Science says there multiple human "races" and culture is genetic too.

By Tom Rhodes 6/6/2020

From the article in the Huffington Post titled, "What Scientists Mean When They Say ‘Race’ Is Not Genetic", we read:

Genetic methods do not support the classification of humans into discrete races, [and] racial assumptions are not good biological guideposts. Races are not genetically homogeneous and lack clear-cut genetic boundaries. And because of this, using race as a proxy to make clinical predictions is about probability.

This is bullshit and not scientific. Let's use dogs as an example, and reword it that assertion using terms people associate with dogs.

Genetic methods do not support the classification of dogs into discrete breeds, [and] breed assumptions are not good biological guideposts. Breeds are not genetically homogeneous and lack clear-cut genetic boundaries. And because there are more mutts than purebreds, using breed as a proxy to make clinical predictions is about probability.

Absolutely absurd, when talking about different breeds of dogs, we can make good predictions not only on such clinical predictions as average age, size, speed, strength, susceptibility to certain disease, and so on, we can also make good predictions on temperament, intelligence, and behavior. Implying that race isn't a good indicator to make decisions because it is not a perfect predictor of those qualities, is like saying it's dumb to select a breed of dog because nobody can predict that dog's temperament etc.

All dogs are from the species called Canis lupus, a subspecies of wolf. The wolf, Canis lupus, has about 40 subspecies. Canis lupus familiaris. is the subspecies of wolf we call dogs. 

The races of man are simplistically referred to by color, white, black, yellow, some add brown and red.  The scientific fact is they are all subspecies of homo sapiens

Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality.

Although it is not politically correct, the science is clear, although lots of people are mutts, that does not change the fact that the races of man genetically distinct, and we can observe and see measurable differences in not only color, but races are predictive  estimating average; size, speed, strength, IQ, temperament, behavior, immune systems, and even culture.

How evolution is active and observable in the human population even in recent history.  One could rationally conclude that the industrial revolution, was caused by evolution and a drive in accelerated evolution, and the reasons some races had it and others never did, are evolutionary driven by natural selection and environmental pressures.

The fact that Time Magazine published what is about as politically incorrect an article as you can read is amazing. About as non-PC as you can get, but rational, measurable and scientific. "New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional."

Read it and rationally not emotionally look at the evidence, and history is pretty clear. Not only are the races genetically distinct, but so are cultures.

Cultural Rights

By Tom Rhodes, 7/2/2018

Anglos came to North America, the Native Nations did not stop them, and the Anglos not only didn’t assimilate into native culture but forced their culture on the Native Nations. History shows the result was the virtual destruction of the native cultures that existed in North America. Human tribes have been taking over and changing or destroying other cultures through all of history. In extreme cases killing all the men and taking the women, to genetically destroy a people. For all of history, this is not the exception but the norm of human behavior.

This raises more than a few questions:

Is there a right to cultural identity?

Are other cultures obligated to accept and protect cultures other than their own?

Is the historic norm of cultures moving in and changing or destroying the native culture wrong?

Do a people have the right to protect their culture?

What should be the measure of the quality of a culture?

Are there such things as Cultural Rights?

International bodies like the UN say there are “Cultural Rights.” The Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policies states, inter alia, that the assertion of cultural identity contributes to the liberation of peoples. Conversely, any form of discrimination constitutes denial or impairment. Cultural identity is a treasure which vitalizes mankind's possibilities for self-fulfillment by encouraging every people and every group to seek nurture in the past, to welcome contributions from outside compatible with their own characteristics, and so to continue the process of their own creation.

Do people have the right to enjoy their own culture and to profess and practice their own religion and to use their own language?

If an outside culture is not compatible with the local culture’s characteristics, can a nation exclude people from that outside culture? This is the policy for Japan and other mono-culture societies.

Do people have the right to invade another culture and force them to stop the practice of their own religion and to not use their own language?

Do people have the right to appropriate the values, symbols, technology and art of a culture, that isn’t their own?

If people have a right to their cultural identity then: they have the right to enjoy their own culture; to profess and practice their own religion; to use their own language; to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life, as well as in the decision-making process concerning for their culture; to establish and monitor their own associations; to establish and maintain without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group or other citizens or other States to whom they are related by national ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Do other cultures have the right to force another culture to change?

Do some tribes have the right to move to a nation, and live in that nation, and not assimilate and adopt that new nations culture?

Does a nation have the right to liming migration into its territory, so that the local culture is not over-run and destroyed?

When the leaders of a culture says, "Thanks to your democratic laws, we shall invade you; and thanks to our religious laws, we shall dominate you." Should they be taken seriously?

