Sunday, March 26, 2017

Libertarianism: The Perfect Political Ideology

No mere human is perfect, this is a concept that most of us accept at a young age, anyone who disagrees with this is written off as insane or severely egotistical. In this case, it is only logical to deduce that no body of humans can ever produce perfect results, Small or large, for the same reason we abhor pure democracy in which the majority becomes the dictator, we also abhor autocracies or any body in which few people hold power. But to write mere imperfection off as the reason is not sufficient explanation for why humanity can never put trust in a small body of people, the reality is pure and simple, Greed.
Corruption takes root in every government, from China to Sweden. Corruption is an unstoppable symptom of human nature, this is the very reason libertarianism exists. If Humans were perfect, of course a large government would be possible, because the government would never intentionally cut off rights of the people, but today, even with our current and supposedly limited government, our rights are trampled everyday. The fact is, any power given to the government that gives any leeway for restrictions on our rights is used, Politicians leap at every possible opportunity to cut away at the constitution, 9-11 lead to the patriot act, School shootings lead to gun control, if you believe for one second that this is to protect Americans, than either you are wrong, or the politicians are literally morons.
Excuse me if I find it hard to believe that Gun control is a more pressing matter than safe driving, when Car accidents kill 30,000 compared to the generally less than 10,000 from guns, especially when Guns save at least 80,000 a year, according to low estimates, higher estimates put it upwards of 2.5 million people. Either Politicians have no grasp whatsoever of statistics, or certain Politicians are intentionally restricting rights for their own malicious intents.
To build of that point, the reality of government is that there will always be corruption in the government. Even with American exceptionalism, that doesnt mean we can't become just like europe, or china. The idea of Libertarianism is simple, Socialists will argue that no one is perfect so the government should monitor the economy or the people, but Libertarians, while of course agreeing that no is perfect, strongly detest the notion of giving the government more power, because if no one is perfect, why are we handing our rights to a few imperfect people, when we each could just live our own lives in the way we see fit.
History shows us that no government that gains power will ever remain a government for the people. Rome is one of the greatest examples of this, it began as a republic, sharing some of the ideals America now holds, yet as it began to expand and the government began to grow more powerful, corruption swelled. America stands at the same threshold that Rome stood, before Julius Caesar successfully became ruler, thereby beginning rome's long descent into ruin. Today, whichever major party you vote for, you still get a statist in office. Democrats who are supposedly anti-war take office, give the government more power, and supposedly cut back on interventionism, while in Obama's case, launching drone strikes all over the middle east and effectively ramping up our policies of interventionism in places such as syria. Then we have Republicans, who for all their talk of being small government fiscal conservatives, come into office, Cut the budget, and then raise our military budget, effectively building onto the empire that is America.
No empire is sustainable and this is for one major reason. If you are going to rule over other nations, and those nations don't support being ruled over, then you can't possibly give them rights because they would merely vote to leave the empire, and so you have a central government ruling over people, almost dictatorially, and the necessity for big government just grows as the empire does, and soon enough the government and corruption are to such an extent that governing documents no longer can restrain overly ambitious fools who play public emotion to gain power. The reason these authoritarians can gain power is because of course with a dictatorial empire there is going to be uprisings. You can't take over another nation's land and not expect people to rise up in protest. In the case of America, you see terrorist strikes that would never of happened if we had not built military bases all over the middle east, Islamic fundamentalists would have no reason to attack the west if they did not believe the west was infringing on their lives. Now America has Terrorist strikes against it, that are all the fault of terrible interventionist foreign policy. Yet anyone could just come out and point to these terrorists strikes to stir public emotion, and by doing this, gain political power that could usurp the constitution. Am I saying Trump is doing this, of course not, in fact I believe Trump may be less authoritarian than many past presidents, but it is a real problem that American citizens must realize exists. Politicians play American emotion against the middle east when we don't even seem to realize we would do many of the same things if what is happening to the middle east nations was happening to us. In fact Americans began as colonies in a time where Great Britain was colonizing all over the world in hopes of "spreading civilization" and they restricted our rights so we began a revolution, now we have turned a 180, in which when we began as a nation, we were isolationist, completely anti colonization because we had seen the disgusting reality of it all, to today where it seems America is fine with intervening in other country's affairs on the basis of spreading "Freedom". What an obvious connection this is to all the other empires throughout history that we learn about in school, especially Great Britain, we do the very same things that we revolted against.

Empires tear apart nations, and America is an empire, and is growing as one. Libertarianism is literally the only solution to corruption, empiricism, and any other restriction on human rights. The belief that Government should be shrinked to have a minimal impact on people's lives is the most effective belief, yet it's nearly impossible to win an election on that ideology because too many people are obsessed with the idea of free stuff and libertarianism promises personal responsibility, but the fact is that a libertarian government not only would effectively end the empire, but a constitutional libertarian government where we give the power enumerated to the states back to the states would have the added benefits of first of all, alleviating the debt as the government budget would be shrunk and taxes could be lowered to a degree which still creates a surplus, Roe V Wade would be shredded and go to the states instead of the unconstitutional enforcement of all states having to abide by something that under the tenth amendment, should have been a state law anyways, the war on drugs would go to the state's, Schools would go to the states, Libertarianism solves all of these problems, yet People would rather receive free stuff then save america. Libertarianism is the idea that people live the life they want to, and the concept that the government should actually follow the constitution. No more malicious restrictions on our rights, the second amendment is safe under libertarianism, no more raises in taxes, in fact there's more money all around, Inflation slows to a near halt since there is no need to print massive sums when the government is spending trillions, businesses flourish as long as antitrust laws are enforced, The nation is no longer forced into wars when there was no declaration of war, and the nation is better off.
In fact, People always worry that we are going to elect a fascist President, or that the government is going to go tyrannical, what can the president do if he/she has so little power that he/she can't possibly abuse the American people.

