Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Purple Texas?

Despite a disappointing election for the Democrat party, they have touted several seemingly impressive facts. Obviously the Democrat party has played the fact that Hillary won the popular vote, and will continue to do so, but one other little tidbit that the Dems absolutely love is Texas.

Trump won Texas by 9% so what's the big deal right? Well, that is the closest margin that the Dems have reached in decades, and this has fired up the Democrat party. Media groups from every side have paraded or decried Texas' seemingly unstoppable march towards becoming a Purple State, however, is this accurate, or is it just jumping to conclusions.

Despite seemingly rising support for the Democrat party, the fact is that Trump really only was a couple percentage points below his average, and this of course could be attributed to less favorability with hispanics than most republicans. In reality, the only reason Texas seems to be turning purple is because the previous election was such a blowout. Romney carried Texas by 16 points, yet Mccain only carried texas in 2008 by about 11. Trump's 9 point victory is not vastly off from Mccain's and the facts show that if Trump runs in 2020, he might do even better.

Despite the quickly growing hispanic population in Texas, It would be ignorant to claim that hispanic growth would change Texas to a blue state. Hispanics are not as monolithic as Dems would have you think, in fact Cubans, one of the largest hispanics groups, went almost 60% for Trump, and overall, Hispanics went around 30% for Trump. Hispanics are not nearly as Democratic as identity politics would have people believe.

Hispanics are not the only growing group in Texas, the influx of immigrants is huge, but these are not immigrants from other countries, these are immigrants from states like California, Florida, and Illinois. According to an analysis by the Office of the State Demographer, while 5.9 Million moved to texas between 2005-2013, 4.8 Million of those people were from other states.
Texas's economy is booming, While other states were hit hard by the Recession, Texas has continued to steadily climb, and it's Business environment has lured millions. Even more interesting, is that out of those millions of people flooding into texas, they are coming in at a ration of about 2:1 conservative rather than liberal. Texas very well might become more red.

However, No speculation is fool-proof. A good democrat push could flip Texas, just as much as a good Republican Presidential candidate could win the hispanic vote. But for now, Texas ain't purple, The Lone Star state stays red and it looks to stay that way.

Monday, February 27, 2017

Democrat Party digging in

                                                                Political cartoon drawn by Sean Pereksta

In an age where the Establishment is hated, and the anti-establishment wins the presidency, it would seem an odd choice for the Democrats to pick someone such as Tom Perez as their new DNC organizer in chief, however, as it would turn out, Democrat party leaders dont seem to care much for the boiling distaste against the establishment that can be found even among the ranks of democrats. There were two major candidates for this position, one Keith Ellison, who was pushed by Bernie Sanders and people of his ilk, Keith definitely has his own baggage, but then of course Tom Perez was the other major candidate, and eventual winner of this position. Tom Perez is the definition of establishment, a party insider, supported by Biden and Obama, you can't get much more establishment than that.
This is not to say Tom Perez is ineffective, even National Review has went as far as to say he is an "effective advocate and skillful infighter for his beliefs." However despite these attributes, This choice could be dangerous. The DNC has already dangerously disparaged Bernie and his supporters, going as far as to collude behind Hillary, with Dona Brazille even feeding Hillary questions before the debates, Now the DNC has rolled out a new Organizer in chief, with only 17% of Democrat voters even being aware of this election. To insult Bernie and his supporters through dishonest and effectively rigged primaries and unfair support for Hillary from the DNC was already one blow to many for the DNC to deliver to the anti-establishment Bernie Supporters, but now to roll out another Establishment man, further angering the hordes of "ignorant Basement dwellers" as Hillary called them is going over the edge. The Democrat Party likes to play the game of demographics, it claimed in 2008 that the Republicans would never win back the house and senate, it claimed in 2016 that the republicans would never win another election, the fact is that the Democrat Party already has dangerously misjudged just about everything since 2008, and yet it is still confident enough to toss Bernie supporters into the garbage.
It is very likely that the Democrat Party could rebound, with anti-trump prejudice at an all time high, Democrats are going to be surging in 2018 mid-terms, however, with the election no longer between Trump and Hillary, and only 8 seats in the senate currently held by the republicans at risk compared to 25 for the democrats, the DNC may be burying itself even further then it already is. The Republican party is already the strongest it has been since the 1920s, it would be wise of the Democrats to show some prudence in their major decisions rather than alienating half their base.


Sunday, February 26, 2017

Weekly Lens #2: Sanctuary Cities

The Questions posed to the writers for RightLens News for this addition of the Weekly Lens was Simple, yet laced with deep reaching analysis of a major Political topic. The legality, and Morality of Sanctuary Cities. Writers were asked the simple question, what is your view on the legality and morality of sanctuary cities? here is their responses.

Right Wing Authoritarian Responses

(Luke Zimmerman)
It seems to me that sanctuary cities are pretty “deplorable” and counter-productive to ensure liberty. The term “sanctuary” makes the federal government like the enemy, but those people from urban areas who are leftists are all for big government: the bigger and more entitlements, the better. When a city is fed-up with the way the federal government is being run they can protest or voice their opinion as a local grassroot community. Columbus is trying to fit in with the mainstream cities such as San Francisco, Chicago, and New York. Our city is also ran by a corrupt, leftist, pig who, with the overwhelming majority of his city council, say they will try to implement sanctuary policies such as special protection as (ILLEGAL) immigrants, transgender bathrooms, and etc. It seems to me that's just a waste of time. Those liberals believe that they are morally and compassionately correct. Politics aren't about being nice and giving people things: it's about protecting the country, constitution, and it's people; to ensure prosperity. One day, during the 2016 primaries, I heard Bernie Sanders say he wanted to apologize; as a white-Jewish New Yorker, to Blacks for slavery. I simply thought that was completely off the path for a presidential nomination. The democrats kinda shot themselves by nominating Hillary as well, but that's another story lol. I used to be on the far-left and when the left turned to bathrooms, playing the race card for welfare, police brutality, and slavery being the underline cause of everything bad in this country was simply annoying and useless. The same people who voted for Obama eight years ago, voted for President Trump. It's been quite entertaining seeing the left protest the POTUS even before he came to the White House or before he even made an executive order. He hasn't made anything into law, and they're simply so fired up that they can't even answer a simple question about his policies or what they're exactly protesting: they just say, “P****!!!”, “F*** TRUMP!!” And wear pink hats and say that's their economic solution for the stock market being at all time highs. Sanctuary cities are deplorable but have the opportunity and right to protest and protect themselves. If this were another country like Germany, China, or Nigeria; they would not be able to voice their opinions like the way they are. Just another reason why we're the greatest country in the world. God Bless.

