Monday, November 13, 2017

The Second Amendment: Anything but Obsolete

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
-United States Constitution, 1791

The Idea of a somehow fluid constitution is one that permeates large expanses of the left wing, and nothing is more targeted under this erroneous theory than the Second Amendment. By fluid I mean the theory of a living Constitution, a Constitution that adapts and changes to meet the new circumstances in which it exists. This sounds all well and good, and in one sense the constitution is living, adapting through amendments like the 19th amendment to give women the right to vote, yet this idea is perverted by those who would like to mangle the Constitution in order to fit their wants.

Does this sound insane? Consider this, over 80% of Americans support the Constitution, while only 8% dislike it, if 80% of Americans support the Constitution, 80% of Americans should support people's right to using Hate Speech, because even if a speaker is offensive, their speech is constitutionally protected and that is not even up for debate. However, 44% of Americans argue that the Constitution doesn't protect Hate Speech. This gives three possibilities, one, people actually have no idea what the constitution says, two, around 24% of people know what the constitution says and disregard it anyways which would be a clear proclamation of dissent towards the first amendment, or three, somehow the Rasmussen Poll accidentally asked Americans what they think of the Canadian Constitution, because clearly a large percentage don't care about the American Constitution.

In relation to the second Amendment, there is an even larger level of support for the loose interpretation of the right to bear arms. By loose interpretation I mean tear the second Amendment out of the bill of Rights and throw into a fire. Leftist havens like Salon have turned to a popular refuge when it comes to Second Amendment bashing. Salon Argues that the Second Amendment calls for Americans to "participate in Militias rather than have a standing army", And that since we have a powerful standing army, the Second Amendment is "obsolete". This interpretation in which the first half of the Second Amendment is used as an argument for a standing militia and not an individual's right to bear arms not only does not stand up against scrutiny in terms of the actual wording, but also fails to hold any bearing to what the Founding Fathers clearly stated the Second Amendment means. The Second Amendment makes clear "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it does not state "the right of the well regulated Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The only reason there can be a Militia is that citizens can own weapons. The Founding Fathers knew and agreed that the Government very much has the possibility of going tyrannical and that Citizens must have the right to defend themselves.

George Washington, a founding father, completely refuting Salon's argument, stated that "When Government takes away Citizens' right to bear arms, It becomes citizen's right to take away government's right to govern".

The Constitution is not fluid when it comes to already passed amendments, and the only point of arguing to reinterpret Amendments, or to change the wording of them is to make concessions to a large and growing government. The fact is that every Government ever, when left unchecked, will grow and usurp individuals rights in the name of temporary security or comfort, the federal Government is a hungry wolf and was originally only intended to scare off predators, aka Great Britain and other potential threats, thus giving states the security and right to govern themselves. As Benjamin Franklin said, "People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".

"The only thing that will ever come from continued concessions on the Second Amendment is a growing government and a weakening individual."

-RightLens News, 11/13/2017

Sunday, November 12, 2017

Eugenics Survives the 1900s

--The Issue of Eugenics.--

Since the Nazis employed Eugenics in the 1900s, the vision of creating a certain race through controlled breeding has been abhorrent to the vast majority of people and today, even the suggestion of mass murder to create a "master" race would and should get someone blasted out of the public sphere of thought. Yet while westerner's gut reactions to the horrors of the past remains when in relation to tragedies caused by racist motives or other vile motives that should have been discarded with the turn of the century, it appears that some of the old and disturbing ideology remains today. The quest of fighting mental deformities has been perverted so greatly that no longer is the primary goal to cure the deformity but rather, the eugenics approach of ending the deformity, killing host rather than the deformity itself. A fetus that has been diagnosed as at high risk of Down Syndrome's, would today in America have a 67% chance of being executed through abortion, for the crime of having down syndromes, in France it's worse, a 77% chance of being put to death, and Denmark a 95% chance of death. Iceland prides itself on the most effective eugenicide, boasting a near 100% rate of abortions for fetuses identified as being high risk for down syndromes, in fact only about 2 babies are born with Down Syndromes a year, and this is due to mistakes in screening.

How would it feel, to know the only reason you survived abortion is because a machine didn't correctly diagnose you as having a mental deformity? As people of the 21st Century, we pride ourselves on having learned from the past, as having discarded the ideologies of Communism and Fascism, yet it appears that everything Hitler or Stalin did, the 21st Century attempts to match, whether it's the tens of millions of babies that die yearly to abortion, the eugenicide factor of abortions that target those with mental deformities, or the continued anti-semitism and even high rates of holocaust denial throughout the middle east.

--The Emotional Factor of Abortion--

Almost everything in America is driven by emotion, and nothing is more emotional than Abortion. Logic would tell us that there is only two possible points in which a fetus is indeed alive, either A: at Conception, or B: at Birth. Only option A makes any scientific sense at all, yet a Gallup study in 2012 found that while Support for the legality of Abortions in the first Trimester was at 61%, a firm majority, that majority flipped by the second Trimester, 64% of Americans believe that Abortions should be illegal during the second Trimester and an even larger majority, 80% of Americans think third Trimester Abortions should be illegal. What happened between those three Trimesters, the fetus, A human being the entire time, grew larger and somehow achieved more sympathy from the public. Nothing magical happens between Trimesters, yet somehow large portions of the public prescribe arbitrary points for when a Baby can be defined as a life.

The Emotional Factor of Abortion pervades every single circumstance, if the Women is raped, it's okay to kill the baby, if the Women simply doesn't want the Baby, it should be illegal for an abortion to occur. 61% of Americans said that at any point, if a mother can't afford the Baby and wants an abortion for that reason, the Abortion should be illegal, yet even though just about all abortions are due to reasons such as this, by a 49-46% margin, Americans identify as pro-Choice. The fact is that Americans are neither Pro-Choice, nor Pro-Life, they are Pro-Feelings, has the mother been assaulted, sentence the baby to death, does the mother just not want the baby, not an adequate reason, the baby should live. Of course while in most circumstance, Americans think abortions should be illegal, they have done very little to curb abortions that are unnecessary, the reason being, the value of the Fetus' life is not a concern to Americans. However, the State of Ohio has taken the first step towards making Fetus Lives Matter. The Ohio house passed a bill as of November banning abortions after the Baby has been diagnosed with Down Syndromes. This means Ohio will be one of the few places in the first world that does not engage in the mass killings of the mentally ill.

Why did this Bill pass in Ohio despite over 67% of mentally deformed fetuses being killed by abortion in America? Once again it's the Emotional factor, very few people are willing to make the argument that Babies with Down Syndromes should be aborted, why, two reasons, when it actually comes down to something with this much emotion involved, Americans tend to place value upon the fetus with Down Syndromes, and secondly, anyone arguing for such an abortion would be blatantly in support of Eugenide. Just like many of the Germans during the reign of Hitler, the First World has remained silent, preferring not to think, look, or hear about what goes on in our hospitals and Planned Parenthood clinics.

