HomeJoe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law (Mathematics) Joe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law (Mathematics)

By Himalaya Australia 

Source of image: Twitter

As the vote counting for the 2020 Presidential Election continues, various facts suggest rampant frauds in Joe Biden’s votes. So does mathematics in terms of the votes from precincts.

Benford’s law or the first-digit law, is used to check if a set of numbers are naturally occurring or manually fabricated. It has been applied to detect the voting frauds in Iranian 2009 election and various other applications including forensic investigations.

This is what described by Wikipedia:

“Benford’s law, or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading digit is likely to be small.

For example, in sets that obey the law, the number 1 appears as the leading significant digit about 30% of the time, while 9 appears as the leading significant digit less than 5% of the time. If the digits were distributed uniformly, they would each occur about 11.1% of the time. Benford’s law also makes predictions about the distribution of second digits, third digits, digit combinations, and so on.”

One of the examples is the population of the world, which are naturally occurring numbers.

Distribution of first-digit (in %) of population numbers in 237 countries in 2010.
Source: wikipedia.org

A number of people on the internet have checked the votes (precinct by precinct) of Joe Biden, Donald Trump as well as other candidates for their legitimacy in terms of the Benford’s Law.

According a Reddit user, r/dataisbeautiful’s calculation, the ‘normal’ distribution of first digits for the different candidates based on Benford’s law is illustrated below.

Source of image: https://bit.ly/3l7mUE5

Youtuber Nyar has shared the observations on a number of counties, concluding that Trump and others’ votes have natural distribution but not for Joe Biden’s.

In Fulton County, Georgia, which overlaps with the Atlantic metropolitan where Joe Biden is expected to win, all of the three candidates have normal distributions for their votes. (Joe Biden 72.6%, Donald Trump 26.2%, Jo Jorgensen 1.2%. Source: .theguardian.com)

Image from github.com/ (https://bit.ly/2GGTXjq)

In Miami-Dade County of Florida, which includes the Miami metropolitan where Joe Biden is expected to win, all candidates’ votes obey Benford’s Law. (Joe Biden 53.4%, Donald Trump 46.1%, Jo Jorgensen 0.3%. Source: theguardian.com)

Image from github.com/ (https://bit.ly/2GGTXjq)

However, in the Milwaukee County of Wisconsin, which is in one of the key swing states, Joe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law while other candidates’ don’t. (Joe Biden 69.4%, Donald Trump 29.4%, Jo Jorgensen 0.9%. Source: theguardian.com)

Image from github.com/ (https://bit.ly/2GGTXjq)

And in Chicago of Illinois, Joe Biden’s votes are abnormal.

Image from github.com/ (https://bit.ly/2GGTXjq)

So does that of Allegheny of Pennsylvania which includes Pittsburg. (Joe Biden 59.0%, Donald Trump 39.9%, Jo Jorgensen 1.2%. Source: theguardian.com)

It looks like maybe Biden had lost big cities like Chicago and Pittsburgh, which is why the fraudulent votes need to be brought in, which skew his curve away from a normal looking one.

For those who are interested to reproduce the analysis, you can follow the instructions here and give it a go.

Author: River|Himalaya Scholars

The Great Divide

By Tom Rhodes, 3/1/2018

There is a Great Divide in America. It is the real divide in the USA, and it isn't Democrat vs Republican, nor Right vs Left. The real divide in the USA is elitist vs populist. About two centuries ago, the populists did something the elitists never dreamed could happen. They said We The People will Establish a Government and organize its powers in such form, that We the People deem most likely to effect our safety and happiness. This was a slap in the face of elitists all over the world. “How dare mere peasants assume they can govern themselves!”

The elitists are those in positions of authority, and those who want and depend on experts to provide and take care of them. The populists, here in the USA, are Normal Americans who want to be self-reliant, and self-ruling, who accept government as a necessary evil instituted to protect their liberty. There are many, who do not want, and fear, liberty and freedom; hey prefer the security of having an elite dictate what they should do and take care of them (aka. Slavery). They are elitists just as much as are those in authority who want to control the masses.

We the People specifically prohibited the government from infringing on our rights, which are natural, pre-political, and exist outside of the auspice of any government. Again the idea that peasants have rights that aren't controlled and granted by the elites is a slap in the face. Elites think by virtue of their position that they know better what rights the common man should be allowed to exercise. Elitists believe in a top-down approach where professional bureaucrats rule the country and dictate cultural norms and what is acceptable dialogue and what is not, while populists believe the people are self-governing and ultimately determine the course of our politics and culture.

Elitists for over 2 centuries have been working to fundamentally transform America, to the historic norm for all of mankind, which has total elite control over the population and where dissent from their views is vilified. The gun debate is simply another battle in the all-out war elites are waging on the American people’s right to even have an opinion, let alone speak out about it and not be punished for it. "How dare you bitterly cling to your religion and guns!"

Elitists want you silenced, controlled, and disarmed. They want you, the populist, the Normal American, to be disempowered; you! not the insane, not the criminals, not the terrorist, not the illegal aliens. You. Why? Because they hate you.

