Science says Multiculturalism is a Failure!

Science says Multiculturalism is a Failure!
By Tom Rhodes, 1/8/16

Liberals are so proud and arrogant about "science" be it global warming, or whatever. You probably haven't read or seen in the news the studies that look at the social aspects multiculturalism (diversity) have on societies. The science is clear, MULTICULTURALISM is bad for society. The reality is as mentioned in many non-PC sources is that not only is the observation by people who see large number of immigrants from dissimilar cultures lead to violence and social unrest, but the SCIENTIFIC CONCENSIS is that:
Diversity + Proximity = WAR

---

Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity, case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present. Read Here.

Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust. Read Here.

"In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust." Read Here.

Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest. Read Here.

The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal. Read Here.

In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn't maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy. Read Here.

"Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by both physical and political boundaries." Read Here.

Diversity hinders between-group cooperation at both the one-on-one and group levels. Read Here.

The best chance for peace in Syria is better borders (intrastate or through the creation of new states) "suited to current geocultural regions", and tribal autonomy. Read Here.

Using data from US states, study finds a negative relationship between ethnic polarization and trust. Read Here.

Diversity is associated with more White support for nationalist parties, except at the local level where large immigrant populations cut into vote totals for nationalist parties. Read Here.

In Australia, ethnic diversity lowers social cohesion and increases "hunkering", providing support for Putnam's thesis finding the same results in the US. Read Here.

After controlling for a self-selection bias, study finds that ethnic diversity in English schools reduces trust in same-age people and does not make White British students more inclusive in their attitudes towards immigrants. Read Here.

In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives' trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants' trust but through a different pathway. Read Here.

Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence. Read Here.

"[E]thnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship more or less applies to all 187 countries.. . . [E]thnic nepotism is the common cross-cultural background factor which supports the persistence of ethnic conflicts in the world as long as there are ethnically divided societies." Read Here.

Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism. Read Here.

Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century. Read Here.

Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are "a lost cause". Read Here.

The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation. Read Here.

Using data from Copenhagen school registers, researchers found that native Danes opt out of public schools when the immigrant population concentration hits 35% or more. Read Here.

In the most liberal region in the US, San Francisco and surrounding suburbs, White parents are pulling their kids out of public schools that are becoming increasingly asian. Read Here.

list stolen from CH's Diversity + Proximity = War: The Reference List and will be updated as new science is reported

---

The science that says multiculturalism is a failure, Scientific studies illustrate the way the world is, not how leftist elites think it should be.

The massive sexual assault happening to women in Europe (which the MSM is trying to ignore) is at the fault of those European leaders who have allowed massive migration from places with drastically dissimilar cultures.

Much of the strife and violence in the USA (which the MSM is trying to ignore), is at the hands of those leaders who refuse to enforce our immigration laws, and insist that we must let large numbers of third world people invade our country.

To the leftists that denounce Trump, Coulter, Savage, Voxday, etc. because they are stating how the world is, not how they think it should be, the question is: Where is the scientific studies supporting multiculturalism?

Finland like Germany has experienced massive sexual assault on New Years Eve. The MSM are doing their best to cover it up. Just like they are doing their best to cover up rape and sexual assault by third world criminal aliens in the USA. Both Islamic culture, and the Machismo culture of Latin America use rape to subjugate and force their culture on others. The evidence is that massive third world immigration results in rape culture, there will be no peace as long as Western Civilization continues to allow massive numbers of third world migration.

I'd like one example where massive migration of people didn't result in the destruction of the native culture. Japan recognizes this, look at their immigration laws and rules. Ask the American Indians how allowing the British to invade America worked out. Oh that's right, Europeans raped, slaughtered, and crushed that culture. What makes us think that other cultures won't do the same to ours?

Net Neutrality is Simply the Liberal Response to Gruber

By Tom Rhodes, 11/24/2014

Jonathan Gruber let the cat out of the bag, liberals are apoplectic. The truth has been exposed, not that you saw it on ABCNNBCBS or even TMZ, until the internet forced the mainstream media to cover it. The facts are simple: Obamacare was purposefully written, to cloud how it works, and what it is, in order to fool the “stupid” American people; Obamacare was passed on purely Democrat votes in congress; Pelosi lied, she knew what was in it and told the “stupid” American people that it would have to be passed to see what was in it. Now exposed the one thing is clear liberals cannot be trusted, they believe they are smarter than you and therefore have the right to rule over you, and if lying in is what it takes to get you to accept the dictates of your betters, so be it.

Liberals are now realizing they may be screwed, and for a long time. In places where they think we can’t hear them they are saying, “How can we ever hope to trick – I mean ‘convince’ – the American people to trust us enough about made-up crises to ever again transfer massive amounts of money and power to us liberals and the institutions we control?”

Grubergate does more than just hurt Obamacare, it hurts all the liberal narrative they use to justify limiting freedom and increasing government control. Global Warming, shutting up “deniers” now everybody is going to go back and look at it with the idea that liberals are lying to control us. The fact that emails etc. where discovered showing they were trying to cook the books is nolonger just some “skeptics” daft ideas, it’s a pattern of liberals to fool the people. Their predictions have proven to be false again, and their lies uncovered, again. The liberals have lost trust in the people.

While we dug out from record early snow and cold, the people consider the fact that for nearly 2 decades there has been no global warming, one thing is clear, Global Warming was and a cash and freedom-devouring swindle. When liberals say, “Trust us. I know how a few years ago I said that by now the Northwest passage would be open all year round, and there would be no more snow, my timing was just a little off, wait till next year,” people will respond, “No more lies.”

Whatever liberals next big idea to fleece you of more tax dollars and take away more freedom, because it’s so damn importantIt’s kind of hard to build up a lot of trust for your next big idea when you excuse lying about your last big idea because it was so darn important, remember Grubergate.

President Obama isn’t helping the lack of trust in liberals and the Democrat party. A few years ago he said he didn’t have the constitutional authority to impose amnesty on illegal immigrants, noting Congress would have to pass a law. Thursday he said, I’m the Emperor and I’ll grant amnesty if I want to.

The common theme here is that because of the Internet, it is too easy for the average guy to research and compare what liberals said last year to this year. If it weren’t for the internet none of the lies of the liberals would have be forced out into the public. Oh a magazine article here and there might have made it out, but the majority of people would be forced to accept whatever ABCNNBCBS told them, with no fast, easy, reliable method to verify. Today the internet makes holding politicians accountable to what they say and promise much easier, and makes it much harder for the ruling elite to shape and manipulate public opinion.

So Called “net neutrality” is a position statists mostly liberals to take power from the people and grant the government new and unprecedented power to regulate the web. What sane person after the exposure of would ever allow this Administration to dig its claws into the only unregulated place to share freedom. Liberals angst and words and anger over We the Peoples refusal to trust them with more power over the online world are exactly why we shouldn’t trust them with more power over the online world. The idea that we are stupid for not trusting them, is absurd. Gruber and Obama’s own words clearly demonstrate that they think we are too stupid to know what’s good for us. What would be stupid is grant more power to control speech are so untrustworthy and absolutely proven to be liars.

It reminds me of one of John Wayne’s famous lines. As G.W. McKlintock, drunk at the bottom of the stairs with a woman other than his wife in his lap, as his wife, Kate McKlintock, played by the beautiful Maureen O’Hare, looks down at them, a very drunk GW says, “Are you going to trust what you see, or what I tell you.” But unlike in the movie where Mrs. Warren, confirms that GW was not doing anything wrong, when we verify what we see, it confirms that liberal statists are lying.

