Caught Again, Cooking the Science Books

By Tom Rhodes, 6/23/2014

What is plainly obvious is that global warming is nothing more than a pseudoscience concocted to justify global government. We continue to see lies, fraud, and fictitious data to support the idea that the globe is warming because of man’s undue influence on the climate. Soon we will see the foundation of AGW theory to fabricated and fraudulent.

This is the truth, before government statists got ahold of the data.



The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

What we have now is yet another example condemning stastists. Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science provides this example shows how shamelessly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has manipulated the graph of US surface temperature records, which has been one of the world’s most influential climate records.

This is yet more proof that skeptics of global warming (aka deniers) have been consistently correct.

Moore's law is going to explode

By Tom Rhodes, 6/16/2014

Looks like Moore’s law is going to get blown apart soon. The idea that due to miniaturization and faster transistors that computing speed will double every 18 months has held true for a while. New discovery that will allow to not only measure the polarity but also the spin of electrons in electronics will move us from a binary systems to quadratic systems using both spin and polarity. So instead of every position on a bus or in storage representing either + or – you’ll have each position resulting one of 4 representations, +S +D –S or –D. that will be the initial improvement. So instead of a 64bit processor being able to handle 4000 combinations per cycle, it will be able to handle 16MILLION combinations per cycle. Interesting note that in 64bit storage a 16Million color image, will require only 1 position per pixel to describe it’s color, reducing the size of a 16Million color image by a factor of 4000. That means an image that used to take 2 megabytes of data would require a small fraction of that for storage.

And . . . . when instead of just measuring spin in terms of left and right but in degrees of left or right (degree of polymerization) true 8, 16 and even 32 character storage positions instead of binary will be possible. Computing will EXPLODE faster than the 80’s. The Heusler compound is going to change computing. Based on using Co2MnSi this is the breakthrough that physicists and chemists around the world have long anticipated, and it will play a pivotal role in information technology.

Read About It Here

Fraud Legal, Rule of Law Dead.

By Tom Rhodes, 6/16/2014

For centuries fraud has been illegal. The fundamental English Common law pretty much dictated that if you sell somebody something, and then deliver something other than what you said you sold, you are guilty of fraud. If I tell you I’ll sell you a 5 lb sack of potatoes for $3 dollars, and you then take the clearly labeled 5 pound sack of potatoes and later find out it had 5 lbs of rocks you have a clear case of fraud, and could win compensation for the fraud in court. Simple enough principle and everybody agrees advertising and selling potatoes and delivering rocks is fraudulent and illegal and actionable.

Unless of court you’re a bank. The rule of law no longer applies to banks. It is now legal for banks to falsely represent their products to consumers. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) won dismissal of a suit over $450 million in residential mortgage-backed securities, with a New York judge saying that the firms that bought the bonds should have done more research beforehand.

State Supreme Court Justice Charles Ramos dismissed the claims against Goldman Sachs today, saying the investors only reviewed data presented in offering documents for the securities and never asked to review files for the underlying loans.

“The true nature of the risk being assumed could, admittedly, have been ascertained from reviewing these loan files and plaintiffs never asked for them,” Ramos wrote.

In no uncertain terms judges have ruled that it is perfectly legal to present someone with a fraudulent document claiming to be selling them a pig in the poke, if you don’t actually look in the crate to see that there is a dead cat, and not a live pig in there, it's your fault.

Singlehandedly Judge Ramos has destroyed the loan security market. You are now responsible for checking every single loan that Is part of a mortgage security to ascertain the risk. The bank offering the security is allowed to legally present you with a fraudulent document that doesn’t reflect the actual risks of the loans making up such securities.

Imagine if food companies could legally tell you that the ground beef you were buying was USDA certified and inspected, and sell you rotten mutton instead. If you didn’t check the actual inspection certificate for that lot and compare it to USDA documents, you couldn’t sue for fraud.

Imagine ordering a computer from Amazon online, you purchase a unit advertised to have a Pentium i7 processor and 8GB of ram, and a 2TB hard drive, when you open the box you get an 4.77Mhz XT with an 8088 processor, a single floppy and 256K of ram. Then you find out you have no legal recourse, can’t return it, and can’t sue you didn’t verify that the components in the box where what was promised. That’s the new standard for Banking.