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Weekly Lens #5: Second Amendment

This weeks topic surrounds, the constitutional right to bear arms. Why purpose does it serve and what limits does the right have?

Luke Zimmerman

This week's lense is such an easy position and I don't quite understand the other argument. Our constitution verbally says, that it is a right to bear arms. That has been a long-standing freedom and tradition in this country. No other country has that liberty. Based on this predicament, one could argue the left is unconstitutional. Hillary Clinton was riding on "Common Sense" gun control. Many Americans were probably frightened the fact that their property would be legally seized by the government. That would certainly violate many amendments of the constitution. The origins or gun control were discussed in the recent documentary I watched of Dinesh D'Souza's, "Hillary's America." One excerpt talked about a southern black woman who was a journalist. She was a huge supporter of the Republican Party and for good reason. The original reason the democrats/progressives/leftists wanted was so blacks and other minorities couldn't own a gun to protect themselves. Because they weren't armed, it was easier for the KKK to go onto their property and do whatever they wanted whether it was lynching or torturing or what have you. The vividness and articulation by D'Souza really scared me. How could the government be allowed to do that? Big cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles all have very strict gun laws. This being said, that leaves good guys, ordinary people, without protection and allowing the gangs, cartels, and bad guys to have the guns. That's why there's over a murder a day in Chicago. That can also put so much responsibility on law enforcement to speed to the crime scene and have their gun on the ready, because the victim isn't protected in this totalitarian landscape. According to Urban Carry, a gun-ownership advocate, runs through points that the more people have guns in an area, the less crime and murder. Can one really argue against the question of if you're a bad guy, would you want to shoot up a school that's a gun-free zone, or a school that has guns, has a cop, and is heavily armed? Of course, no bad guy would say the heavily-armed school. That can be said for any establishment, whether it's a home, library, restaurant, hospital. It's a sick thing to think about, but one must put themselves in the mindset of a bad guy. That is why I have never, even when I was an avid leftist, that I didn't understand the argument of, "Common Sense" gun control.

Sarah Shaffer

Another hot topic in politics today, the second amendment! Debate goes back and forth on this topic and there are strong advocates for each side. So let’s talk about the second amendment. What does the second amendment state exactly? Well, the part that people cite most to defend their right to ‘bear arms’ is “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.” So let’s break this down to get a clear definition set, as that is the foundation of all good arguments. The constitution says that we, the citizens have the right to “bear arms”. In this context, it is safe to say the constitution means to imply that citizens have the right to own weapons. It should be noted that ‘arms’ does not limit our ownership of things to guns (otherwise it would simply say guns). So with this in mind, a common argument brought up is “why can’t we own nuclear weapons”, because in the true interpretation of the constitution, we should be able to ‘bear arms’ or weapons. However, under the U.S Code title 18 § 831, we are prohibited from possessing nuclear weapons. Now don’t get me wrong here, I don’t believe we should have nuclear weapons. The point I intend to make is that we already restrict the Second amendment and none (at least in great mass) seem to oppose this because civilians owning nuclear weapons is frankly absurd and impractical. So because it is quite tacitly understood that owning certain weapons is absurd, the question now changes to what weapons are ‘practical’ for the American people to possess freely?
​Let’s go back to the context in which the second amendment of the constitution was written. To set the stage, it’s the late 18th century; we had just defeated the wretched Tories and taken a glorious victory. Guns were necessary then, truly, for individual protection as Tories would have gone around during the revolution demanding quartering and people still needed them to hunt for survival. So how have times changed since then? Well, for one we don’t have armies of other countries stomping around our territory. Yes, it is possible for America to be invaded. However, when the second amendment was written we did not have a standing army and it was more important for each citizen to own weapons in case called to action. Thankfully , today we have a standing army that is quite qualified to handle those threats for us. Second, yes, people still hunt, but their survival is not contingent on the next deer they shoot. Now does this mean we have nothing to hide from or nothing to protect ourselves from? Of course not! But when the founders of this nation wrote the second amendment, it is clear they didn’t expect automatic weapons, machine guns, sub-machine guns, flame throwers, mini-guns, grenade launchers, or nuclear weapons. It would be hard for the founding fathers to fathom much more than what they had at that time (i.e. rifles, shotguns, pistols/hand guns). The point being made, times have changed and the average citizen does not have some imminent threat to be scared of requiring a gun, much less some of the ones that are legal today (such as some listed above like flame throwers, where 40 states have no restrictions on them, or mini-guns, although rare as they must have been registered before May 19th, 1986, are still obtainable for a large sum.)
​ However, it is obvious that abolishing the second amendment and ridding America of all guns is more than impossible. So the key is to make sure the guns that are had are not capable of causing mass harm, are well regulated, and dispersed with proper checks and training. One such weapon one could reasonably suggest is a 45 acp (a pretty standard handgun). With this weapon, one could easily distinguish between an attacker or burglar and a civilian, should one find necessary, and one could not use this to injure many people all at once. This way, those who feel it necessary to own a firearm can have one and any kind of mass destruction or murder would be much less feasible.
​Finally, background checks. When purchasing a firearm from a federal dealer, one must go through a NICS background check (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) processed by the FBI. These checks will scan for criminal history/background, criminal charges, warrants, mental health history, dishonorable military discharges, and immigration status, according to The Trace. These are all reasonable things for a background check to confirm, however, they are not taken as seriously as sometimes necessary. For instance, in many states if your background check is not cleared by the FBI by three days, the firearm store may sell you the firearm anyway without notifying the FBI. This was the case with Dylan Roof whose background check was halted for several days due to drug charges. Because he passed the three day period, he was sold the gun anyway only to later murder nine people with his firearm. It should also be noted that Federal Law does not require for mental health records (not including those declared by courts or those instances where an individual has been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility) to be submitted to NICS due to ‘privacy laws’ resulting in a rather uninformed data base. If one wishes to buy a weapon that could be used to harm somebody, they should be expected to give up their right to privacy in exchange for their right to bear an arm.
​In conclusion, it is impossible to eradicate guns from America so it is an exigent issue that we learn how to coexist with them in a way that upholds a modernized interpretation of the constitution while assuring the safety of the citizens of the United States of America. This can be achieved through limiting the weapons available and increasing the level of vetting in background checks to obtain a gun. Although gun violence has been on a downtrend for 20 years, this does not mean violence is anywhere near a ‘good’ or ‘acceptable’ number as the standards from 20 years ago are not too high. The numbers of gun involved crimes we experience today are too high and too preventable to turn a blind eye from stricter regulation.