--Republican Strategy for Fighting Abortion--
While Republicans might be highly inefficient at doing much of anything nowadays, it appears that the house representatives of Ohio have finally conceived a strategy for fighting abortions and it looks an awful lot like the Democrats Gun Control strategy. What do Democrats do, they seize on tragedy, finding the fringe Gun issues, like Semi-Automatic Rifles, and put them into the Public spotlight until finally they have the political capital to push legislation, then they move on to the next part, until finally the reach the second amendment itself. It doesn't matter Semi-Automatic Rifles are not responsible for even 10% of shootings, in fact no gun is responsible for a shooting, the owner of the gun is responsible, but that's a different issue. Thus, Democrats slowly turn Public opinion by playing the political landscape into their favor, if you ban Automatic guns, all the sudden there is a precedent for banning any other gun that people consider to have the capacity to be highly dangerous, and then something like semi-Automatic rifles, once thought untouchable, is now being targeted.

Through this strategy, Republicans have decided to target what they know the Public dislikes. Eugenicide. While the result of an abortion upon a fetus with down syndromes and one without is the same result; A valuable life lost. Republicans know that pushing legislation to ban abortions on the mentally deformed is a lot more palpable to the public then a bill banning almost all abortions would be right now. However, now that aborting babies with down syndromes is illegal, why shouldn't it be illegal to ban abortions on babies with physical deformities, and then after that is achieved, why not ban abortions on everything that doesn't directly threaten the mother's mental or physical health. The end goal of the Republicans, and the Democrats, is almost complete illegality of their respective targets. For Democrats, it's Americans rights to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, or home invader, For Republicans, it's American's right to kill unborn babies.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Anti-American Coup d'etat

Percentage of Households with fire arms

Number of mass shootings per year.

Today, politics has adopted a dangerous tactic of utilizing tragedy as a club to beat those who would not support surrendering their own rights into submission. No matter what your political leaning, it is a fact that citizens have the unalienable right to keep and bear arms, which the government may not infringe upon. Yet upon every mass shooting, we see an attempt by many on the pro-gun control side to limit that right, calling it to dangerous for people to be able to keep semi automatics.

After the Las Vegas shooting, in which an illegal to purchase firearm was used, an outpouring of anti-NRA sentiment was unleashed from the left. Hillary deplorably jumped to immediately to criticizing the NRA, stating what an even larger tragedy the shooting would have been if "the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get". Not only is the fact that Hillary immediately jumped to her own political views after a shooting occurred bad enough, but she also appears to have a complete lack of knowledge when it comes to Silencers, which clearly she believes are so amazingly efficient that they make all the sound of a gun just magically disappear.

Hillary is not the only one jumping aboard the Blame the NRA train, Salon released a wholly disgusting article in which it claimed that in order to "honor the victims of las vegas", we must "take on the NRA". Once again, it is important to state that the automatic firearm used was fully illegal to purchase, Automatic weapons have been banned since the the Firearm Owners' protection act of 1986. While students in America's school system might be hooked on the idea of it being cool to break the law, via drugs, apparently America's left has found a new hobby in being cool by decimating the law.

By utilizing shootings, the American anti-gun lobby has forced Pro-Constitution members of society into a corner in which anyone who doesn't go along with the frankly ignorant banning of semi-automatic firearms apparently does not care about the victims of Las Vegas, or any other mass shooting. This form of politics is not only dishonest, but it is degrading to America as a whole. You can be pro-gun rights and still care about victims of shootings, in fact pro-gun rights people are all too often the reason there are less victims of shootings. The fact is that Gun owners halt more crimes each year that would likely end in death, than shootings occur per year, by a vast, vast margin. in 2011, NCVS found that Gun owners halted around 108,000 crimes in 2011 alone, however this study is misleading, not in how high its numbers are, but in how low they are. Due to the nature of the survey, NCVS found not how many crimes were halted altogether, but merely how many crimes were ended via force. in the 1990s, Gary Klark and Marc Gertz found that somewhere around 830,000-2.45 million crimes were halted each year by gun owners, this number varies so much based on whether you include how many times criminals were deterred by Guns being present. These colossal numbers are in comparison to the average 8000 shootings a year, which actually is down, as is most all violent crime.

In fact, despite the narrative that Guns equals mass shootings, the opposite is true. While houses with guns has slowly went down as a percentage of the American population, Mass shootings have skyrocketed. No one could possibly make a coherent argument that Gun-ownership levels in america is somehow positively correlated with Mass shootings, the opposite is clearly true, although the factors for it being so are probably more tied into mental illness than gun ownership.

In fact, I will pose a simple question, if Firearms are to blame for shootings, why on earth are we jailing drunk drivers. Clearly it was the car and not the driver! Just as the inhibited senses of the driver are dangerous for a driver and result in other people's deaths at times, the inhibited senses of a mentally ill person with a firearm may result in other people's deaths. This is of course why it is illegal to sell firearms to mentally ill people. It is no more logical that all Trucks be banned in europe since they obviously can be used as a weapon, often more effective in their vile usage by Terrorists, than firearms, than Firearms be banned in America. Firearms deter more deaths than they cause, a net positive in the tens if not hundreds of thousands, Firearm ownership is a constitutional right, and Firearm ownership is not linked at all to Mass shootings, Mental illness and culture are linked to mass shootings.

No one in the United States of America should ever be punished for the crimes of others, yet with their tendency to utilize the victims of tragedies, the Gun-control lobby has hammered away at the NRA and the Constitution, falsely asserting Guns as a major problem in america. Instead of fixating upon the couple thousand deaths by shootings in America that would in all reality just be replaced by stabbings or other forms of homicide as is the case in countries like the UK in which people do not have access to firearms in any convenient manner, yet the violent crime rate is still between 4-6 times higher than America, we should celebrate the fact that we are the only Nation upon this earth that has the Constitution to protect our right to bear arms, there is no other nation with a Second Amendment, and thus when the Government makes inroads upon our one right that protects us from an oppressive Government that is all too likely to form, Americans should be angry at the government for even suggesting we ban Semi-Automatic Rifles. In fact it's ridiculous that we are even focused on Semi-automatics, Assault Rifles make up about 2% of Gun deaths in America, and 1% of shootings overall, Handguns are the most commonly used firearm in shootings.

Since when did Americans put so much trust into government. Our Constitution is so clear on our god-given rights because the Founding Fathers knew that Governments have a tendency of going tyrannical and oppressing the rights of Citizens, those in the Gun-control lobby that would deny this truth are not only wrong, but they deny the wealth of evidence throughout history that states that whenever a Government is becoming large enough that it is approaching a point in which one bad decision may result in mass oppression, the first action that government partakes in is disarming its citizens. Americans have always had the second Amendment not as a right to defend their house from ordinary criminals, or as a right to hunt, but rather as a right to protect themselves against the government if it ever should come to that.

Monday, September 25, 2017

Political Chess

In the game of Politics, public opinion is everything. However Public opinion is constantly shifting, obviously this is shown in the constant switching of power held by parties, the shifts are caused from all sorts of things, from external events, to the economy, and bills that are passed. All of these factors come together to form the Political Landscape. This Landscape is representative of the brilliant strategy that goes into politics, it is played by both parties, pawns, knights, bishops, rooks, and even queens sacrificed to gain the upper hand, What is this sacrifice that goes into political strategy? Passing unpopular legislation is obviously damaging, yet it is also swaying, for instance, Obamacare is a popular example. When Obamacare was passed, it was highly unpopular and lead to the Republicans dominating the House and Senate, and eventually Whitehouse, but now with the Republicans seeking to repeal Obamacare, it is nearly possible. Why is that? It's because the Democrats sacrificed their queen, control of the house and senate, in order to make a fundamental shift in the way the public thinks, no longer is government health care some foreign idea, but rather it is commonplace, and therefore seen as natural and popular. Now, a piece of legislation that put Republicans in power, threatens to remove them from power if they tamper with it, indeed repealing Obamacare would take away the chance of removing the Democrats pawn from getting across the board and becoming a queen.

