By Tom Rhodes, 12/12/2017
Leftist’s crucifixion of their own, is further objective evidence they support tyranny and neither justice nor rule of law. The Democrats have strung up and destroyed Senator Al Franken, for gross creepy conduct without any due process whatsoever nor based on any rule of law. If Senator Al Franken’s behavior is so atrocious he should be brought up on charges, and allowed to defend himself and question his accusers before a jury. He should have been assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law following all due process.
The treatment of the Minnesota Senator is evidence that leftists do not want or support the concepts of rule of law, and innocent until proven guilty. One can conclude two things from the left’s treatment of Franken: 1) He’s a knowing sacrificial lamb, to try and pressure the GOP to destroy their own, like Moore, without due process or even credible accusers; 2) They don’t believe that men should be allowed due process in general, and those who don’t bow to the supremacy of women will be crucified. Franken’s confession of bad conduct is evidence he is either guilty of gross creepy criminal behavior or has knowingly sacrificed himself for the good of leftists gaining tyrannical control, probably both.
Some of the things that made the USA special, was the Rule of Law, Trial by Jury, and the concept of Innocent Until Proven Guilty. The idea that nobody, is above the law and all laws apply to all people, government official or street urchin, alike. The idea that you are innocent until proven guilty before a jury of your peers and have the right to confront your accuser and bring witnesses before a verdict is rendered or punishment is extracted. Abandonment of these doctrines, is a repeated historic path to tyranny. When the elite can ignore the law, and people can be punished without due process, the law has no meaning and the people will ignore it and general lawlessness will ensue.
Al Franken is most likely a douchebag gamma who used his notoriety and power to take liberties with women who probably thought he was a creep and would have otherwise ignored him or slammed him with charges. For whatever reason those women chose to remain silent and not press charges, either for personal gain, or because although treated abhorrently the idea of having to deal with the cops and a trial and all that entails to have him punished wasn’t worth effort, or because they feared ending their career if they turned in the creep. In any case Al Franken should have been treated as innocent until proven guilty (or confessed).
In the USA it is, and has always been considered preferable, that a crook/creep/etc. go free rather than an innocent man be punished for a crime he didn’t commit. Yes that makes it harder to punish and deal with bad people, but the alternative is that innocent people be punished out of spite. Unproven allegations should not be used to judge anybody, even would be creepy despots like Al Franken.
That said, the massive amount of accusations of perverted actions by leftists in Hollywood, the MSM, and Government that are coming out of the woodwork are enough smoke that we should be looking for the fire. All credible accusations, especially against persons in power and prominence, should be vigorously and honestly investigated, but everyone accused of some malfeasance should be considered innocent until they confess or are charged, tried, and convicted in a court of law following all due process. Any other treatment or action is an abandonment of modern civilization and a return to Feudalism. Feudalism of the type where those in charge or their minions declare judgment without due process, and punish whom they want at their whim. Tyranny no matter how you look at it.
These were the actions of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Pinochet, etc. who trumped up charges to murder or send to the gulag, all who they felt impeded their despotic control of the masses. More people were killed by leftists purging those who disagreed with them in the 20th century than all wars in history combined. The leftists in the USA today are doing all they can to eliminate due process and the rule of law so that they too can purge those who impede their desire to control the lives of everybody. Social media is filled with leftists memes calling for the elimination of those who don’t believe as they.
There is a significant difference between Conyers, Franken, and Moore, and how they should be treated. Conyers and Franken confessed to their sick creepy actions and their accusers are credible and accusations aren’t from scores of years ago. Moore has always claimed innocence, and his accuser confessed to fabricating evidence. Because of Conyers’ and Franken’s confessions they should be treated like the creepy perverts they are, while Moore until and unless he either confesses or is charged, tried, and convicted in a court with all due process, should be treated as innocent. Conyers, Franken, and Moore are all statist totalitarians who should not be elected and should be replaced with a good libertarian who values the constitutional limits on government, but to treat them as anything other than innocent until proven guilty is tantamount to abandoning civilization and liberty and embracing tyranny.
Tuesday, December 12, 2017
Monday, December 11, 2017
Normal America Dosen't Care
by Tom Rhodes, 12/11/2017
Most of America is libertarian, most believe that as long as you aren't infringing on my rights or trying to ram something down my throat, others should be free to do as they wish. Hence making pot legal. They also believe that outside of taking care of widows and orphans and the truly needy, people should have to earn their own way.
Normal Americans support the idea espoused by Barney Frank when in 2009 he said, "Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."
Normal American also support the idea espoused by Teddy Roosevelt in 1902 "The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight."
Few Normal Americans disagree with either of those statements. But what has become obvious is that the liberals and establishment types don't care what Normal Americans think. The ruling elite have for decades told Normal Americans what they should think and believe, and do all they can to punish wrong thinking.
It has become increasingly obvious that if you fail to do, think, and vote exactly the way that the establishment minions demand, you’re a stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids. Even if you do everything that the liberals and the Never Trump minions demand, you’re still a stupid racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids.
Because of that a huge part of the population has resorted to the most powerful non-bullet firing weapon in their liberty-loving arsenal; the devastating capability not to give a damn what the liberals and their establishment cohorts in the GOP say.
The majority of the Normal Americans are clearly telling liberals and the establishment types to go pound sand and we will do whatever the hell we want? You know what, some of America's Normals play the game and just lie to the elite's polls, but the reality is those polls are just as wrong today as they were Nov. 4, 2016, when they predicted Hillary would win. Trump kicked her ass. Normal America told the establishment elites we aren't playing that game anymore. The fact is Normal America just doesn't care what the main stream media, liberal hacks, and GOP establishment dorks, have to say anymore.
This scares the shit out of the ruling elite. The fact that Normal America no longer cares what the urban elite of the coasts say anymore should give us hope that liberty not tyranny will survive in the USA.
“Where the government fears the people, there is Liberty. Where the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
Most of America is libertarian, most believe that as long as you aren't infringing on my rights or trying to ram something down my throat, others should be free to do as they wish. Hence making pot legal. They also believe that outside of taking care of widows and orphans and the truly needy, people should have to earn their own way.
Normal Americans support the idea espoused by Barney Frank when in 2009 he said, "Criminalizing choices that adults make because we think they are unwise ones, when the choices involved have no negative effect on the rights of others, is not appropriate in a free society."
Normal American also support the idea espoused by Teddy Roosevelt in 1902 "The first requisite of a good citizen in this Republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight."
Few Normal Americans disagree with either of those statements. But what has become obvious is that the liberals and establishment types don't care what Normal Americans think. The ruling elite have for decades told Normal Americans what they should think and believe, and do all they can to punish wrong thinking.
It has become increasingly obvious that if you fail to do, think, and vote exactly the way that the establishment minions demand, you’re a stupid, racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids. Even if you do everything that the liberals and the Never Trump minions demand, you’re still a stupid racist, sexist, homophobic, child molesting, greedy, NRA terrorist determined to murder kids.
Because of that a huge part of the population has resorted to the most powerful non-bullet firing weapon in their liberty-loving arsenal; the devastating capability not to give a damn what the liberals and their establishment cohorts in the GOP say.
The majority of the Normal Americans are clearly telling liberals and the establishment types to go pound sand and we will do whatever the hell we want? You know what, some of America's Normals play the game and just lie to the elite's polls, but the reality is those polls are just as wrong today as they were Nov. 4, 2016, when they predicted Hillary would win. Trump kicked her ass. Normal America told the establishment elites we aren't playing that game anymore. The fact is Normal America just doesn't care what the main stream media, liberal hacks, and GOP establishment dorks, have to say anymore.
This scares the shit out of the ruling elite. The fact that Normal America no longer cares what the urban elite of the coasts say anymore should give us hope that liberty not tyranny will survive in the USA.
“Where the government fears the people, there is Liberty. Where the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” ~ Benjamin Franklin
The MSM hides Junk Science.
by Tom Rhodes, 12/11/2017
Remember last years "scientists discover micro-plastics are evil" article. Why didn't the retraction of the reseach in Science, make as big a splash in the news. The fact is the environmentalist scientists didn’t get the results they want so just make shit up to promote the evils of man on the environment.
“Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv are guilty of misconduct in research, Eklöv in that he has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation, and Lönnstedt in that she has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation and because the experiments were not conducted as described in the article in the scholarly journal and are therefore fabricated,” Uppsala announced in their final report.
When looking at any scientific findings use the old addage Follow the money; if government pays for research and the results say government needs more control; or if an environmental group pays for research that says man should be restricted from using something; it should be treated like Exxon saying burning fossil fuels is good, or Monsanto researc saying RoundUp is safe, or GM saying the Corvair is a safe car.
Science is actually simple, and a clear indicator that you should doubt the results some scientist is claiming is: if the raw data and calculations are not shared, and the experiment hasn't been repeated, then it's Junk Science and not reliable.
Remember last years "scientists discover micro-plastics are evil" article. Why didn't the retraction of the reseach in Science, make as big a splash in the news. The fact is the environmentalist scientists didn’t get the results they want so just make shit up to promote the evils of man on the environment.