The push for “net neutrality” happening as Grubergate exposes the Obama Administration to be liars must be a coincidence. I mean you don’t think that taxing and new rules for who can say what on the internet has anything to do with the internet making it harder to control what the people are exposed? We can trust them, they would never use laws on “net neutrality” to silence certain speech. Just like the Patriot Act would only target terrorists, never mind that virtually all the arrests made from data collected under the Patriot act are for common criminal offenses and not terrorism. Don’t think it’s just Democrats, remember 1986 when we were told to “trust” the government, that amnesty was a onetime thing and the borders would be secure and we wouldn’t have an illegal immigrant problem again. The government has proven to be untrustworthy and should not be trusted with regulating the internet.

Trust the government, really??? Would you trust the tobacco companies to tell you smoking is not addictive and they show you a scientific study they paid for to prove it? Why then trust any study paid for by the government that concludes we need more government regulation and power? The only reason the government wants more laws and regulations on the internet is they want more power. The internet has proven to be a serious impediment to increasing statism. They are going to attack it over and over and over until they get control of our speech. They will never stop. The only way to remain free is constant vigilance. The truth is we cannot trust the government.

Thank you John Gruber, you have shed light on to the truth. Trusting liberals is foolish, they are proven liars and think so little of the American people that lying to manipulate them is their open and now exposed criminal MO. The truth almost always comes out. The truth is they don’t want the people to have easy access to news and facts that the government doesn’t control. Trust the government on net neutrality the same way you trusted them on Obamacare and watch freedom of speech be destroyed. History has repeatedly shown that controlling the press, now the internet, is the first thing a tyrant does, to make it easier for him to rule. The fact is “The truth shall set you free.”

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

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



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

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

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

Hobby Lobby vs. Critical Thinking

By Tom Rhodes, 7/2/2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s Only Logical

By Tom Rhodes, 3/18/2014

You may or may not have noticed, but a disproportionate number of Libertarian party are professional computer nerds. The reason is simple, programmers and the like steep themselves in logic all day every day. They clearly see failure and erroneous outcome when bad logic is implemented. Programs fail and they have to spend three times the time debugging bad logic, the get it; doing it right the first time is easier, and undoing the poor logic another programmer is even harder. Looking at history, observing society, and being logical, the proof is obvious. Liberty, the protection of individuals rights, the rule of law, and equality under the law, provide the best standard of living for more of society than any other system. Hence programmers, computer geeks, disproportionately move to the Libertarian party.

Super eggheads like Bill Gates live libertarian values but talk like liberals. That’s because they are smart enough to know that not everybody can look at something logically and that when it comes to winning a confrontation, logic is at the bottom of the list of effective tools. So using superior logic they abandon libertarian “talk” and implement the other two more effective tools in coming out on top in a confrontation.

Those other two tools, violence and emotion. In any confrontation of any type, the side willing to use violence, and having the ability to use violence wins. PERIOD!!! Weather morally right or not, effective use of violence wins any confrontation, and the side with superior firepower and proven willingness to use it wins. Say 4 people meet and one tells all the others to give him their wallets. They refuse, he pulls out a gun shoots one and takes his wallet, then tells the others to give him their wallets. Having seen a clear demonstration of superior firepower and the willingness to use it, they quickly give up their wallets.

After violence the next most effective is emotion, we see politicians crumble all the time doing stuff that has proven to be bad and ineffective, because the emotional angst is stronger than the logic. Look at the government program “Head Start.” It has been repeatedly proven to be very expensive and have ZERO long term benefits. But when face with the emotional argument that cutting funding to head start would be cruel to poor children, and who would deny poor children a “head start” in education, politicians crumble. The emotional appeal wins over the logical facts.

Liberals have seen that emotional appeal and emotional attacks win over logic. Thus it is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion with a liberal. While you offer logical points to support your position, the liberal is offering some new way to convince others that you’re an evil monster who wants to deprive poor children of food, or hate women, or your racist. It doesn’t matter if they have an logical reasoning to support their emotional claims, they pull at heart strings. If it “feels” right the willfully embrace stupidity and deny facts. This is how liberals work, they feel good about positions that are emotionally satisfying regardless of how many people such a position hurts. Liberals have emotionally blinded themselves to believe that their ideas are well-crafted and intellectual, regardless of the facts.

The reason ultra-logical libertarian arguments don’t work is because we like liberals ignore human behavior. The LP is associated with anarchy. We have permitted esoteric discussion and anarchist ideology to permeate the LP. Thus our image is of anarchists. The fact is we should have embraced and promoted the idea that government is a necessary evil.

No amount wanting a “voluntary” society is going to change the simple fact that there has to be somebody willing to use force to protect the rights of those who can’t protect themselves. The reality is that a society based solely on voluntarism cannot work, because there is always going to be the amoral bastard who is willing to use violence to take what he wants, and they only way to stop such a person is with superior firepower. We established a government to have that superior firepower, tasked with protecting the life, liberty, and property, of everybody equally. That superior firepower has a cost, it is paid for with taxes. When the LP says “taxation = theft” what it is saying is a very emotional and loud declaration that we want a lawless society. People KNOW that “we all can’t just get along” and that some force must instill lawful behavior and protect the week. Government is a NECESSARY evil.

Look at the emotional attacks against the city who refused to put out the fire of a home that didn’t pay for fire protection. The headline read “ Firefighters let home burn over $75 fee -- again” The liberals and news media were aghast at the idea that a fully capable fire department while on site to protect a neighbor’s home would not lift a finger to protect the home of those who didn’t pay the fire district fee, a mere $75/yr. This is an example of how libertarian ideas in practice look. You can choose or not choose to pay a fee. With liberty is risk, not choosing to pay the fire district fee means you don’t get the benefit of a fire department. Seeing a family’s home burn to the ground and knowing they lost everything they own, when it could have been salvaged has such an emotional impact that the logical libertarian lesson in making wise life choices is lost.

The liberty to have a choice and keep your money or pay for fire protection is lost. The logical libertarian is instead a cold calloused uncaring heartless money grubber. Rather than feel and or see the emotional suffering because people choose to exercise freedom, in this case the liberty to pay a fire district fee or not, the emotional argument wins, liberty loses, and everybody should be forced to pay a tax, not fee for service. The liberals emotional wellbeing is more important than individuals liberty to choose to pay for a service or not.

Logic and reason are not going to win the emotional battle. The strong application of logic and reason lead to being productive. The politically incorrect fact is that the LP is overwhelming comprised of rational men and dreamy utopian anarchists. The emotional pleas of teary eyed single mothers and children win out over productive men all day long and utopian dreamers every time. Illogical emotions are leading to the use of force to make everybody comply in order to reinforce emotional satisfaction. The moral decay of our society is making it very clear that our ideas will not be refuted logically and we will not be treated with the respect we attempt to treat others. Our cool logical, rational arguments, or pie in the sky anarchist utopian ideas fall on deaf ears.

As libertarians to be successful we need to jettison our anarchist image. That means treating anarchists in the party the same way we treat liberals. We need quit being logical and rational, and appeal to the emotions of Americans. We need to play the emotion game better and harder than they do. Start with pulling at the heartstrings using examples and stories of people who die, suffer, are hurt by oppressive government. Attacking Obamacare with examples of people who were doing well but now dead because the death panels denied them service, etc. Lots of images and stories of Storm Troopers abusing innocent people, etc. Emotionally attack limousine liberals as hard as we can.

Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious. There is a way to beat pigeons - Roast Squab with Bacon and Grapes Recipe. We have the logical and rational arguments, they don’t work. We must gain both the moral and emotional high ground. Suggestions?

Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny

By Tom Rhodes, 12/3/2013

Those who embrace liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms suffer from the delusion that the ruling elite know better how every person should live. This is a fantasy or more rationally a logical fallacy of category error. They actually believe that the state "loves" you and should be the parent, god, tribal elder, city council, uncle, teacher, and provider for every person in society. What's worse is they believe that the state can be all things to all people. They believe that because some people don't make the life choices that they think are best, the state should have the authority to force people to do what's "right" for their own good. C.S. Lewis described this phenomenon.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis

For your own good liberals want to:

Control where you go to school

Regulate your work

Regulate your play

Control what doctor you can see

Control what treatments your doctor can prescribe

Decide when you retire

Decide how much money you can keep when you retire

Decide how you must save and invest for retirement

Decide if when you've made enough money

Decide what ideas can be taught in school

Decide what religious beliefs you must tolerate

Decide what religious beliefs you must reject

Control Charities

Control your choice of transportation

Control you where you live

Dictate what you can and can't eat

For the state to provide for the people, and to protect the people, and to control people from making bad choices takes money. The reality of TANSTAAFL means that the state must have massive amounts of money. They embrace the idea that has served foundational for the last centuries most brutal regimes; the idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another.

They believe they know what's best for you and know how other people should life. The issue isn't that they live how they want to live, they want to force everybody to live how they want to live.

They like gay marriage therefore everyone must be forced to like gay marriage.

They hate guns, therefore nobody should be allowed to own guns.

They like Sesame Street, therefore everybody should pay for Sesame Street.

They prefer vertical urban life styles therefore in the name of "sustainability" everybody should be forced to live in more urban areas.

They hate the rich, therefore nobody should be rich.

They like NPR, therefore everybody should pay for NPR.

They like abortion, therefore everybody should pay for their abortions.

The problem with leftists, liberals, progressives, socialists, or whatever left leaning -ists you want to name, they firmly believe that because what they want is good, you shouldn't have the choice not do what they believe is good. They believe that if you don't believe like them then you are either too stupid to understand the "goodness" of their beliefs or you are evil. In either case, your stupidity or evil nature justifies them forcing you to do as they believe "for your own good" or "for the good of society." They literally hunger to control those who they believe are evil, or not smart enough to understand the goodness of their beliefs.

Because liberals with all their hart want what's best for everybody, want nobody to ever suffer, and have the best of intentions, they hate the free market. The free market allows people to choose what they want, not what progressives think is best for them. Emotionally at a deep caring and loving level, they know that "if only" people would do as they think is right everybody would be better. Liberal thinking works on some magical "utopian" level, devoid of reality or understanding of human nature. They actually believe that because some people are too stupid or are evil they don't always make "good" choices, therefore they, the ruling elite, who know better how everybody should live, should have the authority to force "good" choices on everybody.

Liberals also believe that if somebody makes a mistake, to avoid acute suffering that everybody should pay for that mistake that way the consequences of a mistake are shared and nobody suffers too much. If an individual chooses not to make the best of the education offered, and chooses to have children without a means of support, rather than see that person or the children suffer, everybody should have to pay to house, feed, clothe, and care for them. If a city, raises its taxes to a point most businesses, and virtually all of the middle and upper class of people move to less onerous parts of the country, while giving huge extensive pay and retirement packages to city workers, resulting in bankruptcy, like Detroit, rather than the people of that city and its creditors suffering the consequences of those mistakes in leadership, liberals believe EVERYBODY must pay to bail them out. If a state does the same thing and goes billions into debt, and creates an environment where there are more people on welfare than working, like California, liberals believe that rather than let the people of California suffer the consequences of their elected leaders mistakes, the people of Florida, Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, and all the other states where the people have forced state governments to have balanced budgets must help pay for California, Illinois, and New York's mistakes.

Liberalism, and the oppressive tyranny it imposes forces one-size-fits-all actions in a world where the people have more and more choices every day. Let's face it, Amazon.com completes more transactions with a vaster variety of products every minute, than the recently upgraded and "fixed" one-size-fits-all Healthcare.gov has ever been able to complete in a day. Healthcare.gov is a massive mistake created for "your own good" that everybody must pay for. It is tyranny in action for your own good.

The very idea that because some people if given the freedom to make life choices might not make the wisest choices, the state should have the authority to force people to accept limits on those choices is the underlying premise of modern liberals. Once accepting that premise, they extrapolate that to put the responsibility for the consequences on the state, and as such it has the authority to force those who exercise what freedom it allows profitably to pay for the unwise life choices of everyone else. Liberalism, liberal fascism, progressivism, socialism, communism, or any of the other leftist -isms are a non-functional, authoritative, overbearing philosophy that depends on tyranny to implement and is completely out of step with the modern world and the very idea of liberty.

Liberal ideas cannot be implemented without force, as such most are immoral. Simply put Liberalism Equals the Love of Tyranny

Root Cause Analysis

Root Cause Analysis
By Tom Rhodes, 10/2/2013

You've probably heard of Root Cause Analysis (RCA), in its most simple terms it is an attempt to use the scientific method to find the truth about the cause of some problem. RCA is an attempt to find objective truth, regardless of the emotional and consequential reactions. Business use RCA to improve safety, production, quality, processes, and to reduce failures and risk. Applying systematic RCA has proven to be an effective tool. What Liberals won't allow is to perform an RCA on guns, violence and crime. They say gun violence is a problem and eliminating guns and more government is the solution but refuse to do Root Cause Analysis.

Wikipedia has a decent description of the general principles of Root Cause Analysis:

1) The primary aim of RCA is to identify the factors that resulted in the nature, the magnitude, the location, and the timing of the harmful outcomes (consequences) of one or more past events in order to identify what behaviors, actions, inactions, or conditions need to be changed to prevent recurrence of similar harmful outcomes and to identify the lessons to be learned to promote the achievement of better consequences. ("Success" is defined as the near-certain prevention of recurrence.)

2) To be effective, RCA must be performed systematically, usually as part of an investigation, with conclusions and root causes that are identified backed up by documented evidence. Usually a team effort is required.

3) There may be more than one root cause for an event or a problem, the difficult part is demonstrating the persistence and sustaining the effort required to determine them.

4) The purpose of identifying all solutions to a problem is to prevent recurrence at lowest cost in the simplest way. If there are alternatives that are equally effective, then the simplest or lowest cost approach is preferred.

5) Root causes identified depend on the way in which the problem or event is defined. Effective problem statements and event descriptions (as failures, for example) are helpful, or even required.

6) To be effective, the analysis should establish a sequence of events or timeline to understand the relationships between contributory (causal) factors, root cause(s) and the defined problem or event to prevent in the future.

7) Root cause analysis can help transform a reactive culture (that reacts to problems) into a forward-looking culture that solves problems before they occur or escalate. More importantly, it reduces the frequency of problems occurring over time within the environment where the RCA process is used.

8) RCA is a threat to many cultures and environments. Threats to cultures often meet with resistance. There may be other forms of management support required to achieve RCA effectiveness and success. For example, a "non-punitive" policy toward problem identifiers may be required.

The one thing effective RCA isn't is Politically Correct. I've been part of industrial and other RCA teams. The reality is, on a few occasions, management accepted the validity of an RCA but refused to publish or act on the results because of point 8, the cultural change required to correct the root cause was unacceptable to management. That is the same reason RCA on gun violence in the USA is not something the statist controlled media nor liberals will tolerate.

But to piss off statists and liberals let's do a little preliminary work for an RCA on gun violence in America. Their responses will be an exercise in proving that they work on emotion and desire not reason and facts. Working with the above RCA general principles let's start with the definition of the problem. Obama and the liberals in the press claim an epidemic of gun violence and that the cause is the easy availability of guns to the general public.

1st failure in an RCA, the problem is falsely identified, at least according to the FBI.