If you have an IRA, or retirement fund that has any money in financial securities, you can be legally fleeced because the banks have no legal requirement to be honest in their holdings, and if you or your broker doesn’t verify the validity of all the details in any prospectus provided independently, you have no recourse.

Game over people, banks are exempt from the law, just like congress. We no longer live in a nation of laws, but an oligarchy ruled by money changers and political hacks. Now that you cannot get justice from the government, the result will be bad. Real bad. To have justice you will be forced to seek it yourself. Just as if you purchase an ounce of pot and get an ounce of oregano, you can’t go to police. Now if you get a bad prospectus and the bank takes your life savings, you can’t go to the FCC or police. So like drug dealers and users, if ripped off you have two choices, accept being ripped off and write off your loses or seek justice on your own. Drug dealers often die violently because they ripped somebody off. Bankers fraudulently take too many people’s money and the courts and government don’t let them get away with it, and they too might be treated like a drug dealer selling oregano as pot. When enough people lose their life savings and their homes because bankers are legally allowed to present fraudulent documents, and those people have no recourse, you will see violent repercussions. Justice in the USA is looking more and more like the third world; justice depends on who you know and your political status not the rule of law.

Ownership

By Tom Rhodes, 6/11/2014

Ownership - A fundamental question. How you view and define ownership is THE fundamental component of your world view. The fundamental and accepted concept of ownership is generally accepted as the legal relation between a person (individual, group, corporation, or government) and an object. The object may be corporeal, such as furniture, or completely the creature of law, such as a patent, copyright, or annuity; it may be movable, such as an animal, or immovable, such as land. Because the objects of property and the protected relations are different in every culture and vary according to law, custom, and economic system and the relative social status of those who enjoy its privileges, it is difficult to find a least common denominator of "ownership." Ownership of property probably means at a minimum that one's government or society will help to exclude others from the use or enjoyment of one's possession without one's consent, which may be withheld except at a price.

You don’t really accept that. You believe that at some point societies “needs” outweigh other people’s right to own something. You believe that the state owns the people. Your vote and actions declare that the state owns all individuals, and that they don’t own themselves.

We don’t treat living things we own the same as inanimate objects. In a modern western civilization it is generally accepted that if own something living, like a dog or a horse or a cat, you have a moral and often legal obligation to be responsible for its basic health and wellbeing. Owning a living thing, like a dog, doesn’t give you the right to abuse it. Not like owning a car, if you own a car you are free to use it in a demolition derby if you choose, you’re free to crush it, hit it with a hammer, never change its oil, etc. It’s yours, you own it, so you can do what you want with it so long as you don’t use it in a way that interferes with other peoples natural rights. Not all societies think that way, that is one of the differences between savage and civilized societies. In a savage society, ownership conveys no responsibility, you can crush it, burn it, abuse it, or protect and cherish it, owning a living thing is no different than owning a rock, you use it any way you want, be it an animal or a car or even a person.

The drug war is based on the idea that the state owns its citizens. Just like you as a dog owner has the right to determine what your dog ingests, the state as owner of its citizens it has the right to determine what substances you can ingest, from recreational drugs to your very food. Some courts in the USA have ruled that you have no right to choose what food you eat (try to buy raw milk). More than what you are allowed to put in your body, your very essence is determined by the state. You as the owner of a dog have the right to name it, the state too claims the right to name property of what it owns. You didn’t get to pick your name, don’t think that your parents did either. You can’t even change your own name, oh you think you can go to the courts and “legally” change your name but that’s a façade. The state named you. When you are born, you can’t leave the hospital without your state assigned name. You can’t go to school without your state assigned name. You can’t seek the services of a doctor without your state assigned name. You can’t even purchase real property, or ask a bank to hold your money without your state assigned name. In fact the state is doing everything it can to make it so you can’t even travel without identifying yourself with your state assigned name. You can’t get on an airplane without your state assigned name. You can’t drive a car without your state assigned name. They want to make it so you can’t travel by bus or train without providing your state assigned name. Your Social Security Number.