U.S Code title 18 § 831:

Guns weapons legal here:

Information for background checks:


So the debate here over the second amendment shows both its sides and what it means for us today. While one argues against Gun Control, the other expands on the necessity of it. How the interpretation of the constitution can mean so many different things for us today.
The second amendment is an important right and a symbolic one. It could be used to protect one self and symbolically have a stand against a potential tyrannical government. While the latter has evolved to the point where the only way an American rebellion could work is if the majority including police officers, military etc. went against the Washington establishment the former still holds its relevance. The relationship between government and people is a contract, both sides have to sacrifice things for a proper balance and this constitutional right comes in the middle of this balance. How we balance this relationship concerning this right requires the participation of us all now and in the future.

Friday, March 17, 2017

Dousing Liberty's Flame

          During the 1960s, the Government enjoyed heavy favorability, perhaps due to the common enemy held by both the government and the people, very few Americans liked the Soviet Union, and thus the two entities held a common bond, but since then, trust in the government has began a precipitous decline. According to NPR, The government currently hovers below 20% on the matter of trust afforded to it by the American people, this seems common sense, who would trust a government that has continuously lied for its own benefits. Whether it is about "weapons of mass destruction" or the right to keep your own doctor, the government just does not have a good handle on the truth. And of course this is how the founders wanted it, the hallmark of democracies and republics is skepticism, to bow down to the government utterly decimates any freedoms held by the people, the founders of the United States understood this and portrayed their opinions perfectly in the form of the bill of rights. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to bear arms, Powers not afforded to the national government are a matter of state government, Freedom from Unwarranted arrests or seizure of property. All of these aforementioned rights have two things in common, All of them are rights given to the American people through the bill of rights, and all of them have been utterly ignored by the government at one point or other.
          Any knowledgeable American will tell you that the basis for the second amendment is clear and simple, Americans have the right to bear arms in order, not only to protect their family and house, but to also protect against the chance of the government going tyrannical. So if this is the basis for the Second Amendment, why do Americans allow the right meant to protect against the government to be restricted by the very antagonist that the second Amendment is put in place to protect again.
         The first reason Americans yield their rights is dog whistling, Politicians play petty politics after every single shooting that breaks the news, it's always the gun. Even the thought that there is a malicious human behind the gun is silly to some people, of course the gun is the one making the decision to kill. This appeals to  many Americans because as humans we look for safety and comfort before anything else, we see this clearly portrayed in the Patriot act, Americans are fine with a clearly unconstitutional act if it means feeling better. In the same way, Americans hear politicians say, if we ban semi automatic rifles, you and your family are safe, and latch onto it because it is a form of comfort. Pesky little facts like the reality that higher gun ownership does not equal more homicides are completely ignored by the public. In fact the UK, which has a much smaller population than America, sees on average, 130,000 Knife attacks per year, far, far more than the number of shooting in America per year, yet this fact is purposefully overlooked. Politicians most certainly have the common sense to look up facts and understand that gun control will do little to nothing for the violence rates in america, yet they still attempt to push their agenda.
        The second reason American yield rights is utter lies, Clearly, the lie that gun control will lower violence in America is already one that afflicts the American populace, and it is not alone. The second Amendment is easily the most bashed right we know, and even the reasoning for it is being attacked. leftist sites like Zerohedge tell their readers, of course the Second amendment is pointless because an armed revolt would be futile. Even without directly including the said wording, the implications are clear as day, the Second Amendment calls for armed revolt if the government goes tyrannical, Armed revolt is futile, therefore the Second Amendment is futile. As a people, we hear this pathetic excuse for logic thrown around as if it delegitimize the second amendment, I just find it hard to understand why we allow the Second amendment to be hit like this, yet if something like the first Amendment was attacked, the offender would be called a fascist. Placing the same logic given to the second amendment, to the first amendment, if I said, The First amendment allows for the right to petition the government, the government won't change its mind, therefore that part of the first amendment is futile and therefore should be repealed, I would sound like a moron. This comparison holds up on many points, one of which being, in the same way that the premise calling petitioning futile is false, the premise calling armed revolt is false as well. In fact, many groups will outright lie in an attempt to degrade the second amendment, A popular revolt would likely succeed, surely the government doesnt want it's citizens understanding that, but the facts are the facts. Yet, regardless of the facts, Americans are subject to constant attacks on their rights, under the pretense that these so called facts are true, and when convinced that something is just a useless burden, Americans are willing to shed that right.
       The Second Amendment is not the only right under constant attack, the entire constitution is under attack, but what's even more worrying is how completely fine the american people are with it.
When I first heard that the CIA was spying on Americans, I thought a vast majority of Americans would be outraged, when that never happened, I simply assumed to many Americans were unaware of what was going on. This would seem reasonable, I would assume, if people knew they were being spied on, they would be upset to say the least. Except this is not the case, Americans not only are not upset for the most part, they want more being done.
           A poll by YouGov shows that not only do a larger portion of Americans think that the CIA is making the right decisions for the course of our country than otherwise, but Americans also don't think the CIA is doing enough! I saw a Poll from Fox that showed support for the CIA actually rose since last year, from 60% to over 70%. In what twisted society do we exist, in which learning that a government agency spying on us, makes us more favorable towards that agency. A majority of Americans are in complete support of a Government Agency breaking the constitutional rights of Americans. The precedent this sets is clearly dangerous.
       The Problem with this whole debacle is that what does one even do in a case where the people being abused, support the abuse! One does not have to be very educated on the matter of American government to understand that the US government sucks at just about everything they do, and not only that, but the government is constantly in search of more power, mccarthyism, the Patriot act, completely circumventing the 9th and 10th Amendments. Americans have to wake up and understand that the constitution was written for people's sake, not to grant government power.  A vast majority of Americans support the constitution, but if the American people want to put their actions where there words are, it's about time people start protesting the complete and utter lack of regard the government has for the constitution, every right ceded to the government just sets a precedent that leads to more rights being taken away, there is never one single goal, every power hungry government wants it's country to become more statist, and that requires rights being taken from the people, If the constitution matters at all, this should ring alarm bells for every American.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Utopian society

