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

Thursday, July 31, 2014

The Obama Administration Declares Women are Not Equal

By Tom Rhodes, 7/31/2014

In a lawsuit filed against the Pennsylvania State Police, Holder and the Department of Justice have clearly stated women cannot do the same job as men. They say that having equal requirements for both men and women is unequal. That is liberal logic.

Here is a cold hard fact, an objective truth, equality is a myth. Equality is no more real than fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, vampires, or werewolves. Appealing to equality as a reason to grant some group favored status is simply engaging in meaningless rhetoric. Feminist appeal to equality is nothing more than attempting to guilt-trip men into giving them power to establish pro-female inequality.

The Pennsylvania State Police are being sued by the Obama administration because they expect female cadets to complete the same minimum requirements as men. How is having the same standards for the same job for everybody regardless of group identification unequal? The fact is that 94% of men and 70% of women pass the state police physical fitness test. What that says is what everybody knows, men and women are not equal. It is not evidence of discrimination.

The Obama administration wants women to have equal treatment, unless of course women can’t compete. Then they want special treatment. What this law suit says loud and clear, is that women cannot compete on equal terms. The DOJ irrational notion of disparate impact, is a tool for feminist hustlers to force preferential treatment for women. They are saying that even if a policy is equal and has no intention of discrimination if women can’t compete it’s sexist and a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

So the Obama administration is saying women are not capable, therefore you must reduce your standards. Sorry to bust your bubble but men and women are not equal, they cannot do the same work and hence won’t have equal outcomes. If you believe otherwise, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy, unicorns, and the DH. It is only unrealistic, utopian, illogical, emotional thinking that could ever justify expecting men and women to be equal in the market place. They are not equal, they are different.

Obama’s DOJ is suing those evil cops for having the audacity to treat female candidates the same as their male candidates. Don’t those evil bastards in Pennsylvania running the state police know that in Obama’s Fiefdom (formerly known as the USA), “equality” means treating everyone differently? In Obama’s utopia, anybody who cannot or will not perform to some standard is entitled to the same outcome as those who exceed or meet any standard. Welcome to the new utopian world of Obama. I hear that next month Obama will sick his DOJ attack dog, Holder, on the NBA and all teams will have to have at least one short fat old non-Hispanic white guy and one Asian woman, in their starting line-ups, the name of equality.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Don’t Tug on Superman’s Cape

By Tom Rhodes, 7/29/2014

Some Facts about the Palestinian Israeli war; If the Palestinians put down their arms today the violence would stop - PERIOD. If the Israeli put down its arms, the Palestinians would eradicate all the Jews. What Israel needs to do is declare WAR. They have the right to defend themselves and should treat Gaza the same as Rome treated Carthage, or the USA treated Japan. Total war with nothing less than complete unconditional surrender as an acceptable end. Screw proportional response, you want the violence to end, decimate the Palestinians in Gaza with such overwhelming force, death, destruction, violence, gore, and suffering, that nobody considers attacking them again.

Jim Croce wrote a couple songs about messing with the wrong person on the South Side of Chicago; “Bad Bad Leroy Brown” and “Don’t Mess Around with Jim.” The basic idea is you pick a fight with the wrong guy and you will suffer. In the Movie the “Untouchables” Sean Connery explained it another way, “the Chicago Way.”



These themes exist because they are true. If you were ever bullied you know there is only one way to stop a bully, and it isn’t the liberal mantra of reasoning or going and telling a teacher or some other authority. You can capitulate and minimize the damage, but the bullying won’t stop. Or you can pound the crap out him, get your big brother to pound the crap out of him, or get some friends gang up and pound the crap out of him, and the bullying will stop. The fact is to stop a bully you must make him realize that bullying will be met with fierce fighting and the pain associated with continued bullying will be far greater than the rewards. This is easily seen in fact is the fundamental plot in the movie “Back to the Future.”



The international community is acting like a school principle, it’s only prolonging the conflict. The reason Hamas has no problem attacking Israel even though they know Israel has the capability of kicking their ass is they know in advance that whatever Israel does in response will be limited by calls for a cease-fire, backed by political and economic pressure from the international community.