The state owns you, it even named its property so it can track its property. You are its property. The state claims first right to your labor, and graciously allows you to keep part of your labor. The entire health care and other “entitlement” debates exist because we are a civilized society, and expect the owners of living things to accept civilized responsibilities. Just as the owner of a dog is expected to feed it, and not abuse it, the state is expected to feed its citizens and not abuse them. Savage states, don’t feed their citizens, and routinely abuse them. The determination is all in how the state views ownership, but today, all societies work on the belief that the state owns its citizens.

For a very short and brief period of time in all of human history, a society was instituted on the idea that individuals are severing. That idea exists but is not accepted by any society today. That society limited the state, outlawed direct taxation of individual labor, assumed that unless specifically granted the state didn’t have the power to regulate individual. There were no laws governing what you could eat, smoke, etc. The assumption was the state had no power to tell sovereign people how to live. The state didn’t provide for its citizens, in fact the idea of using tax monies to provide charity to victims of a fire, or other natural disaster was considered unconstitutional (read: “Not Yours To Give”). That very brief experiment in individual sovereignty, is gone.

We are returning to the days of the state, controlled by a few ruling elite, own the masses. Not much different than old feudalism. Look at the uproar over mere citizens not understanding they are owned. The ruling elite are having trouble with the idea that its property, whom they graciously to allow to vote to select leadership, have actually not selected from the approved ruling elite. Eric Cantor’s loss is not an “Earthquake” as some main stream press have headlined. It’s a speed bump in the return to mankind’s historic norms, were a very few ruling elite own and control the masses. Seeing this coming, we note the ruling elite no longer protect and accept the idea that the power is distributed, they willing allow the president to create, change, ignore, and modify law in clear disregard to constitutional limits. They have also accepted and instituted the idea that judges can force legislators to create law. They moved the responsibility and authority from congress to create laws, determine fines, penalties, and fees to unelected bureaucrats. Ownership means control, and the ruling elite have taken control away from elected representatives.

Want proof your owned. There is a disease, ALS commonly called Lou Gehrig’s disease. With rare exception once diagnosed with ALS, you’re dead in 2 to 5 years. There is (was) no known drug that significantly improved this outcome. There is now a new drug in in clinical trials that holds considerable promise. The state has not granted it’s approval. In fact the average time our owners take to approve a new drug its mere property to use is 10 years. You don’t own yourself, if diagnosed with ALS, you do not have the choice to take the chance and try the new drug. This new drug is a risk, the side effects could be bad, or deadly, you might get worse and die sooner if you try this new currently experimental drug. Don’t take it and you will die in an average of 2 to 5 years. The right to take the risk and try this new drug doesn’t exist, your owner, the state, through the FDA determines what risks you can/can’t take just like you determine what food your dog eats, or if your dog gets surgery or is put down because you can’t or don’t want to spend the money. That’s ownership. The state owns you, the state not you, determines if you as an ALS patient can try the new drug. In 10 years the FDA might approve the new drug, over that time 50,000 citizens with ALS will die, without the choice of trying a drug their owner hasn’t decided on. If the owner decides the new drug is too costly, too bad, not your choice, not even the choice between you, your doctor, and your insurance company, your owner determines what medical practices are allowed, what drugs you can take, and what will or won’t be paid for. Proof you are owned, a slave to the state.

Keep voting for the ruling elite, the Republican or Democrat candidates the ruling elite offer you to choose from, each vote for an incumbent or any Republican or any Democrat is a vote to maintain the status quo, state ownership of the citizenry.

Popular Science Tells Scientists to “Stop Looking”

By Tom Rhodes, 6/5/2014

In the April 2014 issue of Popular Science, the is asking scientists to stop doing science that might reach Politically Correct conclusions. Specifically stop doing neuroscience looking at the differences between men and women because the results might support politically incorrect stereotypes. The call (and title of the article) is to “Stop Looking For 'Hardwired' Differences In Male And Female Brains.”

Understand exactly what “Popular Science” is calling for. Stop doing scientific research that might lead to evidence that sex based stereotypes are based on real physiologic differences in males and females. “Popular Science” believes that evidence that doesn’t support the feminist position that the differences between boys and girls is socially induced and not rooted in biological differences, and that scientists should not do any research that might upset their belief. Even the primary example they use to illustrate their point, actually proves the opposite.