Elitists are appalled at the fact that in even in statist and compliant New York, where they mandated the registration of certain weapons and outlawed high capacity magazines, only a mere 10% of the people obeyed their law. Elitists hate that you won't submit. Elitists hate that you won't obey. Elitists hate that you think you should be able to share ideas and beliefs they don't approve. Elitists especially hate that you refuse to give up your only means of protecting yourself and preserving your rights. Elitists believe that they should control you, thus they should be the only ones with access to the tools of violence that can stop them, because they hate you.

Ask them, elitists openly say that you are deplorable, if you don't agree with their call to be disarmed you're a terrorist, if you express opinion they don't believe or they want silenced your insane, or too stupid, or whatever. They openly try to dehumanize those who don't accept their right to rule and not be questioned. They want you dehumanized so that you don't have rights, so that they can kill you. Look on social media, elitists openly and repeatedly call on violence and killing those who express and hold views they don't approve.

Understand that elites doesn't hate the NRA. They hate you. Elitists understand the power of the NRA is really the power of millions of populists (aka. Normal Americans), coming together to defend their right to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. That’s why they fear it. That’s why they attack it. That’s why they can't abide its existence. Because of the Second Amendment, their power to limit the First is diminished. They want your voices silenced. They want the very idea of a self-governing people eliminated. Why else would they bar the use of Foundational Documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, be used in public schools.

Elitists have openly come out in favor of cowardice, they are attacking the right of self-defense. Their argument is you don't need guns to protect yourself. In fact in other countries where elites have more power, self-defense is outlawed. But Parkland demonstrates you certainly can't expect an elitist-run law enforcement agency like the Broward Sheriff’s Office to protect you, there duty is to go home safe and protect the elites from the people. They believe the life of government workers is more important than your child’s life. Those hired by the elites to enforce their will have no duty to protect you. Elitists hate that in the two most recent rulings on the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as "pre-political." That means it pre-existed the government. The damn populist Constitution and Bill of Rights, continues to thwart elitist power and control. If the elitists succeed in disarming you, where does that leave you? You can't protect yourself, and in return, no one from the government will protect you either.

On the subject of elitists vs populists, Frank Cannon, president at American Principles Project, recently wrote; “Fortunately, the American people are fully cognizant of what is taking place, which is why they voted for Donald Trump in 2016. Instead of looking at Trump and Clinton through the two lenses voters typically use, moral character and issue positions, voters applied a third lens: would their views be allowed to be articulated at all without dire consequences under a Clinton administration? “

The reality is the elitists, have had enough of uppity populists and are openly attacking individual liberty and the rights of the common man. We the People can no longer ignore the encroachment of the elites on our fundamental, pre-existing rights, and must act. Frank Cannon also noted that, “We cannot keep pretending, like so many Never Trumpers do, that we are operating in an environment of normal political give-and-take on issues. That time has passed. We are instead operating in a country now where elites demonize the populist position with such ferocity that many are afraid to voice their opinion at all, which is, of course, the entire point of their strategy. Our fight is no longer just over political issues — it is a battle against the very tactics being used by elites to stifle debate and destroy the essence of what makes America great.”

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

By Tom Rhodes, 6/12/2015

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

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

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

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

Is This Legit?

By Pete Blome, 4/5/2015

As a citizen, a veteran, and someone who has been interested in how our Republic is governed for my whole life, I have to ask a hard question. Is government, in general, losing its legitimacy in the USA?

Legitimacy is about trust. As a people, we trust that, overall, the government is acting in our best interest. Trust is hard to win and easy to lose.

Responsible leaders know the importance of maintaining legitimacy. Government by its nature is force, and when people see force at work in all its ugliness they need to know, at a gut level, that it is being used for good things. If it is used for bad things it gets very hard for the average, decent person to tolerate government. People refuse. Taxes don’t get paid. Sacred cows get gored. Responsible leaders are supposed to speak up when going-along to-get-along goes too far and leads to a lack of trust.

But are they? The key to legitimate government in America should still be about protecting individual rights, free markets and a limited government. It’s these qualities that made America worth living in. This country grew into an economic and military giant because they lead to prosperity. If legitimacy is now based on government buying people off, as the cynical would say, we are certainly headed for a crash. “You can’t buy permanent friends with free candy.”

Individual rights are now considered secondary to other needs. Consider the Federal level alone. Instead of free speech, we have “free speech zones.” Political competition is restricted by laws that embed only two political parties in power. Congress wrote a law that forces everyone to buy medical insurance. President Bush actually advocated eliminating Habeas Corpus. President Obama proposed eliminating ammunition for the most popular type of rifle in private hands. The SCOTUS ruled way back in 1942 that the Federal government can control what a person legally makes, mines, or grows on his own property for his own use, even if no one else is involved. In order to use commercial travel, a person must get permission from the DHS first or they will not be allowed to go, no judge, jury or public evidence involved. The TSA routinely ignores the Fourth Amendment. Intelligence agencies are spying on us, and they have publicly apologized to lying about that in sworn testimony to Congress. Police departments can legally use civil confiscation to take property without charges or even evidence of guilt. When did we become a country where our rights are protected by the Constitution, but only if we don’t actually want to use them?