A fixture that has been long believed in American Politics is the simple belief, Communism is a great idea but wouldn't work in today's world. This misconjecture has been watered and nurtures so much that it seems like common knowledge to average Americans, deeply implanted in the American psyche.
This of course seems odd, it's a bit of a far cry from the old days of "Better dead than red", it seems as if people have given into the idea that Communism is just some beautiful thing that we should strive to achieve in the future but as of now fall short. How did we go from heavy anti-Communism, to a society that covets the very thing we despised.
It really falls down to far left propaganda. While the propaganda spewed from the left does not necessarily raise up communism, it seeks to smear the idea of capitalism. People like Michael Moore attack the idea of Capitalism all the time, however, they never will attack the ideals of capitalism but rather things like monopolies that form only when the government fails to do its duty in terms of regulating monopolies, the fact is, the only time Monopolies form is if there is no antitrust laws, or if Crony-Capitalism is present. With Crony Capitalism, Governments service the highest bidder which leads to larger companies having vast advantages over small companies that can't afford to lobby at the same level as companies such as Amazon, or Walmart. The idea to attack things that are attached to an idea is a very normal thing for democrats. In the same way as Democrats will never openly attack capitalism but rather attack things that Americans connect to capitalism like big business, Democrats will admit that Trump is president at the same time as calling the electoral college delegitimate and forcing everyone to focus on Russia 24/7, The Democrat party knows quite clearly that if you break all the support columns of someone or something, it will fall apart, thus they attempt to legitimize capitalism by showing Americans results of crony capitalism and then linking it to real capitalism, in the same way they attempt to delegitimize Trump by attacking the electoral college, and in doing so, attempting to show that if the electoral college is not the correct way to elect people, than Trump is "not my(our) president".
But saying our Capitalism isn't real Capitalism sounds just as idealistic as saying the Soviet Union wasn't real Communism. The difference is two things that make a large difference.

