvement. So instead of a 64bit processor being able to handle 4000 combinations per cycle, it will be able to handle 16MILLION combinations per cycle. Interesting note that in 64bit storage a 16Million color image, will require only 1 position per pixel to describe it’s color, reducing the size of a 16Million color image by a factor of 4000. That means an image that used to take 2 megabytes of data would require a small fraction of that for storage.

And . . . . when instead of just measuring spin in terms of left and right but in degrees of left or right (degree of polymerization) true 8, 16 and even 32 character storage positions instead of binary will be possible. Computing will EXPLODE faster than the 80’s. The Heusler compound is going to change computing. Based on using Co2MnSi this is the breakthrough that physicists and chemists around the world have long anticipated, and it will play a pivotal role in information technology.

Read About It Here

Fraud Legal, Rule of Law Dead.

By Tom Rhodes, 6/16/2014

For centuries fraud has been illegal. The fundamental English Common law pretty much dictated that if you sell somebody something, and then deliver something other than what you said you sold, you are guilty of fraud. If I tell you I’ll sell you a 5 lb sack of potatoes for $3 dollars, and you then take the clearly labeled 5 pound sack of potatoes and later find out it had 5 lbs of rocks you have a clear case of fraud, and could win compensation for the fraud in court. Simple enough principle and everybody agrees advertising and selling potatoes and delivering rocks is fraudulent and illegal and actionable.

Unless of court you’re a bank. The rule of law no longer applies to banks. It is now legal for banks to falsely represent their products to consumers. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) won dismissal of a suit over $450 million in residential mortgage-backed securities, with a New York judge saying that the firms that bought the bonds should have done more research beforehand.

State Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos dismissed the claims against Goldman Sachs today, saying the investors only reviewed data presented in offering documents for the securities and never asked to review files for the underlying loans.

“The true nature of the risk being assumed could, admittedly, have been ascertained from reviewing these loan files and plaintiffs never asked for them,” Ramos wrote.

In no uncertain terms judges have ruled that it is perfectly legal to present someone with a fraudulent document claiming to be selling them a pig in the poke, if you don’t actually look in the crate to see that there is a dead cat, and not a live pig in there, it's your fault.

Singlehandedly Judge Ramos has destroyed the loan security market. You are now responsible for checking every single loan that Is part of a mortgage security to ascertain the risk. The bank offering the security is allowed to legally present you with a fraudulent document that doesn’t reflect the actual risks of the loans making up such securities.

Imagine if food companies could legally tell you that the ground beef you were buying was USDA certified and inspected, and sell you rotten mutton instead. If you didn’t check the actual inspection certificate for that lot and compare it to USDA documents, you couldn’t sue for fraud.

Imagine ordering a computer from Amazon online, you purchase a unit advertised to have a Pentium i7 processor and 8GB of ram, and a 2TB hard drive, when you open the box you get an 4.77Mhz XT with an 8088 processor, a single floppy and 256K of ram. Then you find out you have no legal recourse, can’t return it, and can’t sue you didn’t verify that the components in the box where what was promised. That’s the new standard for Banking.

If you have an IRA, or retirement fund that has any money in financial securities, you can be legally fleeced because the banks have no legal requirement to be honest in their holdings, and if you or your broker doesn’t verify the validity of all the details in any prospectus provided independently, you have no recourse.

Game over people, banks are exempt from the law, just like congress. We no longer live in a nation of laws, but an oligarchy ruled by money changers and political hacks. Now that you cannot get justice from the government, the result will be bad. Real bad. To have justice you will be forced to seek it yourself. Just as if you purchase an ounce of pot and get an ounce of oregano, you can’t go to police. Now if you get a bad prospectus and the bank takes your life savings, you can’t go to the FCC or police. So like drug dealers and users, if ripped off you have two choices, accept being ripped off and write off your loses or seek justice on your own. Drug dealers often die violently because they ripped somebody off. Bankers fraudulently take too many people’s money and the courts and government don’t let them get away with it, and they too might be treated like a drug dealer selling oregano as pot. When enough people lose their life savings and their homes because bankers are legally allowed to present fraudulent documents, and those people have no recourse, you will see violent repercussions. Justice in the USA is looking more and more like the third world; justice depends on who you know and your political status not the rule of law.

Wednesday, June 11, 2014


By Tom Rhodes, 6/11/2014

Ownership - A fundamental question. How you view and define ownership is THE fundamental component of your world view. The fundamental and accepted concept of ownership is generally accepted as the legal relation between a person (individual, group, corporation, or government) and an object. The object may be corporeal, such as furniture, or completely the creature of law, such as a patent, copyright, or annuity; it may be movable, such as an animal, or immovable, such as land. Because the objects of property and the protected relations are different in every culture and vary according to law, custom, and economic system and the relative social status of those who enjoy its privileges, it is difficult to find a least common denominator of "ownership." Ownership of property probably means at a minimum that one's government or society will help to exclude others from the use or enjoyment of one's possession without one's consent, which may be withheld except at a price.

You don’t really accept that. You believe that at some point societies “needs” outweigh other people’s right to own something. You believe that the state owns the people. Your vote and actions declare that the state owns all individuals, and that they don’t own themselves.