America is the land of the managed market. A free market is based on voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The tax code, the creation of our dollars, Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the minimum wage, bank and corporate bailouts, business regulation, government control of education, utility and infrastructure monopolies, licenses, permits, zoning, affirmative action, agricultural subsidies, and the massive government bureaucracy all depend on the idea some citizens should have privileges over other citizens in the law. Besides being unjust, this idea makes for higher costs, less choice and poorer quality. Today, the invisible hand of the free market has been replaced by a very visible thumb on the market scales. As the Roman Senator Tacitus said, “The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.”

Finally, it is hard to claim our government is limited in its power when both Presidents Bush and Obama have assassinated U.S. citizens abroad without a trial or even presentation of evidence. Our government actually authorized torture. This is such nonsense since they can no more authorize torture than they can authorize rape or slavery. No higher functionary in government, no matter how guilty, is going to jail.

These are more than ugly trends. They are a bad way to govern. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, they make people think “Why should I put up with this?”

When they finally answer that they won’t, that is when the real problems begin.

Pete Blome is a retired military officer, Chair of the Northwest Florida Libertarian Party, and At-Large Representative of the Libertarian Party of Florida

CDC Reported the Truth about Guns

By Tom Rhodes, 10/5/2013

Obama ordered the CDC to do research on gun violence in America. What the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal, is not what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. Considering the CDC’s was restricted by law from doing gun research because it got caught doctoring and doing poor studies with an agenda instead of reporting actual facts, you’d be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions. The truth about guns doesn’t support most anti-gun claims.

The truth which hopolophobes even when faced with the clear evidence refuse to accept can be found in the findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June 2013:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:

“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

5. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

6. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

As reported by the CDC in the report created in response to Obama’s executive order, the truth, as a hole, is a hammer blow to Obama’s anti-gun agenda. The CDC report supports the wisdom of the second amendment and clearly contradicts common anti-gun arguments.

Let’s repeat the most telling conclusion:

The actual use of guns in self defensive consistently lowers the injury rate of crime victims compared to other self-protective strategies.

To every parent out there, the message from the CDC is clear, if you want your college aged daughter to be safe and survive without injury if the victim of some crime, get her a gun, get her a permit to carry it, and teach her to use it. NOTHING! not martial arts, not pepper spray, not peeing her pants, not screaming, not even running, according to our federal government, NOTHING consistently as effective in improving her chances of getting through a crime than using a GUN in self defense.

What did we hear from the main stream press, or Obama -- crickets chirping --

Western Denial

By Tom Rhodes, 9/30/2013

No doubt about it, we of the west are in denial. We are in a war against western civilization and won’t admit it. We try to say it’s not a religious war against the west, or against Christians, or non-Muslims, but that is a lie. The enemy has effectively neutered our press so rather than treat the war we are in as a war, we try to treat it like it’s some random groups of distraught teens acting out. It’s not, it’s war, and it’s getting bloodier and more violent and if we fail to treat it like a war we will lose.

In the past week hundreds of people have been targeted and killed because they were not Muslim. Not just in Kenya, but in Nairobi and Pakistan too. In Pakistan a historic Christian church was attacked, just because it was a Christian church. From Minnesota, American Muslims traveled to Kenya, joined a multinational force of Muslims, and committed gruesome torture and murder of shoppers. The shoppers were chosen for torture and execution because they were not Muslim. Those who believed in Islam were set free. The press portrayed the jihadists as thrill-seeking youth or “militants” and “gunmen,” not the uncivilized religious barbarians their actions more accurately describe.

The press is complacently evil; they cover up the motive of mass murder across the world, ignoring the plain, clear, and declared reasoning and goals of Islamists. The media is choosing to comply with Sharia, under such laws you cannot criticize Islam. The press will not say anything that would offend a Muslim, even if it is true. Shariah rules our mainstream press. With rare exceptions, the press has self-censored “Islam,” “Muslim” and “jihad.”

At the mall those who could name the mother of the prophet Muhammad were allowed to escape. The Muslim world supports such barbarism, not a single Muslim cares one iota for non-Muslims barbarically murdered. A simple act may have saved a good number of innocent people, but not one of those allowed to escape screamed out Muhammad’s mother’s name and give the answer to those being executed.

Muslims are trying to and successfully rebranding themselves.

Look up R4BIA and their goals and methods are quite clear. They plan on using terrorism, violence, and war to collapse Western values, end capitalism, glorify martyrdom, and eliminate the Jews in a new world that is run by Islamists.

This is the goal of Muslims, not all take part in the war, but rather than denounce the barbaric, murderous, evil acts of Islamic Terrorists, Muslims were marching down Madison Avenue in New York City waving the black flag of jihad. At the same time at a historic Church in more than 100 Christians were slaughtered during Sunday worship, and 140 were Christians were murdered Nigeria by Muslims, all in the cause of Islam.