Of course, there is more to it than that. If the Republicans repeal Obamacare and somehow maintained enough power to halt the passing of another government healthcare scheme, Public opinion could eventually sway back to a privatized system. Obviously controlling this Political Landscape is tantamount to the future success of any party, and something that Republicans in particular are quite bad at. There has perhaps been only one act passed by Republicans in quite some time that has any effect on the Political Landscape, The Patriot act, which happens to be the one act that I find most abhorrent from the Republicans in the past 17 years. Even then, the Patriot Act, while softening people up to Government surveillance of its own people, it has yet to get Americans enamoured with the idea of being spied upon. 54% of Americans disagree with the Government collecting phone calls and other personal data via the NSA, and ironically, Republicans disapprove of this more than democrats, 56% of Republicans disapprove of the results from an act that they passed, while not even a majority of Democrats disapprove. If there is any better evidence of the ineptitude Republicans have when it comes to controlling the political landscape, I have yet to see it.

Democrats on the other hand have been highly successful at this, as the more liberal party generally is. It is much harder to maintain a system, than to constantly suggest changes based on the whims of the far left. Democrats have been able to shift public opinion on gay marriage, not even much of a topic of debate anymore, they have shifted opinion on government healthcare, they are trying to shift opinion on high taxes, although Trumps tax plan might set them back a few steps, and the shift to the complete obliteration of the two gender reality is at hand.

Why is it that Democrats are so much more successful at shifting the Political Landscape? They make Sacrifices. Conservatives play chess, well... conservatively, refusing to take risks. Liberals on the other hand, continuously make sacrifices because the democrat party knows that down the road, they will be beneficial. Obviously not all sacrifices work out, but when played correctly, and when you call literally anything a civil rights fight, public opinion tends to shift.

The one benefit Republicans have now is Trump. Yes Trump may merely be a completely inexperienced and often ineffective politician in some ways, but he has incredible benefits as well, one such benefit being his ability to completely shift the political landscape, and somehow force mistakes out of democrats and the media. For instance, Antifa has grown vastly since Trump has taken office, and all antifa ever will do is push voters to the Republican Party, Trump drives people insane. Democrats have been out there talking about the Russian narrative for months, insulting Trump and making unsubstantiated claims, and while many democrats may believe the claims, many Independents see the combat between Trump and the Democrats as a war between two evils, and when one side is continuously making false claims and vile attacks, it starts to show. Thus Republicans finally have a weapon in this political chess game, and it seems to be merely the ability to agitate the other side to such extremes that they start throwing all their pieces at the republicans, regardless of the political danger they place themselves in by revealing the extremism found on the far left.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Trump's Corporate Tax Cut

Today, America's Corporate Tax rate is one of the highest in the world, at around 39% or 35%, the supposed market economy of the United States even out-taxes the chinese, whose Government overlords impose a 25% corporate tax rate on the businesses of China. Trump has clutched at the dream of a 15% corporate tax with his massive hands and despite naysayers continuously calling the idea unrealistic, Trump has doubled down on his plan to allow businesses to keep the money they have rightfully earned.

Speaker Paul Ryan, in his negotiatory manner which is indeed so negotiatory that it has negotiated itself out of the original plan, has proposed a 20% Corporate Tax Rate which while much fairer than our current Anti-Business set up in which 1 out of every 3 dollars goes the government that presides over the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, certainly does not hit the mark that Trump has aimed for. According to Rasmussen, by a majority of 46-28, Americans think Corporate Tax cuts will help the economy, but Gallup, which really is beginning to worry me because of how different their results are from fellow pollsters, gives us a different narrative. According to Gallup, 67% of Americans believe corporations pay to little in taxes. An odd little dilemma seems to have reared its head here, on the one side, Americans think to themselves, yeah, Corporate Tax cuts would boost our economy, and on the other side, they turn around and say Corporations don't pay their fair share. The only reasonable explanations I can come up with is that either one of the Polls has an extraordinarily odd way of finding it's data, or Americans are just not receiving the facts or are not in touch with the American dream.

If what Gallup claims about Americans is true, and I have to believe it is true or else Gallup would not be such a respected pollster, than Americans' have totally escaped reality. Not only are Corporations under fire according to Gallup, but the Upper Class, the hated 1%, 63% Of americans think that the upper class does not pay it's fair share. If it wasn't obvious that many people just don't have the full set of facts before, it's painfully obvious now. According to Pew Research Center, the top 2.7% of Americans, otherwise known as those who make over 250k a year, the upperclass, payed about 52% of individual income Taxes, but apparently that isn't their fair share. Apparently if you pay 25 times the that of the average american, that's not your fair share, that's too little. 25 times the average american is too little... 10.6% of all taxes are Corporate taxes, compared to the 47% of Individual Income taxes, which makes sense since most money Corporations earn is not kept but rather goes into buying materials and paying employees, yet apparently 67% of American's want to raise that, because if there is anyway to make sure you get a pay raise, it's to lower the amount of money your company has to give out to its employees.

Obviously many people haven't looked at the numbers when it comes to Taxes, and it doesn't help that most Media outlets aren't willing to put those out there, it goes against the crusade against the 1%. Sadly, American's have taken the Founding Fathers dream, the American Dream, and torn it up and asked to have the Colonial British dream back again. Something every child does, and should learn in school, is the Revolutionary war, which now that I think about it, I haven't really learned about the Revolutionary War in school for quite some time, Sure the teachers go over the fact that Americans wanted to establish their own nation, apart from Great Britain, but do we really go into the idea of no taxation without representation? I mean Honestly, Americans went into a war, instigated by the idea of No taxation without representation and now they are clamoring for tax raises on the people they don't like. Do you know what the Tax rate on the colonies was before the revolutionary war, Probably not because Teachers never give the incredibly important details that might make people supportive of a lower income tax. The Tax on the colonies was between 1-2% of the individual income. Sure taxes may raise over time as the government becomes more monstrous and needs to consume more to perform its functions as caretaker of all things, including apparently our phone calls and emails. Thanks NSA. So to conclude this little Rant, Americans went to war partially over a 1-2% tax, but now they want to raise the 35% corporate tax to an even higher amount, and the almost 40% tax on the top 1% is apparently not high enough either. In fact just now, I saw another incredible statistic, while the top 1% pays about 45% of taxes, they only make about 16.5% of the total income.