”In the past decade, several thousand papers have been published on sex differences in the human brain. Many physical differences are genuine, but oftentimes not meaningful. Take for example, an easily measurable characteristic: size. One study recorded men’s brain volumes at 1,053 to 1,499 cubic centimeters and women’s at 975 to 1,398. The overlap means you couldn’t tell the sex of a random brain from its size.”

How is a simple measurement that can clearly identify sex of more than a third of all samples not meaningful. Saying that you can't tell the sex of a random brain from its size ignores the fact that any adult human brain smaller than 1053 cc is female, and any larger than 1398 cc is male. Because about a third of human brains are larger than 1053 cc or smaller than 1398 cc that data IS meaningful, so too is the fact that there is a two thirds overlap in brain size between the sexes. The hard fact is that the average size of women’s brains is 1187 cc and the average size of a men’s brains is 1276 cc, that 7% difference is meaningful.

New research also indicates that there is a difference between how men’s and women’s brains are wired. The research indicates that men have stronger connections within a given hemisphere, whereas women have stronger connections between the two. Again there is overlap but a clear measurable difference in total population studied. Just as brain size and intelligence are clearly related. In 2005, psychologist Michael McDaniel evaluated studies that used brain-imaging and standard intelligence tests and found that unequivocally, bigger brains correlated with smarter people [source: McDaniel]. The overlap in male/female brain size is meaningful too; when scientists converted the SAT scores of 100,000 17- and 18-year-olds to a corresponding IQ score and found that males averaged 3.63 IQ points higher than the females. Since you all know that the average IQ is 100, that means that although men have on average a 7% larger brain it only results in about average 3% increase in IQ. Thus when looking at the totality of populations, the differences are real, measurable, and meaningful, but those real difference do not correlate to any specific individual.

This all points to the very un-PC fact that men and women are different. Casual observation and in-depth statistical analysis will show you that there are far more men in engineering than women, and there are far more women in nursing and teaching than men. Both are valued and worthy professions, and the bias we see in men/women self-select those professions is clearly observable and scientifically rational. The overlap in human brains between the sexes is why there are individuals of either sex who excel and are successful in avocations that stereotypically populated by the other sex; while the reason there are sex based stereotypical avocations is because as a whole men and women are different in observable measurable ways that results in them self-selecting different vocations. So historically and scientifically we readily observe that on the whole men are more suited for some vocations and women more suited for others.

It is not politically correct to note there are clear historic and scientific facts that indicate that men and women have real physiologic and neurologic differences that result in differing abilities and preferences. “Popular Science” now is pushing to stop research that might actually scientifically quantify those differences. This is why people are now doubting scientists as a reliable source of the truth. It can be clearly observed that if the science doesn’t reach the preconceived outcome that the ruling elite desire it is not published, hidden, covered up, and not funded (Watch the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”). Truth is the victim of political correctness. “Popular Science” has clearly gone the way of 1984 and is a purveyor of newspeak not truth.

It’s not just Popular Science. Rather than debate, discuss, and look at the science of global warming, any talk, article, reference, etc. to ideas and research that doesn’t support the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is forbidden from the LA Times. Canadian weather forecasters are forbidden from discussing climate change. The is a clear scientific link between abortion and breast cancer you don’t read about that in the news. The real reasons pro-lifers are pro-life are never mentioned (they are characterized as women-haters, even though there are more women than men in the pro-life movement). The MSM is dominated by newspeak, 1984 was prophetical not allegorical.

The statists in our country are attacking the truth, we are seeing our liberty and freedoms eroded at medieval rates. Statists at our colleges and universities openly call for censorship of ideas they don’t want discussed or expressed. Statists in the press routinely refuse to report and actively deny and slander news that doesn’t support the statist agenda. Now even Popular Science calls for scientific research to stop because the truth might not support current PC positions. This coincides with the open attack on Christianity, the religion that lead to the scientific method, the religion that lead to the enlightenment and libertarian thinking. Truth leads to freedom, Christ said, “you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Popular Science is so worried that the truth might not lead to PC conclusions, it tells scientists to “Stop Looking.”

Popular Science is basically saying “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

I Told You So

If you've been reading this blog, you know that "I told you so."

Princeton study concludes: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

Why the Divide in Politics will get Worse!