Where are the Muslim protests against the barbaric torture, rape, murder and mutilation of innocent people who don’t share their faith??? If jihad wasn’t supported and at least accepted by American Muslims, you’d think that at least American Muslims would protest mass murder done in the name of their religion. If it were true that Islamic terrorists aren’t representative of Muslims, then they and their leaders would be righteously condemning terrorists acts. Instead they accuse anybody who would note that one religion has a virtual monopoly on the use of terrorism around the world, as an Islamophobe.

In response as a nation we get really stupid, so we don’t offend Muslims. In a poorly reported story the TSA has guaranteed the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that TSA officials will only pat down Muslim women in the head and neck area. We know that female suicide bombers are not uncommon. In 2011 the U.S. Army released an intelligence report that noted: “Although women make up roughly 15 percent of the suicide bombers within groups which utilize females, they were responsible for 65 percent of assassinations.”

So all an militant Islamic Woman has to do to get bombs on a US airplane is wear a tent to cover up massive amounts of explosives she’s carrying (they call it a hijab); refuse full body scan on religious grounds, remind the TSA officer that they may be searched only around the head and neck, then walk onto the aircraft; and just as it reaches the runway, blow up herself and the plane killing hundreds, making the runway unusable and stopping all air traffic across the nation for weeks.

This is a true WTF moment.

Isn’t Homeland Security, who runs the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), supposed to prevent another 911, not make it easier for Islamic terrorists to repeat 911. The SOP should strip searching anybody who shows up at an airport in a hijab and refuse full body scan. There is no TSA exception for Catholic Nun’s in Habits, none of whom have ever been documented to suicide bomb innocents. If we believe in equality under law then there should be no exception for religious reasons to not pay for birth control, then what justifies Islamic women in hijabs, who “make up roughly 15 percent of the suicide bombers within groups which utilize females,” to be exempt from body scans and pat downs?

Western Civilization is in suicidal denial. Our Enemy has openly declared war, they’ve made their intentions clear, their barbaric, uncivilized, and violent actions validate the fact they are fighting this war. Our “free” press rather than offend our enemy, blames and labels anybody who accepts the words and actions of Islamists as indicative of their intentions as an Islamophobe. What’s more evil, the clear declaration of war and actions of our enemy, or the press who tries to cover it up?

It's about Honesty

By Tom Rhodes, 4/12/2013

Barack Obama demanded a "national conversation" about gun control. What he didn't demand was an "honest" conversation about gun control. The reason he left off the word "honest" is because he has proven again and again to use lies to promote his irrational hatred for those who would be self reliant and not depend on the largess of government for protection.

Lets start with the Fast and Furious lie that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico were from US gun dealers. In sworn testimony before congress, Bill McMahon, deputy assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, swore that only eight percent of the arms recovered in Mexico were from licensed gun dealers, noting: Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers. Considering 2500 were known to have been smuggled into Mexico by the Obama administration as part of Fast and Furious it's clear the 90% number was a known lie propagated by Obama and company.

Now the more recent 40% lie. Obama claimed that 40 percent of the gun purchases in the nation are conducted without a background check. It is another outright knowing lie. The Statistics he used were not only 20 years out of date but included all transfers not purchases. The survey he used was started before the Brady Bill became law and background checks were required. Even the generally supportive of Obama, Washington Post had to report on this lie, giving Obama three Pinocchio's .

There are two key problems with the president's use of this statistic: The numbers are about two decades old, yet he acts as if they are fresh, and he refers to "purchases" or "sales" when in fact the original report concerned "gun acquisitions" and "transactions." Those are much broader categories of data.

As we noted before, the White House said the figure comes from a 1997 Institute of Justice report, written by Philip Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago.

This study was based on data collected from a survey in 1994, the same year that the Brady Act requirements for background checks came into effect. In fact, the questions concerned purchases in 1993 and 1994, and the Brady Act went into effect in early 1994 - meaning that some, if not many, of the guns were bought in a pre-Brady environment.

Digging deeper, we found that the survey sample was just 251 people. (The survey was done by telephone, using a random-digit-dial method, with a response rate of 50 percent.) With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points.

. . . .

The Police Foundation report did not break out gun purchases, so in January we asked Ludwig to rerun the data, just looking at guns purchased in the secondary market. The result, depending on the definition, was 14 percent to 22 percent. That's at least half the percentage repeatedly cited by Obama. (In a recent article for National Review, Cook and Ludwig wrote "we don't know the current percentage - nor does anyone else." But they say if the percentage is lower it actually strengthens the case for expanding background checks because it would be less expensive to implement.) Since our initial report on this statistic appeared, The Washington Post in February included a question on background checks on a survey of Maryland residents, asking whether they went through a background check during a gun purchase in the past 10 years. The result? Twenty-one percent say they did not.

Coincidentally or not, 21 percent falls within the 14-to-22 percent range for gun purchases without background checks in the 1994 survey.

So Obama wants a national conversation, but his actions clearly dictate he wants the conversation not to be based on logic, reason, and practical solutions. His actions clearly demonstrate he wants the conversation to be one sided, based on lies and emotional rhetoric to the exclusion of truth and substantial debate.