We don’t treat living things we own the same as inanimate objects. In a modern western civilization it is generally accepted that if own something living, like a dog or a horse or a cat, you have a moral and often legal obligation to be responsible for its basic health and wellbeing. Owning a living thing, like a dog, doesn’t give you the right to abuse it. Not like owning a car, if you own a car you are free to use it in a demolition derby if you choose, you’re free to crush it, hit it with a hammer, never change its oil, etc. It’s yours, you own it, so you can do what you want with it so long as you don’t use it in a way that interferes with other peoples natural rights. Not all societies think that way, that is one of the differences between savage and civilized societies. In a savage society, ownership conveys no responsibility, you can crush it, burn it, abuse it, or protect and cherish it, owning a living thing is no different than owning a rock, you use it any way you want, be it an animal or a car or even a person.

The drug war is based on the idea that the state owns its citizens. Just like you as a dog owner has the right to determine what your dog ingests, the state as owner of its citizens it has the right to determine what substances you can ingest, from recreational drugs to your very food. Some courts in the USA have ruled that you have no right to choose what food you eat (try to buy raw milk). More than what you are allowed to put in your body, your very essence is determined by the state. You as the owner of a dog have the right to name it, the state too claims the right to name property of what it owns. You didn’t get to pick your name, don’t think that your parents did either. You can’t even change your own name, oh you think you can go to the courts and “legally” change your name but that’s a fa├žade. The state named you. When you are born, you can’t leave the hospital without your state assigned name. You can’t go to school without your state assigned name. You can’t seek the services of a doctor without your state assigned name. You can’t even purchase real property, or ask a bank to hold your money without your state assigned name. In fact the state is doing everything it can to make it so you can’t even travel without identifying yourself with your state assigned name. You can’t get on an airplane without your state assigned name. You can’t drive a car without your state assigned name. They want to make it so you can’t travel by bus or train without providing your state assigned name. Your Social Security Number.

The state owns you, it even named its property so it can track its property. You are its property. The state claims first right to your labor, and graciously allows you to keep part of your labor. The entire health care and other “entitlement” debates exist because we are a civilized society, and expect the owners of living things to accept civilized responsibilities. Just as the owner of a dog is expected to feed it, and not abuse it, the state is expected to feed its citizens and not abuse them. Savage states, don’t feed their citizens, and routinely abuse them. The determination is all in how the state views ownership, but today, all societies work on the belief that the state owns its citizens.

For a very short and brief period of time in all of human history, a society was instituted on the idea that individuals are severing. That idea exists but is not accepted by any society today. That society limited the state, outlawed direct taxation of individual labor, assumed that unless specifically granted the state didn’t have the power to regulate individual. There were no laws governing what you could eat, smoke, etc. The assumption was the state had no power to tell sovereign people how to live. The state didn’t provide for its citizens, in fact the idea of using tax monies to provide charity to victims of a fire, or other natural disaster was considered unconstitutional (read: “Not Yours To Give”). That very brief experiment in individual sovereignty, is gone.

We are returning to the days of the state, controlled by a few ruling elite, own the masses. Not much different than old feudalism. Look at the uproar over mere citizens not understanding they are owned. The ruling elite are having trouble with the idea that its property, whom they graciously to allow to vote to select leadership, have actually not selected from the approved ruling elite. Eric Cantor’s loss is not an “Earthquake” as some main stream press have headlined. It’s a speed bump in the return to mankind’s historic norms, were a very few ruling elite own and control the masses. Seeing this coming, we note the ruling elite no longer protect and accept the idea that the power is distributed, they willing allow the president to create, change, ignore, and modify law in clear disregard to constitutional limits. They have also accepted and instituted the idea that judges can force legislators to create law. They moved the responsibility and authority from congress to create laws, determine fines, penalties, and fees to unelected bureaucrats. Ownership means control, and the ruling elite have taken control away from elected representatives.

Want proof your owned. There is a disease, ALS commonly called Lou Gehrig’s disease. With rare exception once diagnosed with ALS, you’re dead in 2 to 5 years. There is (was) no known drug that significantly improved this outcome. There is now a new drug in in clinical trials that holds considerable promise. The state has not granted it’s approval. In fact the average time our owners take to approve a new drug its mere property to use is 10 years. You don’t own yourself, if diagnosed with ALS, you do not have the choice to take the chance and try the new drug. This new drug is a risk, the side effects could be bad, or deadly, you might get worse and die sooner if you try this new currently experimental drug. Don’t take it and you will die in an average of 2 to 5 years. The right to take the risk and try this new drug doesn’t exist, your owner, the state, through the FDA determines what risks you can/can’t take just like you determine what food your dog eats, or if your dog gets surgery or is put down because you can’t or don’t want to spend the money. That’s ownership. The state owns you, the state not you, determines if you as an ALS patient can try the new drug. In 10 years the FDA might approve the new drug, over that time 50,000 citizens with ALS will die, without the choice of trying a drug their owner hasn’t decided on. If the owner decides the new drug is too costly, too bad, not your choice, not even the choice between you, your doctor, and your insurance company, your owner determines what medical practices are allowed, what drugs you can take, and what will or won’t be paid for. Proof you are owned, a slave to the state.