(Will Zimmerman)
There is a reason why we have law. And that is so nobody breaks the law and harms people. President Trump has been pro-LEGAL immigration and anti-ILLEGAL immigration. Huge difference, haters. President Trump must crack down on sanctuary cities quick, or else his campaign promises won't mean anything. So far, he hasn't skipped a beat. So why are the haters so mad about the travel ban; Trump is the first elected official that's done the things he promised. Obama, Bush, Clinton, all liars. To tie this into sanctuary cities, I was so disappointed when I flipped to Mayor Andrew Ginther addressing the city that Columbus was going to be a proud sanctuary city. First, I immediately lost all respect for Mayor Ginther. He was breaking the law. His address was pretty much a middle finger to laws about immigration. "Yeah we'll keep using taxpayer money to give to illegals and protect them from the Feds." I could not disagree more with Mayor Ginther. Now, I wonder how many other people were astonished about Ginther's address. Recently at CPAC, Sheriff David Clarke of Milwaukee County, had a rendering talk on immigration and the law's duty. Obviously, from prior knowledge, he's a Trump-supporting, MAGA guy. It should be the duty of law Enforcement to enforce the laws that have been put into place, so if they're just going to disregard the laws, then shouldn't sanctuary cities be punished for their dirty label? How Alex Jones says it, "The globalists are fighting with the Trump administration and want to ruin America." That's what these mayors of globalists cities are doing, ruining America. 

Left Wing Response (Sarah Shaffer)

A hot topic amidst the frenzy concerning various immigration reforms is sanctuary cities and their legality. To truly dig into this topic and all of its details, it is necessary to first develop an understanding or definition of what a ‘sanctuary city’ really is. So what is a sanctuary city? It is a city with several local municipalities (because courts and jails are held by counties, not the city) who will frequently refuse to comply with requests from the Federal Immigration Enforcement agency in regards to illegal immigrants. Some of these cities, such as L.A., have laws that prevent law enforcement from asking about immigration status or holding immigrants past their release dates. It is important for one to understand that these policies do NOT restrict local law enforcement from arresting or pursuing illegal immigrants if they have committed a crime. Quite simply actually, if these cities or municipalities do not see reason to enforce what the federal officials have ask them to do, such as detaining an immigrant or holding them for a prolonged period of time than initially ordered, they won’t comply. On the other hand, if they see fit and they see enough reason to enforce what the federal officials have ordered, they will enforce it.
So how legal is this? Totally legal. In Galarza v. Szalczyk it was found that detaining someone by orders of ICE was voluntary. Because of this ruling and others such as those in Morales v. Chadbourne where it was ruled unconstitutional to detain someone past their release date under the fourth amendment, these cities’ actions are absolutely legal.
So how are sanctuary cities are helpful for illegal immigrants? According to statistics from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website, in 2016 58% of removals, or 138,669 removals were illegal immigrants who were previously convicted of crimes. 78,351 of those removed for previously convicted crimes were removed for crimes committed in their countries of origin (as they were apprehended at the border). It is important to consider that whatever these ‘crimes’ were in their countries of origins, they were not recorded. The laws in these countries of origins are different and prosecution is nowhere near as just as the system we have grown and nurtured in the United States. 101,586 illegal immigrants were removed with no current or previous convictions. So as far as ICE could be concerned, these people posed no immediate harm to our citizens. Because so many of these immigrants are trying to find refuge from violent or dangerous origins and don’t have the time to apply to citizenship through proper channels, sanctuary cities provide a refuge for them to stay in the nation, safe from what they came from, until they can attain the proper paperwork.  
So how should we handle this influx of illegal immigrants? When mulling through the options, yes, we can spend lots of federal money employing ICE to search out illegal immigrants who are here for a better life (ICE spends $12,500 deporting each illegal immigrant. When you multiply that out for each immigrant, that’s a lot of money coming out of our pockets), or we can redirect those funds (to a seemingly much cheaper option) of helping these illegal immigrants apply for citizenship and giving them the tools they need. So yes, illegal immigrants do not pay taxes. But is it really worth that much of our tax money to deport as many immigrants as our president would like to instead of just spending much less money helping them be able to pay their own taxes? It is important to for these immigrants to know that we’re not fighting against them, but fighting for them should they want to be a rightful citizen of this great nation. After all, we are a nation of immigrants. That is said a lot but it is often forgotten how true that is. America is what it is today from the back breaking work of our ancestors from all around the world.  

Information for definition of sanctuary city/ information about L.A. immigration laws:
Information on court cases and legality of sanctuary cities:
Sources for ICE spending:
(Chron sourced from Deputy Director Kumar Kibble of U.S> Customs Enforcement)

Review (Sean Pereksta)
When looking at the Subject of Sanctuary Cities, there is a plethora of arguments to be made, Some would make the claim that it is only the moral thing to do to take in the poor illegal immigrants, siting the Statue of Liberty as evidence.
However, when looking at this, it is important that I acknowledge all bias, including my own, Naturally I will generally disagree with our Moderate and Left wing correspondents, Farah, and Sarah, while agreeing sometimes with Luke and Will, our Right Authoritarians. I am very much Right Wing Libertarian so I look at this issue from a bias view, so this review of course will unfairly lean towards the right.
After Reading Luke's opinion, I didn't necessarily see anything about illegal immigration, however he did hit on the hypocrisy of left wing groups who openly support a big government being terrified of the government enforcing law and making sanctuary cities to protect from laws, which may not have existed if they didn't give the government so much power. I felt this response not to adequately address Sanctuary Cities, as well as being overly confrontational, this response was more of a strong rebuke of the left wing's addiction with morality that they twist in order to manipulate people into supporting them on a purely moral, yet illogical stance. However, I don't even necessarily believe giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants is moral, the fact is, it is greedy and selfish to enter a country illegally. I can't put these terms on young kids that are brought here since they were not the perpetrators, but adults that come here illegally and leech off of social programs have no moral high ground and don't deserve sanctuary. Come here legally, pay taxes, and become a citizen, there is no other right way to enter America.
On to Will's Article, he hit on the point that it is the government's duty to enforce law. As Sarah brings up in her article, state and city governments are not necessarily required to enforce national law, however Will's argument gives the opinion that it should not be that way. His writing builds and reinforces the point that it is wrong to take taxpayers money and give it to people who shouldn't be here anyways. It is odd that this is a controversial statement, if you came to America illegally, you are not supposed to be here, go back, and come in legally, as I said when responding to luke, "Come here legally, pay taxes, and become a citizen, there is no other right way to enter America."
Finally, after Reading Sarah's argument, it was clear she supported Sanctuary Cities legally, and morally. First off, I'll say right from the start, I disagree with a lot that was said, however, I do agree that we should make a pathway to citizenship, I just tend to believe that the pathway to citizenship starts with a visa and then greencard, skipping those steps just mocks all the hardworking immigrants that came here and finally received the coveted American citizenship. Her argument that Sanctuary cities are legal was effective and based on fact however it is a bit of a strawman argument, She proposes that since it is not the cities duty to comply with Ice, that it is okay that they willingly break federal law. Can they get away with it legally, yes, but is it legal to knowingly assist those who are breaking the law, not really. It also just happens to be the case that Americans don't like it one bit, 80% of Americans believe that local authorities should comply with the federal government, as well as 80% of Americans being against Sanctuary Cities, this is according to a Harvard-Harris poll that took voters opinions on this matter. The fact is Americans don't like taxes already, they especially don't like 113 billion dollars a year going to illegal immigrants.

