Why I’m Not a Progressive

by Tom Rhodes, 6/29/2015

Progressive is the nom de guerre for liberals, or leftists, or Democrats, etc. To be progressive is because you must be illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, and a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. The actions of today’s progressives are the very definition Orwellian.

We can easily prove both the illogical and anti-science stance of progressives with one current example. Google Dr. Paul Church, a veteran urologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for nearly 30 years. Well formerly at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Smoking is legal, but doctors discourage it because of the negative effects it has on health. Other behaviors carry significant risks to your health, narcotics, over eating, not exercising, etc. Doctors routinely admonish patients to stop engaging in risky lifestyles. My doctor routinely tells me to stop riding motorcycles. Dr. Church’s medical appointment was revoked because he dared tell patients of the health danger to certain behaviors and urge the hospital to stop promoting legal but scientifically proven risky behavior.

In an Interview, Dr. Church said, “It is incredible to think they would be able to silence me and revoke my ability to be on the staff as a result of my raising valid health concerns over a risky lifestyle. This is almost a fascist effort at mind control.”

Dr. Church rightly thinks that like other legal but risky behaviors, such as smoking, “The medical community should be cautioning people to avoid and abstain from a behavior that is high risk.”

The scientific medical facts clearly support his position. As Dr. Church noted, “Although it has declined over the past few decades, two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS infections in the U.S. are the result of men having sex with men. Fifty percent of ‘gay’ men will be infected with HIV by age 50. Those numbers are out there and they are staggering.” You can check for yourself with the CDC; their research supports his claims, and a litany of other health and mental problems exacerbated by choosing to engage in LBGT behavior. Because the logic and science of the real (not imagined) health and mental issues that accompany homosexuality do not meet the current progressive agenda, progressives actively work at silencing and marginalizing any who would dare use objective verifiable science and reason which doesn’t support their political agenda. They do the same with any logical and scientific position that rationally doesn’t support their agenda. To progressives truth is what they want it to be, not reality.

It’s gotten so bad, progressives are calling to stop scientific research that doesn’t produce their desired results. In the April 2014 Popular Science, published an article titled “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains”. Reasoning that because the results clearly show that men and women are different and that sex is not a social construct, and such research will reinforce gender stereotypes, we should not do the research. Think about it, because the science doesn’t confirm progressive’s irrational utopian desires for how the world ought to be, they actually want to suppress it. They actually say that the research is “not meaningful,” not because it is incorrect, and not because it is unscientific, but because there are statistical outliers. Statistical outliers don’t negate the norm. Using progressive reasoning because all dogs aren’t bigger than all domestic cats you can’t say on average dogs are bigger than cats. Using progressive reasoning because the length of a day varies a small amount based on gravitational forces, atmospheric conditions, seasonal rotational axis changes, and every day isn’t 86400.002 seconds long you can’t use a day for measurement in scientific research. (Happy Leap Second day, tonight there is a leap second so don’t forget to adjust your clock)

The huge and obvious attacks against the First Amendment to the constitution, and the call for laws to make expression that doesn’t meet progressive politically correct criteria should be illegal and those who don’t adhere to the progressive PC dogma should be silenced and if necessary locked up. Today’s progressives believe that a few smart progressive people know better how every individual should live and should exercise power and authority to make the world a better place as they see it. Their basic political philosophy is oligarchical collectivist totalitarianism.

The fact that they are emotionally driven not rationally it is also obvious that they believe those who don’t agree with them are evil. Hence the visceral hatred and personal attacks they make against anybody who doesn’t support their agenda. Those who don’t agree with the progressive PC agenda are immediately labeled with some hateful dehumanizing epitaph. Rather than defend their beliefs, and engage in rational debate on their positions, they use their belief that those who oppose them are evil, to dismiss without rationally examining, discussing, or evaluating positions. Progressive philosophy and discussion almost always comes down to “We’re right, and if you don’t accept that, you’re an evil poo-poo head.”