“Oona Lönnstedt and Peter Eklöv are guilty of misconduct in research, Eklöv in that he has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation, and Lönnstedt in that she has violated the regulations on ethical approval for animal experimentation and because the experiments were not conducted as described in the article in the scholarly journal and are therefore fabricated,” Uppsala announced in their final report.
When looking at any scientific findings use the old addage Follow the money; if government pays for research and the results say government needs more control; or if an environmental group pays for research that says man should be restricted from using something; it should be treated like Exxon saying burning fossil fuels is good, or Monsanto researc saying RoundUp is safe, or GM saying the Corvair is a safe car.
Science is actually simple, and a clear indicator that you should doubt the results some scientist is claiming is: if the raw data and calculations are not shared, and the experiment hasn't been repeated, then it's Junk Science and not reliable.
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
Insanity of the Left is Destroying Success
By Tom Rhodes, 9/27/2017
“A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” ~ Samuel Adams Feb. 12, 1779
Voicing the very same ideas that founding father Samuel Adams stated over 200 years ago, Pennsylvania Law Professor Amy Wax gave a lecture, titled “Diverging Family Structure by Class and Race: Economic Hardship, Moral Deregulation or Something Else?” She noted that despite what they may say, the upper middle class and most successful people exhibit 50's era traditional Christian morals, and that the less a group of people embrace "bourgeois culture,” the less prosperous they are.
She presented statistical data that supported the fact that those who embrace our old moral traditions tend to be more successful than those who don't. She summarized the successful behaviors of "bourgeois culture” as, "Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime."
This reads remarkably similar to Economists Dr. Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell's repeated editorials noting that if you complete high school, get a job, get married, and have kids, in that order you dramatically reduce the chance of living in poverty.
For over 200 years the message, by example, of successful people, has been that adhering to traditional Christian virtues is the most successful way to pursue happiness. It's almost as if God gave us the Commandments not for His sake, but for ours. Evidence that the Bible is the "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth."
Is it a coincidence that those who love liberty generally embrace bourgeois culture, and those who seek to silence ideas they don’t like, and force others to conform, and in general support a tyrannical powerful government, reject bourgeois culture? The insanity of the left, attacking hard work and self-discipline, and bourgeois culture, is self-evident. The vitriol and hatred leftists have exhibited to Professor Wax, and the left’s general attack on our liberties seems proportional to their rejection of virtues, clearly demonstrating that Sam Adams was right. The question is, why does the left tear down the very values that evidence indicates are those which bring prosperity, and happiness?
“A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” ~ Samuel Adams Feb. 12, 1779
Voicing the very same ideas that founding father Samuel Adams stated over 200 years ago, Pennsylvania Law Professor Amy Wax gave a lecture, titled “Diverging Family Structure by Class and Race: Economic Hardship, Moral Deregulation or Something Else?” She noted that despite what they may say, the upper middle class and most successful people exhibit 50's era traditional Christian morals, and that the less a group of people embrace "bourgeois culture,” the less prosperous they are.
She presented statistical data that supported the fact that those who embrace our old moral traditions tend to be more successful than those who don't. She summarized the successful behaviors of "bourgeois culture” as, "Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime."
This reads remarkably similar to Economists Dr. Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell's repeated editorials noting that if you complete high school, get a job, get married, and have kids, in that order you dramatically reduce the chance of living in poverty.
For over 200 years the message, by example, of successful people, has been that adhering to traditional Christian virtues is the most successful way to pursue happiness. It's almost as if God gave us the Commandments not for His sake, but for ours. Evidence that the Bible is the "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth."
Is it a coincidence that those who love liberty generally embrace bourgeois culture, and those who seek to silence ideas they don’t like, and force others to conform, and in general support a tyrannical powerful government, reject bourgeois culture? The insanity of the left, attacking hard work and self-discipline, and bourgeois culture, is self-evident. The vitriol and hatred leftists have exhibited to Professor Wax, and the left’s general attack on our liberties seems proportional to their rejection of virtues, clearly demonstrating that Sam Adams was right. The question is, why does the left tear down the very values that evidence indicates are those which bring prosperity, and happiness?
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Climate Alarmism, A Religious Tenant of Totalitarian Leftists
By Tom Rhodes, 9/19/2017
For people on the left, left-wing issues are not political issues; they are religious issues. Consider global warming. To leftists it is an existential issue. The reason they want to criminally charge those don't accept man is causing catastrophic climate change is those who oppose their beliefs are heretics. The atheistic left is even more devout in their condemnation of heretical views. Any science or research that doesn't support their religious view of man being bad and earth being good must not be allowed. The failure of all the "scientific" models in temperature predictions is not a repudiation of their beliefs. The failure of virtually every prediction they have made concerning climate over the past 50 years is irrelevant, just as is the failure of all of the predictions of Armageddon made by religious zealots doesn’t diminish the faith of believers. They have faith that man is causing the destruction of the earth and therefore man’s actions should be controlled and limited by the enlightened, and no amount of facts will sway their faith.
Man-caused climate change is questioned because there is indisputable scientific evidence this isn’t the Earth’s first rodeo when it comes to cyclical cooling and warming. The Earth experienced periods of glaciation followed by melting long before Leonardo DiCaprio’s excessive use of private jets and the construction of Al Gore’s energy devouring Nashville dream home. The statistical reality is man's contribution to climate change is so smaller than the margin of error in the analysis we can do. But that doesn't fit into the religious beliefs of the left.
A primary tenant of leftists is that humans are a bad evil force that is harming mother nature. Katie Herzog at Grist.com clearly and plainly stated this religious tenant of leftism, writing on January 16, 2015, “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.” Granted most leftists don’t go to this absurd extreme, but then most Christians didn’t follow Jim Jones and drink the Kool-Aid either.
Climate Alarmism is a tenant of leftist faith and the left is zealous about it to the point of extremism, like Islamist they will use violence and seek to criminalize criticism of their faith. Like Islamists they seek to dehumanize all who don’t share their belief, so that they can feel no guilt to murdering, attacking, condemning, and taking away the rights of non-believers. Whom they feel don’t have the same rights because they are less than human. The call to punish “climate change deniers” is the lefts religious zealotry to gain control of our lives.
The United Nations (via UNEP), is pushing international judges to criminalize any climate change belief contrary to their own. Professor Richard Parncutt has called for the execution of prominent “GW deniers.” Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds. James Hansen, who has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has likewise called for trials of global warming deniers. There is a very long list, going back decades, of leftists wanting to silence scientists and other heretics who dare question their beliefs.
The hue and cry to control us all, was once the imminent ice age, they it was called global warming, but because the climate didn’t freeze as predicted, then didn’t warm as predicted, and storms didn’t increase as predicted, etc. etc. etc., they changed their refrain from global warming to climate change. The climate change agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. As political commentator Henry Louis Mencken explained “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Leftists in their religious zeal have want the power to control the lives of others whom they feel should live as they dictate and not be given the liberty to examine the evidence and live and do what they think will best provide happiness.
Leftists religiously oppose the foundations of the USA and reject the idea that government was instituted by the mere people to protect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They believe leftists by virtue of their superior intellect and compassion, should be able to dictate how the masses should live. Hence they seek to kill and outlaw and silence heretics that would dare question their beliefs. They are no better than Islamic terrorists, who kill those who question or criticize their beliefs.
For people on the left, left-wing issues are not political issues; they are religious issues. Consider global warming. To leftists it is an existential issue. The reason they want to criminally charge those don't accept man is causing catastrophic climate change is those who oppose their beliefs are heretics. The atheistic left is even more devout in their condemnation of heretical views. Any science or research that doesn't support their religious view of man being bad and earth being good must not be allowed. The failure of all the "scientific" models in temperature predictions is not a repudiation of their beliefs. The failure of virtually every prediction they have made concerning climate over the past 50 years is irrelevant, just as is the failure of all of the predictions of Armageddon made by religious zealots doesn’t diminish the faith of believers. They have faith that man is causing the destruction of the earth and therefore man’s actions should be controlled and limited by the enlightened, and no amount of facts will sway their faith.
Man-caused climate change is questioned because there is indisputable scientific evidence this isn’t the Earth’s first rodeo when it comes to cyclical cooling and warming. The Earth experienced periods of glaciation followed by melting long before Leonardo DiCaprio’s excessive use of private jets and the construction of Al Gore’s energy devouring Nashville dream home. The statistical reality is man's contribution to climate change is so smaller than the margin of error in the analysis we can do. But that doesn't fit into the religious beliefs of the left.
A primary tenant of leftists is that humans are a bad evil force that is harming mother nature. Katie Herzog at Grist.com clearly and plainly stated this religious tenant of leftism, writing on January 16, 2015, “If this planet is to survive the scourge that is humanity, we all have to stop reproducing. Yes, all of us. In that spirit, I propose we … sterilize every human male on his 10th birthday.” Granted most leftists don’t go to this absurd extreme, but then most Christians didn’t follow Jim Jones and drink the Kool-Aid either.
Climate Alarmism is a tenant of leftist faith and the left is zealous about it to the point of extremism, like Islamist they will use violence and seek to criminalize criticism of their faith. Like Islamists they seek to dehumanize all who don’t share their belief, so that they can feel no guilt to murdering, attacking, condemning, and taking away the rights of non-believers. Whom they feel don’t have the same rights because they are less than human. The call to punish “climate change deniers” is the lefts religious zealotry to gain control of our lives.