In her article, our left wing correspondent, Sarah, also made the argument that Illegal Immigrants who come here and were convicted of crimes in their home countries may just be escaping unjust sentences.Yes, all 78,351 of them. I find this statement to be very conveniently put, yes these people are criminals, but just because their laws are unfair. there is no evidence that the laws are unfair, but saying so could build a sense of pity for the poor victimized criminals. No, first of all, I already said this, but i'll say it again, all illegal immigrants have committed a crime by coming here illegally, but if they already shouldn't be coming in illegally, they certainly shouldn't be coming in if they are already convicted of a crime in their home country. Citizens of other nations, who committed crimes in those nations should not be coming to America to seek "Just" charges, it is not America's duty to take in other countries criminals. I find it ironic that this argument could possibly be made, when the whole point of closing guantanamo bay for the left is to send criminals either into federal prisons, or to other countries, to be charged by their own government, but now apparently criminals should seek to come to america rather than facing justice for the crimes they committed. Also the claim that illegal immigrants come here to escape some form of persecution is unfounded and not factually supported. I agree completely that there should be pathways to citizenship, and that as farah said, there should be immigration reform, but I don't think alleviating criminals from justice is the way to go. Any Illegal immigrant facing charges in their home country should immediately be sent to face justice, reap what you sow, if you commit a crime, pay the price. America is a country of laws,

Friday, February 24, 2017

Refugees v. Fake news

Today one of the biggest problems today facing the world is the Syrian Refugee crisis that has become so prevalent due to the horrid nature of the Syrian Civil War. Millions of men, women and children are trying to escape the nightmarish place that has enveloped their home, where terrorists wreak havoc and create a dystopian state with an extremist foundation. 4 million have fled to neighboring countries such as Turkey and Jordan and 1 million seek asylum in Europe.
Find that source here.
Germany and Sweden are notably known as the top EU countries to accept Syrian refugees and many people see this as a very concerning problem.

The debate between refugees and how the humanitarian crisis should be treated have become very polarized lately especially since of Europe's more open approach compared to America's acceptance of refugees.
It mainly boils down to two sides.
One side, supports refugees immigrating all over the world to various countries.
The other side, are not in support of refugees and want to restrict the flow of foreign immigration.
Both sides have their extremes too, no side goes without one. But the problem with extreme polarization in these topics promotes the spread of mass misinformation and complete ignorance on the issue on hand.

A recent development that has actually plagued us for a very long time in the political world is the disease of fake news. Fake news purposefully spreads twisted truths or blatant lies to further a specific agenda or view to influence the public.
Regarding the Refugee crisis, fake news has become rampant on this topic to fear monger the public into a specific set of views.
For example claims such as New Year's Mass Sex Assaults in Frankfurt by migrants were proven baseless by the police.
You can find that source here.
Or refugees wanted Oktoberfest to be banned, which is also false here.
Or that German special forces are wearing chainmail to defend against refugee attacks, which has been twisted here.
Many of these stories of Germany and Sweden have been floating around for a specific agenda, to antagonize the influx of refugees and isolate people fleeing war.
The media has also created this false atmosphere that with the influx of refugees that Sweden has become overridden with crime, which that is not true. Crimes such as rape and gang violence against civilians increased, were supposedly reported by various news outlets. Crime overall has gone down in Sweden and the title "rape capital"of the world is wrong since Sweden's definition of rape cases is vastly different than what other countries would consider, which is proven here.

The spread of this twisted news for malicious intent needs to be stopped. The state of the world is over dramatized to fit people's narratives. To understand the world around us we need to face facts from various sides to understand and learn what we can do to better our world .

Even though there is a moral cause to helping refugees, they are simply people feeling war, there is a limit to where a country can accept refugees. No one nation is a paragon of perfection where it can suddenly house millions of individual humans all requiring need. That is going to strain the capability of a nation and at points can lose its purpose of serving it's own people. The refugee crisis should not be only a few countries problem (in this instance it isn't) , it should be a global effort to help fellow humans escaping war.
Also the other extreme side that argues for refugees are perfectly fine with refugees not assimilating to the countries they're fleeing too, which is very concerning.
Assimilation does not mean one loses their identity or cultural background but to accept the values of their new and/or temporary home and learn how to adapt with their surroundings.
To be okay with people to carry malicious ideologies into a developed nation is a breach of safety.

Refugees are not ruining the European Union. Yes the huge influx of foreigners is bound to cause some problems but the idea that these countries are descending into chaos is without a doubt fake news.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Feelings Override Life

Abortion has been a hot button issue since it's legal conception in 1973. Arguments have formed around both the pro-choice side and pro-life side and disagreements on this issue have become as extreme as accusations of murder, versus accusations of sexism.
Recently, the person who caused abortion to be legal, Norma McCorvey died of heart failure, she had went under the fake name, "Jane Roe" in the infamous case, Roe V Wade in which abortions became legalized. She stayed as an advocate for pro-choicers for a while before going through religious conversions and becoming a staunch supporter of life. I, being christian, and pro-life have likened her to the biblical character of Saul, turned Paul. A man who murdered christians for years before having a revelation and becoming one of the most well known christians in history and practically writing half the new testament, in the same way, McCorvey supported Abortions, and even got them legalized before coming to the painful realization that all lives matter, and accordingly became strongly pro-Life.
What a story of redemption, to cause what I would say is the largest mass killing of the century, and then realizing the mistake she, McCorvey, had made, fighting against Roe V Wade till her death. Most humans would have been crushed, to come to the realization that millions of innocent lives were ended because of them would cause an anguish above almost anything else imaginable, but instead McCorvey persevered and fought until the end. Despite her support for the Pro-life movement, the argument still rages on.
The reality of the abortion argument is not whether a fetus is a life, embryology proved that years ago, we know for a fact that around six weeks a heartbeat begins in the fetus, the argument over abortion falls down to whether human life truly matters. The real problem with this is that not all of society agrees with this, the more secular, america becomes, the more society begins to distance itself from the seemingly commonsense prospect that all human lives have value. This harrowing fact manifests itself in the alt left and alt right, for instance, when Richard Spencer was punched in the face by some protester, it was applauded by many on the left. No matter how disgusting the words that exit Spencer's mouth are, no Human being deserves violent retribution merely for the words they have uttered. This is a clear depiction from some on the left on how they put feelings above the well beings of others. When you condone pain being inflicted on someone merely for their beliefs, you no longer ascribe the rights that every human being should inherently hold to that person, and thus you are placing your subjective feelings over that person's well being, and in extreme cases life. It doesnt matter if Richard Spencer says the worst things possible, if he doesnt directly cause violence, he does not deserve any punishment. This same form of placing feelings, or ambitions, over the value of life is what drove Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and now drives Abortions.
Embryology makes it very clear, Six weeks is when fetuses generally develop a heartbeat, almost all abortions come long after those first six weeks. It would be wholly ignorant to argue that a heartbeat does not signify life, A Fetus is in fact a baby and it doesnt matter what stage of life a human that the fetus is at, that being is still human. Something you see in school science textbooks is "the stages of life" in which a cycle shows human life and includes the fetus, and then goes all the way to death, I find it odd that a Country that attempts to claim abortion doesnt kill a living person because fetuses are supposedly not living, would include fetuses as a stage of life in it's Government run, education system. Maybe, just maybe, it's because Fetuses are human, and they alive, and science proves that.
Abortion is based on feelings and falsehoods. No informed Pro-choice advocate can argue that a fetus is a life, so they fall to pathetically weak arguments, let's crush a couple popular ones that I have heard at my school.

