Sunday, May 21, 2017

Bill Nye the Anti-Science Guy and the March for Anti-Science

While liberals try and wrap themselves in science to make their beliefs appear something other than madness the reality is that they reject real science whenever it disagrees with their politics.

It's an incontrovertible scientific fact that at the moment of conception a new human being is formed. That's based on decades of scientific research.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Mller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.

Yet the people in the March for Anti-Science contend that abortion doesn't kill a human being.  Apparently science that doesn’t support liberal ideology is “fake science” in the minds of the marchers.

Science also incontrovertibly teaches that a person’s DNA determines a person’s sex. Yet the people in the March for Anti-Science contend that a man can become a woman simply by clicking their heels and wishing—well they usually leave out the part about clicking their heels.

Yet the marchers ignore science and simply declare that people can change their biological identity without changing their DNA.

Science has shown that one’s race is determined by one’s DNA.  Yet many of the marchers in the March for Anti-Science probably believe that Rachel Dolezal can redefine her race simply by wishing.

Of course the biggest “science” issue that enrages the March for Anti-Science participants is global warming…err climate change.  They believe that mankind is contributing to the destruction of the planet by emitting too much CO2.

The reality is that these people generally have no idea of the actual scientific arguments or the data.  They support the idea because it makes them feel good and it justifies massive increases in government control of people’s lives.

Sadly the entire global warming issue is filled with fraud.  The single image that launched a thousand liberal laments was the famous “Hockey Stick” diagram that seemed to show that the world’s temperatures were shooting up since the 1960s.  But that figure has been thoroughly discredited and is rejected even by those who currently believe that people are the cause of global warming.  Further the technique used to generate the flat part of the figure showed that the earth continued to cool in the 1960s and instead of keeping that data in the authors simply didn’t show it which is a big no no in science.

Over the last 19 years or so global temperatures haven’t been rising even though CO2 levels have continued to increase—though CO2 levels are much lower than they have been in the past before mankind even existed.  NASA released a paper claimed that temperatures were going up but we now know that that paper used dubious methodology and was released, right before the Paris climate meeting, in order to impact politics.  Further the paper wasn’t based on any new data but on “corrections” applied to existing data; corrections that just happened to lower most temperatures prior to 19 years ago and raise most temperatures after that date.

Changing the data to fit your theory is a cardinal sin in real science by the way.

The confusion about global warming is nurtured by the fact that liberals have no idea what science is.  Liberals don’t understand that reproducible experiments distinguish science from people thinking.

When Einstein proposed that time runs slower for objects moving near to the speed of light no one believed him just because he was a smart guy.  It wasn’t until repeatable experiments confirmed his theory that the scientific community got on the special relativity bandwagon.

But we can’t experiment on the climate so all we have is people thinking. That doesn’t mean that we can’t develop an understanding of the climate and what drives it but it does mean that the science associated with global warming is far more slippery than what most people think of as science; for example antibiotics can be tested to verify that they work but climate models can only be compared to measured data after the fact.

The claims of the alarmists are based on computer models that predict significant, but still small, temperature increases in the next 50 years.  The problem is that when we compare the temperatures predicted by the models over the last 19 years with the measured data we see disagreement. The models show an accelerating temperature profile where as the data—when not artificially modified by alarmists—shows a roughly constant global temperature.

The Anti-Science marchers also ignore the fact that poor people pay a higher percentage of their income for energy. That means when we dramatically increase the cost of energy by using “clean” sources we’re imposing a highly regressive tax on the poor.  Essentially climate alarmists want to steal money from poor minorities to fund eradicating liberal’s science free fears.

By ignoring the real data and listening to those who pervert science to support their ideological agenda—and to get more funding for their research—the Anti-Science marchers are working hard to hurt the most vulnerable in America.

Aside from the specific issues where the Anti-Science marchers are rejecting science there are global problems with the marchers understanding of science.

For one thing a guy with a BS in engineering is not a scientist; a fact that apparently escapes most Anti-Science marchers.

More importantly many Anti-Science marchers don’t understand that science is not a democracy; it doesn’t matter how many scientists support a theory.  Science compares predictions of theories to measured data; if the data conform to the theory’s predictions we tend to say the theory is correct.  But real scientists never simply say that because we have a consensus we must be right.

Historically in the early part of the 20th century only one person said that the Earth’s continents move around.  Yet by the 1960’s the entire geological community agreed.  It didn’t matter than 99.99% of geologists said that the continents didn’t move; all that mattered was the data that showed that the continents did move.