Can the native culture keep those invaders out?

Is “spreading democracy” forcing one culture on people of other cultures?

Do all peoples have the inherent right to enjoy and utilize fully and freely their natural wealth and resources?

If that is so, then there is a problem. Fossil fuels are still the cheapest, most reliable energy resources available. A developing nation cannot fight climate change and provide for their citizens.

Do other nations (cultures) have the right to force developing nations to use expensive “sustainable” energy?

Are cultures required to share and give other cultures their technology, art, music?

Does one culture have the right to dictate to another culture what changes it must make, or to dictate what changes that other culture cannot make?

Does one culture have the right to spread their values and beliefs to other cultures?

If that other culture refuses to accept the new values and beliefs can they use force to stop the spread of that foreign culture?

Clearly all cultures are not equal, even the UN recognizes that cultural relativism is an absurd concept. Cultures that accept human sacrifice, slavery, etc. are not acceptable to modern western civilization.

Who gets to force their culture on others, and what gives them that right?

History shows that the strongest and most willing to force their culture on another can and will do so.

Why do globalists insist they have the right to force what they believe is the best way for a society to live on others?

Is that any better or more righteous than the actions of the Anglos who destroyed the native nations of North America?

History has shown that Socialists can and do use force to make those in the territory they control accept socialist values and outlaw non-socialist institutions.

Do capitalists, or monarchist, anarchists, or despots, have the same right to use force to make those in territory they control accept their values?

How is the LBGT community forcing cultural change on American Christians, any different than Anglo settlers forcing Christianity on American Indians?

Trump Hit a Home Run

By Tom Rhodes, 8/7/2015

Damn It! Trump is the quintessential crony capitalist, and I was hoping he screw up so bad in the first GOP debate he’d be gone. Instead he hit a home run and the SJW press doesn’t know how to react. Trump expressed the unstated opinion of the great majority of Americans. When the liberal progressive feminist tried to label Trump sexist, misogynist, or whatever other label they seek to use to discredit, disqualify, or distract those who don’t follow the feminist SJW doctrine, instead of folding and humbly apologizing for his fopaux he owned it. His reply hit it right out of the park. Here’s the exchange between Fox News Channel’s, Megyn Kelly, and GOP Candidate Donald Trump.

KELLY: Mr. Trump, one of the things people love about you is you speak your mind and you don't use a politician's filter. However that is not without its downsides, in particular when it comes to women. You've called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. Your twitter account--

TRUMP: Only Rosie O'Donnell.

KELLY: For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.

TRUMP: I'm sure it was.

KELLY: Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contesttent that it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees.

Does that sound like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?

And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton, who is likely to be the Democratic nominee, that you are part of the war on women?

TRUMP: The big problem this country has is being politically correct. I've been challenged by so many people and I don't frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn't have time either. This country is in big trouble. We don't win anymore. We lose to China, we lose to Mexico both in trade and at the border. We lose to everybody. Frankly what I say and oftentiTmes it's fun, it’s kidding, we have a good time. What I say is what I say. And honestly, Megyn if you don't like it, I'm sorry. I've been very nice to you although I could probably not be based on the way you have treated me, but I wouldn't do that. But you know what? We, we need strength, we need energy, we need quickness and we need brain in this country to turn it around. That I can tell you right now.

Not even any of the Libertarian Candidates are currently willing to stand up to feminist SJWs. Trump standing up to the feminist SJW, Megyn Kelly, in clear and certain terms, will resonate with a huge part of the American people and although the press will pillory him for his response the average joe is cheering. Every SJW (that’s Social Justice Whiner), and self-appointed thought cop is part of the problem. Trumps example is fantastic. It’s time to quit taking PC crap and make sure every time the some SJW tries to play thought cop, it gets crammed right down their throat.

Trump boldly declaring that "The big problem this country has is being politically correct," targets the biggest problem we have that gets in the way of discussing any of the actual issues that matter honestly. It was good to seek Kelly have enough balls to ask a tough feminist question, better yet it was good to see a candidate, unapologetically stand up to the feminist PC thought cops trying discredit, disqualify, and distract based on irrelevant garbage and hurt feelings. This Orwellian crap of not being able to state an observable truth, if that fact isn’t politically correct, has got to end. Instead of Trump looking like the buffoon the press and political establishment want us to think, he’s looking like a serious person, who want to address serious problems, and isn’t willing to take PC bullshit get in the way of dealing with serious issues.

