Star Wars: The Farce Awakens

By Tom Rhodes, 12/22/2015

I’ll start by saying I’m an old Star Wars fan and ‘The Force Awakens’ is entertaining and action packed but fails if you even attempt to think about it. The funny scenes and homage to the original Star Wars make it worth seeing. . . . . after it’s in the $5 DVD bin at Walmart. Stop reading if you haven’t seen it and don’t want any spoilers. The Farce Awakens is a feminized retelling of first Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope.

Let’s start with a great positive. TMZ and others have been trying to get Mark Hamill to reveal or hint at Star Wars participation. His dismissal of Star Wars as movies he doesn’t watch, and elusion to not being a part of ‘The Force Awakens‘ and other crap he’s thrown at the press , was acting for the paparazzi. Showing up in the last scene looking like Luke turned into Obi Wan, was a great ending to the movie. Hamill’s treatment of the press and paparazzi is arguably better acting than any of the acting by other characters in the movie except R2D2, and neither Luke or R2D2 speak. The only redeeming acting of a speaking part must be given to Harrison Ford, who pulled Hans Solo with style, and the Chewy-Solo relationship was still the best developed character relationship in the movie. It should be the last we’ll ever see of Hans Solo, unless they do the ghost thing like they did with Kenobi episodes V and VI.

Droid aside, thank God there was no Yoda, Jar-Jar, Ewok, or other cutesy supporting character.

Problems in no particular order:

Darth Vader, Luke, Kylo Ren, Obi Wan Kenobi, and all other force using experts in any previous Star Wars story, needed training based on years of apprenticeship with a 24/7 mentor to master the force. The entire premise of Jedi powers is that they must being “learned” and they develop over time with practice. Our heroine Rey, hinted heavily as being Luke’s daughter, instantly and without training or foreknowledge gets abilities with the force that took all other Jedi, Sith, decades to develop. So with no Jedi’s around, how does she even know the force can control weak minded storm troopers, much less use the old “you don’t need to see his papers” shtick.

How can Rey without any training best Kylo Ren, the emo Darth Vader, with a light saber, while Kylo Ren has had years of training with the force? Even though Vader, Anakin Skywalker, in his youth like Rey showed signs of mechanical genius and native ability with the force, to become proficient took years of training and a mentor? When Luke first picked up a light sabre, he couldn’t deflect a laser pointer from a training drone much less use it effectively. After training with both Kenobi and Yoda, Luke got his hand chopped off by Vader. The whole “force” in Rey defies the entire premise of the Jedi and use of the force in the previous 6 movies. How come the only character to get the ability and skill to use the force without putting in the work and effort is a girl? Rey’s abilities make a farce of the force.

Rey is the most developed character in the whole movie and she has virtually no character development. We have no idea about her past, motivations, anything. Who or what was support system that enabled her to survive on this planet? Why is she in such good health and obviously well fed when she can only scrounge up half rations daily? At least little Anakin was a slave with his mother and we have some idea how and why he survived and turned out the way he did. Who and why is she waiting on a junkers planet? No story, and no reason to actually care for or about her other than the hint she’s Luke’s daughter.

How many times can we see a movie blowing up the Death Star, with the Millennium Falcon flying out of the fiery explosion in the last second. Both in its size and scope, Starkiller Base makes the Death Star and it’s rebuild look like a Sunfish in the America’s Cup. There is a pathetically small Tie Fighter fleet to fleet to protect it? After 40 years both the good guys and the bad guys have made zero developments in fighters, Xwing’s and Tie fighters. Would be like the USA still flying F4 Phantoms instead of F35 Raptors. Hell our navy today has better anti-air guns than the ineffective turbolaser batteries on the Starkiller Base? If the rebel’s launched half their Xwing Fleet, why so few, it’s not like the computers at Lucas Light and Magic, couldn’t have added in a few hundred more fighters for both sides. Even the prequel had new fighters and cooler space ships. Even Jar-Jar had access to cooler underwater ships. The future seems to regress technologically not advance.

With no character development, Rey treats her aunts husband Hans Solo as like her missing father and is motivated by his death at the hands of her cousin Kylo Ren. At least there was some character development in episode IV to explain Obi Wan Kenobi and Luke’s relationship before the DarthVader/Kylo Ren kills the old mentor Kenobi/Solo.

Fin former storm trooper beats decades of brainwashing as a storm trooper and develops a conscience. This happens after his exposure in one battle, and why is a sanitation worker also an armed storm trooper? And why is the main supporting character and black guy, a garbage man, isn’t that racist? What happened to Storm Troopers being Clones? Why are all other Storm Troopers fearless and willing to run right into the fight and Fin runs away until he has a princess to serve?