Isn't it incredible how blatantly bias people can be. For instance, in the case of police shootings, the Black population is overrepresented, Crime rates aside, their population around 13-15% of the American population, but the police shootings level at around 23-25%. Now obviously there are various factors that show why this statistic is not one that signifies racism, but the irony I want to pull from this example is the fact that such an uproar is made over something that can be logically explained, yet there is no uproar when another type of minority, 1% of citizens, are way, WAY overrepresented in taxes. Not only is the overrepresentation clear, but in one case, movements across the nation protest and gain significant media attention, but in the other case, our Politicians say that the overrepresentation is not enough, that we have to punish them, even more. All people are equal in America, but be careful that you're not to successful, or 63% of americans might start calling for you to lose your money, and the Government certainly wouldn't object to taking more of your money.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Greatest Civil Rights Fight of our Day

"The Right side of history", a phrase well loved by former President Obama, and certainly to be on the right side of history is something that any morally decent Person should strive to be on. However, we know well that all too often that it is extremely difficult to find what is morally correct, I highly doubt that many of the racists in the 1800s thought they would be remembered as the perpetrators of some of the most egregious human rights abuses in history,  yet today that it is a agreed upon as a tragedy in our history by all decent people. Yet, in redirecting back to Obama, even today horrifyingly common human rights abuses happen and what do many of our politicians do? They go out and stump for this mass killing, calling it a Human right to take another being's right to life away. Today in America, in a margin as small as 49%-46%, Americans support the largest mass killing in history, Abortion is a legal practice that in America alone that has killed nearly 60 million americans since 1973. That is Americans alone, throughout the world we have seen 1.468 Billion abortions since 1973, and already this year 29 million. To put the number Billion into perspective, remember that it wasn't even till 1804 that the human population hit 1 billion, and it would take another 120 years to to reach 2 billion, the number of abortions in the last forty years has cruelly stolen the lives of more human beings than the entire population of the 1800s.
Roe V Wade was the single most terribly decided case in judicial history as far as I'm concerned, the fact that someone could read the constitution and think that somehow Abortion was a constitutionally provided right is both asinine and plainly wrong. Not only was the decision of Roe V Wade unconstitutional but it defies even the base values of America, pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Forgive me if this seems obvious, but I fail to see how you can have either liberty or happiness, if you're dead. And despite this clear unconstitutionality, and the plain fact that Abortion should be decided by states, if not halted altogether aside from rare cases where the mother's life is in danger, if the those reasons weren't already to obvious, what about the fact that we know scientifically that the fetus, fetus of course being a word used today to dehumanize the baby and skirt around the idea of it being a human, is certainly alive. Upon conception, a single celled zygote, which will slowly grow into a full sized human baby, is formed. This Zygote is definitionally alive, and due to the fact it is a human baby, or even if you want to dehumanize it and call it a potential human being, the fact that the newly formed child, human or potential human, has value should be accepted by all peoples, purely on the grounds that human life should be valued.
Although Science and the Constitution are stacked against Roe V Wade, the pro-choice movement has turned abortion into a civil rights movement. The sheer ridiculousness of the reality we live in, one in which people fight to maintain the right to kill another human being, is clear to any logical and even partially scientific human, and I expect sometime in the future, whenever some nation comes along that values human life, people will look back and see this as just another egregious action in the vast timeline of history. There was slavery, what was it, it was the belief that certain Human beings , who were dehumanized were property since they were bought and are on an individual's land, We look back at that and say it is disgusting and atrocious that anyone would believe that, 200 years later, we see certain human beings, who are dehumanized, legally able to be killed because they are on the mother's property and are not seen as holding innate human value. History repeats itself for those too blind to act.
Make no mistake, every civil rights movement in history has been difficult because it goes against what is easy and socially acceptable, but the movement to view an unborn child as a human being, is the greatest civil rights movement of our time. Compare it to anything, nothing close to the magnitude of 1.4 billion deaths in only 40 or so years.

Start calling the Pro-Life movement a Civil Rights movement, that is what it is.The right to life is the most essential civil right.

Also one quick message to the democratic senators who were worried that DACA being rescinded would harm millions of illegal immigrant dreamers, Luckily for those Democrats, Trump agrees with the right for Dreamers to stay in America, but I want to point out the blatant hypocrisy of that. When did that Dreamer's life begin mattering? Clearly for those Democratic senators, it didn't happen when they were in the womb, yet as soon as it became politically beneficial to stand up for certain individuals well being that's where all the Democratic Senators were. Until they can start standing up for life at all stages, I find it hard to listen to them with a straight face when they talk about their concern for the Dreamers. 

------Note to the reader
As you can see I am Pro-Life, Feel free to drop a comment down below if you disagree. I make my word that if you pose a question or argument in the comments and I see it (I will check daily if possible), I will respond, and unless by some incredible anomaly where 1 million people suddenly post questions, I will get to your question as quickly as possible.
This Blog is made up entirely of High School student writers, many of which aspire to be involved politically as adults. If you feel like helping out, we ask for nothing other than the support of commenting or sharing the blog with friends. I can not describe how helpful it is to receive a comment, negative or positive, it is or should always be a learning experience to receive feedback, So if you feel like leaving a comment, go ahead.


Friday, September 8, 2017

Ageless Constitution

In Social media debates with liberal and progressive friends in highschool, the following argument has come up numerous times, And i'm quoting straight from a text message here,

"The constitution is hundreds of years old and definitely is in need of some revising. Times have changed in ways that the founding fathers could have never predicted."

This can be a sign of two things, Ignorance or authoritarianism, a third option is very rare, it does exist probably, I just have yet to ever see it. Because in reality, It's either A: the person just doesnt understand the ideas of the constitution, Separation of powers, limited government, individual rights, All these Ideas are timeless and will always be essential to a free people and a government that doesnt quash its people's rights. Or B: the person actually wants to bypass the process of law to get what he/she wants. For instance, people that support DACA and don't want it rescinded, the same people calling Trump a bigot, despite the fact that Trump has made very clear that he actually wants to legalize DACA and it just requires getting Obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty with papers, out of the way, They want it not rescinded and they are okay with the unconstitutionality of it because it goes along with their beliefs. If you don't care about the process of pushing a bill through the house and senate as well as the various other steps involved, and you want the bill to be just implemented through executive power, regardless of the constitution, merely because you like what the bill says, you are definitionally an authoritarian.

Now the great thing to do with people that give such an utterly ridiculous argument is simply pose the question, "what in the constitution would you change?" It always gets them. Its actually funny how few progressives can give a coherent response when you ask them the simple question of what they would change. And there really is little that you can change, Do they want to revise the Bill of Rights, if so, how? Change freedom of speech or the right to bear arms, the Bill of rights seems fine to me. Or do they want to change how the branches work, it seems like pretty dicey territory when you're getting into changing separations of power.

The fact of the matter is, The constitution is perfectly fine as it is, and is the single most successful constitution in world history. The US constitution is the longest surviving constitution, and will be the longest surviving constitution as long as we don't let people go about changing something that in all likelihood they frankly don't understand. The fact is, if it ain't broke, dont fix it, and if you can't make it better, don't break it.

-Note to Readers-----
This Blog is ran by High School students, most have aspirations of going into media, but we can't grow or improve without your help. As a Reader, the best thing you can do is to give feedback, offer suggestions, all of which you do by commenting below. It would be great if you told friends, or helped share articles, but what brightens all of the writer's days most is when we see an actual good constructive comment, negative or positive. Thank You so much for taking time out of your day to read this, every view is greatly appreciated.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

SJW Libertarians ought to think

Libertarianism, Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt directly harm anyone. A wonderful, American, Ideology, which is why it is such a shame that people so asininely distort it into a sort of paradise that is the mirror image of communist philosophy. Of course there is an obvious dichotomy between Libertarianism and Communism, and anyway who argues otherwise is talking about dreamland, where Communism comes without big government, The two are obvious ideological opposites, yet the basic support beams that hold up these ideologies are all too often very similar.