Effective Capitalism requires laws to be enforced, Communism requires everyone to be perfect. Capitalism really boils down to the idea, you make what you deserve, Communism is you deserve to receive everything and no one should be more successful than someone else. Seems sort of familiar to Schools taking away first and second place in favor of everyone receiving awards.
While Capitalism requires anti-trust laws to be enforced and the government not to accept covert bribes( Campaign funds, donations to foundations(Clinton Foundation), Government bonds), We all know Governments are notoriously bad at following rules or sticking to merely protecting citizen's rights. This all boils down to the size and power of a government. Without meticulous observation from citizens, government will always grow, as I show in my article "Establishment Lies". The larger a government grows, the more power obsessed it becomes, it becomes habitual. In the same manner that skipping school once makes a student more likely to try again, gaining power once gives the Government more willingness to grasp for more power, and it takes every chance it can get. If you haven't noticed, every national disaster in recent history has lead to government growth, 9-11 led to the Patriot act, Literally every school shooting created or was used to boost Gun Control, Airport security becomes more invasive with every terrorist attack, Government surveillance has gained disdainful acceptance as people barely put up a racket when it turns out the CIA is spying on them. This all leads to a precedent in which the government looks to past events and repeats them, each time gaining more power, if one shooting allowed for more gun control, why not use another. First it was Automatic firearms, now the government pushes for semi-automatic weapons. To restrict this, People have to be alert, education has to teach people to monitor the government, not praise it and look to it for benefits. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" should be hammered home. This may seem idealistic but if there had been public education at the time of our founding fathers, i'm sure they would have approved. It really comes down to two things in this case, A stricter constitution that restricts growth of government, and a public focus on keeping the government in check. This isn't idealistic, it just calls on people not to be wholly lazy, even if half of Americans participated, this would definitely put a chain on the Government's mad dash to statism.

Communism requires people to be perfect. All people must be working at a level that produces net gain in order for the government to be able to provide everything for everyone. With America's workforce rate at 63%, it just goes to show that not everyone is going to work for all their worth. Not only does Communism require perfection from people, but it promotes antithetical ideals. Not only are people required to work as hard as they can, but the receive no inspiration to do so anyways, in fact, receiving free things regardless of your effort is detrimental to work ethic, Free benefits subsidize low work ethic.
In the words of Ben Shapiro, Capitalism is basically "forced altruism", you have to give someone something cool so that they give you something in exchange, if you don't work to produce, you starve. This sort of system leads to rapid advancement and economic booms, this is precisely the reason that while in 1980 the Soviet Union had a population of 290 million versus the almost 230 million of America, the USA had a Nominal GDP of 2.862 Trillion versus the Soviet Union's 1 trillion.

Capitalism Promotes hard work, Communism promotes laziness, Capitalism Promotes innovation and effectiveness, Communism promotes stagnation and poverty. There is a reason you will never read a great novel about some dystopian future in which a small government is oppressing everyone. Almost all dystopian models are Socialist futures in which the government seeks to make everyone "equal" in terms of no citizen being more successful than others.The fact is that the idea of a Utopian Big government society is unsustainable. If a person is corruptible, a government is, and thus at some point or other, every communist government will become corrupt. In a capitalist society with small government, corruption has tiny effects and the people are stronger than the government and can make change.

Some will argue that Perfect Communism is without government but I would mention that is impossible. If Perfect Communism is without government, that necessitates voluntary giving of all produce from each citizen which would mean that rather than a Communist society, that society would merely be an Anarchist Capitalist society in which people donate, and of course people would probably choose not to donate, and since there is no government, people would not be punished, but Communism requires people to give all their produce to society as a whole and thus people who refuse are required to be punished and therefore government is required in communism. An anarchist- communist society is mere fiction, it is as impossible as a married bachelor.

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Weekly Lens #4: Bias in the Media

This week's "Weekly Lens" will be tackling the issues with Mainstream Media. How bias affects everyday media and what dangers it poses. And what are some ideas for the media to better serve the people.

Sean Pereksta

The Question on whether Media is biased is a plain and simple yes. Everyone has a bias, no media source will ever be devoid of a bias, no one would ever read or watch something that dull and uninspiring. On the topic of mainstream media bias, it seems quite clear that most “Mainstream Media” sources lean left. According to Business Insider, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, BBC, NPR, and ABC, to name a few, attract mainly Liberal viewers, due to pandering to a more liberal viewpoint. There is no certainty that all of this is some agenda set forth by the “establishment” media with some devious goal in mind, however, the Media is certainly not devoid of suspicious activity. Wikileaks revealed that around 65 mainstream media reporters apparently met for dinner with John Podesta leading up to Hillary announcing her campaign. However, somehow, the Media hardly touched on this subject, some sources even chose to completely avoid this subject and never even report on something this massive.

Furthermore, Media on Trump was extremely negative, Mainstream media has historically tended to lean slightly left, however, during the 2016 Election, the media hounded Trump consistently, NBC and CBS racked up an astounding 43% of their coverage of Trump as being negative, and a puny 3% being positive. Mainstream Media groups opted to downplay things like Trump going to louisiana to help flood victims with donations, including play doh for kid, while downplaying Hillary’s illegal activities, or as Comey said, after listing all the reasons why her activities were illegal, “extremely careless”, and then opting to call it a lack of sophistication with electronics.

Clearly there is bias, I will not speculate to what kind of agenda is being pushed, or if there is one, if it is insidious or not. I Also hold to the opinion that even if Media is bias and has a wrongful agenda, it is no right of anyone to step in and do anything forceful or unfair to silence their first amendment rights. Anything short of pure lying in which news is blatantly false, is not illegal and government has no right to get involved. The one thing the American people have in order to counter any agendas, is counterbalances. Fox News counterbalances MSNBC, Salon is counterbalanced by Breitbart. As long as no Monopoly over the media exists, nothing is inherently in need of government intervention, in fact government should keep it's statist head out of any affairs it doesn't belong in.