Gun violence is a problem but that problem is location specific, and defining the location where the problem occurs is one of the primary aims of doing an RCA. Here is one non-PC fact that if ignored makes RCA of violent crime in America much less than accurate: If you exclude black on black violence in our biggest cities, the actual rate of violent crime in the USA is very low, comparable to the least violent nations in the world.

History also crushes the premise that gun availability is a cause of gun violence. In the USA restrictions on gun ownership is relatively new. Advertisements were directed to children and parents in Catalogs and magazines until the 70's. The 1902 Sears catalog had over 30 pages of firearm advertisements. Anybody could simply send in their money and a firearm, including machine guns, and a firearm was shipped to their door, no government tracking, paperwork, no background check, not even age restrictions. Any 12 year old boy could walk into the local hardware store in virtually anywhere and buy a gun and ammo. Schools had and promoted gun clubs and shooting teams. The frequency of gun violence was less than the peek we saw in 1991 (when bad gun laws started to be removed and gun rights started to be restored to the people), and was less than we see today with far more restrictive gun laws. Clearly availability is not a root cause. A gun is a tool it has no behavior, gun violence and crime are behavior, so the RCA of gun violence needs to look at behaviors not inanimate objects. Good gun laws have made modern guns safer, fewer accidental injuries and deaths bear this out, and contrary to what liberals would have you believe, guns are not exempt from product liability laws, and like other products are routinely recalled for the most minor of flaws.

As Dr. Walter Williams notes, "Customs, traditions, moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restraints on inanimate objects. These behavioral norms -- transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings -- represent a body of wisdom distilled through ages of experience, trial and error, and looking at what works. The benefit of having customs, traditions and moral values as a means of regulating behavior is that people behave themselves even if nobody's watching. In other words, it's morality that is society's first line of defense against uncivilized behavior."

Evidence that it our culture not tools have resulted in lawlessness can be seen in the actions of parents to NFL star Brian Holloway. Over labor day 300 teens broke into his upstate NY summer home, held a kegger and did $20K of damage to his private property, these people proceded to post on FB images of themselves and their friends partying and trashing the place and stealing his stuff. Holloway created a web page posting the pictures and names of the vandals offering them an opportunity to make things right without being arrested. Only four of 300 responded. Culture not the tools used to commit crime is the culprit. The fact that not only did the thieving vandals not show any remorse, but some of their parents have gone so far as to threatened to sue Holloway for posting their teen's photos from the party, even though it was the teens who made the images public.

Not teaching our children that trashing, stealing, and abusing other people's private property is morally wrong is one of multiple root causes to crime and violence in the USA. Teaching our children not to judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another, results is lower and lower moral standards for society. Being non-judgemental results in accepting the a value set that includes "might makes right" as equal to any other value set. Laws and police enforcement are the last stand of civilization not the first, if our culture accepts violence and disregards property rights, more and more police intervention will be required. How can we teach our children that Islam is as valid a culture as any modern western culture, and wonder at them beating women, committing honor killings, and thinking those who don't think like them are second class citizens, all values of Islam.

The mindless cures for gun violence offered by statists and liberals don't work. Idiocy "zero tolerance" for playing cops and robbers during recess, doodling guns, eating your pop tart into a gun shape, imaginary grenades, is unadulterated insanity. It attempts to put the focus on an inanimate object, instead of addressing morality, character, respect, virtue, and mental illness. No systematic rational examination of the evidence could ever produce an RCA on violence in America and conclude that the problem and solution is to restrict access to firearms.

They won't even consider other solutions, like laws requiring the head of every household to be armed. That solution reduced crime in Kennesaw Georgia by 80%. Discounting solutions, especially solutions that have proven to work is a clear violation of basic RCA principles. Statists and liberals dismiss and ignore any data regardless of how honest and truthful that doesn't support their emotionally driven goals. The most recent Harvard Study concluded from looking at all the research available that more gun laws don't have a beneficial effect on behavior. Even anti-gun scientists who are honest agree with the research that shows more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens result in less crime and suffering for those law abiding citizens. The data is clear, our own government has found that nothing reduces the chances of being killed or injured if the victim of a violent crime better than being armed with a gun. All these results are counter the politically correct wants, desires, and emotions of the state and liberal media; hence an accurate RCA on guns, violence, and crime is not permitted.

We will never have a true comprehensive RCA on guns, violence, or crime in America because the root causes that would be exposed won't support more power to the state and will offer stark conclusions about the culture and specific subcultures in America that are too politically incorrect to be talked about honestly. Such an RCA would be a threat to statism and modern liberal ideology.

---

Author's Note: I don't expect this op-ed will have much effect, especially on liberals, it is dialectic not rhetorical. Because self esteem and how you feel about something has become more important than objective truth, measurable facts, and honest debate. Replies from liberals to this article with be a litany of logical fallacies and could be used as examples in the Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments. Not to discount the emotions of people, they are valid and have value, but when emotions override objective observable truth, then the conclusions reached using emotions rather than reason can and should be discounted as irrelevant. Emotions can and should be used to derive the importance and significance of factual evidence, and evaluate how effective possible solutions may be, but not to discount or ignore evidence that doesn't agree emotional desires for a specific outcome.

Why We Can’t All Just Get Along

By Tom Rhodes, 8/8/2013

The “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt is a book that explores the differences in morality between the left and the right. It explains the motivators that polarize our nation. His explanations on big issues like jobs and the economy are clear and worthy of both the left, right, statists, and libertarians reading. His book will be rejected by statists of both the right and the left, but mostly modern liberals. It explains why we can’t all just get along.

Walter Williams explains the same topics equally as well in any of his articles about greed or social justice. Observationally looking at all of human history, the USA is a prime example, it is clear that more people prospered and were lifted out of poverty when the state was minimal and took the job of protecting individual rights (especially property rights) equally under the law as the rightful purpose of government. Since the “war on poverty” and massive increase in state redistribution of wealth and state control of almost everything, the quality of life and creation of wealth by the common man in the USA has greatly diminished. Statism in the USA is returning us to the historic norm for man, where the ruling elite live in luxury with privation for the masses.

Liberals think emotional not rationally and harbor a few false beliefs that make dealing with them on a logical basis impossible. Liberals believe that if there is some good that the state does, if the state doesn’t do it nobody will. They believe most people are too stupid to make their own life choices. They also believe that others act like them, they generally don’t give substantively to charity thus assume others don’t either. Those false beliefs, coupled with thinking emotionally rather than rationally, they assume that those who don’t support state-paid-for-charity are evil and don’t “care” about the poor and needy.

The reality is that most of my libertarian arguments fail to convince liberals of the error of their ways. The reason is that although objective truth may rationally destroy a position, logic and reason do not persuade most people. This is the same reason that the Libertarian Party is so small.

Consider the Gun Debate. The facts are clear, assault weapons result in far fewer murders than hammers or clubs, and that the number of gun crimes committed with assault weapons is so miniscule as to be statistically irrelevant, yet the emotional impact of an insane criminal committing an extremely rare by heinous evil crime, like using an assault weapon to shoot children, is justification to restrict the rights of the millions of people who’ve committed no crime but own scary looking guns. The emotional impact of a lawful person using a gun when confronted with a criminal resulting in the criminal running away, just doesn’t compare; no shots fired, nobody hurt, no crime successful, not drama, no emotional impact. Regardless of the fact that the most recent Harvard study shows about 200,000 defensive gun uses every year compared to about 8,000 gun homicides, each homicide can be used to create an emotional ripping tale, while the vast majority of defensive gun uses are so anticlimactic that the press doesn’t bother to cover them. The press isn’t evil in not covering them, it the simple fact that self defense stories with no shots fired and nobody hurt, take up time and space and don’t sell ads. The gory shooting of innocent people sells ads.