When the President has deliberately chosen to distort facts, and lie to the people to promote and instill further restrictions on fundamental rights he has in fact destroyed the ability of "moderates" to effect any meaningful discussion much less change. The clear exposure even by liberal supportive media, of the lies and distortions by the government make any honest debate impossible. Obama's brief 5 years in office is so filled with clearly demonstrated lies and deceptions that no rational person could reasonably consider the arguments he or his representatives present on any topic as truthful or trustworthy. Not just on Gun Control but on oil, healthcare, immigration, spending, in fact virtually every major issue, the default position of the Obama and his Whitehouse is to lie, and distort the facts. The reason compromise is so difficult with Obama, is because he and the entire Democrat party have proven that they are not trustworthy.

Having been caught in multiple lies, especially concerning gun control, how can anybody reasonably work with the Democrats in an honest conversation?

Truth - Casualty of Newton Tragedy

By Tom Rhodes, 12/18/2012

The biggest casualty of the Newton tragedy is the truth. Liberal statist hoplophobes are using the actions of a psychotropic drug addled madman to eviscerate the truth and the bill of rights. They are playing on the emotional turmoil that such an evil act created to attack any who would laud the truth about guns in the USA.

One month ago, the Congressional Research Service released a 113-page report titled, "Gun Control Legislation," authored by William J. Krouse, a "specialist in domestic security and crime policy." The report cites the National Institute of Justice, which indicates that by 2009, the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the United States had increased to approximately 310 million, approximately one gun for each person in the country: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns. The fact that we have seen a dramatic increase in firearms ownership accompanied with an equally dramatic decrease in violent crime, is ignored by gun control zealots. The objective truth is that our "gun culture" has resulted in less violent crime and a safer society.

Basically we've doubled the number of guns posses in our culture and decrease the number of murders by half. Guns are used regularly by victims of crime to defend themselves. Mass murders happen in "Gun Free Zones," The Aurora Colorado shooter chose the only theater in his area that posted signs prohibiting the lawful carry of concealed weapons, as his preferred shooting gallery. Compare that to the number of mass shootings at gun ranges.

The truth about laws restricting arms is self evident and long recognized. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." ~ Thomas Jefferson

The most devastating and massive murder at an American School happened in Bath, Michigan, where 38 children and 7 adults were murdered on May 27, 1927. The school district's treasurer, Andrew Kehoe, detonated a series of improvised explosive devices. At this time the murderer could order a variety of fully automatic machine guns by mail. Obviously readily available guns were not the cause. Both Newton and Bath mass murders of children were the result of the actions of evil men. Lanza and Kehoe are solely responsible for those mass murders, not the tools they chose to do their evil deeds, explosives or guns.

Gun control nuts, are totally disingenuous, the let their hoplophobia and desire to disarm the general public, cloud them from reality. They ignore the other causes of death, or accept other methods of murder, but single out guns not based on empirical evidence but on emotional fear. The cries and wailings of gun control nuts and their objective silence on the two deaths of others recently committed by professional football players is a prime example. Belcher of the Chiefs murdered his girl friend and then shot himself, and the statist left demanded more gun restrictions, but when Price-Brent committed manslaughter using both his car and alcohol killing Jerry Brown Jr. they remain silent. No call to ban booze or cars. You see those same statist lefties like their booze and their cars, but are scared of guns.

When more people drink and drive, more people die. But as the newly released Congressional Research Service report, "Gun Control Legislation", clearly shows as Americans have increased gun ownership, and increased the number of concealed weapons we carry, actual violent crime and murders has gone down. So it is plain that Gun Control Zealots don't actually care about people dying, what they care about is any excuse to increase the scope of government and reduce Americans ability to be self reliant, which depends on their ability to defend themselves.

John Lott, author of "More Guns = Less Crime", has issued a challenge to hoplophobes who are calling for more gun control laws; put a sign on your lawn or in a window of your home: "This is a gun-free zone." To date nobody has taken up his challenge, why?

The truth is rural America has more guns and less violent crime than urban America. Cities like Chicago with severe restrictions and prohibitions on having a gun and using it for self defense, have murder rates higher than many third world countries; even Mexico City has a lower murder rate than Chicago. Gun Control Zealots have no respect for the facts. There have been too many peer reviewed factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt. Gun control laws are not only futile, but have proven to produce problems and more difficulties instead of helping to achieve a goal.

Here is a fact that the press won't cover and is very politically incorrect. White America owns guns at a far greater rate than Black America, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. If you exclude black on black crime, the crime and murder rate in the USA is amongst the lowest in industrialized nations. If you seriously want to address violent crime in the USA, then the place to look is at inner city black culture which is responsible for the majority of violent crime in the USA. Hundreds of black youth have been murdered with guns in Chicago this year alone, the city where laws already prohibit anybody from having a gun. Drive by shootings don't happen in Kennesaw GA, where every head of household is required by law to have a gun. They happen in inner city black neighborhoods, where the community won't rat out black thugs, and vigilante justice not the rule of law reigns. Another ignored fact is that more people have been murdered in the past year without any weapon but with the murder's bare hands than with any rifle, much less a so called "assault" weapon. Where is the call to outlaw people's hands.