1: A Fetus is a life, but not a person.
The argument here is mainly, if a Fetus is reliant on the mother, it is not in fact a life. Morally speaking I have a problem with this, the last time Humans were defining what counted as a real person was slavery, when supporters of slavery made the claim that slaves were human, but not people. It is hugely, no, Tremendously wrong to choose what counts as a human life only when it is convenient to you. Also logically speaking, if the case for why a fetus is not a person is based on the claim that a fetus can not exist by itself, would this not mean that a person on life support is not a person. This argument is logically flawed, all people are reliant on something, food, water, air, there is no person alive that is not reliant on something, and so to say that since a fetus is reliant on his/her mother removes personhood from that fetus is horribly wrong.

2: What if the Fetus might have a bad life
This argument is one I hear all too often. Pro-Choice advocates argue that perhaps some abortions are because if the baby was born, it might be born into a bad area, or might just have a hard life, and thus it is merciful to have an abortion, This of course being a fallback for when the facts hit them that of course a Fetus is a life. This is the most pathetic and inhumane claim ever made, the argument that you have the right to kill someone because maybe their life will be difficult, without that person's consent, or even with their consent, is terribly wrong. Consent seems to be feminist's favorite word, but as soon as it comes to an unborn baby's life, it flies out the door.

3: What if having the child causes mental health problems to the mother.
This argument is undoubtedly to deal with rape victims, which is a very sensitive topic when talking about abortions. Many Abortion supporters will argue that perhaps having the child will be mentally traumatic to the mother, or that being forced to carry the baby is mentally damaging to the mother. Not only are the facts against this, but this also comes to feelings versus life, is it okay for a mother to kill her child to make herself feel better? Let's put this in different perspective, since embryology has shown us that yes, a fetus is a life, what if we put the problem this way, A mother want's to kill her 6 year old son because if she doesnt she will have mental health damage. No one in their right mind would say that killing the son would be okay, and the only difference between the 6 year old and the fetus is that he is further developed than a fetus. Both are human, and both are alive. Another way to put this could be, What if some group of people ran up, attacked me, and chained someone to my back and I was forced to carry them around for nearly a year, would it be acceptable to kill the person chained to me because he is a burden. Of course not, I would be worse than the people that chained him to me if I killed him.

Science tells us that a Fetus is a life, and that it is a human, Morality tells us Human lives matter.
This is all it is, if you ascribe to these two premises, then you must conclude that Abortion is horribly wrong.
All lives matter, born and unborn.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Narcissism and Fragility

Recent studies have shown that all generations agree, Millennials are the most narcissistic generation yet. But strangely, while Millennials admit that their generation is Narcissistic, they are also the least likely to call themselves or their generation narcissistic. This is according to a study by a Huffington post, generally I wouldn't use that, but this study seems self evident. What I found most pathetic about this was not the fact that millennials are narcissistic, we all know just about 1 in 2 millennials are spoiled brats that can't listen to any viewpoint but their own, the thing I found troubling is that the Scientists involved in this case argued that we shouldn't label Millennials narcissistic because it could be hurtful and damage their mental health.

Basically what this means is we should ignore the facts in order to keep millennials in their safe spaces and echo chambers because reality would hurt to bad for the precious little snowflakes. I feel it to be necessary that all people face reality. This sort of echo chamber in which we tell our youth only what they want to hear is what fosters abhorrent beliefs like the idea that somehow socialism is moral, the idea that it is morally acceptable to use force through the government to steal someone's income and than give it to someone else without consent. This isn't Robin Hood, and stealing is not okay.

We need to tell Millennials the truth, they need to stop being spoiled and start being prepared for real life. These are kids that have no respect for authority, no respect for nation, no respect for elders, and no respect for working. These kids are the next to take the steering wheel and right now, they couldn't pass a driver's test in a thousand years.

Freedom is secondary to Americans

It is commonly percieved by people around the world and within America that nothing trumps freedom in America. We are the country of guns, fast-food, and freedom, we live how we want, and achieve what we put in the effort to achieve. That's a nice thought, a nation founded on liberty and justice for all, or at least when the Republican party finally liberated the slaves, and than when 1964 civil rights act was passed, however, tragically, not many people actually hold freedom in half as high a regard as anyone might think. We put on the facade of freedom loving, gun toting, Americans, but we are not that much different than European or Asian nations. Sure our government is far less restrictive, but it's not what the government has now, but what we are willing to give to the government.
For a nation based on freedom, we should be ashamed that over 40% of our youth are okay with socialism, as a nation based on freedom, we should be ashamed that colleges across the country won't let speakers in purely based on their political views, as a nation based on freedom we should be ashamed a self-professed socialist even got close to winning a major party's nomination. Don't mistake America for an unbreakable bastion of freedom, we are all too willing to give our freedom up in favor of free handouts. We are willing to give up semi-automatic rifles, at least many of us are, because somehow that will curb violence when in fact semi-automatic rifles kill barely anyone each year compared with either knifes, fists, or handguns. Ronald Reagan said that "Freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction." If half our nation is willing to give up rights for free stuff, or in response to "terrorism threats", we are no better than Europe. When the information about the NSA spying on us came out. It should of blown up and never stopped being an issue. The fact is that the major national security threat is not potential terrorist activities that the NSA must spy on us for, the major national security threat is the fact that the NSA illegally spied on us, and than when we learned about it, we stopped caring in less than a month.
Freedom is not immortal, Americans are willing to sacrifice freedom on the altar of big government without any remorse. The government has no right whatsoever to monitor us through the NSA, the government has no right to take away the right of owning semi-automatic rifles, nor any other "assualt rifle", the government has no right to redistribute wealth without the consent of the owner of said wealth, the government is here to protect our rights, not restrict them as it see's fit and the more Americans switch to the mindset that it's okay to restrict rights for the "better good", the closer we come to allowing tyranny into our supposed bastion of liberty and justice