As a libertarian, many of Trumps positions bother me. As a Libertarian, I plan on voting for the LP nominee, not the GOP or Democrat regardless of who they choose to run. I thought the SJWs would beat Trump down and he’d soon be gone by the end of the summer. Instead he again voiced and identified the heart of an issue that the masses recognize and the ruling elite don’t want to discuss. He keeps doing this and could end up a serious candidate. Washington has created an US vs THEM problem. The ruling elite vs. the masses. Most people today see the government as a burden, trying to control us and ignoring the problems of the people. Trumps actions and words are firmly putting him in the camp of the people not the ruling elite.

This is fun to watch, but before the end of the year, I expect the GOP and the Democrats to pull out some sneaky crap to make Trump go away. They cannot afford to have to deal with real issues that Trump is bringing to the forefront. Issues that both parties don’t want the people talking about or worse yet, being forced to make statements about. Look at what they did to Ron Paul, who was an insider and accepted member of the ruling elite; Trump as a true outsider is doomed.

Obama Promoted to IPCC Papal Astronomer

By Tom Rhodes, 5/28/2015

President Obama, has replaced Al Gore is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology’s Pope. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology is more commonly known as the IPCC. There next Synod is scheduled for the end of this year where the faithful will meet to determine how best to convert the unwashed masses and force them to ignore the scientific method and accept their dictates as true. Al Gore was removed from his office of IPCC Papal Astronomer when the Inconvenient Truth of his prediction that the North West Passage would be ice free failed to manifest.

The assessment report issued by Fifth Synod of the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology in 2013makes clear that climate alarmism is now and has always been a matter of faith. Fully acknowledging the natural revelations that science shows the mean temperature of God-Planet Earth is not directly tied to the concentration of the weak greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Our puny human inputs are not as significant as the natural forces that influence the planet's climate. That science doesn't matter.

The IPCC recognizes that the God-Plant Earth can and does regulate its own temperature and varies it at its own discretion, using volcanoes to pump particulate matter into the air and lower global temperatures by dissipating sunlight and its oceans as enormous heat sinks effectively buffer natural temperature variations. The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) even recognizes that the ultimate source of our temperature fluctuations is the Sun, and the Sun's variations and fluctuations influence our lives far more than the mere actions of puny people.

Although the Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) recognizes these as facts, it treats any who would publically say them as heretics. They decry and admonish those members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who earn their living predicting the weather, to abandon their scientifically sound observations of the climate and only accept the those members who earn a living by writing for IPCC and other [ open air quote ] scholarly [ close air quote ] journals promoting doom and gloom if man made global warming isn't stopped.

Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC), demands that to avoid the sin of heresy its faithful must forgo using the scientific method and objective rational examination of the evidence. IPCC Papal Astronomer, President Obama, has declared, "Climate change can no longer be denied," further saying, "an urgent and growing threat to our national security.". Noting that the models don't work, that the evidence doesn't support the IPCC declarations is heresy, and there heinous consequences for lack of orthodoxy. Papal Astronomer, President Obama, condemned heretics accusing them being a danger to the security of the republic saying, "Denying it, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. "

The leaders of Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) demand that we mere peasants (including half of all meteorologists who don't support man made climate change theory), are not qualified to understand the subtle nuances of climate science. Those educated elite ordained by the IPCC are not to be questioned, ever! Just as common man of the pre-reformation Church weren't qualified to read the Bible. Just as the Church then dictated that the peasants could not understand the mysterious motions of the heavens then, and were commanded to accept the Church's declaration that the Science is Settled, the Sun and Heavens Revolve around the Earth. Today the IPCC demands that mere people accept their dictates on faith.

Today B.H. Obama is the modern day papal astronomer declaring the dictates of the IPCC pope; crying the evil of man using energy to better his life. The progressive faithful decry those who don't pay homage to the mantra of the day; a mantra used to control the masses who must not be allowed to question the ruling elite. Like the reformation of the church lead to the Enlightenment, and libertarian thought and a rejection of the totalitarianism of the church and feudal government; a reformation in the UN's IPCC (Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology) will lead to embracing rational thought and rejection of the tyranny of central control by the UN or any other body.

A consensus of scientists used to believe the earth was flat, that the stars rotated around the earth, that bleeding sick people would heal them and a litany of falsehoods. A consensus of scientists saying man is causing climate change doesn't make it so, especially when some elitist snobs say there is a consensus and the science is settled when there is no consensus and the science isn't settled.

The Intergovernmental Pentecostal Church of Climatology (IPCC) has declared rational verifiable truth heresy. Call me a heretic, the man caused global climate change models fail the test of reality, and the scientific method. Current politics concerning climate is not scientific, it is a tool used by elitists to attempt to reestablish control of the masses. The ruling elitist snobs are using “climate change” as an excuse for control, they don't care about the environment. Look at the actions and carbon foot print of Al Gore, and the whole do as I dictate not as I do crowd associated with "climate change." The goal is to concentrate power and wealth, nothing more.