What makes communism run, or in other words, why is communism impossible? It requires perfect people, and even then it would stunt innovation, communism requires perfection, people need to work at the perfect rate, never make mistakes, always be on task, love the government more than their family or themselves, or if you really want to talk about impossibilities, love the supposed community more than themselves because incredibly, many define communism as the community equally distributing resources rather than the government. In other words, Communism is impossible because it hinges on perfection, and that is a noteworthy point for some libertarians that have gone to far in their ideology. Libertarians have made a name for themselves by flirting with anarchy, obviously this is a very select group of libertarians, but when it is a popular myth that Libertarians hate roads, there is a problem with the public image.

Libertarianism often goes to far, not as in it goes to the extremes of it's basic principles, but rather, libertarians are often horrible at interpreting what "Do whatever ever you want as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone" means. Abortion is a classic example, the Libertarian party platform states that it will leave the choice of abortion up to the people's Conscientious consideration. The problem with this is that Abortion is a very black and white issue, either the fetus is a baby, or its just a pile of goo. If there is any reason to believe that it should be a conscientious decision, than that requires the fetus to have some value, and the fetus can't have value if it's a pile of goo, so it must be a Human baby, or at least a human in development. Thus if it is a moral issue that comes down to someones consciousness, the libertarian party must admit that there is some significance to the fetus' life, and this allowing it to be killed is a tragedy that directly violates the clause, "as long as it doesn't directly harm anyone else".

Abortion is just an obvious example of where the libertarian party is wildly off. Libertarians also advocate Open borders, as they state "a free flow of people" is essential to "free trade", this issue is a little less wild if it were to come with the whole libertarian package, but all to often Libertarians advocate for open borders in america's current state. Yes, if we demolished all forms of government aid, open borders, would make sense, but when libertarians advocate for it, regardless of America's current vast welfare system, and bevy of things freely given out to citizens, Open borders is ridiculous. Open borders is only acceptable when people are coming into the nation to work, to make a life for themselves and their families, For instance, while many migrants come to America for this very reason today, earlier in american history, a classic example being the Irish, no one was coming to America for the free stuff, coming to America meant risking everything to achieved the american dream, Nowadays, it means receiving all sorts of free benefits, and living better regardless of your level of work. Open Borders can only successfully work if the Government does not give vast amounts of aid to those entering the country, if not, it is just a massive tax burden upon the country that costs hundreds of billions.

Another thing, Left leaning libertarians, if you lean left, as in economically lean left, you can not say you are libertarian, I am sorry for your loss, but Libertarianism is an inherently right wing ideology that advocates for the removal or shrinkage of government involvement in the business sector. You can hold socially libertarian beliefs, but being Socially libertarian, and actually libertarian is vastly different and the only thing Left leaning libertarians offer libertarianism is disagreement, and authoritarian beliefs for how the economy should run.

If Libertarians could actually manage to follow their core belief, maybe people could take them more seriously, but as of now, the party is infested with social justice warriors who don't care about the unborn's rights, don't care that opening up borders is incompatible with today's government, and willingly discard libertarian beliefs when those beliefs don't comply with their rainbow world in which socialism is a viable economic system, and free college some how doesn't violate a lower involvement of government.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

How You Know it's Fake News

Recently, being the studious Highschooler that I am, I took to reading a couple articles during Study hall at school. I looked through my Google News feed, and found an interesting one interesting one, which was named "Seven simple ways to respond to the Nashville Statement on sexuality". Now first off, being a student in a Literature class, I know how to make assumptions.

  • It's a Washington Post article... Liberal.
  • It has the word Sexuality... Washington Post is a veritable Gay Rights activism site.
  • Nashville Statement... I had not heard of it until now
  • It's a response article... Refutation.
  • If it's refuting a sexuality argument and it's from Washington post, whatever the article is refuting is most likely either from a conservative site, or a church of some sort.
And thus you now have a short list of what I think before clicking on an article. Now mainly what interested me is the idea that there is some document, clearly famous to some degree, that I had not yet heard of. I clicked on the Article thinking I would Learn about the Nashville statement, but instead I got the usual leftist spiel, for instance "Signers... Overwhelmingly Male"(Because if there is one way to fight sexism, it's to highlight gender in everything you do and make sure people know it's bad when too many males sign a document), "Condemnation of both same-sex Marriage and the idea that Christians can "agree to disagree" on issues around sexuality". 

Now I want to highlight one clear difference between one thing i'm writing here, and the article from the Washington Post, Those quotations that I used in the last paragraph, yes, I quoted what i'm refuting, the Article never once cited the Nashville statement, nor did it give a link to the Nashville statement, so I'm giving you one right now. (Nashville Statement). Following a short background on the Nashville Statement, one that clearly was not biased(Thats sarcasm if you didn't realize), The Article Gives us seven simple ways to respond to the nashville statement, as the title suggests.
Here's a couple examples.

"I Affirm: That God Loves all LGBT people. I deny that Jesus wants us to insult, judge, or further marginalize them."
"We Affirm that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to god through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all christians, walk in purity of life.
We Deny that Sexual Attraction for the same Sex is part of the natural goodness of God's original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel"

Now you may notice that the word "I" became a "We", that's because the article supposedly refuting super bigoted comments is the owner of the first quote, but the quote that begins with "We" is pulled straight out of the clearly horrid Nashville Statement, I mean, how bigoted, "People who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God", clearly condemning all gay people.

Here's a quick tip for the Washington Post, and the author of the article "Seven simple ways to respond to the Nashville statement on Sexuality", James Martin. If you are going to attack a statement, or literally any idea, At list give examples of what you're attacking. This entire article is a supposed response to the Nashville Statement, not only does it not come to odds with anything in the Nashville statement, but it fails to give a link to the Nashville statement, and fails to cite anything, ANYTHING, from the Nashville statement. You simply can not honestly attack a statement you disagree with and not give links to that statement, it is dishonest, and frankly a disgusting abuse of journalistic power. This is the Washington Post, one of the largest media sites in America, and somehow and article, supposedly refuting a statement, was published without once citing what it was supposedly refuting.

Not only is this a clear demonstration of how leftist sites like the Washington Post attempt to distort reality in order to create a false reality for leftists, in which they truly believe gay rights are in danger, a very dangerous and dishonest thing for a media site to be doing, But also isn't Washington Posts motto, "democracy dies in darkness", I mean honestly, I would assume they would agree that failing to give a voice to the other side is definitionally darkness in terms of free speech, Hypocrisy is indeed and incredible thing.

This isn't the first time something like this has happened, Remember the Google Memo, which was constantly accused of sexism, and in numerous articles, and in numerous media shows, not even once cited. Honestly anyone that read the memo would have known that there was no sexism to be found, and in fact everything was based on facts.

This has become a vile and all too common practice by numerous media outlets, obviously including, but not limited to, the highly credible and clearly not biased Washington Post. Now Certainly this is not the only dishonest practice, cherry picking quotes is all too common as well, but the sheer arrogance of Washington Post, to assume that Americans are so stupid that they wouldn't be able to tell fake news when they see it. If you purposefully leave the link to what you are quoting or citing out of your article, you shouldn't be writing an article. Commonsense people...