Because liberals overwhelmingly use emotion over logic, many of their positions contradict each other. Haidt points this out saying, “I find it ironic that liberals generally embrace Darwin and reject ‘intelligent design’ as the explanation for design and adaptation in the natural world, but they don’t embrace Adam Smith as the explanation for design and adaptation in the economic world. They sometimes prefer the ‘intelligent design’ of socialist economies, which often ends in disaster from a utilitarian point of view.”

The current explosive costs of health care were easily predicted because market forces have been removed from health care. Haidt explains clearly what would happen if a product that is far more necessary than medical services were subjected to the same “intelligent design” that we have subjected healthcare:

“Markets Are Miraculous … Now let’s do the devil’s work and spread chaos throughout the marketplace. Suppose that one day all prices are removed from all products in the supermarket. All labels too, beyond a simple description of the contents, so you can’t compare products from different companies. You just take whatever you want, as much as you want, and you bring it up to the register. The checkout clerk scans in your food insurance card and helps you fill out your itemized claim. You pay a flat fee of $10 and go home with your groceries. A month later you get a bill informing you that your food insurance company will pay the supermarket for most of the remaining cost, but you’ll have to send in a check for an additional $15. It might sound like a bargain to get a cartload of food for $25, but you’re really paying your grocery bill every month when you fork over $2,000 for your food insurance premium.

Under such a system, there is little incentive for anyone to find innovative ways to reduce the cost of food or increase its quality. The supermarkets get paid by the insurers, and the insurers get their premiums from you. The cost of food insurance begins to rise as supermarkets stock only the foods that net them the highest insurance payments, not the foods that deliver value to you.

As the cost of food insurance rises, many people can no longer afford it. Liberals (motivated by care) push for a new government program to buy food insurance for the poor and the elderly. But once the government becomes the major purchaser of food, then success in the supermarket and food insurance industries depends primarily on maximizing yield from government payouts. Before you know it, that can of peas costs the government $30, and all of us are paying 25 percent of our paychecks in taxes just to cover the cost of buying groceries for each other at hugely inflated costs.”

Clearly Libertarians need argue more emotionally not rationally if we are to get both Democrats and Republicans to abandon ideas that have clearly failed but they find emotionally satisfying. Don’t look for that from me, I’m not going to be able to make effective emotional appeals as I’m overwhelmingly left brained. I truly don’t “get” how regardless of the facts people can “feel” something that is so factually incorrect is still right. I can't work on how things "should be" and must address how they "are." I’ve often said “How you feel about it doesn’t matter, what you can prove does.”

Rodney King famously asked “Why can’t we all just get along?” The answer is easy: because too many people reject reason, logic, and objective truth for what feels right. No rational person can get along with people who rationalize that slavery is wrong, yet claim it’s righteous to use force to take the labor and/or property of some people and give it to others and call it justice.

“What's just has been debated for centuries but let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?” ~ Dr. Walter E. Williams

The Left vs Reality

By Tom Rhodes, 7/5/2013

Fundamentally the political left cannot accept reality and observable truth. The real world doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas of how the world “should be.” They see the real world as broken and needing to be changed, ignoring the fact that their preconceived ideas on how the world “should be” may be what are broken.

Equality between sexes, races, geography, has never been observed and does not exist anywhere in the world today or in the history of the world. There is zero evidence of equality actually existing. The fact is, if you believe in evolution, then equality is not something you can justify. Evolution produces unequal outcomes, not better or worse outcomes but unequal outcomes.

Fact, people of east African descent disproportionately win marathons. Fact in USA, where blacks make up around 13% of the population, they comprise about 80% of the professional NBA players. Fact in the USA white people of Northern European Ancestry make up a disproportionate percentage of professional NHL players. Over the past 15 years a totally out of proportion percentage of American spelling bee winners have their ancestry in India. For generations the best design and manufacture of optical lenses come from Germany and Japan. Equality just doesn’t exist – PERIOD!

In the real world people can and do capitalize on their inequality. The left however desperately wants equality, even in absence of its existence. They see some people getting rich as proof of evil, not evidence of scientific fact that some people have different skills than others. The see some groups being more violent than others as evidence that they are being suppressed, rather than they have a different unequal culture that is more accepting of violence as a means of solving differences.

“The agenda of the left -- promoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for "rights" to what other people have produced -- is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world.” ~ Thomas Sowell

The ideas of “equality” have been put to the test. The moral call for equality is a background for the political agenda of the left. This call for equality they claim will lift the poor out of poverty, end wars, and make the world a better place. This is the same claim that ruling oligarchies has made for centuries all around the world. It has also failed for centuries. Those nations which mandated equality, strictly controlled by ruling elite who knew best how to make things equal, are dead. From the French Revolution, to the Boxer Rebellion to the rise of the USSR and Communist China and the other ”equality” based societies created in history all resulted in the same outcome; mass starvation and mass murder.

Because the observable truth and history, clearly shows that equality does not exist, the left only use emotions to promote their failed ideas on how the world should be. If the preconceived idea of the left was right, then history would show that central planning by educated elites with the power of government to force their would have been more vastly more successful than economies based on individual liberty and free trade with millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests.

The radical idea that has proven to provide the most people with the highest standard of living is embracing inequality. Liberty results in unequal outcomes, but those outcomes are generally better for everybody. The only equality that should and can exist in culture is the idea that all people should be treated equally under the law; this is to prevent oppression, allowing all people to use the advantages they have by being unequal from their fellow man. This is an idea that is based on reality and observable truth.

The reality of people not being equal in IQ, disposition, drive, strength, speed, coordination, social skills, size, beauty, and all other capabilities, results in unequal outcomes in life. This isn't fair; to bad, life isn't fair. Because life's outcomes don’t fit with the emotional desires of how the left thinks things "should" be, they emotionally attack it leaving reason on logic behind. Human equality is a myth. I challenge you to prove me wrong by showing some scientific rationale to prove equality actually exists.

Tocqueville’s warned that equality is not a defense against tyranny, but an open invitation to ambitious and cunning leaders who enlist our support in depriving ourselves of freedom, saying:

"The…sole condition required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced, as it were, to a single principle."

You are a Target

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

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

Middle Class Going Galt

By Tom Rhodes, 3/20/2013

"Going Galt" a libertarian phrase that's not familiar to a lot of people but is gaining popularity in the public lexicon. It refers to people moving or taking other actions to reduce the amount of money confiscated by government, by taking their property and business outside of the government's confiscation ability. The most famous example in the US is Phil Mickelson contemplating retiring or moving to avoid excessive taxes. The news was filled with examples are French moving to England, Luxemburg, etc. to avoid new confiscatory taxes. Even extreme lefty Bill Maher is saying the Rich Pay their fair share.

It's relatively easy, for a person like Phil Mickelson, to go Galt. He has enough assets to live out his life comfortably without ever working again. For the average middle class person it's not so easy, but it's not impossible. The middle class going Galt is why Detroit went from an industrial powerhouse to a wasteland. Those people and businesses who could, left. My parents went Galt and escaped Detroit in 1972. What do I mean by they went Galt?

My dad left a major company in Detroit working as an automotive engineer with several prominent patents to his name to working as an electrician Florida. Went debt free and stayed that way. He went from working 70 hour work weeks to 40, but by moving to a state without income taxes, and a much smaller government foot print, we lived a similar standard of living on less total money. Much of America is doing just that. Private debt has fallen significantly since the bubble burst in 2008. Although many idiots still live with excessive credit card and other debt, much of America is listening to Dave Ramsey and seriously getting debt free, no credit card debt, no car payment, not even a mortgage if possible.

This is how the middle class go Galt. When the middle class decides to buy a $2500 clunker instead of plopping $2500 down on a new car and paying $400/mo to service that new debt, it changes the game. Banks don't make interest and the government is denied taxes from the sale of a new car. The more people do this the more it hurts the WallStreet-Kstreet cabal. It helps out your local garage, and smaller business.