Dr. Kleck did some peer reviewed research that showed that regular people use firearms 80 times more often to protect themselves and stop violent crime than firearms are used to commit crime. Gun Control zealots ignore those results, when even their fellow gun haters who are honest about the facts and don't don't like the conclusions, agree with the findings that Dr. Kleck reached. They cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang wrote that in an article of The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology titled, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed."

Of the more than a dozen national polls, including one conducted by The Los Angeles Times,that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the gun hating Clinton Justice Department found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. Those studies are over a decade old, newer studies are finding trouble getting funding because those controlling the purse strings, big government statists, won't fund them unless they guarantee pro-gun control results. So unless researchers are willing to suffer the fate of Michael Bellesiles, the Professor of History at Emory University who was forced to resign, when his anti-gun book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture," was found "willingly misrepresented the evidence," they no-longer conduct gun research with pre-conceived conclusions. A three-person committee, composed of scholars from Princeton University, Harvard University and the University of Chicago, concluded that Mr. Bellesiles' work showed "evidence of falsification," "egregious misrepresentation" and "exaggeration of data." Bellesiles' work is evidence that statist left hoplophobes promoting more gun control not only ignore the truth, but will lie to get their desires.

Yes we should keep guns out of the hands of the criminally insane. But the same people who want to disarm America, refuse to lock up crazy people. The perpetrators of 90% of the mass shootings in recent history are known or reasonably suspected to have been prescribed and using psychotropic drugs for mental illness. The research and warnings show that the side effects of psychotropic drugs can be violent unpredictable behavior. The increase in the use of psychotropic drugs on young developing adolescent males closely correlates with the increase in that same group committing evil acts of violence. The side effects of these drugs are known to induce thoughts of suicide, and increased impulsive behavior, yet we continue to use them on our youth. Uninhibited violent behavior is a known and proven side effect of psychotropic drugs. If the goal was less mass murder behavior, and less children murdered, then this not guns, would be the subject of the press and those who care.

More than any other issue, gun owners have proven that they will vote out those in office who attack our right to keep and bear arms. To all our elected officials, remember more gun control laws will result in a loss at the poles regardless of your party. The best example of that is Al Gore, whose anti-gun record cost him his home state of Tennessee, and probably the 2000 election.

Israel's response to terrorism and mass murder directed at schools, was to make sure that there were people voluntarily armed at schools, not every teacher, but enough teacher's, admins, and other private volunteers, so that terrorists and madmen know that they will be confronted with deadly force. Thus Israel eliminated the safe shooting gallery that "gun free schools" create. The truth is, the evil actions of Lanza, do not justify disarming or further restricting guns in America. A determined evil person planning on and willing to take their own life, cannot be stopped by mere laws. Lanza, continued his murder spree until he was confronted by armed law enforcement, where he then killed himself. If he'd been confronted when he first shot his way into the school, not much later when law enforcement finally arrived, he'd have either killed himself or been shot then, not after being given the time to kill 20 innocent children. The truth is "Gun Free Zones" are responsible for the effectiveness of mass murderers who routinely choose these places to commit murderous evil.

The facts don't justify more gun control laws. But then the hoplophobes don't care about truth, and they are supported by statists as their goal is a dependent society who doesn't have the means of self reliance or defense. This country was created by rebels who went to war because the Government actively tried to take away their guns. That's right the first shots fired in the American Revolution were a direct result of the British trying to take away our arms, not taxes, not freedom of religion, not freedom of speech, not the right to vote, but the active assault on private and community arms. This country has attracted and been expanded by people who wanted to be self reliant, and exercise their right to succeed on their own, not on the dictates of some government official. Gun control zealots are horribly mistaken if they think they can legislate away American guns. The people of this country will not willingly relinquish the 310 Million guns we own.

Uncivil Discourse? Bolderdash!

By Tom Rhodes, 8/19/2011

I hear and read cries of people being “tired” of all this partisanship. The president, the press, and pundits claiming that “Never Before has the house/senate been so partisan, so uncivil, yada yada yada.” This is unmitigated Bolderdash. Today’s politicians are virtual bastions of etiquette, following in the footsteps of Emily Post compared to the speech and actions in the History of US Legislative and presidential discourse.

First consider the death of one of our most famous forefathers, Alexander Hamilton. Aaron Burr, the Al Gore of his day, lost the US presidential election in 1800 by a handful of votes. Thomas Jefferson was elected instead and made his defeated opponent Vice President. Burr blamed his defeat on Alexander Hamilton, one of the great figures of the American Revolution. Hamilton – a close friend of Washington, co-framer of the constitution and a former head of the army – had successfully persuaded a tied electoral college to swing behind Jefferson. so when Vice President Burr discovered a few years later that Hamilton had bad-mouthed him in a later, he issued an instant challenge. Hamilton – by then retired from politics – was opposed to dueling on moral and religious grounds, but the duty of honor was greater and so, on July 11, 1804, both men crossed the River Hudson with their seconds to what is now New Jersey. Burr was determined to shot his rival dead, which he did. Hamilton, as he was shot, discharged his own pistol into the ground. There was huge public revulsion at the death of such a popular figure and the Vice President found himself on the receiving end of some seriously bad headlines. He was deprived of his New York citizenship and forced in to hiding. In later years, he was shunned by society and died destitute n Staten Island in 1836.