The United Nations (via UNEP), is pushing international judges to criminalize any climate change belief contrary to their own. Professor Richard Parncutt has called for the execution of prominent “GW deniers.” Climate Progress Editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds. James Hansen, who has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has likewise called for trials of global warming deniers. There is a very long list, going back decades, of leftists wanting to silence scientists and other heretics who dare question their beliefs.
The hue and cry to control us all, was once the imminent ice age, they it was called global warming, but because the climate didn’t freeze as predicted, then didn’t warm as predicted, and storms didn’t increase as predicted, etc. etc. etc., they changed their refrain from global warming to climate change. The climate change agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. As political commentator Henry Louis Mencken explained “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Leftists in their religious zeal have want the power to control the lives of others whom they feel should live as they dictate and not be given the liberty to examine the evidence and live and do what they think will best provide happiness.
Leftists religiously oppose the foundations of the USA and reject the idea that government was instituted by the mere people to protect their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They believe leftists by virtue of their superior intellect and compassion, should be able to dictate how the masses should live. Hence they seek to kill and outlaw and silence heretics that would dare question their beliefs. They are no better than Islamic terrorists, who kill those who question or criticize their beliefs.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Marco Rubio Sponsors Bill to Fine You $1Million if You Trade with Israel
By Tom Rhodes, 7/21/2017
No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.
As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.
No that’s not hyperbole, if the bill he’s sponsoring becomes law, you choose to boycott certain companies, you can be fined up to a Million bucks. It will be a crime not to do business with Israel. This may be the most insane law ever proposed. What’s sick is that the bill is supported equally by both the Republocrats and Demicans.
As reported in The Intercept, congress is proposing the criminalization of political speech and activism if it involves boycotting one of their biggest contributors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee ( AIPAC). I have nothing against Israel, but more importantly, I will defend your right to do business with whomever you please, and not to do business with whomever you please for whatever reason you choose. It’s called liberty.
Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), may quite possibly be the most insane federal law ever proposed. The sick thing is has bipartisan support from both statist parties. A group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. Along with ultra-leftist senior Democrat in Washington, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, his New York colleague Kirsten Gillibrand as sponsors is none other than Florida’s own Marco Rubio.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill “was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.” Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year. It is now beyond question that our government wants to outlaw opinions and ideas and legal actions that aren’t approved by the state. The corrupt seem to believe that forcibly preventing criticism is going to somehow magically make badthink go away. Be it a boycott of Israel, or speaking out against socialism on campus, or publically noting the facts that homosexuality is unsafe and unhealthy. These kind of laws are not only unconstitutional, but will intensifies existing hostilities and creates new enemies out of those who were previously neutral.
Meanwhile, some co-sponsors seemed not to have any idea what they co-sponsored — almost as though they reflexively sign whatever comes from AIPAC without having any idea what’s in it. Democratic Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, for instance, seemed genuinely bewildered when told of the ACLU’s letter, saying, “What’s the Act? You’ll have to get back to me on that.”
Monday, July 10, 2017
How to Send the Left into Vituperative Sissy Fits
by Tom Rhodes, 7/10/2017
How to get push a statist into a tizzy is to be rational not emotional, even libertarian statists will exhibit vituperation, if you utter an obvious, objective, measurable truth, that supports the way things are, not the way they feel things should be, like uttering a historically observable fact like - The West is superior to the rest of the world in every significant way, and Western civilization is the height of human achievement and worth fighting and dying for. If the response to such a statement is angst and anger you are clearly communicating with a totalitarian control freak who wants the government to be their mommy and to take care of them when they screw up, they fear a life where they will be allowed to actually suffer the consequences of the choices they make, or their some utopian thinking bohemian who believes that without government we would all just "get along."
As an experiment, read the vituperative sissy fits that will be replied if you post the below truth/heresy to your favorite social media:
How to get push a statist into a tizzy is to be rational not emotional, even libertarian statists will exhibit vituperation, if you utter an obvious, objective, measurable truth, that supports the way things are, not the way they feel things should be, like uttering a historically observable fact like - The West is superior to the rest of the world in every significant way, and Western civilization is the height of human achievement and worth fighting and dying for. If the response to such a statement is angst and anger you are clearly communicating with a totalitarian control freak who wants the government to be their mommy and to take care of them when they screw up, they fear a life where they will be allowed to actually suffer the consequences of the choices they make, or their some utopian thinking bohemian who believes that without government we would all just "get along."
As an experiment, read the vituperative sissy fits that will be replied if you post the below truth/heresy to your favorite social media:
Not only is Western civilization the best and most advanced culture in the history of humanity, but the USA is its greatest manifestation.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Bernie Sanders Commits Impeachable Offense
By Tom Rhodes, 6/9/2017
Bernie Sanders violates the Constitution making a religious test a qualification to be confirmed by the Senate.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
During Wednesday's, confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders said a Christian who believes in the bible is unfit for public office.
The Bern is pissed because Vought dared to write a basic tenant of the Christian faith, writing, “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human).” Vought wrote. “If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve.”
In Luke 10:16 where Jesus said, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Based on that Vought noted, "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."
Duh!! Christianity is based on the fact that there is only one path to salvation, that path is through Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. Whether you believe that or not, whether you are a Christian or not, is totally irrelevant, merely stating a fundamental principle of your faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies anybody from any office or public trust.
The Bern is saying that if you, as a Christian, actually believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, then you are not qualified for office or public trust. Clearly he is adding an unconstitutional religious test to Senate approval. Vought’s words about the exclusivity of his Christianity, was clearly the reason why the Bern found him an unqualified to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”
The Bern has made it clear if you are a Christian, willing to publically affirm basic Christian beliefs, you do not qualify for office or public trust,. Doing so he has put religion as a test for government office a unambiguous violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. As such Bernie Sanders has violated his oath of office and should be impeached from the US senate.
Bernie Sanders violates the Constitution making a religious test a qualification to be confirmed by the Senate.
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
During Wednesday's, confirmation hearing for Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, Senator Bernie Sanders said a Christian who believes in the bible is unfit for public office.
The Bern is pissed because Vought dared to write a basic tenant of the Christian faith, writing, “Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God who is fully divine (and became fully human).” Vought wrote. “If Christ is not God, he cannot be the necessary substitute on our behalf for the divine retribution that we deserve.”
In Luke 10:16 where Jesus said, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Based on that Vought noted, "Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned."
Duh!! Christianity is based on the fact that there is only one path to salvation, that path is through Jesus Christ. If you don't believe that you are not a Christian. Whether you believe that or not, whether you are a Christian or not, is totally irrelevant, merely stating a fundamental principle of your faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies anybody from any office or public trust.
The Bern is saying that if you, as a Christian, actually believe in the exclusivity of Christianity, then you are not qualified for office or public trust. Clearly he is adding an unconstitutional religious test to Senate approval. Vought’s words about the exclusivity of his Christianity, was clearly the reason why the Bern found him an unqualified to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, saying “I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who is what this country is supposed to be about.”
The Bern has made it clear if you are a Christian, willing to publically affirm basic Christian beliefs, you do not qualify for office or public trust,. Doing so he has put religion as a test for government office a unambiguous violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. As such Bernie Sanders has violated his oath of office and should be impeached from the US senate.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Magic Dirt of America Will Not Protect Liberty
by Tom Rhodes 6/7/2017
Ahmad Musa Jubril of Dearborn, Michigan, has been called a ‘preacher of hate’ who inspired one of the three jihadists in London’s June 3, 2017, car and knife attacks that killed seven people. Jubril was born in the Good Ol' USA and is a first generation American. Somehow the Magic Dirt of the USA has not made this USA born person an American Lover of Liberty and protector of the Bill of Rights.
Clearly merely being born in the USA, or Europe, or other Western country does not automatically convey Western values and culture to an individual, anymore than a child born to US parents in Kuwait automatically makes that child a misogynistic hater of the West and Sharia loving radical.
All indications are it takes several generations for the progeny of immigrants to fully adopt local culture, and if they remain in segregated colonies of similar heritage may never adopt local culture. It is not uncommon for people to have more loyalty to their ancestral home than where they were born. Growing up in Tarpon Springs, more than a few of my classmates who parents and grandparents were born in the USA, have more pride in being Greek, fly the Greek flag, and have has much or more allegiance to Greece than the USA. They live together, maintain Greek traditions, go to the Greek Orthodox Church, maintain the Greek language, and maintain Greek culture, separate and distinct from American culture.
The Magic dirt in Tarpon Springs Florida USA has not been powerful enough for generations to change the Greek immigrants and their descendents culture to that of America. Greece being the foundation of Democracy, Greek culture is more compatible with American culture, but it remains distinct from American culture, and remains distinctly Greek despite generations of living on the Magic Dirt of America.
Bringing in large numbers of Greeks whose distinct culture can and does mesh with American culture without much conflict is an example of how immigration of different but similar cultures can happen peacefully. Bringing in large numbers of Muslim Arabs, whose culture cannot tolerate Western values, and have sworn to destroy the West, results in violent repercussions. There is no Magic Dirt that, even after generations, will convert Muslims to value and accept Western Culture. They cannot and will not accept the First Amendment much less the fourteenth.