It’s important to realize, and tell your friends, that the folks in the March for Anti-Science not only don’t generally know anything about science they also reject any well established science that is inconvenient for the policies they like; such as abortion on demand.


Tom has a Ph.D. in Physics and spent his career doing basic research, elementary particle physics, or as a rocket scientist.

Feel free to follow Tom on Twitter

Thursday, March 30, 2017

The New Civil War

Liberals are in open revolt and are not following the law.  They're using judges to subvert the rule of law and democracy.

They are just like their ancestors who tried to tear the country apart to keep slavery legal but they lack their ancestors courage and so fight with lawyers and lies rather than courage.

Their modus operandi for stoping Trump from doing what he was elected to do is clear; find an Obama judge who has no problem acting as a dictator and have the 9th circuit court back him up.  Even if they lose in the Supreme Court they'll have blocked legal action by Trump for at least a year.

It's time to start impeaching judges and acknowledging that every random federal judge doesn't have the right to tell Congress and the President that their actions are unconstitutional.

The Constitution has no real remedy for judges who are unethical since impeachment is hard.  But then that's not surprising in that the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court, much less any random federal judge, can overrule the other two branches.

Perhaps lower court rulings claiming that the actions of the executive branch and Congress are unconstitutional should not be enforceable until the Supreme Court rules.

It's time to reign in the judiciary given their fascist tendencies.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Five reasons modern liberals are fascists

1) They don't believe in the rule of law. Rather they believe that people can decide which laws to enforce and that powerful liberals, like Hillary and Bill Clinton, are not subject to the law.

2) They believe that unelected bureaucrats have the authority to demand citizens follow arcane regulations that haven't been approved by Congress.

3) They believe that many human beings have no rights.  In the 1860s Democrats believed that Blacks didn't have rights now they believe that the unborn don't have rights.

4) They attack religion because religion stands between them and total power.

5) They believe that breaking the law and lying are fully acceptable so long as they further the liberal cause.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

The face of evil

For the first time in America I saw the face of evil.  It wasn’t some neo-Nazi or even a communist.  It was a tiny middle school teacher who looked into the eyes of America and said she had the right to assault anyone she disagrees with and who believed that only speech she likes should be allowed.

Given that the vast majority of Americans probably disagree with Ms. Felarca on a wide spectrum of things, not the least of which is the suitability of using violence to shut down speech one doesn’t like, she was effectively threatening nearly everyone with violence if they dare speak thoughts she personally doesn’t approve of.

Generally when the new fascists, formally know as liberals, speak they cloak their tyrannical desires in a pastiche of liberal phraseology.  Democrat Congressman Swallwel when pressed kept saying that abortion was legal but wouldn’t say that science is right when it declares the unborn to be human beings. That is he wouldn’t admit that he does in fact support the killing of innocent human beings.  He desperately tried to avoid announcing that he truly supports mass murder.

But Ms Felarca had no difficulty gleefully proclaiming how wonderful it was that violence and the destruction of innocent people’s property had stopped a voice she didn’t like from being heard.

She also had no problem proclaiming that Milo was advocating genocide. Oddly such slanders, Milo may be wrong on many things but he’s never ever called for genocide, against an openly gay man are apparently acceptable to liberals so long as the gay man has wandered off the gay plantation where all right thinking gays must live lest they risk the ire of the liberal herd.

The new Brown Shirts, of which Ms Felarca is a shining example, believe that when they can’t win elections or find judges to make up laws they have every right to brutally attack people who don’t share their beliefs.  Even people who belong to the very groups Ms. Felarca says she wishes to protect.

Ms Felarca assaulted a neo-Nazi in a protest in June 2016 yet was allowed to return to teaching middle school children.  Could you imagine if some Trump supporting teacher had assaulted a Black Lives Matter activist that he’d be allowed to return to teaching young children?

Now I find Nazi’s of any stripe to be repugnant, though no more so than the equally tyrannical and mass murdering communists, but I don’t believe I have the right to assault them.  In that I agree with the ACLU that believes Nazi’s have 1st Amendment rights as attested to by the ACLU’s history of helping Nazi’s march in Jewish neighborhoods—something I don’t agree with; let them march elsewhere in public.