Although he is ranting and raving a lot, I don’t see Al Gore challenging Dick Chaney or anybody else to a duel, much less killing those who words caused him political harm.

Now let’s consider the legislature, specifically that noble and dignified body the US Senate. On May 19, 1856, Republican Senator Charles Sumner gave his famous "Crime Against Kansas" speech in the well of the Senate. In his over three hour oration, Sumner attack Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, both pro-slavery. His attack on Butler was especially harsh and made fun of the Senator's speech defect.

Two days later, fellow senator, Democrat Preston Brooks, nephew of Congressman Butler, approached Sumner while the latter was writing at his desk in the Senate chamber. The room was nearly empty, but there were enough people present that an accurate account of what happened could later be assembled. Brooks approached the sitting Senator and said "Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine." With that, he began beating Sumner on the head with his heavy cane, which was topped with a gold head. Sumner could not rise up as his desk was bolted to the floor. Brooks continued to beat him until Sumner tore the desk from the floor and staggered up the aisle away from his attacker, blinded by his own blood. He collapsed in the middle of the aisle, at which time Brooks continued his attack until his cane broke in two. Several senators tried to intercede on Sumner's behalf, but Congressman Laurence Keitt of South Carolina, an ally of Brooks, stood by the men with a pistol drawn and shouted "Let them be!"



Senator Sumner took three years to recover from his wounds. The Massachusetts General Court reelected him in November 1856 anyway, believing that his vacant chair in the Senate chamber served as a powerful symbol of free speech and resistance to slavery. Congressman Brooks became sort of a hero in the South, a symbol of that area's resistance to perceived bullying from the North. Northerners were outraged. Senator Sumner, elected to his seat as a Republican, became a symbol for anti-slavery forces. Congressman Brooks was subject to an expulsion vote in the House of Representatives that did not pass, but nonetheless gave up his seat for the rest of his term. The people of South Caroline promptly re-elected him at the next election. In honor of Brooks, Pierceville, a small Florida town located near the site of Ft. Desoto, changed it's name to Brooksville. Both men remained in their offices for the rest of their lives.

Simply put, politician’s calls for more civility are just political drama, used to avoid having to answer tough questions. What today is called uncivil discourse is milquetoast compared to our history. What we need are not politicians who won't say what they think, and provide us safe middle of the road platitudes. We need bold politicians who are not affraid to say what they believe, stand up to those whom they don't agree, and let the votes fall where they will. We have a man who running for president right now who has remained stedfast in his beliefs, and not affraid to tell not only the other party but his own party what he believes. That's Ron Paul.

Reading between the party lines in the Iowa straw poll

By Tom Rhodes, 8/15/2011

The Iowa GOP straw poll and the media response clearly demonstrate that the statist parties do not want nor respect the actual desires of the people.

Minnesota congresswoman and Iowa native, Michelle Bachmann, spent millions and won the Iowa straw poll. As a local and “favorite son” of Iowa, one would expect that the citizens of the great state of Iowa support one of their own. However, history has shown that nobody who has won the GOP Iowa straw poll (unless unopposed) has ultimately won, EVER! Although an entertaining candidate who sends liberals frothing at the mouth, which is always fun to watch, she will not win the GOP nomination much less the Presidency, and will be defeated fairly early in the primaries, the press and GOP leadership will see to that.

The results of the Iowa Republican straw poll of August 13, had Bachmann, edged out Ron Paul with a 4,823 to 4,671 victory. Ron Paul, despite what the main stream press says, won the debate last Thursday, and clearly has more popular support than the press or leadership in the GOP wants to recognize. Excluding Bachmann, Paul had more than double the votes of any other candidate, and the poll indicates that the rest of the GOP field does not have much popular support. The results of others were: (3) Tim Pawlenty 2,293; (4) Rick Santorum 1,657; (5) Herman Cain 1,456; (6) Rick Perry 718 (write-in); (7) Mitt Romney 567; (8) Newt Gingrich 385; (9) Jon Huntsman 69; (10) Thad McCotter 35.

It is clear that even with their national recognition Santorum, Cain, and Gingrich are in it so that they can hopefully set the direction the GOP want the nomination to go and have a voice in the primaries, not to actually win. The GOP and Press do not really want to recognize or accept the actual direction the people indicate they want the party to move. Romney finished 7^th, he is not conservative, does not believe small-government principles, and does not have popular support, and the albatross of Romneycare makes him unelectable; Yet according to the media, he is the front runner for the Republican nomination. Some in the press have declared that it is a race between Romney and Perry, the statists want the people to choose the candidate they prefer, not the candidate who voices the ideas the people actually want.