Look up Ahmad Musa Jubril's youtube videos, he is a prime example why accepting massive numbers of people from culture's so dissimilar to ours will result in violence, terrorism, and conflict for generations. Muslims can't even live amongst themselves without warring, and in 1400 years have repeatedly used migrations and forced conversion or submission of infidels as a means of conquest. Allowing large numbers of them into the USA won't result in them accepting Western culture. One needs only to look at Dearborn, Michigan, where the police arrest Christians for merely being at local festivals.
Libertarianism and limited government only work for a culture and group of people who share libertarian values. Allowing large numbers of people who don't share those values to immigrate will destroy liberty. Reality trumps the way we "feel" things should be. If you want the riots and violence now common in Europe, open our borders.
Ahmad Musa Jubril of Dearborn, Michigan, has been called a ‘preacher of hate’ who inspired one of the three jihadists in London’s June 3, 2017, car and knife attacks that killed seven people. Jubril was born in the Good Ol' USA and is a first generation American. Somehow the Magic Dirt of the USA has not made this USA born person an American Lover of Liberty and protector of the Bill of Rights.
Clearly merely being born in the USA, or Europe, or other Western country does not automatically convey Western values and culture to an individual, anymore than a child born to US parents in Kuwait automatically makes that child a misogynistic hater of the West and Sharia loving radical.
All indications are it takes several generations for the progeny of immigrants to fully adopt local culture, and if they remain in segregated colonies of similar heritage may never adopt local culture. It is not uncommon for people to have more loyalty to their ancestral home than where they were born. Growing up in Tarpon Springs, more than a few of my classmates who parents and grandparents were born in the USA, have more pride in being Greek, fly the Greek flag, and have has much or more allegiance to Greece than the USA. They live together, maintain Greek traditions, go to the Greek Orthodox Church, maintain the Greek language, and maintain Greek culture, separate and distinct from American culture.
The Magic dirt in Tarpon Springs Florida USA has not been powerful enough for generations to change the Greek immigrants and their descendents culture to that of America. Greece being the foundation of Democracy, Greek culture is more compatible with American culture, but it remains distinct from American culture, and remains distinctly Greek despite generations of living on the Magic Dirt of America.
Bringing in large numbers of Greeks whose distinct culture can and does mesh with American culture without much conflict is an example of how immigration of different but similar cultures can happen peacefully. Bringing in large numbers of Muslim Arabs, whose culture cannot tolerate Western values, and have sworn to destroy the West, results in violent repercussions. There is no Magic Dirt that, even after generations, will convert Muslims to value and accept Western Culture. They cannot and will not accept the First Amendment much less the fourteenth.
Look up Ahmad Musa Jubril's youtube videos, he is a prime example why accepting massive numbers of people from culture's so dissimilar to ours will result in violence, terrorism, and conflict for generations. Muslims can't even live amongst themselves without warring, and in 1400 years have repeatedly used migrations and forced conversion or submission of infidels as a means of conquest. Allowing large numbers of them into the USA won't result in them accepting Western culture. One needs only to look at Dearborn, Michigan, where the police arrest Christians for merely being at local festivals.
Libertarianism and limited government only work for a culture and group of people who share libertarian values. Allowing large numbers of people who don't share those values to immigrate will destroy liberty. Reality trumps the way we "feel" things should be. If you want the riots and violence now common in Europe, open our borders.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Portland Mayor calls for the End of Freedom of Speech.
by Tom Rhodes, 5/30/2017
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Monday that those not expressing approved views had no right to Freedom of Speech. Saying unapproved speech was not protected by the constitution.
In as much as elected officials are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States, and their states, Ted Wheeler should be prosecuted and removed from office for malfeasance and failure to protect the Right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech.
Hate speech is specifically protected by the Constitution and repeated Supreme Court rulings. Even speech that the vast majority of Americans feel has little or no redeeming social value. Even though hate speech insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Because hate speech is at it's root political in nature the government is not be allowed to prohibit it.
The Supreme Court’s rulings have made it clear that because even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be, the government may not regulate such speech. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?
Any person or group calling for the suppression of speech they find hateful, should be suspect. Silencing ideas you don't approve is subversive, propogandic, and clearly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and totalitarian. Only totalitarians call for the suppression of speech they don't approve. If you think the government should outlaw the expression of ideas you don't approve, you are a totalitarian and should be ashamed of your hateful tyrannical ideology.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Monday proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian who believes a few ruling elite should have the power to control the ideas others may publicly express.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said Monday that those not expressing approved views had no right to Freedom of Speech. Saying unapproved speech was not protected by the constitution.
In as much as elected officials are charged with protecting the Constitution of the United States, and their states, Ted Wheeler should be prosecuted and removed from office for malfeasance and failure to protect the Right of all Americans to Freedom of Speech.
Hate speech is specifically protected by the Constitution and repeated Supreme Court rulings. Even speech that the vast majority of Americans feel has little or no redeeming social value. Even though hate speech insults, it demeans, it traumatizes, it silences and there is a consensus in American society that it is valueless at best and dangerous at worst. Because hate speech is at it's root political in nature the government is not be allowed to prohibit it.
The Supreme Court’s rulings have made it clear that because even hate speech contains political ideas, however horrible these ideas may be, the government may not regulate such speech. When you regulate such speech, you are also regulating ideas. Think of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and forbidden words. The Supreme Court has also made clear that just because speech offends people, this is never a justification under the First Amendment for punishing it. Furthermore, we are justifiably suspicious of government when it attempts to regulate speech and ideas. After all, government may have its own political agenda in regulating hate speech—which groups would be protected against hate speech and which not?
Any person or group calling for the suppression of speech they find hateful, should be suspect. Silencing ideas you don't approve is subversive, propogandic, and clearly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, and totalitarian. Only totalitarians call for the suppression of speech they don't approve. If you think the government should outlaw the expression of ideas you don't approve, you are a totalitarian and should be ashamed of your hateful tyrannical ideology.
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Monday proclaimed himself to be a totalitarian who believes a few ruling elite should have the power to control the ideas others may publicly express.
Friday, May 26, 2017
Islam is Destroying Western Civilization
By Tom Rhodes, 5/26/2017
The mayor of Manchester just said, “The message that I would want to get over – and this is how the vast majority of people feel – this man was a terrorist, not a Muslim.” This is absurd. It is just as absurd as our government classifying the 2009 Islamic terrorist attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” It is absurd and willful ignorance of the highest order, that political leaders are trying to disassociate the Manchester bombing from Islam.
The Manchester suicide bomber was a terrorist because of his Muslim faith. Until our leaders acknowledge they will not be able to combat terrorism. Current UN and globalist policy is worse than ignoring the Islamic root to the increase in worldwide terrorism but to force the West to accept massive numbers of Muslims, and accept the associated violence and wholesale change in Western Culture. The New Normal for Western Civilization.
The idea that's presented by globalism and leftists is, "Islam as a whole is not the source of our terrorism problem" The fact that the terrorists are overwhelmingly Muslims destroys that argument, because it's almost impossible to tell terrorists apart from Muslims who are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. The logic is clear; because it is impossible to distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, we are left with limited choices; allow massive numbers of Muslims to Invade and terrorize western nations until they are powerful enough to force Islamic rule on the West, or do as Japan does, regard all of them as dangerous and not allow them in.
If you don't believe the terrorists are "true" Muslims, then you are saying: neither Osama bin Laden nor any members of Al-Qaeda were (or are) "true" Muslims, nor member of the Taliban or Hamas (which stands for the “Islamic Resistance Movement”), nor Hezbollah (“The Party of Allah”) nor the Muslim Brotherhood are "true" Muslims. But then, you probably believe Elizabeth Warren's claims she's Native American, and that if you feel like your a guy, the fact you don't have a dick is irrelevant. The left believes that things are how they feel they should be, and that the truth is irrelevant.
Islam is trying to expand through imperialist mass migration. When enough Muslims are in a foreign society, they violently terrorize that society until it capitulates and they install an Islamic government. Just look at France, massive numbers of Muslims migrated there, they did not disperse and assimilate to France's culture, they segregated themselves, and are using violence to force Islamic rule where they have segregated, we call those places "No Go Zones."
Muslims have used this form of imperialism repeatedly for 1400 years. Until and unless they are driven out, Muslims will continue to invade (currently by unarmed mass migration), then terrorize until they are in power. The only solution to Islamic imperialism that has proven to work is Reconquista.
Western Civilization and the massive advances in liberty is rooted in libertarian philosophy. Libertarian ideas are totally incompatible with Islam, as Islam does not tolerate people being allowed to live as they choose. Everywhere Muslims rule there is violent oppression of infidels. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution alone is a slap to the values of Muslims; name one Islamic Country that has freedom of religion, speech, the press, and assembly. Muslims when in power do not tolerate those freedoms. Islam offers Western Civilization 3 choices, Convert to Islam, become second class citizens with limited freedom and pay for the right to exist in Islam, or be killed.
Western Civilization must either resists the imperialist invaders or Western Civilization will die and be replace with Islamic Law. This isn't hard to understand, it is just a repeat of the historic method Islam has used it expand.