Will Zimmerman

Obviously the media has the agenda to sabotage Trump's presidency. They have all moved somewhat left (and corporate) and it's completely nauseating when I here all of the petty stuff they talk about. Most of those people are the fakest, least ambitious, buttholes that do it for the money, don't have families, or now, have a deep contempt for America, it's values, and our leaders. Even FoxNews, who I've never really liked, isn't conservative, isn't right wing, and have the same amount of sissy-politically correctness as MSNBC. Tucker Carlson's show has been the best thing that's ever happened to them. But overall, the media has always served the interest of the people, historically speaking. Ever since the campaign and election of this past year, I knew there was something wrong. Majority of the polls, on hindsight, were fake and wrong. It was probably hard for them that they're candidate had to cheat out Bernie in the primaries, and looked to lie and cheat in the general election. After this election, how can the people trust the polling? Ohio was a solid 3%-4% lead for Killary, yet it voted solid red. There has got to be something the media is hiding from the public, and that's ought to be why people should question the legitimacy. There is a "liberal bias" as Savior Regan put it. I really don't know if there's a way to fix the problems; however, an easy one could to be to just cover the facts, not have such big panels of nonsense arguing. When someone is given information that contradicts their beliefs, they become more steadfast in their beliefs. That's so true and on one or two segments, nobody is going to be able to make someone think like them. That's why the media should give news, not commentary. There is specific shows like RedEye, Rachel Maddow, or insert whatever program that does have commentary. To address President Trump's behavior with the media,

I absolutely loved how Trump has stuck to his haters. He will always be seen as a guy who never

backs down, keeps his word, and serves the Americans who haven't been served under 8 long years of Obama. The media won't portray that because it doesn't go with their agenda, to show all the flaws that President Trump has. I conclude with, some butthole liberal media person: "how bad could we be doing?" Sean Spicer: "Not as bad as the media says we're doing."


We all know there is bias in media and specific organizations, whether being CNN or Fox News, there is always an agenda being pushed. Media is a double edged sword. It helps being the middle man, for information to understand the functions of our government and exercise the right to free press. However like every person, favoring one side is apart of our nature. It's just a matter of utilizing media to you right benefit and opening yourself up to many, often conflicting, point of views.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Establishment Lies

Both Parties, Republicans, and Democrats, have highly different beliefs. The Republicans are All about small government, the Democrats, not so much. The Republicans Are all about Free Market, the Democrats, not so much. The Democrats are all about Welfare, the Republicans not so much. The Democrats are all about health care, the Republicans not so much.

Just about every American knows this, It seems to be merely common sense that the Parties are different. However, this raises the question, Why is it that if each Party is so firm in its beliefs, why do both of them omit the truth on just about everything, why do many Republicans attack Large Government while at the same time purposefully expanding Government, why do Democrats portray themselves as the Party of Peace, yet Obama got America involved in more conflict, not less. Neither Party tells the truth. The facts are quite clear, both parties are nearly the same, They expand Government, encroach on Liberty, involve America in conflict regardless of American opinions on the matter, And they both Lie the whole time. Obama was supposedly a great Peacemaker, he won the Nobel Peace Prize, although I hardly think the thousands victims of countless Drone strikes would agree with that award. And what about the Republican majority, After years of Democratic control and growing Government, the Republicans sweep the house and senate, and what do we get, More government growth.

The Fact is both Parties, regardless of their stated beliefs and values remain part of the Establishment political groups, they both seek to gain greater control over American lives, whether by the Patriot act, or forcing Gun Owners to register with the government, The Parties eschew their stated goals in favor of a statist future.

Sure, One can support the values of a Party, and identify with it, and sure, some politicians are genuinely good people, however, it would be foolish to deny the existence of Establishment politics. Trump was opposed by the Republicans, and perhaps the Republican party, for sake of its Public image, didn't give the same amount of pushback as the Democrat party did with Bernie, but the fact is that it is clear and available to all those who would seek the obvious, that the Parties both despise outsiders. The Democrat Party colluded behind Hillary, despite how deceitful and distasteful she was, Reality is that the Democrat Party colluded behind Hillary, fed questions to her before debates, purposefully opposed Bernie, and threw a rigged system of Superdelegates at Hillary's feet. The Republican Party Establishment resisted Trump as well, Cruz and Kasich tried to work together, Debates focused entirely on the Establishment versus Trump, and the party clearly attempted to disown him at many points.

I personally am amazed. The American people watched Bernie be completely screwed over by the DNC and instead of outrage exploding against the Democrat Party, the whole incident blew over in a couple of weeks, if not days. This should still be making the news, the Establishment purposefully ensured that a Candidate could not win solely due to them not being a member of the elitist politician and entertainment class.

And what about the joint congress, the American people should be rallying daily with rightful rage against the NSA and CIA purposefully spying on our private lives. That is a direct assault on our constitutional rights, and yet somehow the Republican Party, and Democrat Party, that both would surely consider themselves champions of liberty and freedom, seem completely okay with the Constitution being ripped up and burned before their eyes, the same eyes that looked into the crowds of Americans as they gave speeches proclaiming themselves as the champions of the American Dream, the restorers of liberty, and strict adherents to the Constitution.

