To Republican Candidates...

To all of the Republican Candidates for the Presidential Nomination, I have one question for you. Who do you think you are?
From Lindsey Graham saying we need to send troops to Iraq, to Mike Huckabee saying the public has no interest in Transgender rights, you all are fairly misguided.
To say what the public wants, when the public in fact doesn't want it, like more war in Iraq, or more restrictive voting requirements, not only makes you look bad in the eyes of the people who do oppose your views, but also makes you look arogant. When people care about a policy, they do care what you say about it. Huckabee, by saying people don't care about the rights of transgender people, you're saying to young people don't have a view. A majority of young people believe strongly in equal rights for LGBT people. To recommend privatizing student loans, and cutting educational funding, you're alienating the people who rely heavily on these things, young people. By passing tighter voting requirements, you're alienating young people and minorities, the people most affected by these restrictions.
Overall, you're pushing away the demographics your party needs the most and you're doing it without batting an eye. Romney and McCain were beaten by Obama largely thanks to his high percentages from minorities and young people. Yet you still haven't learned your lesson? I hope you realize how much you're shooting yourself in the foot when you promote policy that people don't like. 

An Open Letter to Rand Paul.

Rand Paul, the young Paul. The poster boy of libertarianism. He is so libertarian, his name even resembles that of the famous libertarian writer, Ayn Rand. His isolationist policy calling for reduced defense spending, and domestic spying is far from what most other candidates are calling for, and I like it. I really do. I stand with Rand. My only issues with Rand is he doesn't like the liberal policies I hold close to my heart. Education, abortion, health care. If only Rand could somehow move a little left on these, he would have my vote, and I'd imagine many other young peoples votes.
Oh Rand. How I want to like you. Even your own party is demonizing you, and that's a good thing. Though the Republicans have the majority in Congress, this does not mean they have the majority of the country. Especially now, when Republicans are putting their feet in their mouths, and the public is not viewing them too favorably. I hope the best for Rand, and I hope to see him at least knock a few of the hawkish Republicans down a peg.

Voter Suppression

One of the least committed offenses in this country is the act of voter fraud. There has only been approximately 3 cases of voter fraud in the history of this nation. Yet recently, there has been a large push largely from Republican officials, to push for stricter voting requirements. These restriction range from cutting early voting time, to requiring photo IDs, something innocuous yet it still impacts a large portion of inner city voters. There has also been laws that make college students use their parents address as their address, by stating college boarding is temporary housing and does not count as your home address when it comes to voting. This ever more complicated a process that many college students feel rather apathetic towards in the first place.
The real problem is that the officials pushing for these restrictions have no real intention of stopping voter fraud, no one does it and who really wants to? What their concerns are, are the younger, or poorer, or even the minority populations. These laws disproportionately impact these marginalized populations, and can easily be seen as an attempt to suppress these people from voting.
If the real concern is voter fraud then the concern is deeply misplaced. The fear stirred up over the "new black panther movement", and how undocumented aliens are using other people's social security numbers to vote, is all a rouse. To believe this is in my opinion, being truly ignorant of reality.

Bernie Sanders: Hillary's Anchor

With Bernie Sanders entering into the Democratic Primary, there's a lot of talk about how he won't make it through the primary. That's kind of the point. He's a self declared socialist, and I would agree, plus he has openly declared he will not accept funding from big money for his campaign. This is a breath of fresh air in the toxic, money filled world of Washington. His liberal ideology will also be critical in pulling Hillary away from the center, to a brand of liberalism needed in the 21st century.
Since Bill Clinton the Democratic Party has arguably lost its flame, running on being less crazy then their far right opponents. What the Democrats need is a solid platform that will really excite the base. Bernie Sanders might just be able to help solidify the Democrats in a more modern position that will get millenials and minorities excited to vote not just having them half heartedly choose to vote because its better than the republicans.
I really hope to see a few exciting debates between Bernie and Hillary, and I really hope to see a more Liberal Hillary coming out of the primary.