Trained ever since taken as a child to be a fighting machine, or maybe sanitation worker, nothing Fin does is related to or congruent with Ray, but somehow devotes most of the film to trying to protect her. The bigger problem is this character is a typical feminization of an old male hero tale. ‘The Farce Awakens’ retells the original Star Wars with a woman in the man’s role, only the woman gets the farce without all the hard work, and the male despite his years of training is a bumbling shadow of a man obsessed with the female hero.

How did Rey know the history of the Millennium Falcon since it was stolen from Han Solo?

The emo Darth Vader, Kylo Ren, hates his dad Hans Solo. He hates him enough to kill him; Why? What happened? What turned him to the Dark Side? He is a flat, emo, undeveloped character with no rationale for why he is where he’s at. He’s just a cardboard cutout of an evil emo kid mad at his Dad.

Princess Lea, aka Carrie Fisher, has so much botox her face is a plastic shell and shows no emotion. Her acting is flatter and not even worse than her lame part in the “Blues Brothers.”

How can a mere Captain, Captain Phasma, know how to lower the Starkiller’s shields and be able to do it without any higher level of approval, or the immediate knowledge of General Hux and emo-Ren? What part of the “Don’t create a system where the shields can be lowered remotely by low level people, thus allowing the rebels to blow up our world killing weapon memo,” didn’t they get after two Deathstar screw ups. And how did the evil empire, now “First Order” end up allowing women to be captains? When did the entire evil empire become politically correct?

Storm Troopers go to the planet and run around, no walkers, no big turbo lasers, no presence on the backward planet, etc. Even the backwater Tatooine out on the outer rim had Storm Trooper’s around and heavy weapons. Etc.

Han and Lea breakup, no reasoning; Luke training Han’s son, Kylo Ren in the farce, why, where, etc; Luke abandoning his light sabre, and a bunch of other stuff are either bad writing or teasers for possible future movies, the problem is that there are so many holes and missing plot motivators that the follow up movies are going to be worse than ewoks.

Lea still a general in the Resistance after 40 years. Didn’t the Rebels defeated the Empire. Changing the name of the Empire to the First Order is kind of lame. How did the First Order/Empire get so powerful again, and regain control of the Storm Troopers? Since they have been raising Storm Troopers from children it’s obvious the Empire/First Order in control has been around again for a while. Why is Lea still general of the “Resistance” shouldn’t that be the Republic?

After 4o years as a general in the “resistance couldn’t the First Order/Empire have her assignated or blow up her planet? Look, even the USA got Osama Bin Laden, no way she could be active in the rebellion and not be targeted and destroyed. Boba Fet wasn’t the only assassin in the galaxy. I guess you could say she’s like Castro, he lasted about that long. The difference being Castro was pretty much contained and had no ability to actually hurt the USA. Her position as rebel general, unlike Han Solo returning to smuggling is unbelievable.

C3PO – has a red arm and quips about it being why Han Solo doesn’t recognize him. Who cares that over a period of 40 years a cyborg gets a new arm and whoever paid for that arm was too cheap to strip off the red paint. The entire C3PO character in ‘The Force Awakens’ is a cameo just to keep the pattern of him, R2D2 and Chewy being in every Star Wars movie. Here, unlike episodes IV and V, C3PO adds nothing to the story.

Disney did “Guardians of the Galaxy,” a sci-fi movie with as much action, wit, and humor, with great special effects, and a ton of character development with an equal number of characters. JJ Abrams did better character development in his Star Trek rehashes. We know the studio, director, and other people involved have the skill and ability to tell good stories with great characters, why with such good material and a good base to use, did they create such a poor story and such cardboard characters? The overt effort to make a female centric retelling of the episode IV, detracts from and gets in the way of a good story.

I only like Episode VII, The Force Awakens, as a homage to the first two Star Wars movies. Like Ewoks go wild (Episode VI), and the 3 movie Anakin is a spoiled brat (episodes I-III) prequel, episode VII, The Force Awakens, is not a good story. I think it’s just a hacked add for Disney’s StarWars rides and merchandising to further Disney investment and freshen up the StarWars brand and give Disney another princess. When episode VII comes out on BluRay, I won’t waste any money to it to my collection (maybe when it’s in the $5 Walmart video bin). I hope episode VIII tells and shows a better story, but I’m pretty sure I spent my last theater dollar for any Star Wars movie on ‘The Force Awakens,’ and I’ll wait for Episode VIII to be streamed, or the BlueRay costs less than a movie ticket.