The mayor of Manchester just said, “The message that I would want to get over – and this is how the vast majority of people feel – this man was a terrorist, not a Muslim.” This is absurd. It is just as absurd as our government classifying the 2009 Islamic terrorist attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” It is absurd and willful ignorance of the highest order, that political leaders are trying to disassociate the Manchester bombing from Islam.
The Manchester suicide bomber was a terrorist because of his Muslim faith. Until our leaders acknowledge they will not be able to combat terrorism. Current UN and globalist policy is worse than ignoring the Islamic root to the increase in worldwide terrorism but to force the West to accept massive numbers of Muslims, and accept the associated violence and wholesale change in Western Culture. The New Normal for Western Civilization.
The idea that's presented by globalism and leftists is, "Islam as a whole is not the source of our terrorism problem" The fact that the terrorists are overwhelmingly Muslims destroys that argument, because it's almost impossible to tell terrorists apart from Muslims who are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. The logic is clear; because it is impossible to distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, we are left with limited choices; allow massive numbers of Muslims to Invade and terrorize western nations until they are powerful enough to force Islamic rule on the West, or do as Japan does, regard all of them as dangerous and not allow them in.
If you don't believe the terrorists are "true" Muslims, then you are saying: neither Osama bin Laden nor any members of Al-Qaeda were (or are) "true" Muslims, nor member of the Taliban or Hamas (which stands for the “Islamic Resistance Movement”), nor Hezbollah (“The Party of Allah”) nor the Muslim Brotherhood are "true" Muslims. But then, you probably believe Elizabeth Warren's claims she's Native American, and that if you feel like your a guy, the fact you don't have a dick is irrelevant. The left believes that things are how they feel they should be, and that the truth is irrelevant.
Islam is trying to expand through imperialist mass migration. When enough Muslims are in a foreign society, they violently terrorize that society until it capitulates and they install an Islamic government. Just look at France, massive numbers of Muslims migrated there, they did not disperse and assimilate to France's culture, they segregated themselves, and are using violence to force Islamic rule where they have segregated, we call those places "No Go Zones."
Muslims have used this form of imperialism repeatedly for 1400 years. Until and unless they are driven out, Muslims will continue to invade (currently by unarmed mass migration), then terrorize until they are in power. The only solution to Islamic imperialism that has proven to work is Reconquista.
Western Civilization and the massive advances in liberty is rooted in libertarian philosophy. Libertarian ideas are totally incompatible with Islam, as Islam does not tolerate people being allowed to live as they choose. Everywhere Muslims rule there is violent oppression of infidels. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution alone is a slap to the values of Muslims; name one Islamic Country that has freedom of religion, speech, the press, and assembly. Muslims when in power do not tolerate those freedoms. Islam offers Western Civilization 3 choices, Convert to Islam, become second class citizens with limited freedom and pay for the right to exist in Islam, or be killed.
Western Civilization must either resists the imperialist invaders or Western Civilization will die and be replace with Islamic Law. This isn't hard to understand, it is just a repeat of the historic method Islam has used it expand.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Matt’s Torturous Path
by Pete Bloome, 4/3/2017
On 24 March, Congressman Matt Gaetz told a Shark Tank interviewer “I agree with the President we ought to have every option on the table when it comes to advanced interrogation techniques.” In plain English, advanced interrogation means torture. He thinks torture should be a legal tool of the United States used by the President. That is a self-destructive mistake for the country.
I’m sure Matt doesn’t see it that way. With the war on terror, torture has gained some undeserved popularity. He knows this topic hits an emotional hot button with a lot of folks. Every radical Islamic terrorist attack somewhere stokes a common desire to fight fire with fire. TV shows have gritty public servants thrashing bad guys to within an inch of their lives to find the kidnapped girl. The scariest story line of all is the maniac with an atom bomb who won’t tell people where it is, and it has to be beaten out of him. People want simple solutions, and Matt Gaetz gives it to them. Of course, he doesn’t mention the horrendous price we pay for doing so.
Legalized torture is dangerous to that precious thing known as the American way of life. With the word out that we will use torture, our enemies will be less likely to give themselves up. That will lead to the unnecessary death of our soldiers. It sets the stage for revenge attacks in a never ending cycle of retaliation. It removes any semblance of moral superiority from our legal or military actions. It turns its back on hundreds of years of the progress of civilization starting with the Crucifixion, and violates reams of existing law. It doesn’t recognize individual rights, only the force of the State over a person. It caters to mob rule. The innocent can suffer as readily as the guilty. In addition, it doesn’t work. When Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that “beer and cigarettes” were better than enhanced interrogation techniques, he wasn’t just speaking morally. The Air Force taught me a person under torture will say anything, do anything, to stop it. John McCain himself made all sorts of bogus admissions to crimes on North Vietnamese Radio under torture. These kinds of limitations make the whole idea unreliable in the extreme.
Legalized torture would be like introducing cancer into our Republic. It causes physical and mental lasting harm, with no remedy, to people who could be innocent. It trashes due process. It won’t even work, but it is popular. And to think Matt wants to give such power to the President, a separate and supposedly equal branch of the government. You have to ask yourself, what do we become if we do embrace torture and its threat to liberty? H.L. Mencken wrote to every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. Legalized torture is that kind of solution.
Matt Gaetz is an educated man, lawyer, and officer of the court, but he chose political expediency over representation, tough words over a clear vision, and dangerously advocating an ever increasing Federal power to impose its might over the individual. His cynicism in supporting such a policy is both overwhelming and heartbreaking at the same time. The First District is chock full of people who are at the tip of the military spear. It makes me wonder if he ever bothered talking to them at all.
The lawyers I’ve known say it used to be considered better to let a guilty man go free than let an innocent man suffer under the law.
As a Congressman, Matt Gaetz has chosen a new path, and it ain’t pretty.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and a retired military officer
On 24 March, Congressman Matt Gaetz told a Shark Tank interviewer “I agree with the President we ought to have every option on the table when it comes to advanced interrogation techniques.” In plain English, advanced interrogation means torture. He thinks torture should be a legal tool of the United States used by the President. That is a self-destructive mistake for the country.
I’m sure Matt doesn’t see it that way. With the war on terror, torture has gained some undeserved popularity. He knows this topic hits an emotional hot button with a lot of folks. Every radical Islamic terrorist attack somewhere stokes a common desire to fight fire with fire. TV shows have gritty public servants thrashing bad guys to within an inch of their lives to find the kidnapped girl. The scariest story line of all is the maniac with an atom bomb who won’t tell people where it is, and it has to be beaten out of him. People want simple solutions, and Matt Gaetz gives it to them. Of course, he doesn’t mention the horrendous price we pay for doing so.
Legalized torture is dangerous to that precious thing known as the American way of life. With the word out that we will use torture, our enemies will be less likely to give themselves up. That will lead to the unnecessary death of our soldiers. It sets the stage for revenge attacks in a never ending cycle of retaliation. It removes any semblance of moral superiority from our legal or military actions. It turns its back on hundreds of years of the progress of civilization starting with the Crucifixion, and violates reams of existing law. It doesn’t recognize individual rights, only the force of the State over a person. It caters to mob rule. The innocent can suffer as readily as the guilty. In addition, it doesn’t work. When Secretary of Defense Mattis stated that “beer and cigarettes” were better than enhanced interrogation techniques, he wasn’t just speaking morally. The Air Force taught me a person under torture will say anything, do anything, to stop it. John McCain himself made all sorts of bogus admissions to crimes on North Vietnamese Radio under torture. These kinds of limitations make the whole idea unreliable in the extreme.
Legalized torture would be like introducing cancer into our Republic. It causes physical and mental lasting harm, with no remedy, to people who could be innocent. It trashes due process. It won’t even work, but it is popular. And to think Matt wants to give such power to the President, a separate and supposedly equal branch of the government. You have to ask yourself, what do we become if we do embrace torture and its threat to liberty? H.L. Mencken wrote to every problem there is a solution that is clear, simple, and wrong. Legalized torture is that kind of solution.
Matt Gaetz is an educated man, lawyer, and officer of the court, but he chose political expediency over representation, tough words over a clear vision, and dangerously advocating an ever increasing Federal power to impose its might over the individual. His cynicism in supporting such a policy is both overwhelming and heartbreaking at the same time. The First District is chock full of people who are at the tip of the military spear. It makes me wonder if he ever bothered talking to them at all.
The lawyers I’ve known say it used to be considered better to let a guilty man go free than let an innocent man suffer under the law.
As a Congressman, Matt Gaetz has chosen a new path, and it ain’t pretty.
Pete Blome is Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party and a retired military officer
Friday, March 24, 2017
Diversity: Where Libertarianism Goes to Die
by Tom Rhodes, 3/27/2017
I read this at Voxday today, “Libertarianism and pure classical liberal economics are elegant and seductive systems; but they did not stand up to the test of empirical evidence.” That sums up the failure of libertarianism.
Libertarianism works for a people willing to self-govern who share a culture, with common values. Libertarianism like our constitution is a reflection of a specific culture with a specific set of values. Any society that embraces libertarianism but does not have a shared culture by an overwhelming majority will fall apart and cease to function as a cohesive society.