An Argument for Gun Control

Throughout the world, America is seen as a country full of crazy gun nuts. This is deeply saddening as a person who is disgusted by the lax gun laws, and loathes the very existence of the NRA. Now, I respect the 2nd amendment, just as any other person who enjoys constitutional law, but the American obsession with guns has reached a point of extreme overkill to the point where people won't leave their house without their gun, and people are armed at a level comparable to a U.S. Infantryman.
The Founders had no clue the eventual mass advancement in Weapons Technology, to the point where tens to hundred can be slaughtered in less time than the duration of reloading a musket (which can take some time). People complain about the governments attempts to ban assault rifles, claiming it a breach in the 2nd amendment. Yet we cannot own a grenade launcher, suppressed weapon, or automatic weapons, even though the 2nd amendment calls for a well regulated militia. This is because we were sensible about what the typical person should be allowed to own. You can't own a fighter jet, even though the 2nd amendment calls for a well regulated militia because a. This is insensible, and b. There is no need for a public, well regulated militia anymore, especially not with that kind of power in the hands of gun loving nuts.
Today, there is not real need for people to be armed for warfare. Thanks to police, homeland security, FBI, CIA, and the national guard, there is little fear for national or local security outside of criminals. Other people who own guns. Still, a handgun can kill from quite a distance and fires 12-15 rounds semi-automatic. This should be sufficient enough for self-defense, and if not then I believe you really shouldn't be able to own a gun because you can't even handle the simple task of properly aiming and shooting a god damn handgun.
Overall, mass shooting have become more common, guns laws are becoming looser, people in other countries think we sell guns in vending machines. This is just shameful. I hate living in a country labelled a warmongering, gun obsessed, selfish menace to world peace. People who say these things aren't wrong either, and I hope others are just as disgusted by this fact as I am.

Enough is Enough: A Call for Peace & Justice

The travesty of the riots in Baltimore is a great example of how not to protest. The most successful protests in history involved nonviolence, as well as great perseverance, from Martin Luther King's bus boycott or march on Selma, to Ghandi's hunger strikes, all were nonviolent. The media attention on catastrophe and sensationalism is atrocious, and extremely shameful. They focus on the cities when they're burning, but forget once its done. The homeless, and impoverished all deal with the inequality everyday, while the media acts as though the only thing that occurs within the city is riots from police violence. Enough is seriously enough. To ignore the real problems in these neighborhoods is to deny the fact that these protests and riots have salient meaning outside of another black person dead.
These neighborhoods are susceptible to this violence because of terrible conditions people face everyday. This is what needs to be stopped. The peaceful protests are trying to raise this awareness, to let people know that there is a real reason behind all that is going on in cities like Cleveland, Ferguson, New York, and Baltimore. There is habitual police brutality bordering on what one would imagine seeing in oppresive communism regimes. Beyond the police violence, gang violence strikes deep into the core of inner city life. There are more inner city kids per capita who have PTSD than soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a huge problem, these kids suffering from PTSD tend to lack proper learning skills, and cannot focus in school. This causes students to leave school, as the graduation rates are on average below 50%. This epidemic is by far the leading cause of increased gang violence. In response the police work more by abusing the offenders, while ignoring the possible victims of this terrible epidemic.
What needs to be done is determined by the community, as each affected area has its own individual problem that needs to be handled by the people who live there. There also needs to be that awareness raised about the troubles of the inner city. All of this, along with cooperation by the local police departments maybe a change can happen. Unfortunately, I fear that our nation will soon forget the tragedy, and move on to the next sensationalized news story, while cities rot from the core.

Go Hillary!

Finally, on Sunday Hillary Clinton finally officially announce she would be running for the office of President again. Now, it's time for liberals to begin to freak out. Not because she's a bad candidate, but because she needs the competition. Nothing refines your views more than a good old debate with someone who is a part of the same party as you. This is what I believed helped Obama during the 2008 Election. He had his views, but debating with people who weren't just right wing Bible thumpers helped refine what he really believed needed to be done, and Hillary needs the same.