So Much for that Scientific Consensus

by Tom Rhodes, 11/3/2015

The scientific consensus on global warming simply doesn’t exist. NASA confirms Antarctic ice growing not shrinking. If global warming were a fact, and the science supported it, the Antarctic ice would not be growing and the papers and scientific research would confirm the facts.

The published papers on Antarctic ice are conflicting and not in agreement. Jay Zwally, a NASA glaciologist and lead author of the NASA paper released Friday confirms there is not scientific consensus noting that their findings compared to others are not in agreement, saying, “Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica – there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas.”

The so-called scientific consensus concerning global warming simply does not exist.

Evil of Wealth Disparity

By Tom Rhodes, 10/20/2015

Hearing the Democrat Debate, and the cry from progressives all over the social media, one thing is clear. They firmly believe that the inequality in wealth distribution in the USA is a moral evil. For some reason the left takes the idea that because “all men are created equal” that if they don’t share an equal portion of society’s wealth that somehow society is not treating them equally hence a society that does not have equal distribution of wealth is an evil society.

The left’s solution is to make the wealthy more poor, except for themselves. Hillary make $200K per speech, if she chose she could give a poor family $100K every time she speaks and help lift that family out of poverty and still take home $100K per speech. She obviously doesn’t actually believe in redistribution of her wealth. The question is how does Hillary Clinton making $200,000 per speech hurt the poor? What is morally wrong about Hillary charging as much as others are voluntarily willing to pay for speaking hurt the poor.

Obviously there is no moral problem with Hillary making mega bucks. What poor family can’t find a job because society choose to pay Hillary $200K for a few hours work? How did her highly paid speech writer, who earns a very good living, hurt the poor by voluntarily accepting a part of Hillary’s evil wealth in exchange for her labor hurt the poor? What moral dictum did Hillary violate earning millions of dollars from her political experience?

If because all people being created in God’s image have equal worth, thus deserve an equal share of society’s wealth, they why doesn’t a murderer, or rapist, or child molester deserve an equal share of society’s wealth? If their actions and impact on society don’t determine what wealth society should give them, what does? If you believe that their actions (murder, rape, child molestation), should result in society’s punishment, and exclusion (to protect others in society who behave acceptably), then you don’t believe everybody should receive the wealth of society equally, rather people should be punished, banished, or rewarded based on their actions in society.

If the poor have their basic material needs of food and shelter met, the existence of a big gap between the poorest and richest is not a moral problem. Once basic needs are met, any difference in what wealth individuals have or don’t have is based on their individual contributions to society, and how others voluntarily exchange their labor and capital with others for their labor and capital.

There are economic factors that drive the largest wedge between the wealthy and poor. That factor is government getting in the middle and controlling who can and can’t freely exchange capital and labor. Compare income inequality from the 50’s to today. Compare government regulations from the 50’s to today. More government = more wealth inequality. Uber and Airbnb are prime examples of the problem with government. The government is trying to stop poor individuals from competing with big rich companies. You own a car or house and the government says that you can’t use your property to earn more wealth. The government is causing disproportionate wealth inequality. What business is it of the government if you let somebody use your spare bedroom for a night in exchange for $40. You and the person in your spare bedroom are voluntarily exchanging capital for use of private property, thus voluntarily transferring wealth. The government is saying that you must transfer that wealth to a big corporation that runs a hotel and cannot choose voluntarily to do so without government permission.

The inequality of wealth and income are only a moral failure of society if the poorest’ s basic needs aren’t met. Morally what most matters is if the rich got that way honestly. If the wealthy got rich morally and legally then the income gap is not a moral problem. Because the government is hindering individuals from using their labor and property to garner wealth and forcing others to use government approved cabs or hotels, rich cab companies, hotels, etc. are wealthy immorally.

Consider Uber, to drive a car you own you must have a license to drive, proving you can do so safely, and insurance to protect others in case you have an accident. So all uber drivers have proven to society that they can safely drive, and can cover the expenses if they do harm to others while driving. Why should there be any restrictions for that licensed and insured vehicle and person from offering their labor and property to another in exchange for their capital? One reason, to keep the poor, poor, and the rich, rich. The ruling elite want to control who has and doesn’t have wealth.

What is evil about a little old lady renting her spare bedroom out for a night, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about a college kid driving other students around for a fee, how does that hurt the poor? What is evil about Hillary charging $200K to talk, how does that hurt the poor?