Our forefathers were clear, and our constitution based on libertarian(classical liberal) ideas, functioned and created a society where more people prospered than any other in the history of the world. Until 1965 the USA protected it’s cultural heritage, it did so by not accepting large numbers of people from dissimilar cultures and worked at having those cultures assimilate and adopt American culture. The root of that culture is from Northern Europe primarily the English with some Dutch and German. There is/was one unifying cultural root of those Northern European Cultures - Protestant Christianity.
Significant numbers of most other cultures cannot be readily absorbed, and will cause strife and separation and disharmony in a society if allowed to immigrate in large numbers. Because Catholicism is closely related to Protestantism small but significant amounts of immigrants from Catholic cultures have be absorbed in the USA.
History is clear, any society is invaded by force or allows invasion of large numbers of people from other cultures dies. Opening our doors to the third world as resulted not in those immigrants assimilating and becoming Americans. Rather than diversity being uniting and uplifting phenomenon, it has resulted in strife, and the breakdown of our culture. Such invasion inevitably leads to war. Be it the Hispanics and Blacks in Compton, American colonists and Native Americans in the USA, the Moors and Christians in Spain, or the Mongols and where ever they moved, cultures don’t survive large numbers of a different culture invading. The tactic of moving in, building up a significant but culturally separate population, then taking over and eliminating the native culture is how both the Quran and history showed as the method for Islam to expand. The clash of cultures results in War. The mime “Diversity + Proximity = War” is proven by history. Right now there appears to be one exception, but it isn’t over and may yet come to war, that is Brexit. England may be able to salvage it’s culture and remain England without war, but the jury is still out.
History has shown that man is tribal and does not generally trust, tolerate, and live well with other tribes. God separated man into various tribes at Babul. Weather you believe this is an allegory to the evolutionary divergence of man, or to explain tribalism, or the literal truth, is irrelevant. Unless artificially forced, man will choose to live with people of his tribe. You have to be blind not to see that people live and mingle in groups of others who are like them. Almost every big city in the USA has a “China Town” or “Little Italy” within its borders. When I was a kid, the kid’s from our block were a distinct group from those “others” who didn’t live on our block. This is not forced it is natural and part of our evolutionary design. Gated communities exist because people don’t want to live in close proximity to “others.”
One group, tribe, culture, race, whatever is neither superior or inferior to another. They however are not the same. Being different is neither bad nor good it is just different. Utopian thinking libertarians, liberals, conservatives, socialists or whoever, that believe “if everybody would just blah blah blah, then everything would be great and everybody would be happy” are all wrong. Be it a society without government where everybody respected and valued the property of others or a society where government owned and controlled all property with no individual having ownership and all receive a share of the total, or whatever, they are all utopian ideas that history has shown will not work.
What history shows is that pure libertarianism, or anarchy, or socialism, or capitalism, or communism, or Islam, or any other “system” of governance don’t work for all people everywhere. The reason is clear, not every person is the same, not all tribes are the same, not all cultures are the same, and what one person or group values is not the same as what the other group values. History is clear when one group tries to force or otherwise condemns the values of another group, either the other group surrenders and allows its culture to die or they fight.
The people of many cultures say stuff like, “My culture will not surrender to yours, and will fight to the death rather than abandon our values and beliefs.” In the USA that is shortened to “Live Free or Die” or “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” but it would just as easily be believed if said from a Japanese samurai; all variations on a theme of “Death before Dishonor.” So when cultural values clash, the result will be WAR! Islam is great in recognizing and capitalizing on this historic human trait that exists in all cultures, an evolutionary means of protecting culture. Islam clearly and boldly claims, you will surrender to Islam, or we will fight to the death. Other cultures will do the same, they cannot and never will live peacefully together. Ignoring this human trait that exists in every culture will lead to nothing but sorrow and violence. Keeping cultures separate is civilized, to do otherwise is to invite barbarism.
There is not, nor ever will be, one set of values and customs that everybody agrees. God separated the people, when man tries to undo what God did it never works out for the betterment of Man. When God separated men and created the different languages, it wasn’t only other language that men couldn’t understand, the very thinking and values of those “others” are so foreign that different tribes cannot understand (hence appreciate) the values of other tribes. The Alt-Right has a bull’s-eye on this point. All cultures have the right to protect themselves and keep other cultures from taking them over. As such, all cultures have the right to keep other cultures out, and institute a government, laying their government’s foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
When looking at languages, how do you reconcile people who don’t have a different word in their language to differentiate earning and winning. They equate earning money through hard work as the same as winning the lottery. You have money weather you earn it or win it is not relevant. The idea that actions, work to earn, or gambling, are the same when it comes to how you gain property. Who has more, is luck based, not based on the consequences of actions. This means that in some cultures, the idea that you must work to earn riches just doesn’t compute. You gain wealth because of who you are, who you know, and how lucky you are, what you do doesn’t relate to what you have. In the USA, what you do, is more important, than who you are. That is almost unique to American culture, where what your dad did or who he was is kind of irrelevant, a place where a black kid out of Chicago can be elected president one election cycle after an industrial robber baron’s family was president. A Chinese labor immigrant’s kids will never be president in Saudi Arabia, it’s just not culturally possible.
If a people choose they may institute a theocracy that they think will likely provide for their safety and happiness, or a commune, or a republic, or a democracy, or a King, or a Pope, or whatever. But no culture has the right to institute a government on another and all cultures have the right to protect themselves. The nation state appears to be the best method man has devised to divide diverse cultures avoid wars, and provide the means in which those societies can institute governments on principles that seems each separate and distinct society can best prosper. Forced unification, as seen last century by the USSR, fails and cannot be sustained.
When our founding fathers formed the USA, declaring our independence they summed up the idea that all not all cultures can get along and stay as one unified group of mankind. They declared that all men (meaning mankind and each culture) were created equally, but recognized they are different. As such declared “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
The forced unification in Iraq of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites has resulted in a constant war, some arbitrary outside group like the UN cannot force divergent cultures to live under one roof and not war. It has never happened and will never happen.
The EU is falling apart, the English are not the French who are not the Germans, who are not the Swiss or Dutch. The English have shown that they cannot and will not tolerate “others” dictating to them how they must live, Brexit is the best we can hope for, as English left the EU without violence. Great Britain has had to war to maintain unity because the Scotts, Irish, Welsh, and Brits, although nominally unified in being a Christian nation, as separate cultures have a lot of trouble staying together, much less staying bound to EU. The history of Great Britain is one of trying to force different cultures to unify and those different cultures warring to maintain their independence.
The USA will fall apart, the states used to have a set of shared values and culture, that is no longer true, the separation of the USA into smaller nation states is as inevitable as the breakup of the USSR. Hopefully we won’t repeat our past as when Americans war against each other the losses and devastation are more massive than any other warring tribes in history. If the USA has another civil war, it will end when one or the other group will be destroyed, ask the native Americans when we’ll stop, and how much of their culture and way of life can be maintained. The civil war resulted in the utter destruction of the South, it’s no longer the same, there is some “southern” culture but the facts are clear the Union invaded and forced cultural and societal change on the South in the War Between the States, some states still aren’t allowed to create their own voting laws.
If you believe “we can all get along” you’re an idiot. We can’t, never have, never will. Each culture should for the betterment of their own people learn to live with themselves, and nurture and institute what form of government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Globalism and one-worlders ideas have in the past, are now, and will always lead to war. Libertarianism is not functional except for a group of people who share the same values and culture. As a system it has proven to work for such a group whose values and culture are rooted in Protestant Christianity, but libertarianism is not a functional political system on a world wide scale where the same values and traditions of Christianity are not shared.
Diversity and libertarian ideas don’t work together. If they did the LP would be the strongest political party in the USA. The libertarian party theoretically embraces diversity, but it cannot and does not attract a diverse cross section of the population. The LP is made up of protestant white males of northern European heritage, and although not technically Christian, as a group and philosophy libertarians embrace the culture of the “protestant work ethic” a product of Reformation Theology. At its heart, libertarianism is the political manifestation of a subset of Protestantism, Calvinism. Cultures not of northern European origin, reject Protestantism, and disdain Calvinism and thus don’t accept libertarianism. The USA started changing at the beginning of the 20th century with a large influx of Catholics (Irish and Italian), this changed the culture and diluted the Calvinist influence. As such even though the LP, which as a political philosophy is clearly non-racist, and embraces acceptance of diverse people and ideas in principle, the LP is rejected by most of the USA.
The Libertarian Party (LP) rejected the Christian roots to libertarianism, and is the party is a combination of the libertine with Calvinism which makes the party inherently illogical and unacceptable to most people. The historic fact that libertarianism, allowing people liberty to succeed or fail and do what they want so long as they don’t harm others, resulted in the most prosperous society for more people doesn’t carry much weight. The reason is cultural. The idea that people are not duty bound, nor should they be forced to support others who fuck up is not acceptable to most other cultures, and as such libertarianism is rejected by most people.
Diversity is Strength is a lie. There is strength in unity not diversity. The USA is a prime example, since 1965 when we abandoned protection of our culture and unity as people and embraced diversity, the USA’s strength politically, economically, educationally, has diminished. Libertarianism worked for a while for a culturally unified Protestant population. On a larger world-wide scale it is and will remain a failure. Libertarianism will only function for a culture that is willing to protect itself. Libertarians for open borders, who embrace diversity, and reject the idea that a culture has the right to protect itself from others is virtual suicide. The 16 points of the Alt-right are currently the most advance and practical reality based political ideology where libertarianism can function. Read what Alt-Right says, not how they make you feel, the Alt-Right is coming together of great philosophy with realism and human nature. You can ignore the Alt-Right, but like ignoring the ideas of radical Islamists, the reality of what they represent will change your life and eventually world view.