Romney is leading in corporate donations; Perry will be another large corporate beneficiary (big oil). The GOP elites in Washington do not want some outsider nominated. The current GOP nomination campaign will clearly demonstrate whether statist corporate cronyism or the people determine the course of the Republican Party. Last November the GOP elite and corporate cronies got caught with their pants down. The people through the TEA Party actually upset their apple cart, and the elected a good number of republicans who actually did as they promised, and voted to keep government spending down. They are being vilified by the press, the Democrats, and GOP leadership. Note the double standard in how the members of the TEA Party faction were treated for not voting to extend the debt ceiling, compared to the Democrats who also refused to vote for the plan.

I predict that the GOP elite and corporate cronies will do all they can to insure that they do not let the Republican nomination go to somebody who isn’t firmly in their pocket. I believe they would rather lose the presidency, then allow a person who they don’t firmly control, and who won’t continue to support the expansion of government, get nominated. The very idea of a GOP candidate who doesn’t support corporate supremacy, and the continued control of the economy and people through government largess frighten them. The Republicans and Democrats are both statists, their only difference is the means of state control they support. The Democrats want state control by controlling the people, the GOP wants state control through corporations, and neither promotes individual liberty and freedom.

The idea that somebody with true libertarian ideas who has popular support, like Ron Paul, wins the GOP nomination is not something the statists will tolerate. They do not want the people to have the chance to choose a candidate who supports small government. Expect the press to ignore or denigrate any success of candidates with libertarian ideas. Expect the leaders from both statist parties, the Republicans and Democrats, to work together to kill any libertarian candidate. Expect them to do all they can to down play the significance of the TEA Party changing the election in 2010, and the TEA Party faction actually voting in congress the way they promised. Expect the Democrats to attack and make the TEA party look smaller than it is, and the GOP to try and co-opt the TEA Party, and move it to corporate cronyism.

There is a faction of the GOP, the Republican Liberty Caucus, which espouses and supports libertarian ideas. They support Ron Paul and other libertarian minded candidates. The RLC claims to be the small government, liberty-defending wing of the Republican Party. The current GOP nomination campaign will clearly be a test of whether corporate or RLC determine the course of the Republican Party.

The RLC more closely rrepresents the actual values of the people, as indicated by the 4671 votes for Ron Paul over the media and GOP leadership preferred nominees. As a Libertarian, in many ways I hope the RLC is not successful in its goals of re-introducing the values that started the Republican Party back to the GOP. Today these values are called libertarian. The RLC Statement of Principles reads much like the LPF platform. For the sake of my party I would prefer the RLC to realize that the corporate powers that control the GOP will not allow their success, and the best chance for true success is to abandon the GOP and urge all liberty loving republicans to join the Libertarian Party. The good libertarian that I am, my true hope is more than the success of the LP but my hope is for actual smaller government and more liberty in my lifetime, so I will cheer the RLC if they are successful and Republican Ron Paul is nominated. If the RLC fails, it will be a clear indicator that the GOP is just a corporate shill promoting statism through corporate cronyism and that the two-party system has failed the people of the United States.

Economic History

by Tom Rhodes, 6/12/11

Arguably the greatest government stimulus package we ever saw was World War II. What followed was the post WWII recovery, arguably the greatest economic boom we have ever seen. What did the government do to create such a boom?

Quite simply it rolled back to a small portion of what it was in WWII: Within one year government spending went from $84B to $30B; 10 million soldiers were released from service; economic controls and rationing were lifted; in short it was a shock-and-awe type of de-stimulus.

Keynesian economists of the day predicted that the abrupt withdrawal of government spending would plunge the economy into another depression. They predicted 14% unemployment.

The reality was that unemployment rates remained under 4.5%; employment grew, household consumption grew, business investment grew, and exports boomed, as government spending decreased.

Our postwar experience shows that growth is not generated by massive government action, but by the exact opposite. We do far better when the government will get out of our way and not to choke us with trillions of dollars in new debt.

A recent Harvard study showed that when a region has their congressman head a important committee, rather than do better they usually do worse economically.

Why are we unwilling to learn from our past. It is painfully obvious that massive government spending has not done as predicted; history has shown repeatedly that more government will not lead to more growth. Why don't we look at history, and repeat our post WWII success, with a massive de-stimulus and contraction of the government?

The Truth will Set You Free

On August 21, 2010 Obama said the following, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are the people with something to hide."

The following is a list of some of the records that President Obama has refused to release to the public see:

educational records from kindergarten at Noelani Elementary through the swanky private Punahou School;

his SAT scores;

records from Occidental College that would reveal whether he attended as a foreign student;

the transcript of courses and grades he took at Occidental College, or Columbia University, or Harvard Law school.

his thesis written at Columbia on "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament," on which he reportedly spent a year of research;

his LSAT scores;

Harvard Law Review articles during the time he served as the first black president of the institution;

University of Chicago scholarly articles;

medical and health records;

files and schedules during his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 through 2004;

If what Obama said is true, "The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are the people with something to hide," what is he trying to hide by not releasing those records?