Israel was attacked, by vast numbers of rockets and invaded, from beneath through a mazes of tunnels. In as much as Hamas claims that its goal is to eliminate Israel, and has proven repeatedly to be the aggressor, and the Palestinian people choose to keep Hamas as their leaders, the violence can and will continue until the Palestinian people so severely suffer the consequences that they never again tolerate leadership that won’t live in peace with Israel.

The overall barbarism of the Muslim world is self-evident; it repeatedly says by word and deed that it cannot tolerate even subordinate Christian minorities can hardly be expected to tolerate an independent, and more advanced, Jewish state whose very existence is a daily rebuke to their egos. The very idea of a Jewish state that not only exists, but is far more advanced, and can easily kick their ass, in the middle of the Arab world is not something the people of the Arab world will peacefully allow to exist.

The non-aggression principle is clear, initiation of force is wrong, but just as clear is the right to self-defense, including overwhelming deadly force to crush those who aggress against you. Nothing in the non-aggression principle indicates that only a “proportional” response to aggression is acceptable. A woman shooting a rapist is clearly overwhelming disproportionate response to the aggression. Not only does such a response stop the current violent act of the rapist, it is a strong deterrent, to other would be rapists.

Israel’s solution is to declare WAR, go building by building through Gaza and kill or drive all the Palestinians out, with such massive force to clearly demonstrate that the consequences of attacking Israel are so dire that no Arab country will start it. When attacked from across a border Israel has the right to counter attack and expand its borders as it did in Golan to protect itself. So long as it doesn’t initiate force, it has the right to use force, even overwhelming deadly force far disproportionate to the aggression perpetrated.

Israel crushed the Arab aggressors in the 6 day war. It could and should do the same today. The result is that the violence would stop. Israel has shown it can and will live in peace with its neighbors if they do the same. The Palestinian people are not innocent, since they refuse to live in peace with Israel, and continue to choose leaders who call for Israel’s eradication, more of the same limited response will get the same results - continued not stop aggression from the Palestinian people. Israel has the right to and should crush them and drive them out with overwhelming disproportionate response. Nothing else will stop the violence.

Israel should change the current tune of adopting “limited” and “proportional” response. They should be singing a new tune similar to US police use against sellers of raw milk; send in overwhelming force, a SWAT team. It’s clear the Palestinians have “Tugged on Superman’s Cape.” Israel should adopt Croce’s "You Don't Mess Around With Jim" as it’s anthem. Look at the map and it’s clear Israel is “Slim” in this tune.

The Palestinians are like the skinny kid in this video:

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

By Tom Rhodes, 7/23/2014

Not much of a headline, but the protection of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is the why and purpose of establishing this great nation. Every group be it a country, a company, a club, a committee, a team, a church, have a purpose. If they didn’t then the group wouldn’t exist. That purpose may be as noble as the purpose the US exists, which is to protect the Live, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness, of all individuals equally. Or the purpose may be as ignoble as selling drugs and killing rival gangs. Or as simple as having a good time sharing a common interest like quilting club, or book club, or beer club.

The USA is unique in it was instituted not to control and rule over the people, but specifically to protect the people’s unalienable natural rights. First of these is the right to life. Don’t protect that right and the rest is inconsequential. Many in the LP have abandoned the idea that everybody’s life deserves protection. They have adopted the idea that some people’s lives are of such little value that they may be killed without reason and such murder should go unpunished.

Abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human who doesn’t have the ability to protect themselves. Lie to yourself all you want but you cannot scientifically say that a fetus is not a unique human being. The clearly established scientific fact is that from the earliest stages of development, each of us is a distinct, living, and whole human being. Every embryology textbook out there says that each of us began as a single-celled zygote (see references below for some examples) find me an embryology text that doesn’t establish new life of mammals begins at conception. It is true that a new life at the point of conception has yet to mature, but the kind of thing that new life is, is clear. This is settled science.