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Trump Walls Transexuals From Military Service

Today, July 26th, 2017, Donald Trump announced via Twitter, a new policy in the military. "...the United States government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military" -Sincerely Trump. Now obviously there is some pretty bad optics to this, if Trump thought being called an islamophobe was bad, he ought to be ready for the transphobe accusations. Clearly there is only one way that the mainstream media will take this, it will be fully negative coverage of how Trump barred a whole group of people from serving their country, The whole goal of the Media will be to take this action and paint Trump as the worst bigot ever to enter office.

In my opinion, this is wrong in certain clear ways. Trump's reasoning for the ban is as follows "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and can not be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail." Obviously that makes sense, The Military shouldn't be paying millions a year for Transgenders to get surgery, if so, whats to stop people from joining merely to get free surgery. And perhaps there are ways that Transgenders would cause a disruption, certainly their living arrangements would be difficult to lay out. Yet I feel there is a huge flaw in this decision, I don't think that Transgenders should be banned just because we can't pay for them, I think if they haven't gone through surgery or already have, and they don't expect anything of the Military aside from serving their country, they should be able to serve. Sure there may be some difficulty in arranging Living spaces, bathrooms, or other places where transgenders would differ from those of their prefered gender, but I think there is far more difficulty for the Transgender who is willing to lay down years, and possibly their life, defending their great nation, than some upper levels people to figure out how to create a layout that allows for little "disruption". It is apathy of the worst kind when people would rather ban a large group of people than figure out how to give them an opportunity to serve in the military.

That said, there clearly is some problems with Transgenders serving in the Military that make this decision by Trump far from black and white. Firstly, There are clear physical requirements based on gender. Men and Women have different bodies, and what might make a Man out of the realm of healthy service, might still allow for a Women to make it into the Military. This means of course that Transgenders might be able to join the military under their gender preference, and serve, despite their actual body being unfit for service because they made it in under the requirements of their gender preference, but their bodies physicality might not have been sufficient for their biological sex. This of course is a rare problem, but it is a very real one that would pose difficulty to the army. It leads to the second issue which is probably the largest issue. Obviously the best solution to the first issue I mentioned is just to base the physical requirements on biological sex, but then what. If requirements are based on biological sex, than the transgender must also stay and train with their own biological sex, this clearly could cause "disruption".

Due to these issues, there are certainly other ones that I failed to mention, the issue is not nearly as black and white as i'm certain, many in the media will make it seem. I don't agree with this decision by Trump to ban transgenders from military service since I believe firmly that anyone who wants to serve their nation should be able to in some capacity, however I also can see the reasoning behind the decision. Certainly the Military experts and generals that Trump consulted, thought deeply and seriously before this issue, I would be more than doubtful that this was based on the mere fact that transgenders are transgender. When making a decision this large, the Military experts and generals must have looked at all things before deciding and whatever your feelings on this matter may be, it definitely does fall into a grey area.

Agree or disagree? comment below.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

A Pro-Lifers guide to demolishing Pro-abortion arguments

 A picture of something that the Pro-choice community would have you believe is not worth a human life. (it is a human life)

I am sick and tired of the many angles that abortion is approached from. You have arguments ranging from support for child's life, to people saying it's the women's right to choose. This of course creates a massive problem because there is literally no room for discussion, either you are against a baby's right to life, or you are against a woman's right to choose. It is indescribably annoying to debate anyone on this topic because for me, as a pro-lifer, it always comes to the other side crying sexism, something which I have to dismantle again and again.

I have said time and time again, that the argument of abortion is not about sexism or women's rights, but an argument over how much life truly matters. This of course is immediately attacked by many on the pro-choice side as they struggle to come up with arbitrary definitions of what life is, or when it begins. Indeed, seeing as Pro-choice people are generally liberal, and largely democrat, it is laughable to see the "party of science" arguing against life beginning at conception. "No place for pro-life democrats", yep, the "pro-science" party is so pro-abortion that if you are pro-life, you don't have any place in the democrat party. Now to go in opposition to the "Pro-science" party, Science has been very clear for sometime, at conception, a zygote is formed which is the developing human, it is definitionally life.

Now with the fact that life begins at conception established, a large amount the arguments tossed against pro-lifers are completely shredded. Quickly we come to an argument of morality, the science is clear. One argument that comes up all too often is, yeah it's life, but it's not a person yet. I've debated with people that have had this idea many times and it's always disturbing to see the democrat party playing that game in which it gets to define the value of a life, a quick dive into history will tell you it's not the first time democrats have tried to define the value of a human life. It is a horrible tragedy that in this day and age, People still seek to create definitions of what makes a human's life matter, when it is beneficial to them.

It should be an agreed on fact by all civilized people that every human's life matters. Most importantly, not only in the case of abortion, but in all things, people ought to think of precedents and what sort of risks those precedents set. When we decide it's okay to kill a baby because it's beneficial to us, simply by convincing ourselves the baby's life does not matter yet, there is something horrible and cruel in that, but even more so, it sets a precedent in which we can begin to overrule the right to life purely by our own arbitrary standards of what makes human lives matter.

Indeed, once you clearly state the science, there is no Pro-choice argument that holds up under the scrutiny of science and morality. Hillary Clinton stated she wants abortions to be "safe, legal, and rare", something that many have jumped on as silly. As I have already stated, this is whether life matters or not, nothing else. If Hillary wants Abortions to be rare, that is admitting that they should not be a common action, yet if abortion doesn't kill a baby, who cares? Isn't that the main argument, the fetus is not a baby? Either it's not a baby and anyone can get an abortion whenever, or its a baby and abortions should be only in the case of a mother's life in danger, there is no middle ground, so when Hillary says "Safe, legal, and Rare", it really begs the question, Why is rare necessary if you don't believe a fetus is a life? The statement "Safe, Legal, and Rare" inherently admits that Abortion is not a moral action because it is called to be rare, meaning something unpleasant is happening, yet if there is anything wrong with abortion that requires it to be rare, that would require the fetus to be viewed as a human life, which of course is scientifically true, Hillary's little phrase is inherently at odds with her view, unless she just supports the execution of fetus(babies) at the mother's whim.

In fact, if you have a pro-choice argument, please, Please state in the comments below, I promise that I will respond to every pro-choice argument that I can. And one more little rhetoric tip for you pro-lifers, Call the fetus a baby, it's scientifically true, and it triggers people who would dehumanize the unborn by calling them fetuses, a term that doesn't have any significant connotation.

Think it's odd that I keep comparing abortion and the dehumanization of fetuses to other acts of dehumanization, like slavery? Well Ironically enough, Abortion is very much tied to racism, or it was when it began becoming commonplace in America. Remember Margaret Sanger, the great fighter for Abortion? Yeah, she may or may not have been active with the Ku Klux Klan, and perhaps she was a supporter of eugenics. Okay, I will admit it, she was both active with the KKK, and a Eugenicist. According to the Washington Times, this was in a letter that Margaret Sanger wrote to an ally "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population". Of course this seems ridiculous, sure Sanger was a racist, but she wasn't successful, Right? Well, Since 1973, 25% of the black population, or what could have been the black population, has been aborted. While black women only make up 13% of the population, they make up over 30% of the women getting abortions. It truly is interesting, the Left makes a big deal when Black people are overrepresented in arrest statistics, even when there are other factors at play, yet we come to a situation like abortion, where black people are literally dying, vastly overrepresented, and what do we get, silence.