The most common example of going Galt is Retirees, who do it all the time. Work and live in NY or Wisconsin for 40 years, then take your toys and move to Florida to retire, avoiding the property, income, and other taxes of those socialist states. Yes the weather is better, but more importantly the government no longer gets significant parts of your retirement income. Moderate homes in low crime areas are available in Florida for less than $75K, and have less than $1000/yr property taxes. Sell your Appleton Wi, home for a quarter million, move to Florida, pocket $150K, and reduce your annual tax burden by $4K/year. Put that money you profited from the sale of your home into a modest investment account, and it will return $6K a year. Thus moving from Appleton to a small town in Florida nets Grandma and Grandpa $10K a year and they don't have to shovel the sidewalk.

Taking your money out of the bank, buying silver or gold, or other tangible assets is also part of going Galt. Using cash and barter are all going Galt. Living smaller than you have too and saving is going Galt. Small businesses that decide to stay under 50 employees when they could expand but the owner decides the extra government intrusion isn't worth the effort is going Galt.

The fact is, like every similar society in history before us, our society is degrading and disintegrating economically, politically, socially, morally and spiritually. America is in permanent decline, period. Statists and leftists want to erode private property rights to prolong the illusion that our society is still stable and viable. The statists depend on a "dependent" society. Being independent, able to farm your own yard, fix your own car, live within your means, trade and barter and avoid the government is all part of going Galt. Those actions are make you independent, they are also biblical; 1ST Thessalonians 4:11-12 says, "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

You don't have to be rich to go Galt, just quit playing the statist game.

It's a Matter of Roots

By Tom Rhodes, 12/27/2012

There is a name for people who rely on the police and the justice system to keep them safe: Victims. Even Michael Moore recognizes this fact. In a recent blog entry I find myself agreeing with Moore on the facts, not his conclusions. The conclusion is simple but scary as a population reflects our roots.

Moore blogs: "These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon. I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true." ... more gun laws "won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th."

He continues saying, "In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did."

He even admits liberals won't address the core of the problem saying, "And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds - i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work."

"I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary - but ultimately, mostly cosmetic - changes to our gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has 7 million guns - mostly hunting guns - in their 12 million households) have a low murder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had 58 gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we?"

Michael Moore goes on to rant that America is Racist and it is our Racism causing the problem. What he fails to note when comparing Canada and England and Japan to the USA is our demographics; blacks and latinos make up very miniscule percentages of their populations. It's not that the US is racist, government statistics show that murder between different raced people in the USA is statistically tiny, people almost always murder people of their own race. If you normalize for race and compare murder rates in the USA to other countries of similar races of the demographic that is murdered, the analysis is scary, but politically incorrect. This chart is of homicide rates in the USA by race and comparisons.



You can do your own research at the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

One fact that liberals and the main stream media won't examine is the fact that peoples roots better reflect homicide rates in the USA then just about any other predictor. People whose roots are from third world countries closer to the equator murder each other at far greater rates than people with northern European roots. Michael Moore hint's at looking at murder and racism in the USA, but he can't go where the data leads, even for him it's too politically incorrect. So he will blame whitey for wanting to have the means of self protection for the massive murder rate in the USA that is skewed by Black on Black and Latino on Latino murders.

Michael Moore is right in recognizing that race is an issue concerning murder in the USA. But the press won't look at the data in any meaningful way because the conclusions are unpalatable for their agenda. Just like Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's remarks about abortion law are trying to be scrubbed from history, the Press cannot expose racial differences if they aren't supportive of minorities.

Justice Ginsburg talking about Medicaid funding for abortions for poor women, because of a 1980 Supreme Court decision called Harris v. McRae. She said, "The ruling surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion." Her meaning was plain and clear, but liberals have been trying to clean up those remarks for years. If you look at the places Planned Parenthood puts their abortion clinics, it's clear they have targeted Blacks and minorities for population control using abortion.

Right now you are seeing a lot of comparisons between different states and homicide rates and the amount of guns in those states, what those comparisons ignore is the demographics of those states. If you look at US homicide rates by state and compare that to racial diversity the data is clear and shows that the more Blacks and Latino's in a state the higher the murder rate. Although not a perfect correlation, the relationship is quite clear. Compare race by state to Gun Violence by State.

We can ignore the data because it doesn't point in a direction we find emotionally or politically acceptable. Or you can accept the fact that with diversity you get not only the good things diverse cultures can bring but ALL of what a culture brings, including a cultures violent character. When melting cultures from equatorial third world nations into our own, we will add ALL aspects of those cultures, including their murder rates. If we as a nation are being diverse and accepting the poor tired masses of the world and giving them a chance at the American dream, then we must accept that increased percentages of our population with origins from more murderous and violent cultures will cause our culture to reflect that and be more murderous and violent. We cannot expect to have the same murder rates as Canada or England when we don't have a similar population demographics.

In England whites make up 90.1% of its population. Blacks make up only 3.4% of it's population, and Latino's are so few they are grouped with "other." In Canada whites make up 80% of its population. Blacks make up only 2.5% of its population, and a mere 1.0% are Latino. In the USA whites make up 72.4% of the population. Blacks comprise 12.6%, and Latinos 16.4%.

Michael Moore, hints around the edges at the problem, but don't expect any liberal to dig or report based on the facts, the facts destroy their narrative. Ask yourself, do the advantages of what diversity brings to the USA outweigh the negative effects that accompany that same diversity? I believe as a society we have decided that the benefits of a diverse population outweigh the costs, but that doesn't mean there are not costs, including our society having patterns of behavior that look more like the third world and less like the old world. It just goes to prove the old adage, blood is thinker than water. When normalized for demographic origins, our murder rate like many other measurable indicators reflects the populations of our roots.

Private Charity Bad, Government Taxes Good

By Tom Rhodes, 9/7/2012

A few years ago the Arthur C. Brooks published a study that clearly showed that more a person believed in individual liberty and responsibility they give more to charity and more liberal the less they give. The liberals have been trying to denounce and explain away the evidence. Now yet another study demonstrates that the liberal claim that if you're not liberal and statist you hate the poor is a lie and not based on fact. The latest study published in the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states. Damn, once again the evidence demonstrates that in reality it is the lovers of liberty and fiscal responsibility, who actually put their money where their mouth is and give more to the poor than liberals.

To quote from the Chronicle of Philanthropy, "The nation's sharp political divide can provide a clue to fundraisers. The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama." This study was conclusive that the more religious states tend to give more than the less religious states. Obviously the statist left can't make the obvious conclusion; that the observable, and repeatedly supported conclusion is that liberals are less charitable than others.

USA Today published a leftist egghead commentary about the study saying:

Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said. And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college's Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life.

Wolfe said people in less religious states "view the tax money they're paying not as something that's forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they're citizens in the common good. ... I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they're being altruistic."

Alan Wolfe is a professed atheist, so his opinion may be biased, but then I'm a professed Christian, and my opinion is biased. Biases aside the facts not my or Wolfe's opinion can and should stand on their own, and the fact is Liberals give less to charity than others. The left believes as Obama said, "You Didn't Build That" implying that private charity (or private business, or private education, or private anything else) without government involvement doesn't count and can't be good. We must accept the falsehood that government bureaucracies are more efficient and delivering "superior" charity than private enterprise.

Consider how much more efficient Medicaid is than private charities, just because it is going bankrupt and is famous for fraud and inefficiency it should be the model. Compare Medicaid to St. Jude's or Shriner's Childrens Hospitals and the evidence is clear. Private charity is more efficient and better uses charity dollars than government.

The facts are clear liberals are liberal with other people's money but stingy with their own.