What the left refuses to do is recognize that the actions people take determine how others in society voluntarily reward them, or how society corporately punishes them. The biggest common factor in chronic poverty, persistent violent crime, and remaining impoverished is easily recognized. It is a common action (behavior) of those who are chronically impoverished in communities plagued with violent crime. It is not politically correct to speak it out loud.

There are noneconomic factors that make being poor permanent. These factors include not having a father in one's life, growing up with no family, no social emphasis on education, women having children without a man, and men having children without committing to the mother of those children. It is exceedingly rare for a married man and woman with kids to be persistently poor. A man and woman marrying may start out poor, but rarely do they as they have and raise children remain poor. Those noneconomic factors exist in greater quantity now for the same reason as the economic factors which create inequality of wealth. Too much government which rewards broken families, and punishes through wealth confiscation intact families.

The Evil of Wealth Disparity arises from the evil of Too Much Government. Freedom and Liberty in the past proved to be a fairer distributor of society’s wealth. However Freedom and Liberty have one basic problem that scare many. Liberty is not safe! With Liberty there is no guarantee that everything will turn out safe, that everybody will get a portion of what society offers based on their actions and contributions to society. As our society has become from feminized, the weaker, fairer sex, which values security over liberty, has continually traded liberty for security. As our Forefather Ben Franklin intoned, we now have neither liberty or security. The poor are not free to use their meager capital (a used car) to work their way from poverty, and as the tens of thousands of violent crime victims in Chicago can attest, they are no longer secure. All a result of Too Much Government. As polemist Thomas Paine so aptly put it, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Mass Migration is Proof that All Cultures are Not Equal.

By Tom Rhodes, 9/16/2015

Orthodox Jewish rabbi, Daniel Lapin in a television special, “What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?” replied to that very question this way; “The easiest way to answer the question of whether life on planet earth is better because Jesus walked Jerusalem or not is very simple, and that is: Just watch the way people vote with their feet. Watch where the net flow of immigration is in the world today. Is it from Christian countries to non-Christian countries or the other way around? It is so obvious.”

All cultures are not equal. Some are better than others. Islam as a culture is inferior to the nominally Christian culture of the West. Over 4 million have left Syria in the past 4 years. The masses leaving the Islamic Middle East and north Africa are streaming into Europe, they dash not to Hungary and former communist Eastern Europe but to the heart of Christian Europe, Germany, England, etc.

No reason to ask why, the reason is so obvious that it need not be said. In fact because modern progressives are trying to attack the very reason that masses, when they vote with their feat, choose particular destinations: Christianity. Even if those same masses don’t accept or acknowledge that rationale, they gravitate to Christian nations.

The main reason behind the mass migration appears to be the suppression of freedom and the violence wrought under various Islamic governments and the relative freedom afforded by formerly Christian Europe. The mass migration we are seeing is prima facie evidence of the inferiority of Islamic culture. ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, and the other Islamic movements have, and are, failing at curing the tribulations of Arabic civilization. History and current events demonstrate that when Cultures based on Islam are left to act on their own, and not restrained by some outside force, always results in a violence and tyranny, and forceful aggression against other nations.

This proves that the idea that one culture is as good as another, that basically all cultures are equal, is just not true. Cultural relativism as an idea is demonstrably false. People are rejecting this idea propagated by overeducated idiots and voting with their feet. Whether the realize it or not, people are gravitating to countries whose cultures are rooted in Christianity.

Western society, be it European or American no longer acknowledges the contributions of Christianity, but as I’ve stated many times before America is at its root a Christian Nation.

For generations Cubans have been fleeing atheist Cuba. Just like the people in the tyrannical middle east, they flee cultures rooted in Christianity. People don’t build boats out of garbage and float across hurricane strewn, shark infested, waters to migrate to cultures that aren’t based on Christianity.

Are the Middle Eastern migrants risking their lives and fortunes to get into China? India? Turkey? Russia? The answer is unequivocally NO! What they want is liberty and freedom, and that isn’t offered by all cultures.

The sad tragic fact is that the USA is losing liberty and freedom, that loss coincides with the countries rejection of its Christian roots. Freedom and Liberty are blessings from God, and they flow directly from our Judeo-Christian traditions. That is blasphemy to most Libertarians, but without a doubt libertarianism is the political expression of the bible. The ideas of the rule of law, equality under the law, self-reliance, etc. etc. etc. are all biblical in nature.