Very few politicians can boast that their actions match their words. Americans have a right to be outraged, for many decades, Politicians have played a game in which they attempt to tell Americans what they want to hear most, only to go into office and go about decimating every promise they make. America has to respond to the Elitist class, it happened once with the election of Trump, yet the fact remains, Congress approval ratings are at an all time low, yet continually the same senators and Representatives are elected again and again. America should turn to those unaffected by establishment politics, those who are not chained down by an oppressive statist group think that dominates both parties. People Like Trump, and even Bernie(despite my disagreements with him), are what America Needs, not necessarily their mindsets, in fact, hopefully not their mindsets, but solely the fact that they are outsiders is why America is in such sore need of people like them. It's time Americans show the Parties that they don't have a monopoly over American life, the 2018 Midterms are coming up, it's time to vote outsider.

The Alt Knight Rises

Antifa has emerged from the shadowy fringes of the authoritarian left, and with it, political violence has surged. Events such as Marches for Trump in places like Berkeley California have been marred by the characteristic violent aggression that defines Antifa. People have been attacked by groups and beaten, elderly people have been pepper sprayed, and women have been harrassed physically harmed. Clearly retaliation was bound to happen, one does not poke the bear and not expect anything to happen. One Texan chose to rise up, he strapped on his helmet, embroidered his shield with the flag, and bought himself a long wooden rod and stuck a flag on it, then he went to meet antifa.
After going to a rally at Berkeley and watching Trump supporters get attacked by the authoritarian left, The Alt Knight was born. In defense of a Trump supporter who was being beaten by Antifa terrorists, The Alt Knight walloped one of the would be attackers on the head, quickly ending the scuffle and sending Antifa packing. This act of defense has quickly rocketed this young Texan to fame, and generated countless YouTube videos, as well as dominating the alt-right meme scene. 
While there is no evidence to lend to the given title of Alt-knight, it is clear that whether Kyle Chapman(The Alt Knight), is alt right or not, he clearly is tired of the violence being displayed towards generally peaceful Trump Supporters.
One clear difference between the to sides is evidenced by the behaviour of the Alt-Knight versus that if Antifa, Antifa consistently goes to Trump rallies with the purpose of violent confrontations, The Alt Knight has yet to engage without being provoked. Through all confrontations known in which the Alt Knight was engaged, he never joined into the battle except to defend others from Antifa. This should serve as a message to the entire Right, While Violence is wrong in most all circumstances, The right should never provoke fights, the media is mainly dominated by the left, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CNBC all lean left, and will certainly leap on the opportunity to decry any aggression perpetrated by the Right Wing.
So with that in mind, It seems appropriate to consider The Alt-Knight as a dangerous addition to the Right Wing, and perhaps a highly symbolic member of the Right who may be the spark that leads to a massive fire. Clearly The Alt-Knight hitting a man's head with a stick is probably not good publicity when keeping moderates and leftists views in mind, but what's worse is the fact that this inspires many Alt-Righters. Clearly with the Alt-Knights popularity exploding, others will try to mimick him, a new sort of vigilante force is certain to come from this as Alt-Righters attempt to mimick their Texan Hero. If there is one thing you get from this, I Implore you to recognize that while the Alt-Knight may be pretty awesome, to follow his way of using force to defend may be gunpowder waiting to explode. The alt-right and right deplore Richard Spencer being punched since both the Right, and alt-right tend to strongly disagree with using force to counter verbal attacks, yet when the Alt-Knights use of Force is normalized, its not long before someone gets triggered and decides to attack. Both the left and right shouls be trying to lower Violence, not celebrate it.

Sunday, March 5, 2017

Weekly Lens #3: Importance of NASA and space exploration

The topic regarding the future of space exploration is beloved by many of people. It strikes a sense of exploration and wonder into a whole new type of civilization that could be possible if space exploration is advanced. NASA leads and pushed the boundaries of space exploration for decades and in some ways spread the American spirit into a whole new frontier. However like many things NASA is debated upon concerning their funding and importance in our current era and what we can do in the future for space exploration.

Sarah Shaffer

NASA is constantly at the frontier in science as it researches into a world we quite frankly and truly know little about. Because of this, its work is very important. NASAs work, such as the Voyager and the Hubble Space Telescope, is innovative and will be crucial (as it has been) to our future. To ensure their continual research it is important that they receive funding, sufficient at least enough to maintain their projects. However, this topic is quite difficult to discuss with many statistics or hard facts because it all comes back to what you personally believe should be a priority. Many things carry importance so it is hard to debate which one is truly the most important. Personally, I believe NASA should be funded when we can fund it. Education, infrastructure, and medical research in my opinion should be funded more or primarily above NASA amongst several other things. I believe after whatever funds are left over after these more important things have been funded NASA should get and I would hope that those funds would be sufficient. In conclusion, NASA is not the nation’s highest priority and therefore should not be funded as such but should receive funding when it can be afforded. 

Will Zimmerman 

Although I haven't seen or heard much space talk or travel in the past few years, I think it will be a huge issue in the near future. This past election has probably changed the course of what we were supposed to be on with another Democrat in the White House, but now that the DNC is turning inside and out, and with a conservative political system, with Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, space travel might be moved to the back of the to-do list. With Trump's team "draining the swamp," NASA will receive less and less public funding. I'm sure there's going to be a big conflict with it, I don't see space travel to be important at all. We don't need to make more wars and issues or things we haven't discovered yet. There's so many other problems Washington needs to fix before we can start worrying what's out there; however, I do see the benefits of creating new programs that would boost jobs, innovation, and cooperation with other countries. Just after the election and upcoming elections in Europe, I cannot see space travel being a top priority by most of the conservative movements that are gaining support worldwide. Personally, I would like to see America be made great again, than to go to space.