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

The Refugee Crisis is a Real Crisis

The Refugee Crisis is a Real Crisis

     Have you ever been to a foreign country? Probably not. You hear everyone talking jibberish, looking at you knowing you're a tourist, reading signs, using transportation that are just as foreign such as a train or a bus that we normally don't use everyday. If you've had this opportunity or have the opportunity to go to a foreign country, take it. It's one of the biggest memories you'll ever have as a human being and hopefully come away with the conclusion that your home has meaning to you. Refugees; however, have the opposite. They are forced out of their home country and flee with tremendous risk. They can stay up to 8 years in border refugee camps that are overwhelmingly crowded and poor in condition. If they get relocate to another country such as the US, they usually don’t plan for it, for they plan on getting out of the war zone country.

     A bit off topic for vacationing in a foreign country, the refugee crisis is not a new one to the world. The modern refugee crisis started after World War II had ended with Jews going to all sorts of different cities such as Sydney, Buenos Aires, New York City, and San Francisco are just a few. However Jews for the most part fended for themselves and quietly prospered after the mass genocide in Europe and Russia. In contrast, the proceeding genocide and war refugees had it much harder. Countries such Syria, Liberia, Burundi, Congo, Rwanda, Cambodia, Bosnia/Kosovo, Sudan, and Somalia and just some prime examples of the late 20th century modern refugees who have suffered combined countless decades and have had the U.N. scrambling around for solutions. As a right-leaning critic, I see this crisis as quite problematic; however, I’m not going off a social justice limb for accepting and assimilating these groups of  people which would be very difficult for the United States. Europe has given this a try and I’ve seen first hand the effects in Germany which has a large Turkish population as well as Syria: beggars on the street in front of churches, ghettos, houses of refugees in a town of 15,000: the house would have nearly 500 refugees, unable to contribute to the workforce, and no entitlement programs that the majority population has. I’m simply underscoring this crisis. Some cities in the U.S. such as Lewiston, Maine and Atlanta, Georgia have been completely transformed for example, the public school systems around Atlanta had a rise in gang violence, ESL programs, and other effects of no early education in their home countries.

     It’s sad to see people not have their natural rights in the world and how international and bureaucratic agencies deal with the crisis. Stephen Crowder had a segment in a video where he “prank called” charities and churches that had a progressive background and asked if they could accommodate refugees in a mockingly sarcastic tone that was quite comical considering the context of leftists today being compassionate for humans’ rights and to see them deny the accommodation of refugees signals leftists don’t understand the magnitude of this crisis. The authoritarian governments of these countries had wars, no free speech, millennium long ethnic tensions, centuries’ long colonists, and no natural rights for its citizens which is exactly the recipe for disaster. However we should stop apologizing for things we need to put behind ourselves and focus on more important things. The left does this exactly by apologizing and still acknowledging slavery as the problem for our society or how awesome Scandinavian countries have it better, when in reality, “we had it pretty good back home” - Butters Stotch from South Park.

How is Political Correctness is evil?

How does political correctness violate the First Amendment? 

     Political correctness seems just and kind to different people. It protects the "minorities" from historical terms that are now according to the left, outdated and offensive. It seems great on paper, just like socialism and communism, welfare, or any other evil social program the left wants to vamp up in order to tread on our liberties, freedoms, and natural rights. 
     Number one, political correctness treads on freedom of speech and pretty much the whole First Amendment. The first declaration the First Amendment is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That directly prohibits our government to be associated with religion which is undeniably a good thing; however, the left seems to be violating it with the notion that "Islam is a religion of peace" and "There's just as many Christian terrorists as there are Islamic Extremists." In addition, the left refuses to even use the term "Islamic Extremism" because it doesn't work with their agenda. The left constantly seems to ignore the threat of Islam to the United States and the west. I'm not going to apologize for the provocative comment, but I do realize the truth. The left want to use political correctness to defend Islam.
     The second clause of the First Amendment is freedom of speech. You'll hear people say," Ohh! That doesn't mean you can say anything you want or do anything you want to." Of course I know that, but don't you want to express your opinion? The United States has always been the most free country when it comes to expression, yet, account after account, interview after interview, the left systematically want to revoke freedom of speech and claim hate speech isn't part of free speech. First of all, nowhere in the constitution does it say that hate speech is excluded from freedom of speech. Second, life isn't all rainbows and butterflies. There's normal people that will be tempted and be mean some point in their life. What I'm trying to say is that I don't want people being suppressed or beaten for saying what they believe, and we have people in the country who want to revolt and sabotage events in regards to what they consider as hate speech. 
     The next clause of the constitution is shaky and has been under storm lately. I don't think Trump's outcry of CNN and other news networks have been appropriate or classy, but I do think it is a sign of strength of him that he and his supporters won't put up with the press lying and spreading falsities on his behalf. I will defend our president; however, I would question it. 
     The last parts of the First Amendment make the left look silly. Freedom of assembly has been overused, and I'm sure SJW fails YouTube channels are getting tired of making these people look hilarious. I cannot believe the left would go out of their way to use Soros-funded militias and utterly terrorize our country. It is disgraceful and hypocritical. The political correct have nothing to say about these domestic, Black Lives Matter terrorists because they support the destruction. Progressives use to call for peace, social justice, and kindness, but today, they just want our country to fail and get bloated with chaos. I could not disagree with them more, but I will defend their right to say it which the PC crew will never defend my First Amendment because they only care about feelings getting hurt then going back to their little club and licking their wounds for another spanking by true Americans and patriots. 

Monday, February 20, 2017

Gun Control is a bit inefficient

Gun Control, the idea that making a law can prevent people from breaking the law. Of course Gun Control is a deterrent, it blocks people from attaining a gun to easily and that is of course important. It should be a bit difficult to obtain something that can harm someone else, however, Gun Control may have gone to far.

Remember the Constitution? Remember the bit that says "the Right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Maybe you remember that, but you probably would fail to bring the part that says "Except in places where the government doesnt want you to have a gun" to memory. Perhaps that's because there is no part in the entire constitution that lays that out. I fail to see how the words "Shall not be infringed" is interpreted as, "Shall be infringed where ever government deems it be infringed." For the side that appears to be most prevalent in the education system currently, the Left sure has an odd time interpreting things such as the constitution, sadly many on the Right that could be influential are too busy starting businesses to worry about politics. According to the Small Business administration, small business Owners are 25% more likely to be Republican, and Trump won small business owners by around 20% according to polling by Manta, a small business social network.