Christ sums up most of libertarian philosophy quite well in the closing verses of The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard: you are free to enter into contracts as you see fit; they are binding and fair if freely entered; individuals have the right to distribute and use their property as they see fit; others don't have the right to determine what is "fair" about how others use their property. He summed up all this in three sentences at the end of a parable with a lot less words and more eloquence than I can.

Don’t try to say that they are going to where the wealth is, if that were the case, they’d be migrating to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait. Some of the richest countries in the world. Countries dominated by Islamic Culture. The wealth of Modern Western Civilization is a result of the people being allowed the liberty and freedom that embracing Christianity brought. If they were fleeing to where the wealth was, and wanted to continue to embrace the superiority of Islamic culture, they would be fleeing to the massively wealthy Middle East Countries that are closer than the Christian nations they seek. Clearly they are risking their lives to flee Islamic Culture and the violence and tyranny inherent in that culture.

The mass flight of people from the culture of Islam to Western culture rooted in Christianity, lays to waste the idea that all cultures are basically equal. Otherwise they would be fleeing to China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, or Kuwait. Once we accept that all cultures are not equal, then the idea of defending a culture that provides more liberty, freedom, wealth, and fat not starving poor people, can be once again accepted. If you believe that America is not a “Christian Nation” and our liberty and freedom are not based in the application of Biblical principles, then you probably believe I’m a Big Fat Black Lesbian who Hates Hunting. The people of Islamic Nations are voting with their feet, their votes shout loud and clear that Islam as a culture is inferior to the nominally Christian culture of the West.

What Rule of Law?

Tom Rhodes, 9/8/2015

Today we are seeing the ruling elite imprison those who don’t follow there dictates regardless of the law. In fact obeying the law, if our ruling masters don’t like the law, can and will land you in prison indefinitely. Kim Davis sits in jail for following the law. Even some libertarians say she should be in jail for not following the law. The question is what law is she violating? The fact is the contempt of court finding, but that finding is based on the court enforcing the will of ruling elites without any law to support the ruling.

The court is saying, “You will do as we dictate regardless of the law.” Kim Davis chose to obey Kentucky’s marriage law and state Constitution which requires marriage be between two people of different sexes. The SCOTUS cannot make law, that is the exclusive authority of the Legislature. Read the constitution if you don’t believe me. The SCOTUS can declare a law null and void because it violates the constitution, but it has no power or authority to dictate laws. It’s called separation of powers.

Here’s the real problem. Others whom the ruling elite favor, can refuse to enforce laws and dictates of federal courts at will and suffer no consequences, while those who enforce laws the ruling oligarchy wish didn’t exist are jailed. Here are some recent examples:

Chief Cathy Lanier, of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, is refusing to issue concealed weapons permits to people unless they can arbitrarily show a “good reason,” although the law is clear that there is no requirement to do so. Despite a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in May stopping her from denying the permits. Refusing a federal judge is not landing Cathy Lanier in jail for contempt.

Lesbian Texas judge, Tonya Parker, in 2012, refused to issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples until same-sex marriage was legalized. Unlike Kim Davis, she was clearly violating the law, not only wasn’t she jailed for violating the law, she wasn’t even disciplined.

County sheriffs throughout California are similarly denying concealed weapons permits to applicants, despite last November’s Ninth Circuit ruling stating the the sheriffs were violating the law. People have died, unable to obtain permits to legally carry a weapon for self-defense, yet none of those sheriffs have been sent to jail.

In 2004 in clear violation of California State Law San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004. Newsom was never sent to jail.

In 2007 Newsom made San Francisco a sanctuary city, in clear violation of federal law. Nothing happened to him. The city’s sanctuary status resulted in the death of Kate Steinle in July, who was shot by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.

Davis is in violation of no law, and is attempting to enforce Kentucky law. The constitution does not grant the federal government the right to regulate marriage, that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the states. The sad fact is Kim Davis was singled out and punished disproportionately compared to other public officials who didn’t comply with other controversial laws.

If we were a country ruled by law, not dictates of those in power, then Cathy Lanier, Tonya Parker, Gavin Newsom, and multiple California sheriffs would be in jail alongside Kim Davis. Obviously if your position is not to enforce laws leftists don’t like, or violate laws leftists don’t like, then there are no consequences, but not do as leftists dictate, regardless of the law and you will be imprisoned. That is not rule of law, but rule by the elite’s whims, and no different than any other feudal system.