All that remains isn’t a question of if an embryo or fetus is a live human being, but the philosophical debate on how humans in their earliest stages of development should be valued. Don’t confuse the question of a person’s value with empirical fact they exist.

Most pro-abortion people be they liberal, libertarian, conservative, or authoritarian are militant about their views. They fight to have opposing views silenced. The issue is not the value they place on the views of dissenters, nor the view pro-life people have on the views of the pro-abortion crowd. The issue is and has been and is the elephant in the room, the value we place on life itself.

The pro-abortion crowd argues that that each and every human being does not have an equal right to life. The objective truth is abortion is the termination of a human life. No matter how they try to change abortion to being a choice or personal preference, abortion is a value decision that says the terminated human life has no value. Abortion cannot be a personal preference. Choosing chocolate or vanilla is a preference, choosing to terminate what is scientifically a distinct human being is not.

Arguing that abortion is justified because a woman has a right to control her own body, is a classic logical fallacy. That position assumes there is only one body involved, that of the woman. Arguing that nobody knows when life begins is the same type of logical fallacy: it assumes contrary to what every embryology text says, that life begins at birth. That women will get illegal unsafe abortions if they weren’t legal, is called "arguing the consequence." Using that logic we should make resisting rape illegal to make it safer for rapists. The issue isn’t safety, it’s the status and value of the human being who is terminated. If the argument for abortion doesn’t apply to toddlers or the old and infirm, then it’s a bad argument. These arguments are based on irrationally assuming the falsehod that the unborn aren’t humans. The objective truth is they simply point out that some people have value and others don't. Those that don't have value don’t have rights based on some arbitrary standard, in this case age, but it could just as easily be race or sex.

From conception, even as a single cell, the new human life begins at conception the new persons first specific behavior of self defense. The scientific basis for distinguishing one cell type from another rests on two criteria: differences in what something is made of (its molecular composition) and differences in how the cell behaves. These two criteria are universally agreed upon and employed throughout the scientific enterprise. They are not “religious” beliefs or matters of personal opinion. They are objective, verifiable scientific criteria that determine precisely when a new cell type is formed. Based on these criteria, the joining (or fusion) of sperm and egg clearly produces a new cell type, the zygote or one-cell embryo. Cell fusion is a well studied and very rapid event, occurring in less than a second. Because the zygote arises from the fusion of two different cells, it contains all the components of both sperm and egg, and therefore this new cell has a unique molecular composition that is distinct from either gamete. Thus the zygote that comes into existence at the moment of sperm-egg fusion meets the first scientific criterion for being a new cell type: its molecular make-up is clearly different from that of the cells that gave rise to it.

Subsequent to sperm-egg fusion, events rapidly occur in the zygote that do not normally occur in either sperm or egg. Within minutes, the zygote initiates a change in its internal state that will, over the next 30 minutes, block additional sperm from binding to the cell surface. Thus, the zygote acts immediately to oppose the function of the gametes from which it is derived; while the “goal” of both sperm and egg is to find each other and to fuse, the first act of the zygote is to prevent any further binding of sperm to the cell surface. Clearly, the zygote has entered into a new pattern of behavior, and therefore meets the second scientific criterion for being a new cell type.
LINK

To be pro-abortion you must abandon the philosophy that all people have the same natural rights. To be pro-abortion you must take the position that only those people of some arbitrary stage of development, or have some arbitrary ability, are of value, and those who don’t meet that arbitrary standard don’t have rights. You must abandon the idea that “All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Humans differ immeasurably with respect to and degrees of development, capacities, accomplishments, and desires, they are nevertheless equal because they share a common human nature. How can there be any objective human rights that apply to anyone, if we deny that?

The USA is unique, it was established to protect the rights of the people, specifically the right to life. You cannot be a rational libertarian and support abortion. You cannot rationally believe that there are unalienable rights and support abortion. If you support legalized abortion, you have made a value judgment on people, you are clearly saying that some people are of value and deserve to have their life protected and others are not. If you support abortion as a right, you simply say that a mature woman’s life is of more value than a less developed person’s life, and by virtue of her life having superior value, she can choose to terminate the life another person of less value without penalty.