To trust the IPCC’s official astronomer, President Obama, you cannot do it based on sound rational science, instead you must have faith to accept the dictates of the IPCC. Don't! they have been caught in too many lies, too many cover-ups, and proven to be wrong too often to trust them, much less make decisions based on their recommendations that affect hundreds of millions of people.

Physical Education – the Basis for Lying About American Education

by Tom Rhodes, 2/4/2015

What does it take to get an A grade in high school physical education? You know the answer, show up, dress out, participate. That’s it. The 100 pound nerd or 250 pound couch potato who can’t catch a ball, shoot a free-throw, bench press 200 pounds, tackle, block, run a mile, or do 10 pull up s gets the same A that the Jock who can do 100 pull ups and earns a football scholarship for showing up. The question is why?

Apply that to Algebra II. Why doesn’t the kid who shows up, does the work, and participates in class, but can’t solve a simple quadratic equation, can’t factor a polynomial, can’t figure out the length of the two sides of a right triangle given the length of the hypotenuse and the cosign of one angle, not get an A?

Why do we accept the fact that the 100 pound nerd can try as hard as he wants, will never be able to bench press 200 pounds, but ignore the fact that the 90 IQ jock will never be able to do higher math? Imagine how the 100 pound asthmatic nerd would feel if he was told to get an A in phys-ed he had to do 50 pushups in 2 min, 100 sit-ups in 2 min, 20 pull ups, and run a mile yards in less than 8 min.

I’m a smart man, that’s not bragging any more than Rob Gronkowski saying he’s an excellent athlete. Just statements of fact, like saying somebody is tall or short, measurable facts. I used to believe that if anybody applied themselves they could do anything. If I decided I wanted to learn C++ or Python, I could do it, it would take time and work but the outcome would be assured, I would learn those languages. It wasn’t until about the midway point of my first semester teaching high school chemistry, that I learned I was wrong. The fact is there are a significant number of people that no matter how hard they apply themselves and how hard they work, won’t ever be able to do chemistry, or calculus, or factor a polynomial, they don’t have the mental capacity. Just like no matter how hard I work and apply myself I’ll never be able to kick a 50 yd field goal, or win a marathon. I’m different than the athletes that can do those things. My desire, my effort, my attitude, nothing would matter, I don’t have the physical capability and never will. Never in in my physical prime regardless of effort and training would I be able to run a 100 meters in 13 seconds it can’t happen, much less 10 seconds times required to be a successful sprinter.

In fact the reality is that less than a 1000 people in the whole world are physically capable of running a 10 second 100 meter sprint. That is an accepted fact. We accept the fact that in any given high school only a small percentage of students could qualify for any varsity sport. Saying all kids should be on the varsity team is idiotic. The 100 pound asthmatic nerd does not belong on the football team, not only isn’t he qualified, he is physically unable to do so. Oh he could dress out and participate, but never ever perform even at the average level, much less be competitive. Why then should he get an A in Phys-Ed? If being able to factor quadric equations is a requirement to get an A in Algebra II, and predicting the results of chemical reactions and balancing chemical equations is a requirement to get an A in chemistry, why isn’t running a 100 meters in less than 12 seconds a requirement to get an A in Phys-Ed? If demonstrating performance in academics is the how people are judged in academic classes, why not demonstrating performance in athletics how people are judged in Phys-Ed?

The point is somebody asked that question, and rather than give the 100 pound asthmatic nerd a D in phys-ed because he has below average physical capability, we lowered the standards so that showing up, dressing out, and participating was good enough to get an A (excellent) grade. Grades used to mean something F = failed, D = performed below average, C performed at average level, B = performed above average, A = excellent performance. Any class academic or physical or artistic that doesn’t have the vast majority of students receiving a C grade, meaning they are average, is problematic. Assume a middle sized high school with 2000 students, all of them have to take physical science in their first year That would be about 600 students. A normal distribution curve would mean that of those 600 freshman, if the class was fair and accurate there would be about 50 As, 125 Bs, 250 Cs, 125 D’s, and 50 kids would fail. Unless you skewed the test and lowered the standards so that low IQ kids could pass.