Now one thing Pro-Choice supporters love to say, What if it was rape? Interestingly, that shouldn't really matter because the baby didn't cause the crime, it's not necessarily just to punish a third party for someone else's crime,sentence the rapist to death, not the baby, but none the less, just how irrelevant is that argument? Well according to, Abortions due to Rape or incest make up between 0.5% to 1% of abortions, most statistics put it even lower than 0.5%. Yet somehow 1% of abortions, is supposed to legitimize all abortions? Florida records every reason for an abortion, and horrifyingly, despite having the opportunity to give any reason they saw fit, 92% of people could not give a reason for why they were having an abortion. "Safe, Legal, and whenever you want", perhaps would have been a better slogan for Hillary.

Monday, July 24, 2017

Socialism' Popularity outpaces definition

According to a Reason-Rupe poll from 2014, a full 43% of Millennials had a positive view of Socialism. This is compared to 52% of Millennials that prefer a working and growing economy, otherwise known as capitalism. At least Millennials aren't underwater as of yet, although a 9% difference is rather odd, especially since most of these millennials took this poll over their phones which they ironically bought through the market, a market which incredibly produced this incredible technology without government control.

You may ask yourself, how do an entire 43% of millennials completely ignore history, or even the present, with the economic failure of nations such as Venezuela, or the stagnation of Europe. But before you get too dismayed, just remember, it's okay. Sure 43% of Millennials like a philosophy that has lead to more death in the 1900s alone than both world wars combined, but hey, at least they don't actually know what socialism is.

Incredibly, a massive 16% of Millennials could define Socialism. Yes, 16% of millennials could define socialism, yet 43% of Millennials have a positive view of it. The utter asininity of the Millennial generation is on a similar level to the size of the universe when it comes to attempting to comprehend it. Luckily for Millennials, they can at least avoid some of the slack that they certainly deserve because only 1/3 of millennials liked a government managed economy, compared to 2/3s supporting a free market.

Now Millennials are certainly the worst generation, no doubt about it, but even our wise middle aged Americans had trouble with the astoundingly complex question of "define socialism". Only 30% of Americans over the age of 30 could define socialism. If normal Americans are that ignorant, surely the "anti-Science", "ignorant", Tea-Partiers will get absolutely trounced by such an IQ-intensive question. Wrong... The Tea-Partiers passed with an 57%, which in school is not passing, but seeing as the rest of the class failed, perhaps there will be a curve.

So when you get home today and your parents ask you what you learned, you have a whole list of great things you can tell them.
-Millennials are a terrible generation
-People over the age of 30 also make up a fairly terrible generation
-The Tea Party is not ignorant, only 43% of it is, which sounds high, but in comparison with other groups, is astoundingly good.
-Millennials are a terrible generation
-You shouldn't like something when you can't define it.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Embracing Political Porcupines

Since the shocking Trump victory electrified Americans in 2016, both political parties have been dashing to their respective ends of the political compass. It's just shocking to see what sides of the political compass the parties chose.

Democrats shocked Republicans by embracing figures that just seem so outlandishly opposed to the democratic message, indeed, who would have guessed that a figure that applauds women's rights in Saudi Arabia, while acting openly repulsed at the rights of women here in the land of the free, would be leading the party of feminists and SJWs. Of course I am referring to Linda Sarsour, and indeed, not only is Saudi Arabia a beacon of Feminism to her, don't forget that women can't drive in Saudi Arabia, but ten weeks maternity leave, Awesome, But right near Saudi Arabia is the epitome of oppression. Of course im referring to Israel, because of course when you think of oppression, you think of basically the only westernized country in the middle east. In fact, a Zionist can't even be a feminist according to Linda Sarsour, If Israel doesn't allow Palestine to take all of the land, and yes, Linda Sarsour is a supporter of the one-state solution, in favor of Palestine of course, than Israel is obviously oppressing Palestinian women... I truly find it difficult to link anything in the Israel-Palestine conflict to feminism, but if Linda Sarsour says so, it must be true. I just would ask, if not allowing Palestine to take the land is oppressing Palestinian women, wouldn't destroying Israel be oppressing Israeli women?

It truly is remarkable that this self professed civil Rights activist, Linda Sarsour, has been so well embraced by the left. Even the "Aristotle" of the left, Bernie Sanders supports her, with his nice little #IMarchWithLinda. It litterally just takes a little stroll down Linda's Twitter to decide, perhaps she isn't exactly unbiased when it comes to civil rights.

Let us remember her Saudi Arabia comments, and compare them with her anti-Israel sentiment. Truly, if one was to fight for civil rights, perhaps attacking Israel, number 55 in the world for best civil liberties, while propping up Saudi Arabia, number 159 in the world, for it's women's rights, is not the most honest thing that a civil rights leader could say. Of course, it truly is ridiculous that someone spouting such ridiculous claims, someone who downplays the utter oppression of women in many parts of the third world, would be considered a civil rights leader, but hold your horses right wing. If the Right Wing thinks this is just an issue of the left, I as a member of the Right Wing would implore you to look at ourselves, don't complain about the mass of splinters in the other's eye, when we have a log in our own.

Since Trump has ascended to the presidency, many Trumplicans have sided with him, not based on values, but on pure, unabashed fealty. Anything Trump says, is taken as gospel truth by many on the Right, but even furthermore, anyone attacked by Trump is attacked by those Trumplicans, and anyone who the left associates with Trump in order to damage him, becomes a symbol of Trump to his people. Seem extreme?

If you felt like anything I said there was extreme, I would ask you to consider that according to Gallup, 32% of Republicans have a favorable of Putin. Almost a third of Republicans favor a man who you can literally look up a list of people that he is suspected of assassinating. I would hope that any self respecting conservative would hold it to be true that the values of conservatism, to conservatives, should come before loyalty to Trump in all things. If the Republican party is the party of small government, economic freedom, and constitutionalism, how on earth is it not self diagnosed within the party as a major problem that people can so unabashedly dispose of their values in order to support someone, just because the media says they are with Trump and therefore are the bad guy (Russia, Number 155 out 186 for best civil rights). Many on the Right have become like little kids, playing a game of reverse psychology in which anyone we are told to dislike, we side with. Sometimes it's right to not favor a dictatorial former-KGB agent.