As long as she makes it through the primaries, then she should really have no problems. The Republican field is full of a bunch of far right almost libertarian, or evangelic candidates. Jeb Bush is probably the most moderate out of all of the potentials, and I don't want another Bush in the White House, the ones out front are plenty enough. Her real problem is going to be the Fox News Regulars. The people who believe she plotted Benghazi, the ones who believe (Still) that Obama is a Communist Kenyan who is trying to take away everyone's guns to instill Islamic Sharia Law on America. Like come on, is there any reasoning with these people? Hillary probably won't need to worry about them though, because they aren't the moderate voters. That is who she needs, and the way Republicans are looking, the Moderate voters might just be out of the question for them.

Overall, the biggest fight will be over the minorities, which I'm calling for Hillary already, because of the Republican goofs on Immigration, and the handling of Ferguson, and situations alike.

If Hillary wins the primary for the Democrats, which she most likely will, I'm saying she is going to win with close to, but not over 300 electoral votes. Probably closer to 290.

So, I wish Hillary the best of luck. Let me know who you want to see run if you aren't a fan of Hillary.

Socialist Libertarianism

The old saying is, "The Government that governs best, is the one which governs least." Some take this as advocacy for Fiscal Conservatism. I see it as a call for Social Libertarianism. This quote was written by Henry David Thoreau is his Civil Disobedience where he complains about the oppressive nature of modern society, and the Governments interference within all aspects of life.
What this says to me is that government is here strictly to keep the country up and running. To keep the economy in check, make sure the nation is stable, and jobs are growing. The job of the government is not to set the moral values of the people, or try to sway their religious beliefs.

This only makes sense, the founding fathers advocated for loose restrictions on Civil Liberties, hence why they wrote the Bill of Rights, to protect those liberties. Instead, they focused more on the economy, and making sure that the country was able to thrive and prosper/ They funded schools, taxed the wealthy, and promoted their form of equality of opportunity.
From the conception of our nation until about the 1920's the federal government had never stepped into the field of playing with Civil Liberties. With the exception of the Alien and Sedition Act during the War of 1812, or Abraham Lincoln suspending Habius Corpus during the Civil War, but both of these could be justified since they were during war times. Still, in the 1920's the Federal Government prohibited the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
This was quickly removed and the nation returned back to normal. The precedent of not messing with civil liberties was official broken though. After the New Deal, which ensured millions of Americans returned to work during the Great Depression, the government realized it could help out the people itself. FDR signed in Social Security, Lyndon Johnson brought in The Great Society, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Then from their the Government took off with social policy, total prohibition of marijuana, Defense of Marriage Act 1996, Restrictions on Abortion, bans on Gay Marriage, all of these the government tried to step in and limit the liberties of the people. Since Lyndon Johnson, the only bills that impact equality of opportunity in a positive way were the No Child Left Behind, and The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Basically, since the 1960's the only progress we've made is that the religious right can step in and try to instill their moral and ethical values onto America.
The power of government lies not in a control of its people, it is to allow its people to live, be free to think, choose, grow and learn. The only true duty of government is to keep the country strong and prosperous. To give its people the resources needed to succeed. Free schooling, and universal healthcare, are two of the best examples. European Nations that adopted these policies has seen a dramatic rise in quality of life, and better life expectancy. Yet we lag behind here in America. Socialism is used as a dirty word, people are convinced our president is a Communist, but they don't even know what a proper liberal actually is. The real problem with America is we want hands off economics, hands off social policy, small government, and low taxes. Well we had that, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it failed horribly.
Socialism, with open civil liberties is what government should really be promoting. This gives people the ability to do what they want and be free, while also having the opportunity to get educated, and become something regardless of if you are the lowest 20%, or the top 1%.
In closing, to anyone who talks down on Socialism, go to a Socialist country and ask people there what they think of it, because the American Politicians who talk bad about it have no clue what real Socialism is and are blatantly misinforming the public about the ideology.
Thank you for reading, feel free to discuss the ideas outlined in this essay.