Progressives are demonstratively racist. They firmly believe if you’re black you’re stupid and incompetent. To be “fair” they tyrannically force lower standards for blacks compared to other groups of people, in education, hiring, making loans, etc. They actually believe that blacks are too incompetent to get an ID to vote. Because they are emotionally driven, and don’t want to have hurt feelings, they couch what they are saying. They say to minorities because you were oppressed generations ago, we are doing these noble things, for your own good, to minorities. While actively promoting and rewarding behavior of minorities that keep them in poverty and dependent on government. To main tain control progressives denegrate any minority who dares improve themselves and leave their carefully controlled ghetto. Look at Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and any number of black people who’ve made it out of urban poverty by improving themselves and the how progressives treat these minorities that don’t follow the progressive PC agenda. With regards to Jeff Foxworthy:

If you believe that certain words are acceptable for one group of people to use but forbidden by others; you might be a progressive.

If you believe academic requirements to get into universities should be lower for people of one skin color than another; you might be a racist progressive.

If you believe physical requirements for certain jobs should be lower for one group of people than for others; you might be a sexist progressive.

If you believe some standards of behavior should be acceptable for one group of people and not for others; you might be a progressive.

I’m not a progressive because I’m not an illogical, anti-science, totalitarian, hateful, racist, sexist. Why are you?

Why do weh have Marriage Laws?

By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015

The most basic, fundamental, and necessary laws are those laws created to protect the natural rights of people from harm. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic protection of natural rights, a society degenerates into despotism, the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent, as we now see in Somalia. As is evident by the fact that every government in the world has them, laws offering basic protection of individuals from harm are essential.

Virtually all other laws are statist in nature and are used to control behavior, and grant the state power over individuals. These include; Nanny State laws written to protect people from themselves, like drug laws; Morality Laws written to promote the personal morality of the law's author (usually religious); Donation laws, granting goods, services, or privilege to some but not all citizens; and outright Statist Laws intended to protect the government from the people or increase its power over the people.

In the USA our constitution pretty much granted the government the power to create laws to protect the people from harm, but limited the government's ability to create statist laws. Our Bill of Rights is a list of specific prohibitions on the US government to create statist laws, and ensure the rule of law. For most of the history of Western civilization the state did not grant permission to marry (a license). This was because a marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents' agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For the first 1600 years of Christianity, to be married all people had to do was claim they exchanged marital vows, the church and government accepted the word of those people. The mere entries, of the names of the married, into the cover of a family bible were legal documentation of marriage.

Around the 16th Century Europeans started to require legal requirements in an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match (read Romeo and Juliet). In the USA, even as simple colonies, although marriages were officially required to be registered, until about the time of the civil war state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. It wasn't until the end of the 1800's that the USA started to nullify common-law marriages, trying to control who could and couldn't marry. This was specifically racist in nature punishing interracial marriage. As late as the 1920's a super majority of the states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, "mulattos," Japanese, Chinese, Indians, "Mongolians," "Malays" or Filipinos.

The history is clear, marriage laws are and always have been a way to control who is and isn't allowed to be married. About 50 years ago, the government got out of deciding who was and wasn't "fit" to marry. But it hasn't given up on using marriage as a means to control society. From Social Security, to inheritance laws, the government uses marriage to dictate how people "should" live.

Marriage licensing as a means of determining, when, if, and how state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly unworkable. Take as simple a thing as the legal rights and responsibility people have towards children. As a society we recognized marriage doesn't determine inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing. The government through its statist laws has destroyed the traditional reasons for marriage.

Exactly what is the purpose of marriage laws today? What interest does the government have in promoting interpersonal relationships? Is there a fundamental, basic, natural right that marriage protects? Is there a societal rationale for creating legal binding marriage laws? If society, government, and individuals are helped by marriage laws, how does/doesn't alternative marriages fit into the rationale for having marriage laws?

The fact is that if you believe in the rule of law, and equality under the law, then any law that grants special privilege or different rights to some individuals and not others is wrong, then you believe marriage all laws are wrong. If however you believe that certain social constructs are fundamental to a working functional society and need to be protected and that certain individual freedoms should be limited for the good of society, then marriage laws may fall into that category. Because I believe that granting the government more power than is absolutely necessary is bad for society, I personally believe that the government should get out of the social engineering business, specifically sanctioning marriage, and should limit itself to arbitrating and enforcing contracts. But, if there is a rationale for government licensing of marriage, the basics and fundamentals must be considered and talked about.

