Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Trump Walls Transexuals From Military Service

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

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

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

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

Agree or disagree? comment below.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

A Pro-Lifers guide to demolishing Pro-abortion arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, July 24, 2017

Socialism' Popularity outpaces definition

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Embracing Political Porcupines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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