I read this at Voxday today, “Libertarianism and pure classical liberal economics are elegant and seductive systems; but they did not stand up to the test of empirical evidence.” That sums up the failure of libertarianism.
Libertarianism works for a people willing to self-govern who share a culture, with common values. Libertarianism like our constitution is a reflection of a specific culture with a specific set of values. Any society that embraces libertarianism but does not have a shared culture by an overwhelming majority will fall apart and cease to function as a cohesive society.
Our forefathers were clear, and our constitution based on libertarian(classical liberal) ideas, functioned and created a society where more people prospered than any other in the history of the world. Until 1965 the USA protected it’s cultural heritage, it did so by not accepting large numbers of people from dissimilar cultures and worked at having those cultures assimilate and adopt American culture. The root of that culture is from Northern Europe primarily the English with some Dutch and German. There is/was one unifying cultural root of those Northern European Cultures - Protestant Christianity.
Significant numbers of most other cultures cannot be readily absorbed, and will cause strife and separation and disharmony in a society if allowed to immigrate in large numbers. Because Catholicism is closely related to Protestantism small but significant amounts of immigrants from Catholic cultures have be absorbed in the USA.
History is clear, any society is invaded by force or allows invasion of large numbers of people from other cultures dies. Opening our doors to the third world as resulted not in those immigrants assimilating and becoming Americans. Rather than diversity being uniting and uplifting phenomenon, it has resulted in strife, and the breakdown of our culture. Such invasion inevitably leads to war. Be it the Hispanics and Blacks in Compton, American colonists and Native Americans in the USA, the Moors and Christians in Spain, or the Mongols and where ever they moved, cultures don’t survive large numbers of a different culture invading. The tactic of moving in, building up a significant but culturally separate population, then taking over and eliminating the native culture is how both the Quran and history showed as the method for Islam to expand. The clash of cultures results in War. The mime “Diversity + Proximity = War” is proven by history. Right now there appears to be one exception, but it isn’t over and may yet come to war, that is Brexit. England may be able to salvage it’s culture and remain England without war, but the jury is still out.
History has shown that man is tribal and does not generally trust, tolerate, and live well with other tribes. God separated man into various tribes at Babul. Weather you believe this is an allegory to the evolutionary divergence of man, or to explain tribalism, or the literal truth, is irrelevant. Unless artificially forced, man will choose to live with people of his tribe. You have to be blind not to see that people live and mingle in groups of others who are like them. Almost every big city in the USA has a “China Town” or “Little Italy” within its borders. When I was a kid, the kid’s from our block were a distinct group from those “others” who didn’t live on our block. This is not forced it is natural and part of our evolutionary design. Gated communities exist because people don’t want to live in close proximity to “others.”
One group, tribe, culture, race, whatever is neither superior or inferior to another. They however are not the same. Being different is neither bad nor good it is just different. Utopian thinking libertarians, liberals, conservatives, socialists or whoever, that believe “if everybody would just blah blah blah, then everything would be great and everybody would be happy” are all wrong. Be it a society without government where everybody respected and valued the property of others or a society where government owned and controlled all property with no individual having ownership and all receive a share of the total, or whatever, they are all utopian ideas that history has shown will not work.
What history shows is that pure libertarianism, or anarchy, or socialism, or capitalism, or communism, or Islam, or any other “system” of governance don’t work for all people everywhere. The reason is clear, not every person is the same, not all tribes are the same, not all cultures are the same, and what one person or group values is not the same as what the other group values. History is clear when one group tries to force or otherwise condemns the values of another group, either the other group surrenders and allows its culture to die or they fight.
The people of many cultures say stuff like, “My culture will not surrender to yours, and will fight to the death rather than abandon our values and beliefs.” In the USA that is shortened to “Live Free or Die” or “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” but it would just as easily be believed if said from a Japanese samurai; all variations on a theme of “Death before Dishonor.” So when cultural values clash, the result will be WAR! Islam is great in recognizing and capitalizing on this historic human trait that exists in all cultures, an evolutionary means of protecting culture. Islam clearly and boldly claims, you will surrender to Islam, or we will fight to the death. Other cultures will do the same, they cannot and never will live peacefully together. Ignoring this human trait that exists in every culture will lead to nothing but sorrow and violence. Keeping cultures separate is civilized, to do otherwise is to invite barbarism.
There is not, nor ever will be, one set of values and customs that everybody agrees. God separated the people, when man tries to undo what God did it never works out for the betterment of Man. When God separated men and created the different languages, it wasn’t only other language that men couldn’t understand, the very thinking and values of those “others” are so foreign that different tribes cannot understand (hence appreciate) the values of other tribes. The Alt-Right has a bull’s-eye on this point. All cultures have the right to protect themselves and keep other cultures from taking them over. As such, all cultures have the right to keep other cultures out, and institute a government, laying their government’s foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
When looking at languages, how do you reconcile people who don’t have a different word in their language to differentiate earning and winning. They equate earning money through hard work as the same as winning the lottery. You have money weather you earn it or win it is not relevant. The idea that actions, work to earn, or gambling, are the same when it comes to how you gain property. Who has more, is luck based, not based on the consequences of actions. This means that in some cultures, the idea that you must work to earn riches just doesn’t compute. You gain wealth because of who you are, who you know, and how lucky you are, what you do doesn’t relate to what you have. In the USA, what you do, is more important, than who you are. That is almost unique to American culture, where what your dad did or who he was is kind of irrelevant, a place where a black kid out of Chicago can be elected president one election cycle after an industrial robber baron’s family was president. A Chinese labor immigrant’s kids will never be president in Saudi Arabia, it’s just not culturally possible.
If a people choose they may institute a theocracy that they think will likely provide for their safety and happiness, or a commune, or a republic, or a democracy, or a King, or a Pope, or whatever. But no culture has the right to institute a government on another and all cultures have the right to protect themselves. The nation state appears to be the best method man has devised to divide diverse cultures avoid wars, and provide the means in which those societies can institute governments on principles that seems each separate and distinct society can best prosper. Forced unification, as seen last century by the USSR, fails and cannot be sustained.
When our founding fathers formed the USA, declaring our independence they summed up the idea that all not all cultures can get along and stay as one unified group of mankind. They declared that all men (meaning mankind and each culture) were created equally, but recognized they are different. As such declared “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
The forced unification in Iraq of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites has resulted in a constant war, some arbitrary outside group like the UN cannot force divergent cultures to live under one roof and not war. It has never happened and will never happen.
The EU is falling apart, the English are not the French who are not the Germans, who are not the Swiss or Dutch. The English have shown that they cannot and will not tolerate “others” dictating to them how they must live, Brexit is the best we can hope for, as English left the EU without violence. Great Britain has had to war to maintain unity because the Scotts, Irish, Welsh, and Brits, although nominally unified in being a Christian nation, as separate cultures have a lot of trouble staying together, much less staying bound to EU. The history of Great Britain is one of trying to force different cultures to unify and those different cultures warring to maintain their independence.
The USA will fall apart, the states used to have a set of shared values and culture, that is no longer true, the separation of the USA into smaller nation states is as inevitable as the breakup of the USSR. Hopefully we won’t repeat our past as when Americans war against each other the losses and devastation are more massive than any other warring tribes in history. If the USA has another civil war, it will end when one or the other group will be destroyed, ask the native Americans when we’ll stop, and how much of their culture and way of life can be maintained. The civil war resulted in the utter destruction of the South, it’s no longer the same, there is some “southern” culture but the facts are clear the Union invaded and forced cultural and societal change on the South in the War Between the States, some states still aren’t allowed to create their own voting laws.
If you believe “we can all get along” you’re an idiot. We can’t, never have, never will. Each culture should for the betterment of their own people learn to live with themselves, and nurture and institute what form of government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Globalism and one-worlders ideas have in the past, are now, and will always lead to war. Libertarianism is not functional except for a group of people who share the same values and culture. As a system it has proven to work for such a group whose values and culture are rooted in Protestant Christianity, but libertarianism is not a functional political system on a world wide scale where the same values and traditions of Christianity are not shared.
Diversity and libertarian ideas don’t work together. If they did the LP would be the strongest political party in the USA. The libertarian party theoretically embraces diversity, but it cannot and does not attract a diverse cross section of the population. The LP is made up of protestant white males of northern European heritage, and although not technically Christian, as a group and philosophy libertarians embrace the culture of the “protestant work ethic” a product of Reformation Theology. At its heart, libertarianism is the political manifestation of a subset of Protestantism, Calvinism. Cultures not of northern European origin, reject Protestantism, and disdain Calvinism and thus don’t accept libertarianism. The USA started changing at the beginning of the 20th century with a large influx of Catholics (Irish and Italian), this changed the culture and diluted the Calvinist influence. As such even though the LP, which as a political philosophy is clearly non-racist, and embraces acceptance of diverse people and ideas in principle, the LP is rejected by most of the USA.