Luke Zimmerman

Space Exploration

This topic, in my opinion, has been shut down by the bureaucrats and politicians of recently. This is the next Manifest Destiny. The Leftists today despise Russia and Putin, so we should give the Russians a run for their money and compete like the old times in the Cold War. I think President Trump should consider competing against his ally and possibly form an alliance for the human race and further our species out-right dominance in our ecosystem. Trump, Putin, and Netanyahu should consider a formation of an alliance. This would truly be one of the greatest alliances in history. Obama was talking about the importance of space exploration at the end of his second term, but no legislation or action. In fact he even cut NASA’s activities.

Pop culture really wants space exploration to be important and a highly discussable topic. One that would bring lots of Breaking News and news stories for the media and has made lots of major Hollywood (fictional) movies such as Transformers, Interstellar, and most famously Star Wars and Star Trek. As humans, we crave the natural sense of exploration, expanding, and conquering all through history. As a Right-Libertarian, I feel we must expand our domain and further survival to protect our liberties and make new ones in the upcoming decades. Space exploration is a must and is inevitable.


Unlike some topics the final opinion on this topic is just on basically what you believe is important. 
Both Luke and Sarah shared a view of being supportive with NASA and its potential benefits today and tomorrow. Will sees that space exploration should be put on hold and doesn't see it as something important as of now since it could be conflicting with what is happening in our world today. That there is more pressing matters to tend to before we think about space. 
Sarah leaned towards a similar view in where NASA shouldn't be the first to be funded. Other things such as education and medical research should be a top priority in nation interests rather than space exploration which should be treated as something secondary than primary. 
Luke sees a strength in space exploration and create another "space race" to promote innovation and allied ties. Explorations is a part of our nature and our society will evolve to a point where space exploration will be the norm. 


The beliefs on space exploration isn't really dependent on political leanings as other things. There are strength to space exploration and seeing the funding of NASA as a priority. Space exploration is a great field of innovation and expansion of a more evolved human civilizations. 
However we don't live in a perfect society where we provide everything to our citizens. Putting space exploration on hold is not a bad thing because taking care of more pressing nation interests is a trait of awareness for the wellbeing of citizens. The future of space exploration is bright and hopefully we innovate for a brighter tomorrow for everyone.

Friday, March 3, 2017

False Identification of Conservatives

For Years studies that have looked at differences between Liberals and Conservatives have determined the two groups through series of questions designed to determine and individual's ideology, however, a recent realization has blown this method out of the water. For years, Conservatives have been identified merely as Traditionalists, they have been identified by those who would rather a woman work in the house then do whatever she wishes, they have been identified as those who would seek to ban gay marriage, yet this Stereotypical image of a Conservative was Demolished in a recent study. As I wrote in the article "Misconceptions of Conservative Intelligence", it has become clear that many conservatives are not Traditionalists, in fact, when the Traditionalist definition was removed from the identification process, many self-identified Conservatives that had been mistakenly classified as Liberals moved over to the Conservative side because Conservatism holds more than just Traditionalists, it contains libertarians, Classical Liberals, etc... about as many groups as there are genders on Tumblr. In fact, with this Label removed, Intelligence Tests showed that more conservative Respondents actually scored higher. We now know that Conservatives are not only Traditionalists, yet countless studies only identify Traditionalists in their Conservative category.

The implications of this groundbreaking revelation are tremendous. Countless studies that have shown Liberal vs Conservative opinions on matters would have to be reconducted in order to include the millions of disparage Conservatives that are Libertarian leaning Right wingers, rather than Traditionalists. Traditionalists have historically scored lower on things such as IQ tests, Racial Tolerance, and Gender equality, to name a few, yet as the article I mentioned before showed, the Republican Party is not made up of only Traditionalists, as the Studies mentioned within the article revealed, the Republican party actually has between a 2-5 point IQ advantage over the Democrat Party, totally scuttling just about the entire consensus of the Social Scientist community. This of course is due to the fact that Social Scientists expect the Republican Party to be made up of their definition of Conservatives, yet of course, their definition is wholly insufficient in covering the entire vast diversity of types that are present within the Conservative phylum.

Granted that this premise is correct, that Studies misidentify Conservatives, which is clearly shown in studies such as ones in the Social Psychology Quarterly that showed very liberal respondents display higher average IQs, than Very Conservative Respondents, yet we know now that untacking the Traditionalist definition from Conservatives, self identified conservatives tend to score higher than liberals, Than it would be wholly logical to determine that thousands of studies have misrepresented Conservatives.

I hate the Fake news debacle because it equates bias with falseness, which clearly is not correct, however, in this case, it may be time to label many of these studies that have shown favorable and unfavorable results for conservatives as fake news. We now know that if many studies have falsely classified Conservatives, than it is imperative that studies show how they define Conservative and Liberal, in order to ascertain the reliability. Thus can we really know for certain which group shows racism more often, and which group is more sexist. The questions are dizzyingly endless, The fact is that just about every study of Conservatives and Liberals may hold falsehoods that result from false classifications. This indeed is the uncovering of one of the largest Misrepresentations that the Research Community has made, in history.

Short Sketch of the Misrepresentation common in research of Conservatives.