If you’re pro-abortion, the chances you’re an elitist who places the value of some people over others; to the point that some people’s lives have more value than others. The numbers don’t lie, look at who gets aborted, blacks, poor, minorities, are terminated in vastly disproportionate numbers. Rationally you would have to conclude that abortion has been an effective tool of elitists to decrease the population of “undesirables.”

Rhetoric to confuse the question of a person’s value with the empirical fact they exist, doesn’t change the fact. Scientifically there is no argument, conception is the point at which a new unique human life is created. Rationalize and equivocate all you want, being pro-abortion is a value judgment. If you are pro-abortion you simply believe humans who don’t meet some arbitrary standard don’t have the right to life, much less the right to vote, speech, religion, liberty, property, or even to pursue happiness. If you’re a pro-abortion libertarian, you should be ashamed.



References:

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]


"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]


"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]


"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]


"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]


"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]


"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]


"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]


"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]


"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]


"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]


"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M?ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]


"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]


Saturday, July 19, 2014

Jeff Foxworthy - You Might Be a Liberal If ...


No Jeff Foxworthy didn't write/say these descriptions of liberals, but . . . in homage to his virtual trademark of "you might be a XXXXXXX if YYYYYYYYY" here is how I believe he would describe liberals.



You might be a liberal if you forcibly take money you don't deserve from the people who earned it and call THEM greedy for not wanting to give you even more.

You might be a liberal if you say that asking for voter ID is racist while claiming that black Americans are too uniquely stupid and lazy to get an ID.

You might be a liberal if say that the government should confiscate guns from NRA members and kill them if they resist and then claim that you have no idea why they think that they need guns to defend themselves.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Moral Rot = Less Liberty

By Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2014

The bottom line is that America has lost its moral compass. Deficits, runaway national debt, unbridled federal spending are the symptoms of Americas Moral Decay. There is no moral backbone in America. The citizenry now openly demands congress forcibly use some Americans to serve the purposes of others. As a nation, we are suffering from a deep seated moral rot, that is most evidenced by the end of the Rule of Law.

We now routinely substitute legally allowable for morally right. Of course it is legal to stone women for adultery is some nations today, that does not make it morally right. Walter Williams has been talking about this for years. He poses this question: “Is it moral for Congress to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another?” Note he doesn’t ask if it’s legal, but rather asks if its moral.

Let’s think about it using a Professor Williams example: “Suppose I saw a homeless, hungry elderly woman huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. To help the woman, I ask somebody for a $200 donation to help her out. If the person refuses, I then use intimidation, threats and coercion to take the person's money. I then purchase food and shelter for the needy woman.” His question is by forcing another person to pay for a charity he cares about has he a crime?

If you honestly answer yes, and you hopefully believe that taking the property of another is theft, even if they plan on giving it to somebody needy. Now the more difficult part, as Dr. Williams proposes; “Would it be theft if I managed to get three people to agree that I should take the person's money to help the woman? What if I got 100, 1 million or 300 million people to agree to take the person's $200? Would it be theft then? What if instead of personally taking the person's $200, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take the person's $200?” He clearly illustrates how making an action legal, does not morally justify that action.

There is a very old and very famous quote that says: “the more corrupt a state the more numerous its laws.” The USA is a representative republic, those elected to the represent the people reflect the people. It is obvious that there is moral rot in our elected leaders. The higher up the more obvious the rot. The current president has no regard for the rule of law, separation of powers, or telling the truth. In fact a large number of people openly say it’s OK to for the president to lie in order to get congress to do what he wants. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

The GOP in 2010 elected a lot of representatives based on support of the TEA Party. Overwhelmingly those newly elected representatives voted for the statist positions against their promises to their constituents and those who supported them as soon as they got power. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Today you don’t dare criticize the opinions of a college co-ed porn star, that automatically makes you a misogynist woman hater. Criticize the character of a liar who happens to be black and your racist. Expose the character of any politician, especially liberal, and your attacked. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Our schools now teach innocent pre-pubescent children about gay sex, anal sex, alternative life styles, and how to put condoms on bananas while parents dress up their little girls like trollops. As a society we no longer protect, much less value the innocence of children. That is moral rot of our country at its core.