The problem is that the it is the U.S. Supreme Court who violated the Constitution by legislating, a power explicitly restricted to only Congress. Congress had overwhelmingly approved a law that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, all the SCOTUS can do is declare that law unconstitutional, it cannot create offsetting legislation.

In the state of Kentucky, it’s constitution is unambiguous saying, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.” There is no provision in the US Constitution or laws that grant the U.S. Supreme Court the authority to overturn the Constitution of any state.

Clearly there is no law that Kim Davis is in violation. She did defy a court order, but that court order has no basis in law and is therefore illegal. A court can’t order an elected official to murder a citizen, or otherwise violate the law. Such orders are invalid. A court order in direct conflict with the state of Kentucky’s Constitution is by default invalid. Obviously the Rule of Law is DEAD in the USA, and we are now ruled by the dictates of the elite. More of a Neo-Feudal society than a republic. The elected representatives of Kentucky have made the matter clear with 75% declaring that in Kentucky marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman. America used to be distinct among the countries in that it was a nation under the rule of law, not a nation under the rule of men. There’s a big difference.

Sarah Warbelow, the legal direction of Human Rights Campaign, the USA’s largest LBGT activist lobby has said, “This situation absolutely didn’t have to happen, if only Kim Davis followed the law.” Exactly what law can she or anybody else cite that Kim Davis isn’t following?

She can site the SCOTUS ruling but the SCOTUS does not have the power to create law, the U.S. Constitution is unambiguously clear about lawmaking: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” That means SCOTUS cannot make law, PERIOD! So any law dictated by the SCOTUS is null and void and not a law.

We used to be a nation ruled by law, now we are a nation rule by some ruling oligarchy, who can pick and choose who must follow the law and who can do whatever they want without being held accountable. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s a safe bet it is a duck. For the USA if it acts like a feudal oligarchy, sounds like a feudal oligarchy, and looks like a feudal oligarchy, then it’s a safe bet that the USA is now a feudal oligarchy, not a republic based on the rule of law.

Tolerance Of Totalitarianism Is Not A Virtue, It Is Surrender

By Tom Rhodes, 8/12/2015

Fear of being called, racist, sexist, homophobic, islamaphobic, or whatever ugly term progressives use to disqualify those who dare utter ideas they disapprove, has silenced many in America. Progressives also routinely dehumanize any who don’t follow their beliefs. They are effectively eliminating freedom of speech. These Social Justice Warriors (SJW’s) have created and used effective tactics to silence those who don’t accept their ideas. This tactic has proved effective. Time to go on the offensive and use their tactic against them. This is proving effective in many social media discussions.

First let’s identify the issue, I’ll use some stuff Dr. Walter Williams wrote in a recent article on “micro-aggression,” that correctly identifies and labels the actions of SJW’s

"...
From the Nazis to the Stalinists, tyrants have always started out supporting free speech, and why is easy to understand. Speech is vital for the realization of their goals of command, control and confiscation. Free speech is a basic tool for indoctrination, propagandizing, proselytization. Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed. This is increasingly the case on university campuses.
...
Western values of liberty are under ruthless attack by the academic elite on college campuses across America. These people want to replace personal liberty with government control; they want to replace equality before the law with entitlement. As such, they pose a far greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist organization or rogue nation. Leftist ideas are a cancer on our society. Ironically, we not only are timid in response, but also nourish those ideas with our tax dollars and charitable donations."
~ Dr. Walter Williams

Compromise, rationality, and working with SJW’s doesn’t work. Facts and figures are useless, they dismiss any data that doesn’t support their position, lie, and attack the person who brings it up with dehumanizing labels. These evil bastards go so far as to destroy any who don’t toe the progressive line. Look at Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who in 2014 forced to resign. Although none of his actions at the company were ever anti-gay, and he never talked about his personal beliefs at Mozilla. The fact that years earlier he donated money to a political cause to protect marriage, he was forced to resign.

When asked if his beliefs about marriage should constitute a firing offense the way racism or sexism does, Eich argued that these religious beliefs — and beliefs popular as of 2008 — should not be used as a basis for dismissal. "I don't believe that's true, on the basis of what's permissible to support or vote on in 2008," he told CNET. "It's still permissible. Beliefs that are protected, that include political and religious speech, are generally not something that can be held against even a CEO. I understand there are people who disagree with me on this one."

SJW’s are tyrannical thought police, seek to punish and crush any who dare not believe what they dictate. Progressive SJW professors, physically attack students who express ideas they don’t like, and then claim to be victim because those ideas hurt their psyche.