The Libertarian Party (LP) rejected the Christian roots to libertarianism, and is the party is a combination of the libertine with Calvinism which makes the party inherently illogical and unacceptable to most people. The historic fact that libertarianism, allowing people liberty to succeed or fail and do what they want so long as they don’t harm others, resulted in the most prosperous society for more people doesn’t carry much weight. The reason is cultural. The idea that people are not duty bound, nor should they be forced to support others who fuck up is not acceptable to most other cultures, and as such libertarianism is rejected by most people.
Diversity is Strength is a lie. There is strength in unity not diversity. The USA is a prime example, since 1965 when we abandoned protection of our culture and unity as people and embraced diversity, the USA’s strength politically, economically, educationally, has diminished. Libertarianism worked for a while for a culturally unified Protestant population. On a larger world-wide scale it is and will remain a failure. Libertarianism will only function for a culture that is willing to protect itself. Libertarians for open borders, who embrace diversity, and reject the idea that a culture has the right to protect itself from others is virtual suicide. The 16 points of the Alt-right are currently the most advance and practical reality based political ideology where libertarianism can function. Read what Alt-Right says, not how they make you feel, the Alt-Right is coming together of great philosophy with realism and human nature. You can ignore the Alt-Right, but like ignoring the ideas of radical Islamists, the reality of what they represent will change your life and eventually world view.
Monday, January 23, 2017
How to Destroy Two Lives with One Choice
by Tom Rhodes, 1/23/2017
Some things are gray, meaning they exist on some continuum without clear and distinct boundaries, good and bad, short to tall, light to heavy, dark to bright. Other things are distinctly binary and clear, top and bottom, on or off, yes or no, alive or dead.
To determine if a life is human is simple, if that life has human DNA, it is a human being. The life stages of a human being are from fertilized egg, to embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric, and finally death. This is not controversial science, it is the same for all mammals.
To determine if something is alive or dead, scientifically when talking about cellular life it's simple, if it takes in food, eliminates waste, respirates, and cells are dividing, it's alive not dead. Until politics forced the change the definition of life so abortion could be rationalized, that was how cellular life was defined. Even more simply, The Dead Don't Grow.
Abortion kills a living human, PERIOD!
The sick and evil part is that in almost all cases, abortion is the killing of a living human simply because the mere existence of that human is inconvenient.
You can make up all the excuses you want, you are just rationalizing the killing of one human whose mere existence is inconvenient another. The new life being killed did nothing, is totally innocent, and only exists, because of the actions of others. Rationalizing the killing of an innocent, who is incapable of initiating actions against another, is immoral, wrong, and evil.
Knowing how detrimental abortion is to women, and knowing that pregnancy compromises their feelings, memory, and thinking, why do we allow pregnant women to choose to kill another human, because they "feel" they be better off, if that other human was dead? The men who would coerce a pregnant woman to make such a choice, don't have the excuse of being pregnant, and are just selfish and self-centered and should be held more culpable.
Pregnant women are emotionally and mentally compromised, the chemistry involved with pregnancy dramatically affects their brains. This has been observed for countless generations and is so well documented as to be uncontroversial.
"There is 15 to 40 times more progesterone and estrogen marinating the brain during pregnancy," Louann Brizendine, MD, director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, says. "And these hormones affect all kinds of neurons in the brain." We don't fully understand all the effects of pregnancy on the brain. Glynn and her colleague Curt A. Sandman, of University of the California Irvine, are doing something about that. Their review of the literature in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, discusses the theories and findings that are starting to fill what Glynn calls "a significant gap in our understanding of this critical stage of most women's lives." At no other time in a woman's life does she experience such massive hormonal fluctuations as during pregnancy. Dr. Glynn is clear saying, "There may be a cost" of these reproduction-related cognitive and emotional changes.
Letting women whose brains are influenced by hormones to such an extent that they sometimes cannot control their emotions, make life and death decisions for another person is criminal. The woman making the choice is not criminal, rather society is criminally negligent, for allowing a person whose emotions are known to be compromised due to the chemical imbalances associated with pregnancy make such decisions.
This is not to say that most women are not and cannot be rational during pregnancy, but anybody who's been around a pregnant woman KNOWS that their emotions and thinking are affected by the pregnancy. Letting a person who has a temporary condition known to compromise their thinking make life and death decisions is wrong. We don't let people who are temporarily drunk, choose to drive. We even hold bartenders culpable for allowing compromised people to drive. Yet we allow women known to be temporarily mentally compromised, choose to kill another human.
In a 2010 study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that women who underwent an abortion had a 98 percent increased risk for any mental health disorders compared to women who did not have an abortion.
The Study, "Aborted Women - Silent No More" (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger. The science and research are clear with study after study showing that without doubt that abortion is linked with increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal bonding with children born subsequently. These factors are closely associated with child abuse and would appear to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse.
The vast majority of women who abort regret doing so later in life. The guilt and emotional turmoil of realizing that she choseto kill her own baby, destroys and gnaws at the psyche of a woman her entire life.
We know abortion kills a human being. We know that abortion is detrimental to women both physically and mentally. We know that pregnancy compromises a woman's feelings, memory, and thinking. Knowing all this, why would a rational civilized society allow pregnant women to choose to destroy two lives.
Some things are gray, meaning they exist on some continuum without clear and distinct boundaries, good and bad, short to tall, light to heavy, dark to bright. Other things are distinctly binary and clear, top and bottom, on or off, yes or no, alive or dead.
To determine if a life is human is simple, if that life has human DNA, it is a human being. The life stages of a human being are from fertilized egg, to embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, geriatric, and finally death. This is not controversial science, it is the same for all mammals.
To determine if something is alive or dead, scientifically when talking about cellular life it's simple, if it takes in food, eliminates waste, respirates, and cells are dividing, it's alive not dead. Until politics forced the change the definition of life so abortion could be rationalized, that was how cellular life was defined. Even more simply, The Dead Don't Grow.
Abortion kills a living human, PERIOD!
The sick and evil part is that in almost all cases, abortion is the killing of a living human simply because the mere existence of that human is inconvenient.
You can make up all the excuses you want, you are just rationalizing the killing of one human whose mere existence is inconvenient another. The new life being killed did nothing, is totally innocent, and only exists, because of the actions of others. Rationalizing the killing of an innocent, who is incapable of initiating actions against another, is immoral, wrong, and evil.
Knowing how detrimental abortion is to women, and knowing that pregnancy compromises their feelings, memory, and thinking, why do we allow pregnant women to choose to kill another human, because they "feel" they be better off, if that other human was dead? The men who would coerce a pregnant woman to make such a choice, don't have the excuse of being pregnant, and are just selfish and self-centered and should be held more culpable.
Pregnant women are emotionally and mentally compromised, the chemistry involved with pregnancy dramatically affects their brains. This has been observed for countless generations and is so well documented as to be uncontroversial.
"There is 15 to 40 times more progesterone and estrogen marinating the brain during pregnancy," Louann Brizendine, MD, director of the Women's Mood and Hormone Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, says. "And these hormones affect all kinds of neurons in the brain." We don't fully understand all the effects of pregnancy on the brain. Glynn and her colleague Curt A. Sandman, of University of the California Irvine, are doing something about that. Their review of the literature in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, discusses the theories and findings that are starting to fill what Glynn calls "a significant gap in our understanding of this critical stage of most women's lives." At no other time in a woman's life does she experience such massive hormonal fluctuations as during pregnancy. Dr. Glynn is clear saying, "There may be a cost" of these reproduction-related cognitive and emotional changes.
Letting women whose brains are influenced by hormones to such an extent that they sometimes cannot control their emotions, make life and death decisions for another person is criminal. The woman making the choice is not criminal, rather society is criminally negligent, for allowing a person whose emotions are known to be compromised due to the chemical imbalances associated with pregnancy make such decisions.
This is not to say that most women are not and cannot be rational during pregnancy, but anybody who's been around a pregnant woman KNOWS that their emotions and thinking are affected by the pregnancy. Letting a person who has a temporary condition known to compromise their thinking make life and death decisions is wrong. We don't let people who are temporarily drunk, choose to drive. We even hold bartenders culpable for allowing compromised people to drive. Yet we allow women known to be temporarily mentally compromised, choose to kill another human.
In a 2010 study, published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry found that women who underwent an abortion had a 98 percent increased risk for any mental health disorders compared to women who did not have an abortion.
The Study, "Aborted Women - Silent No More" (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), describes a case of woman who beat her three year old son to death shortly after an abortion which triggered a "psychotic episode" of grief, guilt, and misplaced anger. The science and research are clear with study after study showing that without doubt that abortion is linked with increased depression, violent behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, replacement pregnancies, and reduced maternal bonding with children born subsequently. These factors are closely associated with child abuse and would appear to confirm individual clinical assessments linking post-abortion trauma with subsequent child abuse.
The vast majority of women who abort regret doing so later in life. The guilt and emotional turmoil of realizing that she choseto kill her own baby, destroys and gnaws at the psyche of a woman her entire life.
We know abortion kills a human being. We know that abortion is detrimental to women both physically and mentally. We know that pregnancy compromises a woman's feelings, memory, and thinking. Knowing all this, why would a rational civilized society allow pregnant women to choose to destroy two lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