Keep voting for the ruling elite, the Republican or Democrat candidates the ruling elite offer you to choose from, each vote for an incumbent or any Republican or any Democrat is a vote to maintain the status quo, state ownership of the citizenry.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Popular Science Tells Scientists to “Stop Looking”

By Tom Rhodes, 6/5/2014

In the April 2014 issue of Popular Science, the is asking scientists to stop doing science that might reach Politically Correct conclusions. Specifically stop doing neuroscience looking at the differences between men and women because the results might support politically incorrect stereotypes. The call (and title of the article) is to “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains.”

Understand exactly what “Popular Science” is calling for. Stop doing scientific research that might lead to evidence that sex based stereotypes are based on real physiologic differences in males and females. “Popular Science” believes that evidence that doesn’t support the feminist position that the differences between boys and girls is socially induced and not rooted in biological differences, and that scientists should not do any research that might upset their belief. Even the primary example they use to illustrate their point, actually proves the opposite.

”In the past decade, several thousand papers have been published on sex differences in the human brain. Many physical differences are genuine, but oftentimes not meaningful. Take for example, an easily measurable characteristic: size. One study recorded men’s brain volumes at 1,053 to 1,499 cubic centimeters and women’s at 975 to 1,398. The overlap means you couldn’t tell the sex of a random brain from its size.”

How is a simple measurement that can clearly identify sex of more than a third of all samples not meaningful. Saying that you can't tell the sex of a random brain from its size ignores the fact that any adult human brain smaller than 1053 cc is female, and any larger than 1398 cc is male. Because about a third of human brains are larger than 1053 cc or smaller than 1398 cc that data IS meaningful, so too is the fact that there is a two thirds overlap in brain size between the sexes. The hard fact is that the average size of women’s brains is 1187 cc and the average size of a men’s brains is 1276 cc, that 7% difference is meaningful.

New research also indicates that there is a difference between how men’s and women’s brains are wired. The research indicates that men have stronger connections within a given hemisphere, whereas women have stronger connections between the two. Again there is overlap but a clear measurable difference in total population studied. Just as brain size and intelligence are clearly related. In 2005, psychologist Michael McDaniel evaluated studies that used brain-imaging and standard intelligence tests and found that unequivocally, bigger brains correlated with smarter people [source: McDaniel]. The overlap in male/female brain size is meaningful too; when scientists converted the SAT scores of 100,000 17- and 18-year-olds to a corresponding IQ score and found that males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than the females. Since you all know that the average IQ is 100, that means that although men have on average a 7% larger brain it only results in about average 3% increase in IQ. Thus when looking at the totality of populations, the differences are real, measurable, and meaningful, but those real difference do not correlate to any specific individual.

This all points to the very un-PC fact that men and women are different. Casual observation and in-depth statistical analysis will show you that there are far more men in engineering than women, and there are far more women in nursing and teaching than men. Both are valued and worthy professions, and the bias we see in men/women self-select those professions is clearly observable and scientifically rational. The overlap in human brains between the sexes is why there are individuals of either sex who excel and are successful in avocations that stereotypically populated by the other sex; while the reason there are sex based stereotypical avocations is because as a whole men and women are different in observable measurable ways that results in them self-selecting different vocations. So historically and scientifically we readily observe that on the whole men are more suited for some vocations and women more suited for others.

It is not politically correct to note there are clear historic and scientific facts that indicate that men and women have real physiologic and neurologic differences that result in differing abilities and preferences. “Popular Science” now is pushing to stop research that might actually scientifically quantify those differences. This is why people are now doubting scientists as a reliable source of the truth. It can be clearly observed that if the science doesn’t reach the preconceived outcome that the ruling elite desire it is not published, hidden, covered up, and not funded (Watch the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”). Truth is the victim of political correctness. “Popular Science” has clearly gone the way of 1984 and is a purveyor of newspeak not truth.

It’s not just Popular Science. Rather than debate, discuss, and look at the science of global warming, any talk, article, reference, etc. to ideas and research that doesn’t support the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is forbidden from the LA Times. Canadian weather forecasters are forbidden from discussing climate change. The is a clear scientific link between abortion and breast cancer you don’t read about that in the news. The real reasons pro-lifers are pro-life are never mentioned (they are characterized as women-haters, even though there are more women than men in the pro-life movement). The MSM is dominated by newspeak, 1984 was prophetical not allegorical.

The statists in our country are attacking the truth, we are seeing our liberty and freedoms eroded at medieval rates. Statists at our colleges and universities openly call for censorship of ideas they don’t want discussed or expressed. Statists in the press routinely refuse to report and actively deny and slander news that doesn’t support the statist agenda. Now even Popular Science calls for scientific research to stop because the truth might not support current PC positions. This coincides with the open attack on Christianity, the religion that lead to the scientific method, the religion that lead to the enlightenment and libertarian thinking. Truth leads to freedom, Christ said, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Popular Science is so worried that the truth might not lead to PC conclusions, it tells scientists to “Stop Looking.”

Popular Science is basically saying “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”