As a chemistry teacher that is exactly what I did, because my pay depended on student performance, regardless of student effort. If you showed up, did the work, and participated, and got at least 50% on every test, you got a C in my chemistry class. The tests were also skewed so that minimal effort could produce at least 50, but harder question did separate some of the excellent students. To fail you had to purposefully try. Part of why I did this is that there were a lot of kids who worked hard, did the work, and tried, but just mentally chemistry was beyond them, and failing a good hard working kid because he’s dumb is not acceptable in public school, any more than failing a kid in phys-ed because he’s physically far below average. Out of about 100 kids there were 20 As, 35 Bs, 40 Cs, 5 Ds and 2 Fs; I was chastised because I didn’t give out enough As, and didn’t understand that I was hurting the spirit of the students by not giving better grades based on effort not performance. Documenting that my grades accurately reflected their standardized test scores was meaningless. How students feel about themselves is more important than their actual performance. Three years of that was all I could take, I quit for a job that paid twice as much and had half the hassles. Having dozens of students contact me and thank me for preparing them for college and holding them to a realistic standard was a great reward.

For some reason culturally recognizing what everybody can see and knows isn’t acceptable. The 100 pound 5’4” asthmatic nerd is not physically above average, he’s not going to be dating the “hot” girls, he’s not going to be on the varsity squad, but you can’t give him a poor grade in phys-ed because he might make him feel bad, so the standards have been set so low he’ll get an A in phys-ed regardless of actual performance.

Physical Education standards and the thinking that lead to them crept into academic standards and thinking. The idea that everybody should be prepared to go to college, and actually go is absurd. Any student who doesn’t have at least an above average IQ and doesn’t score better than the 50th percentile on the ACT or SAT should not go to college, they don’t have the mental chops to perform at that level. Unless of course the colleges lower their standards so that people with below average IQ can pass. Sending dumb people to college is a waste of their time and money, and a waste of societies resources. The stats that say college graduates earn more money are not wrong. It’s not the college degree that earns more money, it’s the fact that more smarter people graduate college than dumb ones, and smart people earn more money than dumb people. Sorry but the 90 IQ waitress, who does an excellent job, but cannot and will not ever be able to factor simple quadratic equations shouldn’t be pushed into getting a meaningless degree.

The average high school GPA is 3.0, that means that a B is not above average but average, and on a 4.0 scale we have no meaningful measurements for excellence, the data is skewed. That’s why advanced academic students routinely have a 4.5 GPA on a 4.0 scale. The fact is intelligence and grades in high school reflect what you’ll earn in the future better than college degrees.


Note that a student with a B average in high school will earn about the average wage, and the dumber the student the lower their average wage. Now even if you’re dumb, if your 6’4” tall, can run a 10 second 100 meter dash, jump 6 feet in the air, and catch a ball thrown from 60 yards away, you can make a lot of money because you can physically perform better than just about anybody else in the world. Being sub-par academically doesn’t’ mean you can’t excel someplace else. Of course the best world class athletes are not only superior physically but superior mentally.

Education should help every student maximize their potential. It should not ignore the fact that not everybody has the same capabilities. Our education system should not ignore or try to cover up the fact that half the people have below average intelligence, and that there are relatively few people with the mental capacity to do actual higher learning. Applying physical education grading schemes to academic grades only means we are lying to kids when we say that their 3.0 GPA means they are above average. They are not; they are just average. If your kid doesn’t have at least a 3.5 GPA, you should do some rational thinking before you waste $50K or allow your kid to borrow $50K to get a degree that in reality won’t get them a better job.

Lying to our kids is wrong, telling them they are “special” and they can do “anything they want” is a lie. If your kid has an IQ less than 120, don’t encourage her to become an chemist or engineer or doctor, you’re setting her up for failure. With rare exception, the average IQ person does not have the mental capability to be a chemist or engineer or doctor. That’s a hard fact just like it’s a hard fact that the average 100 pound nerd is never going to play professional sports. We need to quit lying to ourselves and our children. Not everybody is above average.

Questions raised by Ferguson

By Tom Rhodes, 12/2/2014

If the President and his Attorney General want to raise public awareness of the mistreatment of blacks in our judicial system, aren't they trivializing their own cause by using a case in which the facts don't support that objective?

There were lots of witnesses willing to testify about Brown’s death, why when there is black on black crime in black communities can’t lots of witnesses be found?

President Obama depicted Brown as a victim, by doing so isn't he attacking the grand jury and undermining the justice system, and attacking governmental credibility in general?

It appears as though the evidence in Ferguson indicates that Brown was killed as a result of his violent actions, yet there is ample evidence of the police getting away with violence against innocent blacks all across the country, from infants in play pens and sleeping little girls, to choking to death giant handcuffed men. Why isn’t Attorney General Holder, looking at the plethora of cases where police are exonerated for killing a black person under far more questionable circumstances? Why does the black community have to riot, to get the nation to examine the Thin Blue Line and the non-accountability of law enforcement?

