Monday, September 25, 2017

Political Chess


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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Trump's Corporate Tax Cut


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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

The Greatest Civil Rights Fight of our Day


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

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

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




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

Sources
http://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx#1
http://www.numberofabortions.com/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world-july-dec11-population1_10-27/
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Friday, September 8, 2017

Ageless Constitution


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

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

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

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

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


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

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

SJW Libertarians ought to think


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

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

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

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

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

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