At least one party ought to start standing up for its values, instead of both finding favorability in some of the most politically damaging characters out there. Republicans will look at Democrats and mock them for their siding with completely dishonest speakers, but Democrats will look at Republicans and see a party that has a whole third of its members supporting a ruthless dictator. As a member of the Right, I encourage both sides to open their eyes and realize that blind partisanship is as foolish as it gets. Remember when Republicans ran on the basis that the Soviet Union was an evil empire, or that Russia was one of the greatest threats to us, yet as soon as one republican leader shows the slightest amount of affability towards Putin, it's time to jump ship and completely discard all the values that make a party worth supporting.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Headlines after Comey Hearing, How about New York Times lied

How funny, what is it that the Democrats have been pushing? Trump obstructed justice? Isn't that what this hearing was supposed to prove?
Comey was supposed to go out there and tell us all about how Trump had specifically told him to stop the Russia investigation, but instead, the headline on all the major news sources is "Trump Defamed Comey". How interesting that no one is talking about the narrative that has been pushed for weeks. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, they gave us smoke, but it turned out all that smoke wasn't indicative of a fire, it was indicative of the weight of their words, completely meaningless, weightless, and utterly false. The Mainstream media wants to talk about how Comey was defamed, or Trump "lied", They certainly don't want to talk about the complete lack of evidence for everything they have been peddling. And how interesting that the headline today isn't, New York Times put out fake news. It turns out that Trump Russia Collusion isn't factual, its theory and speculation, what is factual is the fact that the New York Times, as reliable as they are, has purposefully mislead the American people by putting out news that Comey stated "was not true".
In reference to the New York Times, Comey said "The challenge is that people talking about it often don't really know what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on aren't talking about it".  Fake News confirmed? But of course, CNN doesn't want to focus on that, it doesn't go with the narrative. These overly bloated, elitist, propaganda machines, are to embarrassed to admit the fact that everything they predicted about the Comey hearing was wrong, and now all they can do now is focus solely on the negative towards Trump, which was the supposed defamation. The thing about that is that Defamation is not Trump-Russia Collusion, In fact what we did hear from the Comey hearing, and something the Mainstream media knows, and many americans don't, is the fact that Trump was never personally under investigation, but know, let's all talk about impeachment.
Accurate Headlines for Comey Hearing
"New York Times Fake News"
"Trump never under personal investigation"
"No New Evidence of Obstruction"
"Comey Says Trump Defamed him"
All of those are somewhat accurate, you can bet which one the mainstream media went for. They all leapt aboard the last and perhaps least important one. The fact is, nothing incriminating came out about Trump, and the Mainstream media was hoping they could get something, so now all they are doing is putting out more smoke when there has never been even a sighting of a fire.
It turns out that the only Media Source which I would consider a major media source, that even mentioned the fact that the New York Times lied, is Breitbart. Rest assured, the New York Times, which is doing coverage of this, definitely did not mention that.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Cannibalistic Left

Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
Nowhere is this more true than on the campus of Evergreen college where currently there is a movement to have a white liberal professor fired for refusing to leave the campus on "day of absence," a day where all white people were asked to leave the Campus. Professor Bret Weinstein is on the verge of being forced to leave Evergreen college on the mere fact that he refused to go along with the new age segregation that the young radical left pushes.
Whenever you give fascistic leftists a chance to continue their openly racist policies, they will take that chance. How long ago was it that campuses like Evergreen were submitting to the falsity of the claim "only white people can be racist". After each victory, the Campus extreme left pushes on to the next campaign. From Safe spaces to banning speakers, there is a clear agenda that states, any ideas that do not align perfectly with the far left Will be shut down. The insane fact of this monstrous continuously moving machine is that no one is safe from its wrath, This college professor was presumably one of them. Bret Weinstein was a liberal, a left leaning professor, yet in the moronic fight to censor everything, he was tossed out for refusing to go along with their new struggle for segregation.
This sort of radical and plainly wrong thinking is not only disturbing as it shows a new brand of totalitarian leftists, but it also should worry liberals. Obviously most millennials are liberal, most people start as liberals and switch to conservative as they start families or become more critical of overarching government. But in my personal experience, this sort of radical thinking is putting of a lot of young people, many of my friends, perhaps even a majority, have started to move more right. Almost everyone in the high school age range has probably seen an sjw compilation at least once, It turns the far left into a laughable movement, and people think, that side is insane, i'll just go to the seemingly more rational side. I myself started watching Milo Yiannopoulos who's one job is exposing radical leftists, before going on to more substantial speakers like Ben shapiro, and then finally starting to transition to Milton friedman, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul.
Not only is the far left attacking other left wingers, but they are destroying any chance at the left wing having a chance at real growth. The Right wing should celebrate and mock this movement at any chance because it is a winning point, The radical left is a laughable movement that has the chance at bringing about a resurgence in the libertarian right, as people laugh at authoritarianism, and laugh at leftism.

Monday, June 5, 2017

Libertarianism Resonates with Youth and the Constitution

The Republican Party has made a name for itself as the Party of patriotism, conservatism, and constitutionalism. The evidence is clear cut on this matter, even going to a 4th of july event makes people more likely to vote republican according to this study, and even more incredible, just seeing the American flag can push people slightly more right for quite awhile! It's obvious Republicans have made a name for themselves as being patriots, so why not act it?
Sure that's a very incendiary comment right there, implying republicans don't act Patriotic, in saying this, I don't question the love for their country that is so prevalent in the Republican party, I myself plan to register as a Republican voter when I turn 18. Rather, I question the actual adherence to the beliefs that founded this country. Fighting for the first and second amendment is good and all, but what about the other bits, what about the idea of "don't tread on me". The Tea Party, a clearly far right movement adopted this sign, almost all Tea Partiers are now Republicans, yet for some reason, the Republican party resonates far more with pushing Traditionalist ideology in policy, than in pushing libertarian ideology in policy.
What I am advocating here is not abandoning the Traditionalist viewpoints that form the Conservative Ideology, but rather, I am advocating that just as we would wish for the government to stay away from our guns, that we should keep the government out of other's beds. You don't need to abandon your ideology just to believe that you shouldn't force your beliefs on others. According to a Pew Research poll, only 1/3 of Republicans support legalizing gay marriage, this is compared to over 60% of the general population who do support legalizing gay marriage. Why? Why should Republicans be against what someone else does in their own bed, the only reasoning for this would of course be religious, yet even in christianity, the main religion of the Republican Party, we don't see an order to force others to comply with our beliefs, but rather a willingness to give people the free will to decide how they would spend their own lives. Not only is this sort of Ideology hypocritical as the Republican Party wants a smaller government and as a whole, supports the Don't tread on me Ideology, but it is also off putting. If the Republican Party wants to truly represent the Constitution, it can't continue to push its morals in policy, by this I don't mean stop the fight against abortion or anything of the sort, but instead, stop the implementation of policies that don't actually prevent damage to people.
What I mean by this is that in fighting Abortion, Republicans are fighting what they/I perceive as the killings of innocent unborn babies, however, in fighting gay marriage, Republicans are not fighting for anything other than the repression of others to do what they want in their own life, it doesnt protect anyone from anything, it just makes people not vote republican.
How many millennials would vote Republican if it were not for traditionalist views that Republicans force on others through policy. Millions of people resonate with Republican economic policy, but when it comes down to whether people want a lower business tax, or whether they can marry the person they want to, it can be very deterring to have to take a bundle in which if you vote for a good fiscal policy, you also have to vote for someone else's moral beliefs.
What I would advocate for is a Libertarian Republican Party that truly adheres to the "don't tread on me" Ideology, and says, Keep the government out of my bank, bed, business, and bullets. I would advocate for a Republican party that doesn't put off millennials by saying we don't want gays to be able to marry, but rather a Republican party that taps into the powerfully libertarian beliefs of the younger generations that say "don't tell me what I can do with my own life". This form of the Republican Party is the type that picks up upwards of half the Millennial vote, a Party that only puts off socialists, rather than putting off all the people who simply think people should do as they please in their private lives, is a much more popular party.