Men are pigs and if not raised right, we will, if allowed, sow our seed everywhere we can with no regard to the consequences. The simple and politically incorrect fact is that marriage exists primarily to bond the father to the family. Leftist Margaret Mead correctly noted that motherhood is a biological certainty whereas fatherhood is socially constructed. If a father is not necessary, neither is marriage. The result can be seen in the single most determining fact of whether a child; lives in, grows up in, and continues in poverty being the presence of a father. Just about every social pathology in the young can be mitigated by the presence of a father. When there is no father present, adolescents run wild, and we see the resultant societal chaos.

All of the other ideas behind marriage are simply the satisfaction and comfort of adults. Consensual, loving and emotional relationships do not require a marriage. The practical reality is that marriage existed for one reason, to make sure that children have not just a family, but a father. Not a sire, all children have sperm donors, but marriages are primarily to create legal, moral, and social restraints on men to be fathers. In the absence of children, there is no cogent reason to form "families".

Gays and their position on marriage have not destroyed it, they didn't even bastardize it. They are just taking advantage of the destruction of marriage as an institution by the government. Because the traditional underpinnings of marriage have been undermined, people in consensual, loving and emotional relationships outside of traditional marriage are laying claim to marriage. Gays want marriage as evidence of societal acceptance of their behavior, not the true burdens and restrictions on individuals that marriage used to create.

The hookup culture and 50+% divorce rate, preceded gay-marriage. Since the bounds of traditional marriage, and the voluntary limits and strict restrictions prior to no-fault divorce are no longer valid, by today's standard there is no foundation to restrict any type of marriage, be it strait, gay, polygamous, or whatever. By today's standards marriage is just as easy to dissolve as any other business partnership. As such any marriage law is stupid and should not be in the government's purview.

Only if we as a society, are willing to go back to making marriage binding, with exact legal conditions having to be met prior to granting divorce does having marriage laws of any kind make any since. Divorce is detrimental to children, yes in some cases it is better, but for the vast majority of children intact marriages are the best predictor of their success and well being. Unless both parties agree to a divorce, a person should have to show just cause in dissolving a marriage. The ability to discard a person you married, regardless of their wishes, makes marriage a meaningless institution. If children are involved, you should have to prove in a court of law real physical abuse, abandonment, adultry, etc. and that the divorce would improve the financial and emotional well being of any children. In the presence of no-fault divorce, marriage laws do not make any since.

Conservatives and the religious right, fighting gay marriage, who are not willing to look at and examine no-fault divorce, quite simply destroys their arguments. Conservatives are unwilling to let divorce be part of the political agenda. Because no US politician is willing to touch the true third rail of politics, No-Fault Divorce, their fight to defend "traditional" marriage is false. Christian "pro-family" groups are un-willing to put any effort in reforming divorce laws. The moral authority to defend marriage as it stands today, just doesn't exist from either the right or the left. Because of its amorphous stand on marriage and divorce, the Church in America has any authority or moral standing to argue for traditional marriage.

Traditional marriage created and makes fatherhood a serious and valuable condition. No-Fault divorce is a system for destroying fatherhood and making fathers just sires of offspring, not accountable men whom society expects to be responsible sacrificing adults. Divorce courts are largely the method for plundering fathers and making them criminals. With current marriage/divorce law what man in his right mind would get married? Without any obligation to show fault, a woman can; have a man thrown out of his house, have is wealth confiscated, lose all contact with his children, and have the majority of his future earnings confiscated. As it now stands, no rational man would enter into a legally binding agreement that allows that.

Forming a traditional family, with parents and children, creates a situation that the government doesn't have legal or moral control. A marriage with a family that has offspring creates a zone of privacy for the purpose of raising children. Parents have traditionally had the right to determine how children are raised without government interference. This is a politically unique relationship where society allows the exercise of coercive authority over others. This is the only part of society where the state doesn't have the exclusive right to use force to elicit behavior and punish wrong behavior. Because this is the only part of society government doesn't control. Not willing to tolerate any part of society it doesn't control, government has tried, and succeeded in undermining marriage. Without parental authority, legitimized by the bonds of marriage, the government can and will dictate how children are raised. This gives the government total control over the people, right down to what is or isn't an acceptable child's lunch. If you look at communities where marriage and fathers are no longer the norm, government has replaced fathers with welfare.