Libertarians and the liberty loving wing of other parties, believe in the writing of our founding fathers; Madison famously noted "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." Jefferson was clear saying, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." Davy Crocket made such a stand a legendary part of his story in the famous "Not Yours To Give" speech. Lincoln was also famous for his position on charity saying, ""In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." The facts are clear America can and does do charity better than government.

Biden and Obama are both famous pikers donating miniscule portions of their earnings every year compared their competition. They seem to think that they and all individuals should not be individually charitable, but should instead give government the job of charity. They think people paying taxes happily is equivalent to giving to charity. They want to ignore the plain words of our founding fathers, ignore and denigrate the massive amounts people privately and voluntarily give to charity, and conclude unless the government controls it, it isn't good and doesn't count.

Liberals, specifically Democrats have made it clear by action and deed. They are not charitable, they don't trust or want the public to be responsible and accountable to each other and to take care of themselves and each other. They want society dependent on government, they want the people to believe and accept that they "belong to government", and as such government should take care of all their needs. They and statist egghead academics what us to believe their interpretation of facts, and we should be thankful to government and leftist egghead academics who can interpret the facts for us, otherwise we might conclude that this study, and the many other studies with similar results, that liberals are cheap bastards whose actions reflect their belief on charity not their words.

God forbid the people feed the poor without government intervention; the poor might not eat a government approved diet, prepared in government approved kitchens, if private charities or individuals were allowed to prepare and distribute food to the poor. That is why NYC has made feeding leftovers from the bar mitzvah to the local hungry a crime. The very idea that a local religious organization would organize a pot luck supper and urge everybody to bring extra because after the event they would use the extra and feed to the local homeless the same food that they just ate themselves is horrendous. The poor and hungry must be protected from what private charities feed might feed them. God forbid somebody's homemade casserole not be nutritionally balanced, and the poor get a delicious homemade meal that didn't meet government specifications. Because only government approved meals are acceptable, and only food prepared in government monitored kitchens is safe enough, and controlled enough to be allowed to feed the poor.

Liberals are clear on their message that private charity is bad, government taxes are good, and the people should not be trusted to do charitable works. We are expected to ignore the facts, we shouldn't be allowed to compare the most advanced and efficient hospitals in the country at places like St. Jude's or Shriner's Hospitals to government run hospitals like the VA. The fact that the more religious and conservative a state is, the more likely the people of that state will donate to charity must be ignored. The statist message must be promoted and the facts must be twisted to support the message: Private Charity Bad, Government Taxes Good.

When a liberal yells or denounces how uncaring of the poor, or how the right hates the poor, it's just a projection of their own cold hart. The evidence is clear, liberals are statists, and cheap bastards who want to use everybody else's money to do "charity" so they won't feel guilty, but won't get off their own wallets and help their neighbor. The evidence is also clear individual Americans can and are better at charity than the government.

Hubris thy name is Obama

By Tom Rhodes 4/10/12
Obama care was passed by the slimmest of margins, with unprecedented increase in government power. After the SCOTUS oral arguments on Obamacare, President Obama shot across the bow of the Justices:
"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

The vote was 219-214 in the House, and 60-39 in the Senate. Not what you can truthfully call a strong majority, especially when you consider that the senate would have been filibustered if it weren’t for the fact that 4 of the democrat senators that voted for Obamacare were not democratically elected but were in fact appointed replacements to the senate for Obama and other senators who are joined his cabinet. Former Democrat, Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich is going to prison for corruption related to selling off Obama’s Senate seat. Any reasonable person would have to conclude that saying that Obamacare passed with “a strong majority of a democratically elected” senate is stretching the truth quite a bit. To even imply otherwise is an overt act of hubris.

Obama saying that it is “Judicial Activism” to overturn Obamacare on constitutional grounds, that it is thwarting the will of the people through their democratically elected Congress has to be disingenuous. As Ken Blackwell points out, another modern era law that survived judicial review, was passed by the Democrat controlled house 342-67 and Democrat controlled Senate 85-14, and signed into law by a Democrat President in 1984, Obama calls “Unconstitutional.” This law when put up to referendum, even in liberal California, passes with a huge majority. Clearly the Defense of Marriage Act is the will of the people. But somehow DOMA is “unconstitutional” while Obamacare is; polls show 2/3rds of the people want Obamacare repealed; a majority of States are suing the US Government over its implementation; and it grants unprecedented power with a requirement that all people take some affirmative action and purchase a commercial product just for being alive, and Obama scolds the Supreme Court of the United States over its constitutionality and Obamacare being the will of the people. Hubris, thy name is Obama.

Obama as a professor of constitutional law, clearly knows what is and isn’t constitutional, he quite simply doesn’t want or believe that the constitution should be the supreme law of the land. Obama appears to be actively working to create administrative tyranny to bypass the separation of powers and constitutional limits on the federal government. As he infamously said he has problems with the constitution, doesn’t like the limits, doesn’t like the fact that it doesn’t “obligate” the government to “do” certain things, and limits what he as president can “get done.” Hubris, thy name is Obama.

Obama’s hubris, and willingness to bypass the rule of law is self evident. Consider his almost routine use of the military in defiance of the War Powers Act, or his extortion of BP over the gulf oil spill with no legal authority. There is no question that BP should have been held accountable for the damages they caused in and around the Gulf of Mexico; we have laws for that sort of thing. What legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business to make restitution? We have bankruptcy laws, by what legal authority does the President have to capriciously order a private business and individuals to accept 30 cents on the dollar for secured credit which legally have precedence in bankruptcy, while giving unsecured creditors like the UAW far more generous terms? Hubris thy name is Obama.

Obama and statists, who think like him, have the hubris to think that they know what is best for every person, and that they should have the power and authority to dictate how people should live. From what we eat, to what we are allowed to hear or watch on TV and Radio, to what medical services you are allowed to use, they want to regulate every aspect of every person’s life. Ignoring the repeated failures of socialism, from the first Pilgrims to the US to fall of the USSR, Obama and statists continue ignore the historical evidence that the rule of law and the protection of private property rights lead to the highest standard of living and most freedom and liberty for more people than any other economic system in the history of man. Obama exercise extreme hubris, thinking that he and his ilk know better and can centrally control an economy, can centrally control what technologies are developed and succeed, can centrally control what people learn, all through the redistribution of labor. Obama thinks that he can decide, and should have the power to dictate at exactly what point you have enough. Obama is typical of statists, regardless of what philosophy or rhetoric they use to describe their agenda, no matter where in the world they attempt to implement their agenda, their agenda is always the same, preempting the decisions of individuals and regimenting their lives. Hubris thy name is Obama.

Progressives are Children in an Adult World

By Tom Rhodes, 2/28/2012

Leftists, Progressives, Liberals, or whatever those pseudo-intellectual children call themselves today, love to think of themselves as intellectual and nuanced. The sad truth is leftist thinking is incredibly unsophisticated, simple, and childlike. Leftist thinking is simply a toddler's emotions applied to grown-up issues. Virtually every issue boils down to an emotional appeal of either being nice or mean, and wanting everything to be OK. This makes left leaning individuals intellectually unable to deal with multifarious subjects.

The reality is that left thinking people are worse than children. How can an adult not understand what children can clearly grasp? Leftist seem incapable of comprehending what children easily grasp.

Even a 5 year old knows that life isn't fair. They even understand that what is fair depends on who is in charge and who is getting mistreated. It's not fair that one kid gets picked last when choosing teams to play some sport every time. Some people are more athletic than others, some are smarter than others, not everybody is physically, intellectually, and emotionally identical. Because we are all different we all have different skills and faults. This is a simple fact that will result in different outcomes. Every child gets this, not everybody will make the team.