SJW’s have in essence created the new battle lines and rules. Time to use their tactics against them. They should be given no quarter and crushed as ruthlessly as they have tried to crush others. Refer to them a the totalitarian thought police, fascist nazi’s etc. whenever and wherever they try to silence ideas they don’t like. Don’t try rational discourse, it won’t work. Attack. They are totalitarian, anti-freedom hate mongers. Taking the game to them is proving to work where the people have the guts to stand up to them. Look up Gamergate and Rabid Puppies. SJW’s are a cancer that must be eliminated.

For years the Hugo Awards (Science Fiction writing award) have been silenced by SJW’s. They disqualified any writer whose ideas aren’t politically correct, saying “That there is no place in science fiction for anyone writing X.” X being racist, sexist, etc. The popularity of Science Fiction books has been dropping for the past couple decades. The great works of Heinlein, Tolkien, Howard, Lewis, Lovecraft, would not get past most Politically Correct editors today and even get published. There is a de facto exclusion from the sci-fi community of noted authors: David Drake, David Weber, L.E Modesitt Jr, Kevn J. Anderson, Eric Flint. Even Orson Scott Card — the creator of the world-famous Ender’s Game, which was recently adapted into a successful movie. Despite his phenomenal success, Scott Card has been ostracized by sci-fi’s inner circle thanks to his opposition to gay marriage.

SJW’s changed the Hugo awards to choosing based on the beliefs of the author not the quality of the work. A rebellion started with the Hugo Awards, and playing by the rules a group of people managed to nominate a slate of works that are not politically correct, using the tactics of SJW’s. The results were entire categories of Hugo awards are not going to go to the politically correct. Read about it here.

The article notes, “It seems that fandoms and online communities everywhere are waking up to the new menace of political intolerance, authoritarianism, ostracism and so-called ‘social justice.’ … Ordinary people are utterly fed up with the dominance of cliquish culture warriors whose bizarre opinions do not reflect those of the majority. They are fed up with being told what to do, what to believe, and whom to exclude. Wherever and whoever they may be, crusaders for political and social conformity are in the midst of a storm. And that storm is only just beginning.”

The Geeks, Comic Book Fans, Gamers, are showing the way to defeat SJW’s. Never accept their assertions, attack and demonize SJW’s for the totalitarian thought police that they are. This will work in politics as well. Trump is showing the tactic works. Unlike the MSM, on the internet and in today’s world, we have access to the same shaming, social exclusion, finger waging, to create a backlash against the authoritarian left.

Quit arguing with the totalitarian thought police, call them out for being anti-liberty, label them as the totalitarian elitists they are. Be defiant, bold, and challenging for their clear hatred of liberty. They are totalitarian. SJW’s be they feminists, gay rights activists, or race mongers don’t care about tolerance, diversity, or inclusion, those are just tools to get what they want, power. Trying to coexist with them, or tolerate their presence is not going to work, they are totalitarians. Tolerance of totalitarianism is not a virtue, it is surrender.

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.

Democrats Can't Tell Themselves Apart from Socialists

by Tom Rhodes, 8/4/2015

Democrat Party chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asked a simple direct question. What’s the difference between the Democrat and Socialist Parties? She changed the subject. Went so far as to tell the interviewer what she thought the question should be. This is such a simple strait forward question of basic political philosophy it should be easy for any Democrat to answer. When the chairman of the Democrat Party can’t answer it we should all have questions.

The answer to the question “What’s the difference between Democrats and Socialists?” was answered 60 years ago by famous author and politician Upton Sinclair. After switching from the Socialist to Democrat party and asked about why he replied, "The American people will take socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it... Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000." He showed in 1951 that if you push socialist ideas and call yourself a Democrat, you can win Democrat votes. Democrats believe in socialism, but just don’t want to be called socialists.

Proof can be heard from current Democrat and President B.H.Obama’s own words:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.”

“Generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”

“If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”

“I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution…”

“…We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

“Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.”

“The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. and Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity.”

“Political discussions, the kind at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union”

And let’s not forget:

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

The truth Democrat Party chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, couldn’t utter was there is no difference between Democrats and Socialists.

Befuddling Question About Institutional Racism

By Tom Rhodes, 8/3/2015

Politically Incorrect observation/question that progressives won’t respond to honestly. In fact merely asking or noting the fact is enough to label you as racist.