Unless we elect people of character, regardless of their race, sex, political party, etc. there is no hope for the USA ever being the land of liberty it once was. Until and unless the people of the country are willing to live with the consequences of their own life decisions, instead of voting for the use of force to make others pay for their bad life choices, the USA ever being the land of liberty it once was.

History is pretty clear, repeatedly civilizations have become prosperous, then decadent, then fallen back to barbarism. Never in history has any civilization that has become decadent survived. What do you call a society that decries those who would dare criticize a porn star, and calls “disgusting” and silences a girl who demonstrates wholesome self-sufficiency, as the past couple weeks have shown our society did?

The moral compass of America is screwed up. Historically societies that become decadent fall, Rome being a primary example. The USA is not exempt from cycle of the rise and fall of civilizations. We are seeing as moral rot in the USA increases liberty, even freedom of speech, decreases. The Bible has an entire book dedicated to the privation and suffering that occurs when the people as a whole morally decay – Judges. Follow the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, and people prosper and have liberty, abandon those basic instructions, and suffer and are enslaved, repeat. Moral Rot = Less Liberty. History and current events are proving our forefathers right, the Constitution is wholly inadequate for an immoral people.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Hobby Lobby vs. Critical Thinking

By Tom Rhodes, 7/2/2014

Liberals are all upset that Hobby Lobby won in the Supreme Court. I firmly believe that most of the left today have their hearts in the right place, but let their emotions override their ability to think. Their big angsts seem to be they don’t want to let their bosses into their bedroom and that somehow this decision is unjust.

The only way you can accept their argument that declining to pay for something is the same as "blocking access" to it, and the only way you can accept that argument is to say that people have a right to free birth control. If you believe that then allowing some employers to violate that right because of their religious beliefs should be considered unjust. The problem is that there is no such right as a right to free birth control. Worse yet the exact wording and nature of the ACA is clearly sexist.

There is no provision to pay for men’s birth control, and no provision to force insurance to cover vasectomy surgery for men, while birth control and tubal ligation for women must be covered. There is no rational way to justify a right to forcing others to pay for women’s birth control, but not to pay for men’s. Any rationalization is simply sexist, supporting the feminine imperative.

The entire case is predicated on two conflicting feminist positions. The idea that women can force their boss to pay for their birth control and that their boss has no right to stick his nose in their bedroom. The reality is when somebody pays for something they have a right to some control of what they are paying for. Saying that Hobby Lobby had no right to control what health care services and products it purchases for its employees is the same as saying that government has no say in what medical procedures it will pay for under Medicare or the ACA. Those paying have the right to choose what they purchase.

This is a prime example of liberal lack of critical thinking. There is no up swell and call by men to force insurance companies to pay for their prophylactics and vasectomies. The reason is clear, men know their sex life is nobody else’s business, and men know if they ask somebody else to pay for it, that somebody else will have a say in it. As soon as liberals decided that paying for women’s birth control must be covered by insurance they invited those who pay for that insurance into their bedroom. Be it your employer or the government, those who pay for something have a say in what they pay for, including birth control. You want the government and your boss out of your bedroom, quit asking them to pay for your bedroom activities.

You have the right to do whatever you want with whomever is willing to join you in that activity in your own bedroom. You don’t have the right to force others to subsidize your sex life. If you are going to ask others to pay for your bedroom activities, then they have a say in those bedroom activities.

What the supreme court said in the Hobby Lobby case was, a woman’s boss has no business in her sex life, so she can’t make him pay for it if he doesn’t want to. The idiocy of the SCOTUS decision was they based it on freedom of religion, instead of basing the decision on the fact that people have not granted the government the power to dictate that women’s sex lives must be subsidized by others.