Life being fair is a utopian fairytale that leftists continually try to insist is possible. Left thinking people, ignore the difference in the habits and morals and actions of individuals which result in different outcomes for all individuals. Their childish utopian beliefs that in a "fair" society, nobody would suffer, does not consider the actions of individuals. They ignore the character differences between people, and try to falsely claim that all societies deserve respect and all cultures are equally valued.

This is not based on any adult analysis using reason and logic. The objective truth is that the habits, culture, and actions of free people, and without a national shared set of cultural values and recognition that some values produce superior results is a childlike want of some condition that has never existed.

The habits of a free people -- for stability, thrift, obedience to law, respect for others' rights, personal responsibility, etc. - are the seminal essentials in culture's character. Not having the shared values of freedom you won't have much that that resembles freedom. Without valuing individual liberty, a society will not have much of anything else, look at Cuba, Zimbabwe and the other nations that have substituted statist control for individual freedom. You will certainly not have an economy that produces jobs and prosperity on any long-term.

Leftists, Progressives, Liberals, or whatever those intellectual midgets call themselves today, don't understand that you can't have everything you want. Most children learn this at a very early age. Left thinking people seem to think that if something is a good idea, then it should be instituted, regardless of what it costs, regardless of whether it's worth the money. They start with some utopian idea, and believe because they want the world to be some way that anybody who opposes that idea is mean, or greedy, or evil, or hateful, etc.

Leftists want nobody to suffer, and everybody to have the best health services and product available; No consideration as to what it costs, no consideration as to where to fund their wants. To achieve this goal they are more than willing to trounce the basic rights of everybody. Dictate what you must purchase, and feel that they should be allowed to redistribute the property of others as they see fit. Taking money (which is accumulated property) from some people and giving it to others for something the left wants, is based on some utopian idea that people should all share their private property equally, and that nobody will change their behavior if what they managed to acquire is re-distributed to those who don't share the same habits, skills, ability, etc. People who think like that have a total disregard for the private property of others. Much the same as a child has no respect for and will take the toys of others just because the child wants them. This is moral bankruptcy. Moral relativism and disrespect for any accountability to any moral standard is a common trait we see in children whose parents don't attempt to instill in them clear moral objectives. Most adults call these children spoiled brats, these children take no responsibility for their own actions, are self-centered, selfish, and take from others with no regard.

Left thinking generally undercuts morality, specifically Christianity every chance it gets, this type of thinking sneers at goodness and virtue. People with leftist thinking actually think that it is bad to enforce or hold people to moral standards. They think that judging people for bad behavior is mean or hateful. They think that being nice, tolerant, non-judgmental, and permissive is a replacement for traditional virtue, decency, and moral character. They don't believe in any objective moral code, and since to be a genuinely good person requires a moral code they hate and ridicule genuinely good people. Look at how the liberal press treated Tim Tebow. Anybody who draws a clear line between right and wrong, and has the audacity and courage to stand up for what's right, is what we would traditionally call a hero. Left thinking people cannot tolerate good people to be examples, or be publicly accepted and praised. This is because good people with moral character demonstrate how unfair, unprincipled, and ugly the character and actions are of the parasites who leech off the efforts of others. Left thinking people tend to hold good and moral people in absolute and utter contempt.

Leftist thinking people, like children, don't want anybody to be a loser and always want to be a winner. It is childlike want and desire to be liked and loved that leads to wanting to give everybody a ribbon or trophy just for competing. They think nobody should feel bad, and everybody ought to be recognized as an achieving person, regardless of whether they actually perform well, much less actually win. Look at the ending of giving valedictorian honors to the person who earned the highest grades over their entire high school career, because this makes some kids or their parents feel bad large numbers of school districts no-longer award valedictorian. This child like thinking has lead to some twisted belief that competition is bad. This is thinking that regardless of effort, ability, character, actions, and even some luck, all people should end up with the same results. Even the title of the clearly leftist and childish program to ensure that everybody has the same results, "No Child Left Behind," indicates a fundamental childish thinking. The actual result of "No Child Left Behind" is that "No Child Gets Ahead." The only way to ensure that no child get's left behind is to lower the standard so that regardless of ability and effort no child can fail. The resources and money spent assuring that every child meet some minimum standard routinely take away the resources used to offer more challenging and rigorous opportunities for the most advanced, smartest, hardest working students.

We all compete for everything. From getting a mate, to finding a job -- life is completion. P.J. O'Rourke summed it up saying, "There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." Everyone cannot be at the same level. Only a very few people have the athletic ability perform at the professional level. Michal Jordon was paid vast sums of money because on an even playing field, with fair rules, equally enforced, he consistently won and outperformed the competition. Some people are prettier, more athletic, smarter, grew up in a loving home, etc. Get over it, life isn't fair.

It is only child like utopian thinking that wants something different from reality and would think that it's fair and just to take the rewards of using the gifts, talents, abilities, and character of winners and give those rewards to losers. Left thinking people cannot accept that some people won't win life's lottery, and further doesn't accept that people should suffer the consequences of poor decisions. They would prefer that everybody be equally poor than anybody have more than another. They clearly believe the failed Marxist idea that resources should be created by each according to their ability and distributed to each according to their needs. They may voice other that they don't think that, but the actions of leftist thinkers clearly indicate that that is what they believe. As adults they should realize that the reality of implementing their childlike desires has historically resulted in privation and tyranny. Rational adults push for equality of opportunity, rule of law, equality under the law, and let everyone rise to his own level, while childish thinkers try to tear people down and turn everyone into losers to insure equality of results.

The child like thinking of the left seems to believe that by virtue of being born, other people owe you a living. Sorry, this is a grown up world, nobody owes you diddly squat. Nobody should have their access to an education denied, in fact with the internet, anybody can learn just about anything they want to learn, it's up to them to put in the time and effort, but neither should they force others to pay for it. Nobody should be denied the ability to purchase whatever medical care they want, but that does not imply a right to force others to pay for it. Nobody should be denied a retirement without financial worries, but that doesn't mean that if you don't save, invest, and take actions to supply yourself with that kind of retirement others should have to pick up your bills in old age.

What you are owed for being born is "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." This means that you as an adult are responsible for maintaining yourself. As an adult you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, even to the point of being responsible to raise your own kids (you have kids because of actions you choose to take). When you become an Adult, most parents expect you to move out and take care of yourself. You should not expect that government to become your parent when you get kicked out of the house. This is not to say that Americans are not generous, and don't want to and expect to help those who have temporarily fallen on hard times. But the people of this country have no obligation to provide generations of others with food, shelter, entertainment, and a standard of living most of the world envies. The wholesale abuse of our welfare system is indicative of children who think that they should be taken care of for life, and if their mommy and daddy won't or can't than it's the government's job.

I'm sorry if you don't like hearing it, but that is childish thinking. Adults are responsible for taking care of themselves. If you want to be successful and not live in poverty, then grow up and be an adult. This means that you are expected to take on the character and actions of an adult. Emulate and do what adults who are successful do, this includes: finishing school and putting your best effort into your education; living below your means and saving some money; getting married before you have kids; respecting and honoring the rights, including property rights, of others; taking ownership and responsibility for your actions, meaning that you are willing to accept the consequences of your decisions and quit blaming others for your poor life choices; and finally you should also include going to a church of some kind and being active in your community. This will provide you with both a local and private community based support system if you fall on hard times, and although there are exceptions, going to church is a common trait among the most successful people regardless of their political ideology.

If you choose not to take on the character and do what successful adults do, then at least have the decency not to be a cry-baby and expect those of us who choose to grow up and be adults to take your childish whining seriously. That's what most progressive, socialists, leftist, liberals ideas are; the childish whining of children who don't want to grow up and live in an adult world.