With today's current marriage laws, the only reason gays want to get married, is to force society to morally accept their life choices and behavior. It is not for legal protection, as partnerships, wills, and other legal devices can give them all the legal protection of a marriage. In fact a marriage makes one/or both less legally protected. Forget the gays attack on marriage, feminists, bar associations, psychotherapists, courts, social workers, and public schools are not about to allow the return of traditional families based on traditional marriages with limited divorce as the foundation of our society. As a result of the attack on fathers and families, they have gained too much power, money, and control.

The basic rationale for marriage, fatherhood, is no longer valued, protected, or desired by those in power and the majority of our feminized society. The state has effectively ended traditional marriage. Smart rationale men are not about to enter into, one sided, legally binding, contracts that don't offer them any rights. The massive rise in the amount of unwed mothers and never-wed people proves this. The majority of our society no longer believes that the traditional family is the cornerstone of a working, prosperous, self governing society. We are wrong, and as seen by the roving bands of violent adolescents in our fatherless inner cities. Considering, there are no longer societal standards that shame and ostracize men who fool around without taking responsibility; not even our religious institutions will stand up for and protect fathers rights;, and we accept the fact that women need men like fish need a bicycle. What purpose in modern western culture do any marriage laws serve other than granting government control of private relationships?

Scientists at Mayo Clinic Discover Keys to Happiness!!

By Tom Rhodes, 6/15/2015

If the 60’s cheesy version of the Masked Crusader’s youthful sidekick was analyzing the scientific “discovery” from Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic he would exclaim “Holy Plagiarism Batman.” It seems that scientists have “discovered” what Christianity, (and to be honest most religions) have been teaching for thousands of years.

It’s amazing that, what some declare as the world’s finest health institution, Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic, with pomp and circumstance announced they have “cracked the code to being happy.” They laud the fact that scientists have come up with “an actual formula for happiness – a specific recipe for lifelong contentment and joy.”

This is what the scientists and doctors at Mayo Clinic say about being happy.

People who are happy seem to intuitively know that their happiness is the sum of their life choices, and their lives are built on the following pillars:

Devoting time to family and friends

Appreciating what they have

Maintaining an optimistic outlook

Feeling a sense of purpose

Living in the moment

Did none of these people ever go to church? There is a book that’s been around for thousands of years that teaches all these concepts. For eons it has been the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, it’s called the Bible. I won’t go into the various verses, but much of the Bible and the thousands of sermons preached regularly for 2000 years cover each of those points. Kind of cool that scientists have finally caught up to theologians.

This isn’t a new concept, science continues to validate ancient wisdom. The late Dr. Robert Jastrow, NASA Scientist, summed it up wonderfully saying, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Next thing you know scientists will “discover” that limited government, with the rule of law, and letting people to rule themselves, leads to more prosperity for more people.

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matthew 6:34).

Actions of the Obama admin. prove the TPP is Bad for America.

By Tom Rhodes, 6/12/2015

Have you read about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)? This is major trade legislation that has something so rotten in it that it’s secret until it’s passed. The GOP is helping Obama pass the TPP. Most voting for it admit they've never read it. The text with full details of TPP are kept in a special guarded room. Why?

There is only one possible answer. There must be something buried in in the details that is very, very, very bad. They know if We the People knew what was in it, the outcry to our elected representatives would kill it.

What is in the TPP that is so rotten, that our elected representatives must sign an agreement not to tell us or even hint at what the trade agreement contains, before they are allowed to read the proposed trade agreement?

Whatever evil anti-American detail or details that exist in the Trans Pacific Partnership that is so terrible that We the People must be kept in the dark until it is a fait accompli. Our forefathers warned us and did not trust the government, even the one they created. Our government has proven to be unfaithful and liars. In as much as the government refuses to make a huge trade agreement public, we should urge all our elected representatives to vote against it. The TPP is a prime example of Obama’s promise to have “The most transparent administration in history.” That promise coupled with contradictory forced secrecy of the TPP are a clear indicator that the TPP is bad for America.