But Ms Felarca makes it clear that she has been anointed by someone, probably not God, as having the authority to decide what speech is acceptable and what isn’t.  I don’t know her but I’d be surprised if she would have any sympathy for an “alt right” person who attacked porn stars because he thought their speech was offensive.

Not all liberals are fascists and some have even condemned Ms. Felarca in the past. She is a key member of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) a group that appears to be modeled, knowingly or not, on Hitler’s Brown shirts.  Back in December 2014 Ms. Felarca was inciting violence and being condemned for it by at least one liberal Berkley resident who wrote:

Remember that BAMN does not believe in free speech or in open public discussion of the issues. They have a history of shouting down anyone who disagrees with them and of shutting down discussion by chanting slogans.

Remember that BAMN is willing to lie to manipulate people into potentially violent situations, as they lied about Mayor Bates being responsible for police behavior to try to disrupt the council meeting.

Remember that BAMN can attract something like 1,000 people to meetings or demonstrations through its Facebook page, many of them naive, idealistic students who know so little about city government that they believed that Mayor Bates should resign because he caused the “police riot.”

Remember that BAMN believes in violence. Martin Luther King said “Riots are the voice of the unheard” at a time when riots were happening spontaneously across the country, and he was trying to explain those riots while he himself was promoting non-violence. BAMN quotes “Riots are the voice of the unheard” to justify the promotion of violence.

Remember that BAMN does not care if innocent people are hurt because of its tactics. It pursues its goals by any means necessary.

I’m glad the author had the courage to write this back in 2014. Sadly the media today in it’s rush to defeat democracy in America and prevent President Trump from doing what the people elected him to do seems to be taking a much more benign view of Ms. Felarca’s fascists.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s liberals actually supported mostly good things. The errors in their policies were based more on poor reasoning than fascist totalitarianism; perhaps because back then most major Democrat political figures had actually fought fascism in WWII.  Sadly the Democrats, like modern liberal’s role model Stalin, purged all the voices of reason and actual morality from the party.  People who advocated a welfare system but a strong foreign policy or who actually were bothered that welfare was hurting Blacks more than it helped them were systematically denounced.

Today’s liberals are far more fascist than liberal in the classical sense.  Could anyone imagine Democrats in 1980 calling for a military coup against Ronald Reagan?  Yet today it’s not uncommon for the same liberals who told us that President Clinton lying under oath to avoid being sued for sexual harassment was no grounds for impeachment to talk of impeaching a man who has not yet done anything; much less anything impeachable.

The fascism at the core of the modern Democrat party and the people still called liberal is clear when one realizes that they are trying to overthrow the results of an election they lost.

Like Stalin they believe that what is theirs is theirs and what is yours is open to negotiation.

We need to lay the groundwork for the next election and to counter act the all out media attack on Trump. We can do so by making sure that the low information voters, which constitute the majority of those who voted for Hillary, realize that the Democrats are nothing like they portray themselves to be.  As one Trump voter said “If I’d have believed what the media said about Hillary I’d have voted for her”.

By pointing out that Ms. Felarca is representative of much of the modern Democrat party’s policies, but not of the Democrats propaganda, we’ll get more people to vote for sane candidates and further enable President Trump to restore America.

feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Saturday, February 11, 2017

The First American Coup

I never imagined that America would be the victim of a coup by a small group of powerful people but today just such a coup has taken a major step forward.

Unlike most of the world the coup is not being executed by the military because the American military is populated with people who are both honorable and fans of democracy.

This first ever American coup is being orchestrated by rich white lawyers who believe they have the right to dictate every aspect of American life.

While it’s true that the judiciary has a long history of tyrannically imposing edicts on the people, ranging from the coddling of criminals and the legalization of pornography to abortion and gay marriage, they have not previously taken control of American foreign policy.

Liberals support this coup because they know that the liberal judges are their people; rich mostly white elitists who eschew donating their own money to charity or risking their own lives to protect freedom. 

Liberals know that what they can’t win at the ballot box they can win in the courtroom since judges have now abandoned even a semblance of honor.  The 9th Circuit has just declared that they have the right not to interpret the law but to decide if the law is good and if they find it wanting they have the right to declare it null and void.

The judges have decided that now is the time to declare that they control every aspect of American life no matter what the law or the Constitution says. In fact they’ve even redefined what it means to be an American.

The 9th Circuit Court has extended due process protection to every person on the planet. That means that every one in the world has the same legal protections as American citizens but none of the legal, ethical, or financial responsibilities of citizens.