Why were reporters eating lunch at McDonalds Arrested?

Why does the black community get all up in arms, riot, and loot their own communities, when a black criminal is shot by a white cop, they cry and demand “justice,” but they are silent and do nothing about the massive numbers of other killings and violent crime against blacks in their own communities that are known to be perpetrated by other blacks?

By depicting Brown as a victim, is Obama going against yet another promise, and rather than healing the racial tension in America exacerbating it?

How exactly is black on black looting caused by white on black racism?

In refusing to honor the grand jury's findings, is Attorney General Holder attacking the grand jury and undermining the justice system in general?

By depicting Brown as a victim, regardless of the actual physical evidence and grand jury finding, is Obama purposefully driving a wedge between the black community and law enforcement?

Were the riots in Ferguson orchestrated in advance, and the grand jury's decision as an excuse?

History has repeatedly shown that where blacks riot and loot, local businesses and the tax paying portion of the population flee that city resulting in collapse of the local economy. Will Ferguson and possibly St. Louis become the next Detroit?

The general acceptance of law enforcement failure to protect constitutional rights of blacks, and bypass constitutional protection against search, seizure, and due process against blacks has been tolerated by the government and the people. This has obviously lead the police to act as though they cannot or will not be held accountable for violating the people’s constitutional rights regardless of race. Youtube is full of video of government agents violating individual rights. Because even proving that an officer violated an individual’s rights rarely if ever results in the officer suffering more than a slap on the wrist, as the people realize that in reality they have no legal means of justice when their rights are violated by the government, will we soon see general uprising against police by more than just minorities? Will the Bundy Ranch and Ferguson become the only means of the people seeking justice before an increasingly tyrannical government that is militarizing the police to control rather than serve the people?

Income Inequality – a Moral Imperative

By Tom Rhodes, 12/1/2014

Income inequality is said to be a massive problem, I've noted in the past if you compare volume of government regulations to income inequality there is a direct proportionality. More Regulations = More Income Inequality. But correlation doesn't equal causation. There is probably a better determiner of income inequality - family structure.

A couple studies have come out that compare economic status and family status. The results are interesting. The hard fact, without any moral condemnation, is there is an income and wealth premium for people raised in two-parent homes.

Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.

One of the reports declares, "The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality." In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. The data from the National Survey of Children's Health, indicates only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. While in families consisting of a never-married single mothers with kids, the comparable figure is 46 percent.

Obama declared that income inequality is "the defining challenge of our time." OK then let's stop doing what we know doesn't work. The "War on Poverty" coincides with two phenomenon that dramatically correspond with increased income inequality. The destruction of the two-parent household, and the increase in State intrusion in the lives of everybody, with the State, not the people, determining winners and losers in the market, education, everything.

The reports were careful not to be judgmental, but I'm not politically correct, so I will be. The problem is moral. People who have children out of wedlock should be ashamed of themselves. People who have multiple children out of wedlock should be shunned, ostracized, and publically condemned for their immoral actions. Having one child might be a mistake, oops, lapse in judgment, accident, or whatever, and is rationally forgivable. It is not good but people are not perfect. That said it's still a tough situation that does not bode well for the child both now and in his future (for you SJW’s, when the sex of the subject is not identified the proper pronoun to use when referring to that subject is the male form; he, him, his, chairman, etc. In this case it is not sexist to use his for a generic child which may be male or female, it’s just proper grammar, get over yourselves).

Having children outside of a two-parent family, is morally bankrupt, not because the mother or father shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, but because it is more than just irresponsible to bring children into an environment that is we know is unhealthy for the child. Don’t take my word, take the word of President Obama who clearly and unequivocally said, "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol." People who have multiple children outside of a married two-parent household, have no excuses. They, not the “selfish” public, carry the sole responsibility for putting their children into a position that will in all likelihood result in privation, and bear the sole responsibility for providing for those children until they are adults.

Because currently the State provides for the children of a man who has more multiple children from different women, if he is single and not paying FULL child support for all his children; he should be forcibly castrated, and have his wages garnished to poverty levels until those kids are fully supported and adults. Such a man has proven to be of low moral character, has proven not to take full responsibility for his actions, and is a cad. Society should condemn him and his actions. Conversely, because currently the State provides for children of any woman who has children, if she is not married and is on any kind of government income assistance, she should be forced to have a tubal ligation. She has proven herself to be of low moral character, and unwilling to take full responsibility for her actions. Society should condemn her and her actions.

Being poor isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with poverty. Being rich isn't bad or evil, there is no morality associated with wealth. However, purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty, and make creating wealth more difficult is immoral. Promoting, encouraging, condoning, even merely accepting without condemnation, single parents with multiple children is immoral. It is purposefully creating conditions that lead to poverty and that make generating wealth more difficult.