Climate Change is Real

There has been a rising following of Climate Change Deniers, even within Congress. These people claim that they know that global warming isn't happening because they can find 10 year intervals in the Average Temp graph above that shows temps going down. They claim, even if there is something with CO2 then it's not humans, because we are so great, and anyone who says we aren't are evil, and hate America. They argue with Climate Scientists, and others with actual formal higher education in the field of Meteorology, or something related to that, and still people want to argue with them. There was even a Senator that claimed he would not read the Scientific Literature on Climate Change because, why would he trust the people who get paid to publish papers on climate change. He seriously said that. That's like saying, why should I trust a Doctors, they get paid as long as I'm sick, or Why trust a mechanic, he'll get paid every time he fixes your car.
   Still, I give the Climate Change Deniers credit, it takes and extra stupid person to believe that they know better than nearly 97% of all scientists. Don't believe me? Google "Climate Change" and don't go on any official science organizations website, only the blogs, and weird shady websites, and I can guarantee they will be sitting here saying how these scientists who has studied their field for years, and have dedicated even more years to research are wrong, and how he's right because Glenn Beck told him. This is ridiculous, and needs to stop. Science is not something you can argue if you don't even understand facts, and facts are one of the few things that the GOP and other far-right groups hate more than gays. I still encourage everyone to go out and do some personal research on the topic before jumping onto any bandwagon.

Campaign Financing

     A while ago, I had published a post on The Supreme Court Ruling that limits on Campaign Donations was Unconstitutional. Since that time, we had the 2014 midterm elections. In this midterm, incumbent Democrats like Sherrod Brown in Ohio faced enormous waves of spending by Right Wing PACs, and Organizations, like the Koch Brothers and sometimes even international donors. What happened was, not only did Republicans gain seats in the already Republican Majority House of Representatives, but they also gained the majority in the Senate. Luckily Senator Sherrod Brown was able to keep his seat, but many of his Democratic colleagues did not.
    The impact of unlimited Campaign Donations is that the Republican party is inherently more backed by large Corporations,  mostly because they do help the big businesses a lot, and it's pretty hard to deny that. In the 2014 midterm election, 7 out of the 10 biggest Campaign financiers around the country were large Right Wing Non-profits, that are funded by big businesses. The other 3 were unions, like the National Educators Association, and they obviously backed the pro-union Democrats. It definitely makes it an uphill battle for Democrats, but even though there was a huge loss by the Democrats in the midterm, they have historically bounced back during Presidential Election years. 2016 will be the best way to judge how much of an impact unlimited Campaign Financing really has.

Ted Cruz: The Worst Choice for America

The other day, Senator Ted Cruz decided to declare his position for running for president. Since this, I have talked to many Republicans about what they think about Sen. Cruz. Many say he is not their guy, a promising sight that even the people who liberals have labeled as the crazies of today, are not supporting one of the most vocal Tea Party members. Yet, there are still Republicans who love Ted Cruz. They eat up every word from his mouth, and love his elegant deep seeded patriotism that you can only get from being born in Alberta Canada to a father who fought with Castro's Communist revolutionaries. Now, this may not be the defining factors of his character, but is somewhat troubling, leading to other candidates like Trump to question his legitimacy to hold the office of the Presidency.
Cruz is also a habitual liar and phone, often pushing for one issue but arguing for the other side, or just flipping on an issue at a moments notice. For example, during the debate on net neutrality, Sen. Cruz took the stance on keeping the internet open to innovation and free for all. This is particularly strange, since he was arguing AGAINST net neutrality. He claimed that net neutrality was "Obamacare for the internet." and stated how it would put piles of regulations on internet usage. The exact opposite of what net neutrality was pushing for. The man openly fought against net neutrality,by standing for the position net neutrality is taking.
Beyond that, this is the man who threw a temper tantrum, and shut down the government because he didn't get his way. What will he do as president when Congress votes for a bill he doesn't like? Is he going to shutdown Congress? Close the doors to the Capitol Building because he doesn't like what they are voting on? To say that Ted Cruz is better than Obama, is like saying the Koch Brothers know more about climate science then NASA. Oh wait, that's the exact position Cruz himself pushes as chairman of the Senate committee of Science.
Look, I'm not saying Cruz is bad. All I'm saying is if Ted Cruz has a shot at the presidency, then Americans really have no idea what they are doing when it comes to government, and need to go back to high school, which is falling apart thanks to a cut in funding from Ted Cruz and GOP like him. I guess he's better than Trump though.