Technically then before our forces kill any ISIS terrorist in a fire fight overseas they would have to ensure that he had a fair trial.  While the judges probably don’t support that that’s what their ruling says for due process rights are not something that are applied on a case by case basis.

If this latest attack by the traitorous left who refuse to accept the results of the democratic process succeeds the liberal’s coup will go into overdrive.

If it’s possible to stop the president from making national security decisions consistent with clear laws passed by Congress there will be little if anything that courts do not feel empowered to do.

Everything Trump was elected to do will be stopped by 9 judges. One local rube in a radical state, three justices on the 9th Circuit Court, and 4 liberals and the “centrist” on the Supreme Court only need to agree and the votes of the Americans who elected Trump and a Republican Congress will mean nothing.

Just as the votes of 55,000,000 Americans against redefining marriage were overturned by 5 rich white lawyers on the Supreme Court the Republican control of government will be negated by rich unelected mostly white liberal judges whose loyalty is to their tribe not to the Constitution.

Alan Dershowitz, a liberal icon, said that the original ruling against Trump’s EO was overbroad but he commended Trump for appealing rather than ignoring the ruling.

But the 9th Circuits ruling changed the stakes.  By continuing the rogue judges coup the 9th Circuit has declared that the three branches of government are not co-equal but that the President and Congress can only do what the judiciary feels is right.  This is identical to the government in Iran where the democratically elected officials are held on a tight leash by the mad mullahs who actually run the country. 

Liberals want America to be like Iran; a thin veneer of democracy to make things look legitimate covering a despotic tyranny where the elites ensure complete control over the people.

It’s time for Congress and the President to begin impeachment proceedings against the rogue judge and the 9th Circuit court judges. Either that or admit the coup has succeeded and allow every aspect of life in America to be decided by rich white lawyers.

The other option is for Congress and the Executive branch to exercise their co-equal rights and refuse to submit to judicial tyranny. That might upset people like Dershowitz who believe that many judges are not lawless traitors but that’s a small price to pay for our freedom.

An America where only a Democrat election win matters will not be the land of the free.

The Constitution assumed that judges would be somewhat honest and respect their oaths of office. Now that assumption is invalid it will be necessary for the two branches of government that actually represent the people and not the liberal elites to exercise their power.

Obama threatened the Supreme Court about the dire consequences of them not imperially decreeing that ObamaCare was legal and the Court responded to that pressure.  Now’s the time to make it clear that impeachment, or say defunding the judicial branch, is on the table.

Liberals condemn President Jackson’s refusal to bow to the Supreme Court but the reality is the Founders never intended the Supreme Court to be the ultimate ruler of this country.  That was something the judges declared and which is not in the Constitution. So long as judges strove to be impartial arbiters that self declared judicial authority was not a problem. Now that judges are openly declaring that they are not impartial judges claim to ultimate authority must be confronted and denied.

Our country is founded on the belief that power flows from the people not from being appointed to a judgeship.  But if judges don’t feel that their responsibility is to interpret the law but to compel America to do what the judges feel is right power will belong solely to the liberal elites and the American people will lose their freedom.

It’s time to confront the liberal coup, educate your friends about the judicial tyranny, and either take drastic steps to reign in judges or accept serfdom for ourselves and our children.
Feel free to follow tom on Twitter

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Democrats don't care about immigrants only about Democrat voters

Democrats only support immigrants, legal and illegal, who will vote for them.

That's why Democrats support importing low skill non-English speaking people who believe that the government should support them. Those folks will vote for the Democrats because the Democrats use taxpayer money to give goodies to Democrat voters.

On the other hand Democrats oppose refugees from Cuba and Vietnam since both groups tend to vote Republican.

It's not compassion that drives Democrat policies but a desire for more political power.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Spicer didn't lie and no one lost their health insurance

When Obama blatantly lied about our being able to keep our health plans under Obamacare the same media types who are demanding Trump’s press secretary, Spicer, resign kept silent.

And then of course there’s Benghazi. The Obama’s administration repeatedly and deliberately lied about the nature of the attacks, blaming an innocent filmmaker, in order to help ensure that Obama would be reelected.  We know that the people in authority knew that there was no riot about the movie when they were telling the American people otherwise.  That’s a lie.

When liberals lie people do die yet the media apparently doesn’t care.  However if Spicer is factually incorrect on how many people attended/watched Trump’s Inauguration the media apparently believes that civilization is at risk.

Spicers “lies” are most likely technical errors based on bad information.  For example a “lie” was that the white tarps weren’t used before when they were used in 2013.  That someone gave Spicer incorrect information about this or that Spicer worked from memory and was mistaken is far more likely than that he intentionally lied.

Yet the same media who ignored the lies coming from Obama, not his press secretary, immediately declares that Spicer was intentionally lying.

We know for a fact that Obama knew we wouldn’t be able to keep our health plan, unless of course he didn’t know what was in his own bill, but it’s unclear how the media knows that Spicer wasn’t simply repeating what he’d been told.

Note the difference on how the media is treating Spicer and how they treated Candy Crowley. Crowley incorrectly “corrected” Romney in the presidential debate by saying that Obama had declared the attack at Benghazi a terrorist attack shortly after it occurred.  She was factually incorrect in a major way as she later admitted yet no one in the media called her a liar.  Her “lie” helped Obama get reelected while Spicer’s “lies” will have no impact on anything. Yet the voices calling for Spicer’s scalp didn’t call for banning Crowley from the media.

Remember it is a fact that the media had used a photo taken significantly before the Inauguration to try and show that attendance at the Trump Inauguration was small.

Spicer was reacting to a fake news attack by the media on Trump and hence it’s not improbable that after more than a year of vicious fact free attacks on Trump and his team Spicer might have unintentionally believed things that weren’t true.

The human error explanation is made more likely by the story the media isn’t covering.  A reporter incorrectly claimed that Trump had removed the bust of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office.  Given that Spicer had a big example of the media “lying” about Trump it’s not surprising that he might have not done enough due diligence on fact checking some of the other information he presented that was not perfectly correct.

Also isn’t strange that the same media that is assuming Spicer lied is buying the reporters story that he didn’t see the bust of MLK because it was blocked from his view.  Note that the reporter didn’t try and fact check that the bust was removed he simply failed to see it and then notified the world. For what it’s worth I’m perfectly willing to believe that that reporter didn’t intentionally lie. But it’s obscene that the same media hacks who are attacking Spicer for what’s most likely a similar lack of fact checking aren’t demanding that the reporter who “lied” about the MLK bust be banned from media. 

While some conservatives are upset about Spicer’s actions I suspect that many are not.

First the blatant hypocrisy of a media that applauded the release of completely unverifiable documents about Trump just a few weeks ago getting worked up about whether Spicer was right about the global audience—which couldn’t be confirmed—is disgusting.

Second after decades of the media lying about conservatives and branding us racists, fascists, and loons it’s nice to see them called out for deliberately trying to distort the facts about how many people attended Trump’s Inauguration by using a photo taken before the crowd grew. Even if there were fewer people at Trump’s Inauguration than Obama’s it’s still fake news to try and make the numbers look smaller than they were.

Think about it.  A fair media would have emphasized why Trump’s crowd might have been smaller.

They would have mentioned that the widely publicized threats of riots would have kept a lot of Trump supporters, who tend to have children, away.  Because conservatives aren’t fascists like liberals there were no threats of rioting at Obama’s “coronations”.

We know that the rioters and protestors did impact attendance from anecdotal evidence. A person who attended the Inauguration said that his friend couldn’t get in because protestors had forced the gate that the first person used to get in to be closed. Yet the media is acting as though comparing attendance is an apples to apples comparison but due to the liberals being fascists it’s not.

Similarly the media would have made a big point about how DC and its environs is a huge liberal bubble populated by grossly overpaid government workers, lobbyists, and people on welfare—precisely the people that knew that Obama would enrich them at the expense of hard working Americas—so that while Trump supporters had to travel long distances from fly over country to be at the Inauguration—and miss work—Obama supporters could just stroll on over without having to lose a penny of their income. 

If Spicer deliberately and knowingly presented false information then he deserves to be castigated but the idea that the same media which lied about Obama saying that the attack in Benghazi wasn’t based on terrorism calling Spicer a liar, rather than saying he needs to improve his fact checking, and demanding that he resign is repugnant.

Before we put our people like Spicer under the microscope let’s demand that the media treat every comment by a liberal with the same hostility.

It’s time to make it clear that most of America views the major media as lying weasels and that we’re tired of their whining.  To condemn Spicer while applauding the folks who published the completely fake “Russian” dossier on Trump shows that any concern about Spicer “lying” is based solely on political partisanship not a dedication to truth.

Feel free to follow tom on Twitter