One of the largest, and easily most unconstitutional branches of gun control is Gun free zones, areas where the right to bear arms is very, very much infringed. What is really idiotic about this whole idea is not that people can't carry guns in an area, it's the fact that only law abiding citizens abide by the law, a criminal who would actually shoot someone, or plans on shooting someone would certainly never care if the place where the criminal chose to bring the gun was a gun free zone. The idea that someone who plans on shooting people, which is very much illegal, would try to keep to the laws and not bring a gun to a place where he/she knows that all law abiding citizens will be unprotected is ignorance at the highest level.

One bright senator, Dianne Feinstein makes a clearly watertight argument for gun free zones, "When a Gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in, that's human nature." Clearly all criminals intent on killing others are highly sentimental people that would feel guilty if they shot an unarmed person, Wow! This is the kind of highly intellectual thinking that brings forth gun free zones. Sadly, facts don't necessarily agree with Dianne Feinstein. According to Crime Prevention Research Center, only about 1% of mass Shootings happen in areas where citizens have the right to carry a firearm, around 80+% of mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in gun free zones, mass shootings being any shooting that includes 4 or more victims. Police are essential in stopping a shooter, but in many gun free zones, the response time can be multiple minutes for a police officer to arrive, which is simply to much time given for the shooter.

Not only are Gun Free zones unconstitutional, but it is blatantly clear that they are breeding grounds for danger and only give the shooter a sense of safety. Only law abiding citizens abide by the law, the very definition of a criminal is someone who breaks the law, why on earth would we expect a criminal to adhere to laws when breaking them would give the would-be shooter free reign in an area with no one to resist them.

Pride and Skepticism

   Personally, as a tenant of a healthy life I believe one should consistently question what they believe, how, why, who, what, when, and where, among a myriad of other 'self checks and balances'. Questioning your beliefs strengthens oneself. When one truly evaluates what they believe, removing themselves from as much bias as possible, they will either emerge from the evaluation with a stronger belief in what they had or with a new perspective that one did not see before. This doesn't mean what they believed before was wrong, simply that they recognize something else as right. With an ever changing society and government, this self vetting is crucial.      However, it is evident that many on all sides of the spectrum have too much pride to truly question themselves. Why would you question yourself if you're already right, right? The answer is simple. As stated previously, one can look at other options and possibly strengthen their own beliefs through the fallacy they find in other beliefs or become 'enlightened' to new perspectives. Refusing to question oneself and ones actions creates a sort of disillusion. Both parties on all ends of the political spectrum are drowning in such pride and disillusionment. Nobody wants to admit the other is wrong, therefore inhibiting forward motion. As a liberal, I will easily denounce the actions of the alt-left. Violence, especially in this situation, is never the answer and is in fact counter-productive. Hillary's email scandal? Stupid.  Someone with such high position and such important and covert information should not make such mistakes whether accidental or not. And again I will admit that not enough people from my political end of the spectrum (the left) are denouncing this as necessary. However, this as aforementioned, is not a faulty committed on solely one side. Michael Flynn ladies and gentlemen. A huge mistake. At such high level of government in total power and control, these are not things that should be slipping through our fingers. In fact, they didn't! Trump was aware of the scandal three weeks before and failed to act on it. Whether the conversations were on sanctions or not, it is pretty evident that these phone calls should not have been had. In a position of that high power you don't need to give up your freedom and all of your enjoyment but you also can't be calling Russia and just talking to them. Betsy DeVos. Essentially earning her position through campaign donations, managed to get elected without ever having worked in a public school or having ever herself, or her children, paying student loan debts (which as secretary of education, yes, she will be dealing with). DeVos admitted all of this in her vetting session with the senate so I encourage all, especially students, to listen to the words of our new secretary of education! But where is the outrage? Where are the republicans or the democrats voting on Trumps picks in the senate, where are they saying "Look. This was stupid. Lets really think about who we're putting in here and question why they were put here. This was our fault, we take the blame. Now lets fix it". Granted some of this has happened, some republicans did vote against DeVos (to whom I give some amount of respect). But it is clearly not happening at the scale it has needed to. One should never vote out of mere loyalty. One should always be skeptical and look at something (as best as they can) with no ties to one group, or no ties so strong, that they will put loyalty to their party or loyalty to money over the good of the American people. Republicans may still vote republican and democrats might still vote democrat even after relieving themselves from party ties as best they can. But that is fine. As long as people are handing in their pride and surrounding everything with some sort of skepticism, no matter how right they feel it is, the American people can in the future be protected from people like Betsy DeVos or others who might have slipped through the cracks.

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Weekly Lens: Single Payer Healthcare

For this Weeks edition of the "weekly lens", the question was posed to each separate political side. What are your opinions on Single Payer Healthcare?

Here are the Responses

Conservative Response (William Zimmerman)
 There's two sides to healthcare, black and white. Bernie Sanders versus Ted Cruz. Personally, I could not agree more with Cruz. Nowhere in the constitution, does it say that it is a right, nowhere. Canada and Europe have public and free healthcare but doesn't mean that it's reliable. Lastly, Bernie Sanders and the weak Democrats are so selfish to think they can bully businesses and the young adults who may not need insurance. They're un-American period
We are the resistance. God Bless and God Bless America.

Libertarian Right Response (Luke Zimmerman)
The single payer health insurance has been a hot topic in the Trump “regime”. The only problem I had with Obamacare is the government mandate. However, it got many people insured who weren't insured. Fiscally conservative Neo-cons who said the whole idea was crazy and socialist were ignorant, but the idea that we have the best health system is completely correct. Virtually, you can see a professionally trained physician and get treatment, prognosis, and anything else to get to better health. There's no denying that the USA has the best health system. I'm also all for the free market but if the cost of healthcare is too high from the free enterprise, it's worthless, and if the government heads the program and its rates, then it would be worthless too like Europe. This topic is completely up for grabs among the majority right in the government. I'm predicting the Supreme Court will also have a role in this.