The most significant driver of income inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach. Having children outside of a two-parent household has overwhelmingly proven to be bad for children, and is proven to be a drain on society. It is immoral by any rational standard.

The libertarian solution to this moral problem is far more humane, would be more just, more effective, and more palatable than forced sterilization. End the government intrusion into the family that created the increase in single parent families. The current system rewards immoral behavior and punishes moral behavior. It’s backwards. The above idea of forcing sterilization on those who behave immorally, is tyrannical and draconian. However it is no more tyrannical and draconian than forcing those who are responsible, who created environments where they and their children prosper, to have their prosperity confiscated and redistributed to those who choose to be irresponsible. Let those who live irresponsible lives and their children suffer the consequences of their actions. Let’s be clear, I’m saying that women who have multiple children outside of marriage, and are dependent on the government to support them and their children, are unequivocally immoral and irresponsible. They are not hero’s, they should not be praised for being single mothers, they are examples of moral rot. They should not be given any government support. They and their children’s privation will be examples to what happens if you choose to live an immoral lifestyle.

Current government assistant programs let a woman substitute the government as provider for her and her children instead of their father. The government is a poor substitute for a husband and father. As Obama noted, when the government not the father, is the protector and provider of children, they are more likely to be poor, to be dropouts, to be addicts, and more likely to be criminals. Because the government will and does act as protector and provider the sacrifices necessary by women to stay with fathers, and not have babies without a father no longer exists. The feminist idea that women don’t need men to be complete ignores reality. The evidence is clear, the data doesn’t lie, it doesn’t make moral judgments, the fact is women and children need a husband and father, without one they are far more likely to live and remain in poverty.

In the USA income inequality isn’t a sign of an unjust system that holds some people back, it is the direct result of people who choose to live immoral lives and abandon the traditions and morality that created the wealthiest most prosperous society the world ever saw. Our society cannot survive the moral rot that has created laws that punish moral behavior and reward immorality.

Many economists, like Dr. Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. have said for years, the path to success and living in relative prosperity is simple. 1) Finish high school, 2) Get a job, 3) Get married, 4) Have children, and do those things in that order. What that reflects is traditional family morals. Condoning, empowering, helping, or in any way promoting people who choose to live outside of that simple plan isn’t just wrong, it’s immoral.

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?

Politically Incorrect Version of Headlines

Politically Incorrect Version of Headlines
By Tom Rhodes, 9/12/13

Here are a couple of Politically Correct Headlines, and how they could read and the contents be addressed if not for the invasive PC practices of the lame stream press.

---

Politically Correct Washington Post Headline

Children suffer from growing economic inequality among families since recession

More Accurate but not PC version

Recession Exacerbates Poverty of Children Living in Non-Traditional Families

The article is clear, Children raised in traditional families with two parents are less likely to be poor regardless of race. What the article implies is that it isn't fair that rich people make wise decisions, so we must take money from the rich and give it to those who make poor life choices. What cannot be said is that if you're a high school dropout who chooses to have children when you are poor and single the chances are that your child will be raised in poverty. The author suffers from the emotional desire to never see people suffer poor life choices. So to meet the emotional desire seeks to force those who make wise life decisions to support those who don't. It ignores the simple fact that in today's world having a child is a choice, period. So choosing to have a child in a non-traditional living environment is in fact choosing to raise that child in poverty. The author wants security regardless of how individuals choose to live.

The article makes it clear saying the evidence shows "men and women with high levels of education were more likely to be married. They were more likely to stay married. There were fewer instances of cohabitation or divorce than those with lower levels of education. And their children were much less likely to live in poverty and instead more likely to benefit from family stability, increased parent time and higher economic resources."

WOW - the advice and example lived by the Leave it to Beaver Generation was right. Finish School, Get a Job, Get Married, then Have Children, Choosing to live your life in any other way dramatically increases you and your children's chances of being poor. Add in choosing to make it a habit to save and live a thrifty life and you will be wealthy.

---

Politically Correct CBS Atlanta Headline

Study: Men With Smaller Testicles Are Better Fathers

More Accurate but not PC version

Men w/ Smaller Balls act like Women

The article is clear, Men with Balls "show a tendency for them to be less involved in things like changing diapers, bathing children, preparing meals, taking them to the doctor." The clearly female centric article works under the delusion that men acting like women make better fathers.