By Tom Rhodes, 5/14/2014

The reason America seems so divided is because it is. In big ways that polite society doesn’t talk about. That is because the country no longer has a set of shared goals. Specifically the left believes statism and control are more important than liberty, to the point that they would rather everybody universally poor than for there to be free individuals who the state doesn’t monitor and control. The idea that an average person outside of the ruling elite could become more successful and be outside of ruling elites control is not tolerable.

It’s not that they care if any individual is rich or poor, but that the ruling elite are in control. Consider California, where massive numbers of productive citizens are leaving in record numbers, the economy sucks and cannot support itself; 600,000 industrial jobs gone in the last 15 yrs; electricity 50% higher than national average; millionaires in 47 other states pay less income tax than a middle class worker earning $48K does in California; Public employee pentions are bankrupting the entire state; California has 25 billion barrels of oil sitting untapped in the Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits, yet sends billions of dollars to Texas, Canada and elsewhere to buy natural gas and oil that it could have produced itself; Twitter, Telsa, Toyota, Adobe, eBay, Occidental petroleum, ARCO, Getty Oil, Union Oil, and Oracle, among other major California companies, have moved or announced they will move out of California to another US State. The laws and regulations of California are driving away people and business. Despite the humiliating economic statistics, California Democrats continue the same statist path.

The reason is clear jobs, companies, and individuals living in California are not the goals for those in charge. Prosperity is not important to the left. Power and control are their goals, in fact the worse the economy, the more people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the more control statists have over those people and more importantly more will vote for whoever promises more stuff from government, Democrats.

Consider guns. The facts are pretty clear, all of the dire predictions have proven to be false. More guns and more people allowed to carry guns rather than result in increased crime as proven to reduce overall violent crime to levels not seen in a century (you wouldn’t know that reading the statist MSM). The hatred over guns is not that you might use them for self-protection, or that they might be used in crime, but that the people might successfully stop the increase in state power. Bundy in Nevada proved exactly what the left fears; that an armed society can and will stand up to an oppressive over controlling government. The second amendment severely restricts the power of the ruling elite, it’s hard to control an armed population.

Consider Freedom of Speech and the entire Bill of Rights. The statist LA Times won’t even allow dissenting opinions on subjects used to control the people to be printed. The left loudly cheered the NFL chastising and forcing Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones, who dared tweet offense at the faggot kiss of the first openly gay NFL player, to pay a fine and be forced go to indoctrination camp to learn how to think correctly. Soon the statist gay mafia will declare it illegal to be a Christian and publicly read the bible. Look at how Tebow was treated compared to the new NFL fairy.

Rule of law – statists believe they aren’t subject to the same rules, and can ignore the representatives of the people. Obama changing Obamacare dozens of times without legal authority is proof enough. But claiming that he can execute US citizens without due process means that we know the government no longer plays by the rules so We the People don’t have to either. Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution clearly states “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Because the statists in Washington are not able to control everything and every body, they are openly violationg the constitution; Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is openly and purposefully proposing what he clearly knows to be unconstitutional ex post facto legislation, saying "I don't approach retroactivity in legislation lightly, but corporations must understand that they won't profit from abandoning the US..." Power is more important than the rule of law.

The reason we are seeing such division and strife in American politics is because we the statist left, does not share the American Dream, in fact they want to “fundamentally change” the country to rule by elite oligarchy. It will only get worse prepare for it.

Politically Correct Science

By Tom Rhodes, 5/5/2014

“ Politically Incorrect Science
Don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain.”

In 2008 Ben Stein produced and stared in the move “Expelled: No Intelligence allowed.” The film presents strong evidence that the mainstream science establishment suppresses academics who believe they see evidence of intelligent design in nature and who criticize evidence supporting Darwinian evolution. Now that science is producing politically incorrect results, we are now going to see the same science establishment suppress evidence of Darwinian evolution.

A Troublesome Inheritance, By Nicholas Wade, presents logic, genetic and other scientific arguments that destroy the orthodoxy of today’s science establishment. Science-loving equalitarians will have to choose between science and their faith. The heart of Wade’s book, stated quietly but with command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong. What Orthodoxy you ask?

The orthodoxy that all homo sapiens are so genetically identical and there are no viable classifications between people than can be attributed to race. In "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972), geneticist Richard Lewontin, declares that the races are so close to genetically identical that "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance." In a similar 1984 essay, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, says that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, saying "human equality is a contingent fact of history."