Freedom of Speech and Bill of Rights Will Be Dead in a Generation

By Tom Rhodes, 6/11/2015

Recent poll shows that roughly ? of adults under the age of 30 think the First Amendment allows too much freedom of speech and that some speech, hate speech, should not be allowed. Although only about 2% of adults over 50 think we have too much freedom of speech. In a generation a lot of those over 50 will be dead, and those adults under 30 will be our leaders. Today’s college youth demand “trigger notices” of their classes so they won’t be offended, and routinely shout down, protest, and use violence to silence ideas they don’t think should be expressed. What you don’t hear from those under 30 is “I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!”

In the name of "sensitivity" and "civility" speech can now be censored. If you have "privilege" even your “sensitive” and “civil” speech can be silenced. Even stating scientific verifiable facts if they are not politically correct are no longer tolerated. Seeing that violence works, only those willing to back up their speech with violence against others who don’t agree with them are allowed to speak. At today’s institutes of higher learning, leftists can and do use violence to shut down speech they don’t approve, just as the willingness of Islamists to use violence against speech they don’t approve has effectively silenced our media from criticizing Islam.

To top off the clear and evident demise of freedom of speech, our youth are less educated and dumber. Emotions and how a person feels about any subject is carries more gravitas than logic and reason. Last Year, Rutgers student Philip Wythe suggested that The Great Gatsby was so potentially traumatizing it should be accompanied by the following warning: “Suicide, Domestic Abuse, and Graphic Violence.” The Great Gatsby explores themes of decadence, idealism, resistance to change, social upheaval, and excess, masculinity, and racism. It created a portrait of the Roaring Twenties that many educators have described as a cautionary tale of embracing the American Dream. Image our next generation of leaders so delicate that they can’t emotionally handle the themes of book which a short time ago was standard high school curricula.

Students today are so sensitive that comedians Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform at colleges and universities. In a recent interview with ESPN Radio host Colin Cowherd, Seinfeld said, "I don't play colleges, but I hear a lot of people tell me, 'Don't go near colleges. They're so PC.'" Chris Rock said, “. . . I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative.” He explained “Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of ‘We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.’ Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say ‘the black kid over there.’ No, it’s ‘the guy with the red shoes.’ You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive.

The First Amendment is not there to protect civil acceptable speech, it exists to protect offensive ideas that challenge people. It will not survive a generation that wants and needs trigger warnings before reading The Great Gatsby. Imagine the outrage if Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles was released today. Imagine the outrage that would happen if George Carlin tried to do his stand up at a college now.

June 15th is the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta, most of today’s sensitive youth don’t know what it is, and if they did they would denounce it. The visceral condemnation of the few today who dare criticize the politically correct attitudes that permeate the media and today’s youth pales when compared to the opprobrium our forefathers would heap upon those promoting the mere idea of political correctness. Rather than submit to any political class or body politics’ restriction on what they would say, or how they should believe, they boldly and proudly proclaimed “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!” and backed it up with a revolution.

Feds Require You to Get Permission before Blogging or Posting on the Internet.

By Tom Rhodes, 6/8/2015

Guess what, you must now seek permission to from the Federal Government before you post a comment, blog, or post an article on the internet. Specifically the State Department has updated their International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). If you are blogging about your favorite hunting rifle, you have to get the government’s permission first. Want to brag about how accurate your double tap is and what you did to your Glock’s trigger to get good performance on the internet, if you don’t get government approval you are guilty of exporting firearms technical data.

Paragraph (b) of the revised definition in the ITAR regulations explicitly sets forth the Department's requirement of authorization to release information into the ''public domain.'' Prior to making available ''technical data'' or software subject to the ITAR, the U.S. government must approve the release through one of the following: (1) The Department; (2) the Department of Defense's Office of Security Review; (3) a relevant U.S. government contracting authority with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public, if one exists; or (4) another U.S. government official with authority to allow the ''technical data'' or software to be made available to the public.

So you chat on the internet about your experience building the totally legal and fun Ruger 10/22 Gatling Gun Kit, you now must have the government’s approval. The first Amendment is dead.

This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Now if you are going speaking at a trade show or gun show about the specifications of your gun product, you must seek prior approval from the government. Obviously this is going to end up in court, probably lots of courts. The idea that you cannot talk about the functionality (aka technological specifications) of the guns you own without government’s prior approval reeks of tyranny.