The article offers an interesting conundrum for women it states clearly that "'The correlation is stronger between sperm count and sperm quality and testicle size,' Rilling explained. 'Bigger size, better, healthier sperm.'" So the obvious is backed up with research, healthier sperm is associated with Men with Big Balls. Women are left with the choice, a man who will produce better healthier sperm, implying better healthier children, or men who will help with nurturing duties but produce less healthy sperm implying inferior children. The politically incorrect but obvious fact is that the alpha male get's the woman, her biology overrides her heart, he body knows the testosterone laden man with balls offers her a better breeding opportunity; we are still animals after all. This offers an explanation of why women are hypergamous.

What's a woman to do?

Logic and Reason are not PC

You cannot use logic and reason discussion guns in America, the conclusions, evidence, and truth, so encite rage and emotional turmoil in liberals that they cannot speak or think rationally when exposed to objective facts that are so contra to their internal paradymes the litterally blow a gasket. (check out CNN's Morgan's irrational hatefull outbursts over this past week)

The below articeby Voxday, is not politically correct, it uses logic, reason, and data to explain why violence is higher in the US than other industrial countries. The conclusions will make liberals scream, and call those who actually recognize imperical evidence all kinds of names, because the truth will expose them as irrational and over emotional not reasonable.

Not mentioned in this article is the fact that if you exclude black on black murders, the US murder rate is about the same as Canada's.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a greater part of our population that has third world mentality for solving it's problems rather. But You can't say that in public regardless of the evidence and objective truth.

Why US gun deaths are high
By VoxDay
Friday, December 21, 2012

One of the questions often asked by those supporting gun control and those who are merely uninformed alike is why the US has so many gun deaths, especially in comparison with other Western, industrialized countries.

The first reason is obvious. There are nearly five times more people in the United States than there are in the largest European countries. This may seem ludicrously obvious, but most people really are that stupid and don't take population sizes into account. The fact that the news media covers all the crimes across the country it deems noteworthy means that the 310 million people in the USA are going to produce about five times more big crime stories than the 63 million in the UK.

The second reason is also related to demographics. The specific question that was asked was why the USA has a higher rate of gun homicides, 2.97 per 100,000 population than Canada, at only 0.51 per 100,000. After all, the USA and Canada are very similar countries, are they not? No, they are not. Only 3.5 percent of the Canadian population is African and Latin American. 28.9 percent of the US population is African and Latin American. Does this make a difference? The chart below demonstrates that this demographic difference is not only significant, but conclusive.

As per The Guardian article of July 12, 2012, the USA had 9,146 gun homicides, the fourth-most of the reporting countries. That was considerably more than Canada or any of the European nations; Canada had only 173. Even if one accounts for the much smaller Canadian population, it is obvious that Canadians were much less likely to shoot and kill other Canadians. Was this because there are fewer guns in Canada, only 30.8 percent compared to the 88.8 percent in the United States? No, it was because there are fewer African-Canadians and Latin-Canadians, as should be obvious from looking at the chart.



There were even fewer guns per capita in the two Latin countries, 11.5 percent, and in the two African countries, 8.3 percent, than Canada's 30.8 percent, France's 31.2 percent, or Germany's 30.3 percent. And yet, the gun deaths per capita in all four African and Latin countries were much higher than either Canada or the USA; on average, they were four times higher than the US rate despite there being far fewer guns, and guns per capita, in all of them. Nor did I cherry-pick any outliers; most African nations don't even report these figures, and based on the news reports, countries such as Congo and Nigeria are even more murderously violent than South Africa and Zimbabwe. In Latin America alone, there are six countries with higher per capita gun death rates than Brazil, which is six times higher than the USA.

The low rate of gun ownership in these violent countries not only make it clear that the prevalence of guns cannot possibly explain the relatively high US gun death rate in comparison with other European countries, they clearly indicate that gun deaths are a predominantly racial and/or cultural phenomenon. Since the US is on the track to become a European minority country, it should be readily apparent that as it becomes browner and blacker, it will also become more violent, naturally reflecting the more violent tendencies of the nations from whence the post-1965 immigrants have come instead of those of the European nations who originally populated the country.

If lower gun death rates are a goal, it is clear that reducing the amount of guns will not help, and may even make the matter considerably worse by disarming the law-abiding population and rendering it helpless against the lawless population. The only way to significantly reduce the amount of gun deaths is to repatriate the immigrants who come from countries where people are disproportionately inclined to shoot other people dead. Since most Americans presently appear to prefer higher violent crime rates to stopping immigration, much less reducing the percentage of the non-European/Asian/Arab population through deportation, logic dictates that if gun control proponents are successful in their attempts to reduce the guns per capita rate, the gun homicides per capita rate will rise in proportion to the percentage of the African/Latin population in the general population.