Apply the scientific method to Lewontin’s premise, and it too is obviously flawed. If in fact there is no genetic or taxonomic significance to race, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities. What A Troublesome Inheritance reports is exactly that, computer analysis of random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans, and group similarities, corresponds to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. Not just the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and aboriginal inhabitants of Australia. If the group all have European ancestry, the groupings will correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the various other European ethnicities. Lewontin premise is a object failure. Genetically humans can easily be classified genetically, by the racial and ethnic groups that humans have identified.

Apply the scientific method to Gould's assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left Africa and that premise fails spectacularly. The idea defies the theory of evolution. No scientifically thinking person would conclude that after man left Africa, the environment including lethally cold temperatures, produced no evolutionary adaptations. A 2009 appraisal of the available genome-wide scans estimated that 14% of the genome has been under the pressure of natural selection during the past 30,000 years, long after humans left Africa. The genes under selection include a wide variety of biological traits affecting everything from bone structure and diet to aspects of the brain and nervous system involving cognition and sensory perception. Studies further indicate Caucasians, Asians and sub-Saharan Africans have found that of the hundreds of genetic regions under selection, about 75% to 80% are under selection in only one race. The genes in these regions affect more than just cosmetic variations in appearance, some include changes in brain function. Wade writes, "What these genes do within the brain is largely unknown, But the findings establish the obvious truth that brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene."


Oops! – since we actually mapped out the Human Genome, in 2003, what is actually known by geneticists continues to deviate from this orthodoxy. The MSM and social scientists steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the politically incorrect results of new research. The non-PC conclusion is that the reigning intellectual orthodoxy on race is the "social construct." Scientifically the orthodoxy on race should die, however socially the orthodoxy will be perpetuated, regardless of science and truth.

Prove it to yourself, two people are entering two sporting events. All you know is their names, but you have to bet $1000 of your own money on each event. The events are weight lifting and a Marathon run. The athletes names are Sven and Abebe. Who do you put your money on for which event? Are you going to ignore genetics implied by their names? Or do you believe race is only a “social construct,” and the the observable fact that the world’s strongest men consistently come from the same geographic part of the world, and have the same genetic heritage is meaningless. Do you ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of world class marathon runners don’t come from that same area and have distinctively different genetics? Do you honestly believe that the observable truth concerning strength and endurance don’t apply to other physiologic abilities like cognitive reasoning? Are you so brainwashed that the observable truth should be ignored, and the science discouraged if it doesn’t produce the results you believe “should” be true?

Those who cling to liberal race orthodoxy are the geocentrists of today. The dogma that says "deep inside we're all the same," "it's not genetics, it’s the culture," and "human equality is a contingent fact of history," are fiction. Those ideas obscure the scientific truth. Science and the truth will eventually make it impossible to scream “racist” when somebody merely notes that when you exclude black murders from us crime statistics, the USA’s murder rate is virtually identical to Northern Europe’s, and comparing the murder rate of blacks in America more closely resembles the murder rate of sub-Saharan Africa, and there may be a genetic rationale for this observation.

Science is not politically correct, nor is the truth. So what’s it going to be, are you going to believe in science Darwinian Evolution, in which case you must accept based on the scientific evidence that the races are not the same, or are you going to suppress science, and faithfully stick with social construct that liberal orthodoxy on race perpetuates?

No Budget = No Recovery

By Tom Rhodes, 5/1/2014

The Wall Street Journal writes, “The U.S. economy slowed in the first quarter to one of the weakest paces of the five-year recovery. . . . “ I ask, “What Recovery?” The WSJ goes on, “Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, advanced at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 0.1% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.”

The reason the GDP sucks is obvious; less than 1 in 5 households have even one fully employed person (look at unemployed and underemployed as measured by U6 in the official employment numbers). No workers = no production = no growth = stagnant GDP.

Over the time of the so called “recovery” real inflation has raised the actual cost of living by nearly 20%, while real wages are down. If the government wasn’t fudging the numbers, we’d see the great recession was followed by stagnation not recovery and we are headed into recession again. We have seen repeatedly a few months after the government announces the GDP they “correct” that number and for the past decade, is inevitably lower, what’s lower than 0.1% growth???