I’m befuddled on “institutional racism?” Our justice system is being labeled as “Institutionally racist” because one-third of the men in prison are black, despite the fact that blacks are only one-eighth of the population. If that is true then does the fact that more than a third (37%) of all aborted babies are black, despite the fact that blacks are only one-eighth of the population, prove that abortion is “institutionally racist.” The preponderance of Planned Parenthood offices being in predominantly poor black neighborhoods, coupled with the clearly expressed views of Planned Parenthood’s founder M. Sanger, would lead any reasonable person to conclude that Planned Parenthood is racist, and it’s goal is to eliminate black babies.

Why do progressives who support Planned Parenthood want to kill black babies?

Why are So Many Libertarians Pro-Murder?

By Tom Rhodes, 7/30/2015

My dictionary defines murder as: killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance. That means by definition to purposefully and with forethought, to kill a human being who has committed no act of aggression against another, is murder.

The idea that if a human being is less developed than other human she may be killed just because her mere existence is unwanted by her mother is quite simply an abominable immoral murder. Whether it’s legal or called “abortion” is irrelevant, it is murder. If you support the right of women to murder innocent people who have instigated no act of aggression against anybody, yet condemn men who murder innocent marines working in recruiting stations, you are a hypocrite and of low moral character.

Planned Parenthood just got caught selling body parts from innocent murdered babies. “The grisly business of the abortion monolith and its blithe nonchalance in the face of the gruesome reality have been Planned Parenthood’s stock-and-trade since the time of its notorious founder, Margaret Sanger.”

I have read and paraphrased some valid questions from a lot of different sources that the pro-innocent-baby-murder crowd don’t want to answer:

If the unborn babies are not human, then why is there a market for their body parts for human scientific research?

If the “POC” (Product of Conception) is just a “blob of tissue” why would anyone want the heart or lungs?

Other than age (stage of development), why is a mere “blob of tissue” with human DNA, human heart, and human lungs, not a human?

If you it’s OK to sell human parts of the very young people for profit, why not sell older more developed body parts like maybe your working spare kidney?

Who’s to say an assisted-care facility shouldn’t sell parts from deceased patients for profit?

Who’s to say an assisted-care facility shouldn’t accelerate their patients death to facilitate organ harvest for profit?

How is murdering the poor and homeless to harvest their organs any more egregious?

Another lexicon for consideration; the word fetus has Latin roots, it comes from the word foedus, which means unborn baby. A fetus by definition is simply an unborn baby, if that fetus has human DNA it is a human baby at an early stage of life. It is not dead, it is not something other than human, it is as the Latin root word definitions clearly states, a baby. Calling the baby a fetus in an attempt to dehumanize the baby that a mother murders, doesn’t change the cold hard facts, abortion is murder of an person who has committed no crime nor any act of aggression against anybody. Being legal doesn’t make it any less murder.

“Abortion is a crime that kills not only the child but the consciences of all involved.” ~ Mother Teresa


It is not scientifically arguable that abortion is not killing a human. The only argument is at what stage of human development do we grant that human the right to life. If society can arbitrarily choose to make the right to life based on age (stage of development), then the right to life is not a right, but a privilege. A privilege granted only to those whom others have deemed worthy of existence. If life is a mere privilege, how can anything else be a right?

How can a rational person take the official Libertarian position seriously? The official Libertarian position on murdering a member of your baby is “Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.” Using that logic it should be up to each person to decide if murdering some family member who is inconvenient or unwanted and the government should not create any laws against it, leaving it up to the family embers conscientious consideration. Using that logic the LP Platform supports Honor Killing of family members.

Why doesn’t the LP Platform read: “Recognizing that Avunculicide, Familicide, Feticide (or foeticide), Filicide, Fratricide, Geronticide, Honour killing, Infanticide, Mariticide, Matricide, Neonaticide, Nepoticide, Parricide, Patricide, Prolicide, Senicide, Sororicide, and Uxoricide, are sensitive issues and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”???

The reason is clear, the first and primary right every person has, that was the foundation and reason we created our government and the fundamentally the root of everything we think of as a right is the right to life. Abortion is the idea that a mother knows better than her unborn baby whether that baby is worthy of existing. That her superior knowledge of how that baby existing will affect her life and the probably quality of that baby’s life is enough to determine if that baby has the right to life. Once you accept abortion, you accept the idea that those with power and authority have the right to determine if those without power and authority can even exist. If you accept that a person with power and authority can murder those under her authority without recourse, how can you logically accept any limits on that power and authority. Clearly not a libertarian idea. Why do so many libertarians accept the idea that those with legal power and authority have the right to control other’s lives, even if that other is allowed to live that life?