Note: Does Not represent the mainstream Libertarian Ideology

Left Wing Response (Sarah Shaffer)
Heading the liberal end of this blog, it is easy to imagine that I would be a proponent of single payer health care. However, it is not just I who stands firm in this belief. I am accompanied by 58% of the public, 59% of physicians, 80% of Democrats, and 60% of independents. So if all this is true, why do so many Republicans oppose it? First of all, fundamentally they are opposed to bigger government. But one must come to a point where one questions if their fundamental beliefs should keep them from withholding the majority of citizens from what they want and from what would statistically be beneficial.
                Currently, under a privatized system and with Obama Care, there are still around 29 million uninsured according to The Fiscal Times. It is undeniable that insurance is expensive no matter what social class you fall into. This is clearly a major issue for many people falling below the poverty line and even those in the middle class. This has caused many people to refrain from seeking medical treatment resulting in what the PNHP (Physicians for a National Health Program) have estimated to be 30,000 deaths per year. Many opponents to a single payer plan love to use the issues stemming from Obama Care as a defense against a national health program. This argument is lacking. While Obama Care is a step towards a national healthcare program, it is not an accurate depiction of how a country would function on one. Obama Care is accompanied by many other privatized programs preventing a clear vision of America on a single payer plan. With all these other companies and regulations set in place by and for other privatized companies this has also made Obama care unfavorable for some, when signing up forcing them out of their previous plan or having to choose new doctors. No matter what side you’re on of the topic this is inconvenient. However, although a fault of Obama Care it is not the fundamental approach of the plan that causes this but the result of having it exist in an impure form (meaning existing alongside other privatized companies). This has caused Americans to have to look around the world for statistics from other countries on single payer plans for direction.
                As aforementioned, the statistics rule in favor of a national healthcare plan on behalf of the citizens. Unfortunately, many myths float around perpetrated by privatized insurance companies and opponents of the plan such as Ted Cruz attempting to mislead Americans, or twist the truth in their direction. During the debate over the Affordable Care Act on CNN Cruz took jabs at the single payer plan in England saying that mammograms have gone down amongst other preventative health measures there. So why would we move in that direction when the plan would cut such procedures we attempt to make more readily available? The answer is simple. Cruz is correct in that mammograms have gone down. However, this is not a result of the single payer program but merely a result of statistics showing that mammograms are needed less often than they are given (only around once every three years for women between 50-70 according to Cancer Research UK). True statistics have been twisted to fit the agendas of those who profit. But many will continue to press this point saying England’s health care is truly worse than ours. Cruz again during the debate loved to push this point and throw around statistics. But here is one thing Cruz ever so conveniently forgot to mention. England has Socialized Medicine, something completely separate from universal healthcare that is the cause behind this. Socialized Medicine is a system in which the government owns the hospitals and doctors are salaried public employees. The real truth is that life expectancy in America is below par for a first world country. Many other countries with similar economic development but single payer health care have much higher life expectancies. Therefore, for one to proclaim that the care is worse in these other countries is simply false. Why would worse care raise life expectancy? Below is a list of these countries on single payer plans with higher life expectancies.***
                So now that some common myths have been debunked, why a single payer plan? With a single payer plan, cost for insurance would essentially be streamlined lowering the cost for all Americans resulting in an affordable rate for all Americans (remember, this system is not competing with privatized systems like Obama Care and would not have some of the inconvenient limits as Obama Care did). This plan would also make sure everyone could receive treatment, no matter the cost. No one can predict when they get sick or to what degree as Bernie Sanders loved to preach in that same CNN debate. Illness does not discriminate over social class, race, creed, or sexual orientation. So it is crucial for anyone who loves somebody in this world and intends that they live a full life can protect themselves even if they aren’t millionaires like many privatized companies (not to mention most companies still wouldn’t pick you up if your illness was that serious as you would quite unapologetically be a waste of their money). A ‘pure’ single payer plan country would also allow you to have the doctors you wanted and seek treatment at the hospital you wanted removing a major issue found in Obama Care.
                Another common issue, typically brought up by Republicans surrounding Obama Care, is that its requirement for a company with 50 employees provide healthcare to those employees. While I believe employers should provide healthcare this is clearly a financial burden on the businesses and hinders growth due to that. However, this issue is caused because Obama Care is competing with the privatized system. In this ‘pure’ single payer system that I keep mentioning, the cost would go down because the provider would be the government. Cleverly pointed out by the PNHP, this would free businesses from whatever burden they had in providing healthcare and in fact stimulate economic growth and jobs. 
                In conclusion, a single payer healthcare plan has many benefits that don’t exist in this nation’s current privatized system. It is time for politicians to put aside their greed (as many of them are influenced by the money of big business insurance) and do what is right for the people. The change will of course come with bumps in the road, as will anything, some that can be foreseen and some that we will not be able to predict, but the overall outcome will be in the best interest for the citizens of the United States of America.
***The United States ranks 43rd in the world for life expectancy (2015).  Single payer countries with similar economic development to the United States:
Norway – 20th
Japan – 2nd
UK – 33rd
Sweden – 15th
Canada – 18th
Finland – 30th
Italy – 14th
Portugal – 49th
Spain – 21st
Iceland – 6th
The only single payer country that has a lower life expectancy than the U.S. is Portugal.

Statistics for Democrats, independents, and public supporting single payer plan: Kaiser Heath Tracking poll conducted in December 2015
Statistics for physicians:  April 2008 edition of Annals of Internal Medicine.
Link to sources involving the PNHP: 

 Review (Sean Pereksta)
It is Clear that there is a divide in Ideology. The main argument here is not, does it work, What  I see is an argument between should the government even be involved in healthcare. Some would argue giving the government any extra power is dangerous, while others, like we saw from the left side in this article, think that it is merely beneficial to have a single health payer system.
I will admit my bias, I myself being +9 to the right on the Political Compass test (https://www.politicalcompass.org/test) however I do believe there are some things to mention, As you saw, I added in a note under the Libertarian Response, it doesnt seem to represent Libertarians as a whole since they are the group least likely to want a Single Payer Healthcare system. I also partially agree with our Conservative, Will Zimmerman, Just because you have a government Health Care system, for instance, In Canada you can face month long waits when seeking treatment. The Problem that I see originating from Government Healthcare is that it often times makes the health industry unappealing since it can lower pay for doctors and ultimately be more damaging. Our left wing Correspondent, Sarah, Brings up the point that Single Payer healthcare systems have longer life expectancies. This is a good point, however I might argue that it is not the Government Healthcare that lengthens their life spans, Government regulations on things like food prevent people from eating as unhealthily as Americans have the choice to eat. I believe it was Stephen Crowder who made this argument, Yes other Countries may be Healthier but in America you have the Freedom to Eat yourself to death, or the freedom to train harder and eat healthier, and that's why you get high obesity rates, but also a consistent acquiring of the most Olympic medals out of any nation, those medals going to America. So I clearly don't agree with all that Sarah has to say, however I merely wanted to address that one argument, Clearly there are many more arguments in her lengthy and well researched argument. Each sides has an argument that must be weighed against the others, Comment below about your opinions on this subject, and make sure to share this if you found it interesting.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Extreme Bias: Huffington post

It is easily a common sense statement to say that people will flock to the media outlet that espouses their viewpoints. Liberals are much more likely to watch MSNBC than Conservatives, and Conservatives are more likely to watch FOX. This seems like common sense.