What we know about the Obama Administration and the Democrat controlled Senate is that they haven’t passed a budget in 5 years. That means there is no plan and it’s obvious. The reality is”

A government that can’t budget can’t govern!

Freedom of Speech in the USA is Dead

By Tom Rhodes, 4/30/2014

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” regularly attributed to Voltaire, but first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre. Talk to any Libertarian, and they will whole heartedly support that position. Outside of libertarians not only would others not say that, they would advocate taking away your fundamental property rights based on what you say in private. The sentiments concerning freedom of speech are dead in the USA.

In 1977 the ACLU came to the defense of National Socialist Party of America in the Skokie Affair. What the Illinois Nazi’s were saying and the reasons behind their assembly in Skokie were reprehensible, but in the USA the entire culture worked under the belief that Freedom of Speech was more important than sissified people having their feelings hurt. Where is the ACLU and what is its position concerning Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling?

His public actions and words concerning race relations are laudable enough that Sterling was about to be acknowledged and rewarded by none other than the NAACP. Now because of the criminal actions of his ex-mistress, Miss V. Stiviano, illegally recording a clearly private conversation, Sterling is being deprived of property rights. Other than in the court of public opinion, the tape recording of Sterling’s racist rant is clearly not admissible, and V. Stiviano’s actions are criminal. Why isn’t she being prosecuted for her crime?

It appears that in the USA “expressing unpopular views in private” is now justification to take away private property rights, be banned from exercising your rights to use your property, or even go to public facilities. It would be nice to see the clause in the NBA Constitution that says the owners can force an owner to sell his team based on illegally obtained recordings of private conversations expressing unpopular views.

Considering what the press, and NBA are doing when a private conversation expressing racist views is illegally recorded and then made public, what are they going to do about Larry Johnson publically calling for the formation of a segregated all negro basketball league? Will he too be banned? His comments were equally racist and unlike Sterling’s were very public. In reality this is probably a power play by big money corporatists to use Miss Stiviano was a honey trap, to sway public opinion in order to provide a politically correct excuse to allow the NBA to give a major media market to the Guggenheim Partners and Michael Milken, but the ramifications for our culture, freedoms, and rights are vast.

Sterling is an obscenely rich bastard, I hope he fights tooth and nail to keep his property, and takes down the entire NBA with him. His public actions and words, not the illegally recorded, inadmissible, private comments to his ex-mistress, should be the only thing the NBA or press or possibly the courts be allowed to consider. Have we really come to the point where property rights can legally be taken away for what you say in private? Do we really want a world where you must assume everything you say in one-on-one private conversations is being recorded and can and will be used against you?

If the NBA owners vote to force him to sell the Clippers and Sterling takes them to court, it would force public exposure of the NBA constitution, which, unlike his illegally recorded private comments, are not currently publically available. It would be interesting to see what contractual rationale there is to force the sale of private property. The NBA probably has a case for forcing him out because of poor moral character, his public affair as evidenced by the public suit his wife is bringing against Miss V. Stiviano, clearly demonstrates Sterling’s poor moral character. Unless being an adulterous lecher in breach of his legally binding marriage contract is now considered a positive moral trait. Unlike his illegally obtained private comments these may be substantial grounds for forcing the sale of the Clippers, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t a line of either inquiry or thinking the NBA wants to explore.

Make no doubt about it, Sterling’s private remarks were deplorable racism, but they were private. Have we really come to a place where we accept the contents of illegal surveillance, which only revealed, clearly protected, even if unpopular, racist opinion and no criminal act as the justification to deprive an individual private property rights? Especially when all his public deeds and words concerning race are so laudable that the NAACP would reward a white guy?

It appears that is no sports personality, no major press organization, and no elected official willing to say “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Why? Unless there is a huge outcry from the press, and elected officials for the prosecution V. Stiviano’s obvious crime we can safely assume that this silence in both calling for justice and support of free speech, is evidence that the First Amendment is dead in the USA, and that there is in fact no right to privacy. The actions of the government and the compliant main stream media make it clear that freedom in the USA today is more like Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR than the country which back in 1976 declared that although the Illinois Nazi’s speech is deplorable, you cannot stop such speech nor deprive such speakers of life, liberty or property, for merely exercising their right to free speech. Today we routinely deprive people of property based on mere exercising their right to free speech.