How to tell Democrats are racists #4 School choice is racist

Democrats are saying that letting Black parents choose which school their children go to is racist.

That's because the teachers unions pump millions into the Democrat coffers each year.

If Democrats weren't racist they would support school choice because wherever it's tried Black kids do better and learn more.

But giving Black parents a choice threatens the union teachers in public schools whose pay is not impacted by their inability to actually teach Black children.

Perhaps, and this is just speculation, the Democrats of today believe what the Democrats of yesterday believed; namely that Blacks are inferior and can't be educated.

Or perhaps Democrats realize that if Blacks could get a decent education they'd realize how the Democrats are using them.

In any case only someone who really hates Blacks or who is totally uninformed--the case for most Democrat voters because they trust the media which never reports the truth about the issue-- could object to letting Black parents pick a school where their child would actually get an education.

How to tell Democrats are racists #3: Black women abort at 3 times the rate of white women.

One could be for the right of a woman to kill her daughter but also say that the fact that Black women abort at 3 times the rate of white women is a problem that should be addressed.

But we don't hear that from liberals. Rather we hear liberals praising Planned Parenthood and PPs founder Margret Sanger.

Liberals don't mind that Sanger was a big fan of Hitlers eugenics beliers; the only good people have blue eyes and blond hair.

Liberals aren't concerned that around 80% of PP clinics are in minority neighborhoods.

Liberals have often said that the government should pay for abortion since it's cheaper than welfare.  Of course the reality is that when rich white folk talk about people on welfare they're not thinking about white folk.

Liberals don't mind that abortion is the leading cause of death among Blacks in America.

Neither do liberals care that Jesse Jackson said that abortion was genocide against Black people.

While liberals say that Black lives matter it's clear that they really are not bothered by the mass murder of unborn Blacks.

Another reason to believe that Democrat politicians are racists.

How to tell that Democrats are racists #2. Chiraq.

4000 mostly Black people were shot in Chicago last year; that's why Blacks call it Chiraq.

Yet Democrats said nothing.

But let one violent criminal Black attack a police officer and Democrats can't stop talking about it.

If Democrats really cared about Black lives they'd be trying to fix the problem in Chicago.

Instead they seem perfectly comfortable with Blacks being slaughtered.

We all know that if 4000 white people were shot in Chicago the situation would be very different.

So after running Chicago for generations Democrats have only managed to make Chicago less safe for Blacks. That's pretty clear evidence of racism.

How to tell Democrats are Racist #1 The History.

The founder of the Democrat party owned slaves.

The Democrats fought to maintain slavery in the Civil War.

The Democrats founded the KKK.

The Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws; you know making Blacks drink from different water fountains.

Democrats fought against integrating Southern schools.

Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Democrats instituted a welfare system that destroyed the Black family.

According to Democrats however they suddenly, and quite magically, changed in the 1980's even though the people in the party didn't change.

How to tell Liberals are fascists #2

Liberals reject Democracy by supporting the "right" of judges to make up laws.

The Constitution no where talks about marriage. But it does say that powers not granted to the Federal government belong to the states.

That means that while states could redefine marriage the Federal government can't.

Yet the Supreme Court overruled 55,000,000 Americans who voted against redefining marriage to suit the 2% of Americans who are gay.  Remember that Hillary Clinton only got 65M votes and that most states didn't vote on gay marriage.

We've seen this before on abortion. The Supreme Court overthrew the laws of all 50 states based on a "right to privacy" which is no where in the Constitution.

We also saw it when liberal FDR threw more than 100,000 Japanese Americans into prison camps during WWII and the courts allowed it.

The reality is that liberals reject the ballot box when the people don't support them.  That makes them fascists.

How to tell that liberals are fascists #1

Liberals are comparing the antifa thugs who have been shutting down free speech with the heroes who fought the Nazis in WWII.

The obvious problem is that those heroes fought Nazi's who were mass murdering Jews and who had conquered most of Europe. The Nazi's that the antifa folks fought with in Charlottesville had not done anything wrong--like physically attack Jews--; their crime was to think in a way that the antifa, and the rest of us, don't like.

Hence the difference is that American soldiers risked their lives to free Europe and end the Holocaust while the antifa attacked people who had bad thoughts.

We know that liberals don't actually believe that it's ok to attack people based on what they think since if a bunch of alt-right thugs attacked a communist rally because of all the atrocities committed by communists the left would scream bloody murder.

Therefore the only conclusion is that the left supports the use of violence to shut down any thoughts that the left doesn't agree with; which means the left is fascist in nature.

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 20^th 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