One such media outlet that may pander a bit is Huffington post. It seems Common sense to say that perhaps Huffington post is fairly left leaning, most everyone would agree.

Another agreed on Logical statement would be to say that calling someone susceptible to believing fake news is the same as calling them gullible or naive. To expound upon that strain of logic, most would also agree someone who is gullible is not as likely to be intelligent. Basically, saying that one group is likely to believe in fake news is the same as calling that group ignorant and less intelligent than say, a group that would not believe in fake news.

Huffington post has a knack for pandering to its audience. Giving Trump a merely 1.6% chance of winning was just one of those moments. It even went as far as to attack Nate Silver who was giving Trump chances within the double digits of winning.

 "By Monkeying around with the numbers like this, Nate Silver is making a mockery of the very forecasting industry that he popularized." -Huffington post

What a quote! Mocking an incredibly qualified and credible man in the area of forecasting because he gave Trump a chance of winning. Embarrassing maybe? This is a direct manifestation of the pandering Huffington post tries, Trump was within the margin of error in most all polls, and so to give him almost no chance of winning was irresponsible, but it sure made Huffington Post Readers happy. Many people read certain outlets just to hear what they want to hear, it's called confirmation bias. You merely confirm what you already believe by listening to something that agrees with you. And thus clearly Huffington post is pandering. I despise the Term "fake news" in most cases since it is used to demean generally bias yet reliable news stations like CNN which clearly leans left, and may push an agenda, however it does not lie to its viewers on any regular basis, it just feeds them what they generally want to hear.

So if Huffington post Readers are Left leaning as all common sense would indicate, just how far left are they?
Well, REALLY FAR LEFT. The type of far left in which they believe the other side is ignorant, the intolerant far left.
A poll by YouGov studied Americans opinions on which side they believed was more likely to believe fake news, Liberals or Conservatives. It seemed Strange to me because Huffington post gives the results from YouGov for the nationwide study, and then the results for on Huffington Post readers that answered the study, and it seemed self-discrediting.

Here are the Results,
Americans as a whole believe that Liberals are more likely to believe fake news than conservatives are. 27% believing Liberals will believe fake news, and 22% believing Conservatives will believe fake news.
I would have said, Both groups are equally likely, which happened to be the more popular choice, with 31% of Americans saying that Liberals and Conservatives are equally susceptible to believing fake news.
However, Huffington Post Readers seemed to disagree. Only 4% of Huffington post viewers think Liberals are more likely to believe Fake News, 81% are say that Conservatives are more likely to believe fake news. Thats right, no typo there, 81% think Conservatives are more gullible merely because they are Conservative. only 13% of Huffington Post readers though both groups were equally likely to believe fake news.

If there was ever a place for breeding Intolerance, Huffington Post has made it clear it would be that place. When the results from a group of people is so drastically different from the norm in America, it is clear they are coming to Huffington Post because it supports their Extremist views, Huffington pushes the mindset that Conservatives are some ignorant group that just listens to what they want to hear, which is ironic because clearly the people who answered that poll for Huffington Post only listen to what they want to Hear.

-Huffington post article- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/poll-fake-news_us_58a75d5ce4b045cd34c18258

Friday, February 17, 2017

Tolerance: An Expectation

A very polarized issue vehemently discussed by both sides of the political spectrum is this apparent monopoly either side claims to have on the whole concept of tolerance.
People who usually claim their side is more tolerant than the other is more often than not riding off of partisan bias.
Every person has bias, that's just basic fact. To make such claims of a monopoly of tolerance while denying its opinionated nature of said claim shows a very narrow-minded mind set. No side whether Leftist or Rightists, Authoritarian or Libertarian express human qualities on their own. The actions of people should be blamed on people not a certain type of ideology (excluding extreme ones). To see the action of one and go around saying "muh tolerant left or right" are fallacious statements that should not decide how you view a certain someone.
To blame an entire broad side always show a lack of depth you have for certain groups of people. When you blame one person's action on the right, what right do you mean, the Libertarians? the Conservatives? Right Populists?
Same for the left, what left, the Social Democrats? Social Libertarians? Democrat Socialists?
Tolerance is expected of everyone within reason, it should not be ever limited to one side as that promotes polarization and divisions.
We have our differences but we all belong to the same great nation. To be open to the other side and work with each other is the very blood of democracy.

The Neo-Nazi that Loves Israel

Trump has been called many things, Racist, sexist, Bigoted,Stupid, Agent Orange, and many other epithets used to demean him and paint him as the Hitler of the 21st century. However, one attack has stuck more than others, Trump the White Supremacist, Trump the Neo Nazi. Groups like MotherJones have continuously hinted at him being a white supremacist, focusing heavily upon white Supremacist support for him, as well as Neo-Nazi Support of him. The Left has focused on this as if the supporters of someone can show who that Person is. Can the Supporters give a hint of someone's beliefs, Sure, but the fact is Republicans tend to be more patriotic, all studies on this topic show that, Gallup polls, Harvard studies, just to name a few, and love of one's country gets caught up by some in a form of Nationalism. Nationalism is one of the major attributes of White Nationalists, it happens to be in the name, and so the beliefs patriotism and nationalism are related but vastly different and White Nationalism is even more different. Simply being Patriotic does not qualify Trump as a White Nationalist, nor a Neo Nazi. But being Patriotic which is related to nationalism will attract these people. In addition Trump's tougher foreign policy stances attract both patriots and nationalists, Being tough on immigration has many different causes, one cause may be to be tough on Immigration to put Americans first, but another cause may be to halt immigration or slow it merely as an act of Racism, The white nationalists see this through the lens of stopping foreign peoples, Trump sees this as putting Americans first and lowering the damaging effects of large scale illegal immigration.

Constantly Media has subtly alluded to Trump being the new Hitler, and some went as far as to draw connections to Trump being Person of the Year, and Hitler being on the cover in the 1930s, because apparently Time had prophetic powers and knew Trump would come and be the next Hitler, these two covers on Time magazine clearly being some great connection. However, Last time I checked, Hitler was not very Pro-Jew. Trump has been an ardent supporter of Israel and has conveyed clearly that he plans to be the most Pro-Israel president that America has had in quite some time. Israel Agrees, for all the lines being drawn between Hitler and Trump, it would seem silly to leave out the Jewish opinion. The fact is that 92% of Israelis believe Trump will be better for Israel than Obama, and even to go further, Only 4% of Israelis believe that Obama was supportive of Israel, according to a study by TSN, taken by Channel 1. I fail to see the clear picture that shows Trump is a neo-nazi, when he offers support to Israel, and is favored by Israel.
Trump with Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu