The Rooney Rule: The NFL's Spin On Affirmative Action

The Rooney Rule dictates that an NFL franchise owner must interview a candidate of “color,” as part of their process for selecting a new head coach or general manager.  There is no such similar requirement, or burden to be met, outside of that sphere.  This step in the process is subject to review, by the League, and the League can fine teams who are found to have “not satisfied” the rule.  The proponents of this rule claim it is necessary, in order to allow certain individuals opportunities to receive consideration, who otherwise wouldn’t garner a look.  The accusation levied on the NFL owners, is that they are a "good ole boys’" club, actively seeking to keep minorities out of the exclusively white coaching fraternity.  What is really going on here, and what should be done?

The Rooney Rule exists solely due to the leftist idea that there MUST be racism causing blacks to be underrepresented in a certain profession, wherever there is a statistical disparity.  As we all know, statistical disparities do not automatically mean discrimination is taking place.  First of all, there are a plethora of reasons individuals may not be hired.  Coaching style, offensive schemes, defensive schemes, experience, community involvement, record, requested salary, and several other areas all go into consideration, when an owner is choosing the best candidate for their needs.  It shouldn’t matter what color their skin is, as long as the owner is not basing their decision off of a coach’s racial makeup.  Second, the Rooney rule doesn’t even guarantee results.  The intent of the rule is to give non-white individuals an opportunity, they may not get otherwise, as I stated earlier.  There has been no evidence presented, alleging the Rooney rule is responsible for a single minority coach or GM being hired.  Those who have been hired, were probably hired because they were QUALIFIED.  If the only goal of the sporting community’s left is to create meaningless interviews, then they have achieved tremendous success.  If not, then it is just that.  A giant waste of time, a mere formality, and another example of the left flexing their perceived moral superiority.  You see, they do not need to be responsible for any black candidates receiving head coaching or general manager positions… They believe they are successful, because they are major league virtue signaling.  The leftist feels good, because they are forcing their brand of “equality.”  Equality of outcome.  If the outcome isn’t equal, they’ve still won, because their intent was in the right place. 

Okay.  The leftist tentacles reaching into the sporting world have been successfully outed, so what’s next?  Is there a problem consisting of an all-white fraternity of NFL elites, shattering the hopes of scores of qualified black candidates?  There has been zero evidence of this, to date.  The fact is that many teams employ several black coaches, as well as black players, for that matter.  However, there is no such rule, forcing owners to consider minority players or assistant coaches.  Shocking.  You don’t hear stories of minority interviewees coming away from a situation “knowing” that they lost their job to a white coach, due to racism.  You don’t see exposés written about whistleblowers blowing the lid off an NFL franchise owner’s racist hiring process.  Not at all.  Is it possible that these owners are actually summing up human beings based on the content of their character, the skills they possess, and their overall experience?  Absolutely. 

The right move, here, is to install freedom into the process.  Regulations are almost always overarching and stifling.  Not to mention, ineffective, according to their originally intended purpose.  Remove the Rooney rule, and give individuals the opportunity to be decent human beings.  Stop driving home the idea that there is a vast shadow-world, actively seeking to undermine the opportunities for certain groups of people.  There is a societal impact, which is a direct result of this accusation.  People believe it is happening, simply because they are told it is happening.  This actually causes members of different backgrounds to be more skeptical of one another, and less trusting, for no reason.  The NFL’s Rooney rule is unnecessary and discriminatory, and simply needs to end.  On a broader level, the left needs to wake up and realize they live in 2018, and opportunity has never been more equal.  Their existence relies on Americans believing their neighbors are vile, racist, misogynist pigs, whose only hope is for the all-knowing/ever benevolent federal government to forcefully guide individuals to “do the right thing.”  Get out of sports, before you ruin them for the rest of us.

Net Neutrality: Who Do You Trust?

In 2015, the Obama administration ushered in a new spin on an old game.  Net neutrality was sold as the government protecting the "little guy" against being priced out, slowed down, or censored by evil corporate internet service providers.  This idea is a common theme espoused from the lips of anti-capitalist lefties, who favor big government solutions.  They argue that corporate greed will inevitably lead to soaring prices and limited access.  Those of us who don't have red-stained lips, from fresh Kool Aid, know that privately owned businesses don't grow by alienating their customers.  So who do you believe?

The problem with the uber-greedy corporation indictment is, as I stated earlier, that successful companies don't "stick it to" their customers.  No company builds a business model around pricing out the general public.  Also, absent from sound business planning, would be deteriorating levels of service.  If companies began to throttle down their internet access or speeds, customers would abandon ship immediately, which would spell bankruptcy for such organizations.  Money is made through innovation, efficiency, and competitive pricing.  Regulating speech and censoring opinions would also cause net losses, which no company is in the business of suffering.  

Over the past two years, under the "protective" watch of big government, there has been plenty of censorship.  There were stories coming out about certain leading search engine providing companies, who were deliberately creating algorithms, for the purpose of filtering out certain political ideology.  Social media sites were suspending accounts of those who were "too conservative," citing conveniently skewed definitions of threatening or hateful speech.  Regulation?  The fact is, government regulations often allow big corporations to operate free of much competition, due to the simple fact that they can afford to pay burdensome regulatory fees most smaller businesses cannot.  This also causes a stifling effect on change, innovation, and growth of technology.  A perfect example of this fact is the massive uphill battle the up-and-coming autonomous vehicle industry is facing.  Every time a research and development company wants to test new technology on a public road, they have to humble themselves before Their Majesty, the government, and ask for their permission.  Most exciting new technology trickles out of a nastily clogged old spigot, strained through the muck of governmental regulatory red tape.

So, we are faced with two choices: The "security" of perpetual mediocrity provided by the benevolent government, or the fantastic volatility of the unknown, otherwise known as the "free market."  A truly free market does not have a force guaranteeing individuals will not get taken advantage of.  However, as individuals are taken advantage of, companies who treat people better will emerge.  The power of the consumer essentially drives where markets roam.  Government aims to make everything fair and equal.  Whether they actually want to do that is debatable.  What isn't debatable is the fact that government control inevitably comes with a heavy price.  Regulations will begin to constrict any service or institution taken over by the government.  Politics drives regulatory and policy change, like the waves of the sea.  Stability under government control is a myth.  What is consistent, is the relationship between the consumer and the providers of goods and services.  Where there is a need, there is someone to meet it.  The more individuals need something, the more companies are built to respond to that demand.  The more competition exists, prices decrease, while quality increases.  If we have learned anything about the government in our lifetimes, it should be that the members making up that body are just as flawed (if not, more flawed) as the rest of us.  The individuals making up corporate ownership and leadership are human beings, and guess what?  So are the members of the government.  However, for some reason, government tends to handle situations with a level of incompetence that has no equal in the private sector.  Why people continue to allow themselves to be led down the path of lies, paved by politicians making promises that the government is looking out for your freedom, astounds me.  That is why I continue to do this.  I do not want people to forget that freedom from government cannot happen, when we vote to give power to the government.  Net neutrality was and is exactly that.  It is an attempt, by the government, to control another ever-increasingly vital piece of our lives.  All under the guise of "protecting" us from another controlling interest.  Do not fall for it.

Climate Change: How the Left Sets the Terms for This Argument

The debate over climate change, as with seemingly every other debate, has had its terms set by none other than the Democrat party.  A common theme, which is rarely discussed, and similarly seldom challenged.  I started writing an article pointing out the specific differences between the left and the right, regarding climate change, when I stumbled across the most eye-opening fact.  The left has successfully constructed the argument for both sides.

How does a debate usually unfold, between opposing sides, when discussing climate change?  It tends to go something like this:

(For the sake of “equality”, I will give equally satirical names to each subject involved in this example)

Climate Justice WarriorWhere do you stand on climate change?

Climate Denial SpecialistThe Paris Climate Accord is global redistribution of wealth, at its finest.

CJW Oh okay, so you’re one of those, who doesn't believe in science, huh?

CDS First of all, I do “believe” in provable science…

CJWThen what’s your problem?  Over 90% of scientists agree that we are causing significant change to the climate, via our carbon emissions. 

CDS That “90%” statistic has been debunked.  Scientists on both sides have presented evidence and counter-evidence.  Most of the doomsday scenario-type information being pushed, is coming from forecasting, rather than historical fact.

CJW Everybody knows the climate is heating up, just look at the series of tropical storms over the last couple of months.  CNN had a member of Congress the other day, talking about how our warming oceans fed into the strength of the storms.  How can you deny that?  How can you ignore the devastation those storms caused, unless you are completely heartless?

I could continue to draw out this conversation, but I believe I’ve made my point.  The left successfully frames the argument in such a way, that one side is the “compassionate” side, and the other is simply devoid of compassion.  This is brilliant, because the “compassionate” side does not actually have to be right!  This turns the discussion into a “caring” versus “non-caring” argument.  You “care” if you side with the left, and you don’t care if you take any position other than theirs.  There is simply no room for skepticism over the “science,” which has been suspect at times.  We cannot get by with the idea that there are other ways of dealing with problems, outside of shackling individuals with regulation. 

This is where conservatives need to fight back, and stay on point.  There has not been much debate over whether climate change is real or not.  It is being talked about, but true debate is not taking place.  The left laughs at the right, claiming we are all science-hating Neanderthals.  Take the time to openly discuss the issue with a lot of intellectually honest conservatives, and you will find a much more robust conversation.

Looking at all of the historical data, current numbers, and the forecasting models, there is little doubt in my mind that humans are affecting the environment.  The certainty of how much, is much more difficult to discern.  With the idea that we are doing “something” to the climate, I believe that it is in our best interest to do “something” about it.  Does that sound like a position totally lacking compassion?  I don’t really care if it does, but I personally believe there is some there.  What do we do about it?  Here is where conservatives can throttle the left.

The left believes entering into worldwide overarching regulatory agreements, with absolutely zero binding terms, will pull earth out of its nosedive toward climate-induced apocalypse.  Furthermore, they believe any attempts to move in any other direction is “against” humanity itself.  And we (conservatives) are the crazy ones?  They believe that America should “lead” by significantly reducing our carbon emissions, which will hurt our economy, but will show the world how serious we are about “fixing” the earth.  This allegedly will lead to other countries lining up to do the same… Once they have successfully “caught up” to where the U.S. is economically.  After all, it isn’t fair that the U.S. rode the wave of unregulated carbon emissions to greatness, and then shuts off the rest of the world’s ability to do the same.  Then we can regulate the world’s energy consumption together, forever!  Soon after we will all gather, at the exact same time, join hands, light culturally neutral incense, and sing Kumbaya.

The conservative response should be a stern rebuke of the unrealistic pipe dream of the left.  The fact is we do not know exactly how much we are affecting the earth’s climate, what (if anything) we can do to fix it, or how the climate will react going forward.  We have hypotheses galore, but no concrete sureties.  However, we should not sit around, and do nothing.  We should let the innovators innovate, the inventors invent, and let the power of the free market open the door to cleaner energy, as well as increase the efficiency of the machines which use various forms of energy.  The government should not be stepping in, and demanding that individuals and businesses consume the way it sees fit.  If the scientific community cannot agree on the science, then the government is at least a light-year away from being able to discern the most efficient way to handle the situation.  The only thing the government is good for is ramming a single-minded approach down its citizens’ throats, at a much higher premium than a similar private-sector entity would.  As for the rest of the world; who are we to decide how our competitors consume energy?   

The bottom line is there is a fundamental divide between the right and the left, in regards to climate change.  It is the age old fight between forcing change via government mandate, and allowing citizens to make their own decisions, for better or worse.  There is much less disagreement over the existence of climate change, in general.  Conservatives can maintain skepticism over the degree of man-made climate change, while taking a hard stance on what a free society should do to change it.  If people really want to move toward cleaner, more efficient energy consumption, freedom will ensure the most efficient and consumer-friendly path toward that goal.  By the way, that is not the non-compassionate way to look at the situation.  That is the traditional American way to handle this issue. 

Hollywood Continues to Show its True Colors

The left has owned today’s modern feminist movement, featuring female sex-organ hats and “Nasty Woman” t-shirts, but they are finally taking it on the chin for looking the other way for decades.  The Harvey Weinstein issue has brought to light Hollywood’s long standing culture of disgusting quid pro quo-style sexual exploitation, often of young women.  I do not bring this up merely to point out their blatant hypocrisy, but to also call attention to their clear and abundant lack of morals.  What ever happened to their moral superiority?  It has been flushed down the drain, by a Hollywood elite sexual deviant, and the long parade of powerful individuals who have enabled him through the years. 

Several actors have been connected to Mr. Weinstein, and subsequently called out for having knowledge of his misdeeds, while young women were being sexually assaulted over the years.  Gwyneth Paltrow was sexually harassed by Weinstein, at age 22, while she was in a relationship with Brad Pitt.  She is now 45 years old, meaning she and Brad have kept this quiet for 23 years.  Ben Affleck reportedly was told by actress Rose McGowan that Weinstein had sexually assaulted her, and Affleck responded, “I told him to stop doing that.”  Rose McGowan was paid $100,000 in 1997, by Weinstein, after what’s being reported as an “episode” happened between the two, in a hotel room.  Angelina Jolie has since come forward alleging misconduct, as have several others.  The point being that these prominent Hollywood figures have gotten rich off of the lewd and utterly repulsive “pay for play”-style culture, which is reportedly rampant in that industry, and none of them had the guts to come forward until it was 100% safe… for their careers.  Bravery at its finest.

Who else knew about this, or should have known?  Why none other than the left’s Political Elite Headmistress, herself, Hillary Clinton.  The ol’ crusader against any woman who would dare bring a claim of sexual assault against her husband, no matter how tall the mountain of evidence.  She calls herself a “champion” for women, but she knew nothing about the predator her family’s foundation (Clinton Global [money-laundering] Initiative) was accepting donations from, to the tune of $250,000?  Really?  There are also reports claiming he donated $35,000 to Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign.  I don’t believe for one second, that she didn’t know he was sexual deviant.  It was a running joke in Hollywood.  The elites acted as they will always act:  They believe they are untouchable. 

The elites believe they are above the enlightened morality they push down to us “ordinary” citizens.  These are the exact same people who bludgeon “climate-deniers” over the head, simply because we don’t buy into their climate change policies, as they are leaving behind yearly carbon footprints most people will not come close to equaling, over the course of ten years.  These are the “almighty” anointed ones, who graciously ingrain the idea of universal, government controlled healthcare, while they jet off to the most expensive private medical practitioners in the world.  Just as they have, in those cases, the elites in Hollywood have run roughshod over the industry, with reckless abandon.  They have been checked by no one.  Only when it appears that one of these giants is washed up, do the cloaks open up, and the daggers drawn.  These are your courageous bastions of women’s rights, who are willing to go after any Republican accused of foul play, and hide behind their selective moral outrage.

The left doesn’t care about anyone but itself.  Its self-interests are paramount, and everything else pales in comparison.  The left puffs itself up as being the sole voice, amongst the evil oppressors on the right, standing up for every injustice done against a class of victims.  However, their hypocrisy is revealed every time a scandal rises, and drags down their pillars of worldly wisdom.  They should not be let off the hook.  The right needs to explain who they are, while their mask has been momentarily pulled off, so that they cannot climb back atop their high-horse, and rain down on those of us who favor the moral decency God has outlined for us.  Bring back the era of strong men standing up for, and protecting the virtue of, strong women.  The left wants no part in a world featuring that as the dominant culture.  After all, the left needs victimhood to provide them with victims to exploit!

Guns: Politicization, Violence, and a Humble Young Man's Suggestion

The events which took place Sunday night will weigh heavily upon the hearts of Americans for years to come, as have the events of prior senseless acts of horrifying violence.  When these terrible events happen, the country largely unifies against the act of violence.  We are all in agreement that violence, in this case murder, is unacceptable and should be punished.  Prayers are being offered, to help and support those who are affected.  Outpourings of sorrow, condolences, and mourning trend all over the internet.  Even anger is expressed, which is understandable, but often leads to some divisive decision making, using "heat-of-the-moment" emotional "reason." 

Voices coming from the morally-superior left never fail to almost immediately fire up the anti-gun rhetoric.  Hillary Clinton, in the morning hours, while the loss of human life was still being assessed, tweeted this:

     "The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.  Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get."  -Twitter post from @HillaryClinton, 7:03am 10/2/17.

Wow.  Let's dissect the argument behind this ignorant comment.  First of all, there was no silencer involved.  There are several hypothetical additions which can be piled onto this story to theoretically make it worse, but Hillary chose one she could link directly to the NRA.  What if the shooter had partners helping him?  What if he had hidden bombs around the concert area, so that those fleeing the scene would be killed by explosions?  Either of those scenarios, and many others, would have made the situation worse.  Hillary decided to stretch, using faulty misinformed speculation, to conjure up an indictment against the NRA.  She is making this statement, so that individuals will link this heartbreaking emotion, caused by this tragedy, to a gun control issue, which had nothing to do with this incident.  The ultimate goal being to sway public opinion away from matters of fact, and dilute the debate with blind emotion. 

Hillary may not realize this, but she also unfairly and disgustingly linked the NRA to this crime, as well.  It would be equally evil to mention an alcoholic beverage company, who may lobby for less stringent regulation, immediately following a fatal drunk driving accident.  This is incredibly irresponsible, and potentially dangerous.  There is no evidence that the NRA supports, encourages, or has any active responsible role tying them to mass shootings.  The NRA, just like any other business or organization, seeks to promote their products' lawful use.  Where they see law as overbearing, they politic in favor of rolling back regulations.  Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, nor does this make them responsible for what evil human beings decide to do with their products. 

Evil human beings actually are responsible for the murders they commit.  The guns aren't responsible.  The murderer does not murder, because they have a gun, rather they murder because they wish to murder!  If a person wants another person (or persons) dead, why would convenience, or lack thereof, stop them?  To believe that simply regulating certain guns or taking guns off of the street in general will quell violence, is extremely ignorant.  The real question is this:  What is the person's ultimate goal?  If we are talking about someone who yearns to shoot a person, then it is reasonable to suspect that absent a gun, they will not shoot anyone.  However, when we are talking about individuals who have the urge to end the life of another, it is conceivable to reason that simply removing one method of killing, is not likely to stop the murder attempt.  The human being is the perpetrator.  The human being kills, with whatever is available to them, by any means necessary. 

My Suggestion                                                                                                                                    

All of this is leading toward a more important, and constructive conversation, I believe.  This is the conversation of: What in the world is leading to all of these atrocities?  Usually there is a clear motive, which is eventually revealed.  The person was motivated by hatred, guilt, loneliness, self-loathing, depression, anger, mental illness, payback, etc.  Remove the motivating factor, and the murderous flame is drowned out.  Parents: Pay attention to your children, even into adulthood.  Brothers, sisters, cousins, and other close relatives: Keep in contact with each other, and take a legitimate interest in the lives of one another.  Teachers: Pay attention to your students, and be on the lookout for warning signs.  Employers and co-workers: Get to know your fellow employees, offer them your undivided attention from time to time, and point them in the direction of help, if need be.  We should be working together within our communities, taking an active interest in one another, promoting emotional wellness.  We should not seek to be blind to one another's cries for help.  I think if we all invest a small portion of our lives to the betterment of those around us, in love and humility, we can go a long way toward seeing a significant reduction in the number of these mass shooting tragedies. 

Deportation Snatched From the Jaws of Sanctuary

Sanctuary cities across the United States were raided, throughout this week, and officials stated Thursday that they rounded up 498 illegal immigrants.  The raid was referred to as "Operation 'Safe City'," and took place over four days, in many of the cities most staunchly opposed to abiding by immigration law.  Los Angeles yielded 101 arrests, while 45 were hauled off in New York City, to highlight a couple. 

Now, were these the upstanding, freedom-loving, quality sort of individuals the left claims the Republican Party is chomping at the bit to throw out?  Absolutely not.  According to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) report, individuals were targeted if they: had criminal convictions, had pending criminal charges, were affiliated with a gang, or if they were immigration fugitives or re-entered after a previous deportation.  Individuals who would have qualified for Obama's unconstitutional DACA program were not targeted.  ICE's acting director rightly chastised the leaders of these sanctuary cities stating, "Sanctuary jurisdictions that do not honor detainers or allow us access to jails and prisons are shielding criminal aliens from immigration enforcement and creating a magnet for illegal immigration.  As a result, ICE is forced to dedicate more resources to conduct at-large arrests in these communities."

Every time there is a debate about adhering to the current law, which mandates the government remove those who are here illegally, the left immediately runs to their corner.  They claim those who would uphold the law, do so because they are evil, lacking compassion, and even racist.  There is no acknowledgement whatsoever, as far as the left sees it, that their position stands directly opposed to current law.  Ask them about it, and they will most certainly deflect.  They will jump directly to the "tearing families apart" argument, or "you are denying these individuals' right to seek a better life."  Something to that effect will be said, and it is designed to steer the argument away from objective facts, and into the realm of completely subjective "feelings."  A common tactic ripped from page one of the Leftist Playbook. 

The bottom line here is that the law was upheld.  Since Donald Trump's election, we've been bombarded by leftist city leaders, espousing rhetoric about how inhumane conservatives are for supporting the deportation of illegal aliens.  They fancied themselves righteous protectors of innocence, without realizing that a majority of the American public sees them as elitists attempting to add to their own voting base.  Sanctuary for illegals doesn't actually exist, while we have a president willing to allow his federal agencies to do their jobs, and sweep through to deport them.  The only result from this ridiculous posturing is that these leftists' true colors are revealed, and unnecessary resources must be expended, while the Democrat party works so hard in opposition to the law. 

DACA, The Law, and a "How-To" for Growing Republican Spines

DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.  What does it mean?  The executive order, ushered in by President Obama, granted legal status to children brought illegally to the U.S. by their parents, who themselves were illegal.  The left cleverly named this group of illegal aliens "dreamers," which served to shift the playing field further into the Democrats' favor.  A common tactic executed brilliantly by the Democrat Party, in order to stir people to make decisions based on "in-the-moment" emotions, as opposed to patient, logical consideration of facts and laws.  Healthcare, welfare, education, immigration, and many other serious issues have been framed by the left, and what has happened recently regarding DACA is indisputable proof of that very fact.  What happens when Conservatives allow the opposition to set the terms in a battle of competing ideology?    

President Trump rescinded DACA two weeks ago, and the left unsurprisingly lost their minds.  The mainstream media joined in on the collective outrage, calling Trump and Republicans evil and bigoted for choosing to follow the law.  President Obama knew exactly what he was doing, when he rammed DACA down the throats of the American people, back in June of 2012.  He was effectively framing the argument, setting the stage for an eventual debate, which is playing out exactly as he planned. 

When the subject of DACA is brought up and debated, the conversation tends to begin in left field.  What is the charming name this illegal group of people are famously known by?  DREAMERS.  Yep.  The facts are stripped away from the start.  They are identified solely as a group of young people, who only dream of making a better life for themselves... end of story.  How can we deport these youngsters from the only home they've ever known?  How can we turn this group away, when they were basically brought here against their will?  Christians!  Should we punish these children for the sins of their parents?  Give me a break.

As I said earlier, the Democrats play this game for keeps, and they play smart.  If Republicans throw DACA out, and deport these 800,000 young people, they risk being seen as heartless.  If they cave and grant amnesty for them, they will lose support from Conservatives, without receiving any actual credit for their sacrifice.  Democrats will just say they were only slightly advancing the ball, after the real work was done by Obama.  Republicans gain nothing, eventually this group obtains voting rights, and they are most assuredly added to the Democrat base.  The next obvious step is to reconcile their parents' legal status.  Since their children would be considered legal, their parents would have a case to plead, based on Constitutional interest in granting legal status for family members.  More future Democrats.  Then the next flood of illegals come, causing the same dilemma, except now the precedent has been set.  Amnesty for all.

You see, the left does not have any interest in engaging in truly fact-based debate.  If we pay attention to the facts, we quickly notice that Barack Obama's executive order was unconstitutional.  The President does not have the right to grant legal status to whomever he chooses.  Congress ultimately has the right to change laws, including those concerning immigration.  These children were brought to this country illegally, by illegal aliens.  They should have been turned away immediately, as with any person who enters this country unlawfully.  Where does compassion fit?  My compassion lies with my fellow American citizens.  My compassion extends to Americans who are truly in need of assistance.  I am interested in helping Americans find and hold down jobs.  Our military has fought to defend the rights of citizens of the United States. 

Republican Party: Tired of losing?  Stop lying down and allowing yourself to be the left's doormat.  Steer America's ship of public opinion back toward the right, and quit compromising your principles.  Analyze every situation using facts, law, and morally sound judgment, present this articulate analysis to the public, and you will destroy the left's paper thin emotional arguments.  Expose these policies for the farce they are, and force the Democrats to explain exactly how their garbage is supposed to help America become more exceptional.  Do this and you will find you will be "tired of winning" as Donald Trump so eloquently put it, during his campaign.

The answer to the question I posed at the end of the first paragraph?  President Trump already threw the amnesty "ball" to Congress' "court."  He has suspended any action regarding the legal status of those who were formerly protected under DACA, and told Congress he expects them to basically pass a law, which would grant amnesty to those 800,000.  It looks like Republicans have definitely lost this one.  They will continue to lose, if they don't learn how to effectively counter the Democrats' tactics.  This involves first growing a spine, Republican Congressmen and women, and if you have anything left in the tank... maybe... stand on principle. 



UC Berkeley's Opportunity to Defend Free Speech is Dwindling

Ben Shapiro is set to speak at UC Berkeley’s Zellerbach Hall, on September 14th.  This will effectively grant the mighty leftist haven another opportunity to redeem themselves, and prove they value free speech, by protecting the rights of those with whom they disagree.  Conservatives aren’t going to be holding their breath, but eyes will be on the school and its administrators, who continue to claim they believe in everyone’s right to free speech.  AntiFa has been running rampant through the Bay Area, shutting down seemingly every non-left event, in the name of battling fascism… by using fascist tactics, no less.  The stage is set, AntiFa is certain to show up to the September 14th event, as well as mostly peaceful student protesters.  Let’s take a look at how Berkeley handled themselves, in recent situations where the university was charged with the responsibility of protecting the free speech rights of individuals, who hold values in opposition to the progressive “wisdom” which dominates their culture. 

February 2017- Milo Yiannopoulos.  Protests ahead of Milo’s speech caused $100,000 worth of damage to the Berkeley campus.  The university blamed “150 masked agitators,” who apparently weren’t part of the peaceful protest, and whose sole reason for showing up was for the “purpose of disturbance.”  Administrators cancelled the event two hours before the scheduled start time, citing “violence and destruction of property, and out of concern for public safety.”  Concern?  Where was the concern when masked thugs were destroying their campus?  Where was the Berkeley Police Department?  Milo Yiannopoulos is a crude, alt-right annoyance of a man, but he speaks out against radical leftist ideology, which makes him unacceptable and intolerable to those seeking to shut down those who oppose the left.

April 2017- Ann Coulter, who was invited by College Republicans to speak on campus at UC Berkeley, has her event cancelled, amid “safety concerns.”  Protests and potential for more vandalism and violence, designed to shut down free speech, was again the cause for the “precautionary measure” of cancellation.  The university managed a feeble attempt to invite the conservative speaker to speak the following week, in a “more secure setting.”  Apparently this magically secure space was conjured up, as soon as serious backlash befell the Berkeley administration.  Lawsuits were filed by YAF (Young America’s Foundation) and College Republicans, on behalf of Ms. Coulter, accusing the university of violating free speech rights.  Even though Ann Coulter never spoke, protesters showed up the day she had been invited to speak on.  How courageous.

July 2017- UC Berkeley officials claim they cannot find a suitable venue for an upcoming Ben Shapiro speaking event… which was set to take place in two months’ time!  The administration tried to hide behind police “maybe not granting certain hours of availability,” and adding events must be “held at a time and place which allow for the provision of required security measures.”  Okay.  Find a time and place which is suitable, right?  But again, amid mounting frustrations and accusations of censorship, on the part of UC Berkeley, they reversed course and invited Mr. Shapiro to speak on the original date requested, September 14th. 

To date, UC Berkeley has not released tickets to the event, which is scheduled to take place in a week.  Ben Shapiro stated, last week during his podcast, that the university was planning on forcing attendees to pick up their tickets, 24 hours in advance, at the Berkeley campus.  Seriously?  Other events taking place at Zellerbach Hall have utilized print-at-home tickets, as well as day-of ticket pickup.  Administrators continue to claim that Ben Shapiro is “welcome on campus,” and that they are doing everything they can to “make this event happen.”  They are charging the Berkeley College Republicans a fee of $15,000 for “additional security.”  This has been declared unconstitutional by many, because they are placing a premium on the values and message of the speaker.  You don’t see these outrageous security fees being charged for left-wing speakers.  The argument is that there is less need for security presence, essentially because the speaker isn’t speaking out against the prevailing ideology of the administrators, the student-body, and the surrounding public.  However, by allowing anyone to dictate who is able to speak, and how they come by their “permission,” UC Berkeley is effectively placing an unconstitutional limit on free speech.  What a shame, coming from the birthplace of the free-speech movement, over 50 years ago. 

The Mainstream Media's Call To Action: "The White Racists Are Coming!"

If you have paid any attention to the mainstream media, over the past couple of days since the horrific event in Charlottesville, VA, you might understandably come away thinking that there is a significant Nazi-sympathizing white supremacist army sweeping through the nation.  Journalists have written countless articles, as well as engaged in on-air monologues, which have alleged that these disgusting human beings make up an equally significant percentage of Trump voters, and even go as far as claiming their support won him the election!  This is a heavy charge to throw at a large swath of people, but the left-leaning mainstream media has shown they are playing this game for keeps.  It seems they have found their new mechanism for ousting Trump, as President of the United States, which is to paint the Donald and his supporters (Basically any Republican who does not outright agree to Trump's immediate removal from office) evil-Nazi-racist-sexist-bigoted-homophobic-transphobic-xenophobic-and... fascist pigs.  This is fearmongering at the highest level.  With all of the hyperbolic rhetoric being thrown around, and clogging internet searches engines, the ability for individuals seeking the truth to find objective facts has been severely hindered.  What are the facts?  How many white supremacists are out there?  How much of an impact did their numbers have on the election?  How much of a threat do these hate groups pose to blacks in this country?  Let's take a look:

I searched through several polling and census statistics sites, looking for figures on how many white supremacists likely live in America.  This endeavor proved much more difficult than I had assumed it would be.  Most sites featured very comprehensive lists containing the names of hate groups, but there were no figures showing the amount of members.  I read through several articles, each with its own take on the state of racism in America, but likewise most of those shied away from placing a figure on membership.  I finally found a report from The Florida Gang Investigators Association, who allege there is currently "unprecedented growth in white supremacist group membership."  Their findings claim there are approximately 25,000 individuals who identify as hardcore ideological white supremacists, and as many as 200,000 who associate with hate groups.  Their list of "associated persons" included those who subscribe to racist publications, attend their marches and rallies, and donate money.  Putting these numbers into perspective, the larger figure amounts to 0.1% of the white population, and if that entire group voted for Donald Trump, would have represented under 0.2% of his vote total.  Apparently growing from whatever their numbers were previously to 0.1%, rises to the level of "unprecedented growth."  In fact, this small fraction of a percent is what passes as "significant," according to the mainstream media today.  This explains why there is a compulsive rush to equate the entire Republican Party with neo-Nazi white supremacy.  I can go into exhausting detail about how conservatives and the alt-right have an ocean of ideological difference between them, but that is for another post.  For now, trust me when I say, "Conservatives share as much commonality with the alt-right Nazi wannabe scum as we do with the SJW-worshipping Left." 

Moving on, let's address the mainstream media's narrative alleging blacks are living under tremendous existential threat of violence, comparable to the threat Jews faced in Nazi Germany.  If you don't believe the rhetoric has reached that proportion, look up social media reactions to this past weekend's events, as well as reactions to Trump's commentary on the situation.  According to those individuals, half of our country (GOP voters) are racists, and President Trump is encouraging the worst of these individuals to continue their hateful lifestyles.  If you believe that, then it wouldn't be a stretch to believe blacks must be being hunted down at astonishing rates.  Again, we need to take a step outside the media's high octane echo chamber, in order to gauge the reality of the situation.  According to Anti-Defamation League statistics, "right-wing extremists" (what they eloquently label racists) have committed 275 racially motivated murders, from 2008-2016.  Last year there were 20 such murders.  I understand the next figure I will cite is going to infuriate the pro-BLM crowd, but it must be noted for the purpose of context.  The latest official crime statistics are from 2015, which show that in that year alone, blacks accounted for 2,142 murders... of blacks.  The latest statistics I could find on interracial murders in general were from 2013, and this data showed that 7.6% of black murder victims were killed by whites, whereas 14% of white murder victims were killed by blacks.  According to this information, it seems clear that blacks should be afraid of the group which is 107 times more likely to murder them than (racist) whites... other blacks. 

According to the statistics, blacks are not being mowed down in the streets, as the mainstream media would make it appear.  There are at most 200,000 white supremacist associated individuals in this country, which represents a frightfully overwhelming 0.1% of the white population.  Scary stuff... or not.  The murder rates I referenced show the metaphorical "drop in the bucket" that white on black murders represent of the thousands of blacks murdered annually.  The mainstream media wants to attach an exponential value to each instance of racial injustice, because they believe racial injustice is so much more egregious than non-racial injustice.  They literally believe an innocent young black man being gunned down by a hateful white racist, ranks that victim higher on their victimhood scale, than the same victim being shot to death by a member of his own race, for something as simple as his possessions.  That fact explains their obsession with rushing to declare every white perpetrated interracial murder a hate crime.  The very existence of the hate crime statute, acknowledges the ridiculous belief that the race of the person determines how unacceptable a given crime is.  It's difficult to digest and put this information into perspective, but if you stick to the facts and ignore the rhetoric on both sides, the picture of racial tensions and threat level continues to rank far below other threats facing the black community.  Americans, and particularly conservative and white citizens, do not need to continue to be brow-beaten into submission, by radical leftists attempting to guilt them into believing in and voting for "morally superior" leftist policy.

The Alt-Right: Who They Are And My Disavowal

The tragic events of this past weekend have brought a glaring problem to the forefront, once again.  The white supremacist fringe group, known as the "Alternative Right," or alt-right, held what they called a "Unite the Right" rally, Saturday afternoon, in Charlottesville, Virginia.  This was no doubt an attempt to continue to publicly push the idea that the alt-right aligns with mainstream conservative ideology, and to take another opportunity to express their "white pride."  Of course, the opportunity to engage in potentially violent confrontation, with protesting SJWs, probably provided incentive to hold this rally, as well.  The alt-right claims to support the GOP, because of their own assertion that their values line up with those of conservatives.  This fire is being fanned by the leftist media, as well as the Democrat party.  What does the alt-right believe in, and what do they stand for?  How does this compare to conservative principles?  What should be done about this group?  Answering these questions is essential for conservatives, who do not wish to be labeled racist bigots.

What is the alt-right?  The alt-right is a relatively new movement, among white nationalists and white supremacists, who aim to "take their country back" in a very specific way.  According to Jared Taylor, a prominent alt-right figure, the group shares one main common belief: "Equality is a dangerous myth."  Individuals from different races are not equal, in their minds.  Minorities do not possess the same levels of intelligence, they don't build identical societies, and cannot maintain western civilization, because they believe "whites created western civilization."  With this mission statement, it is very clear that this group's goal is to segregate the population, and to seize control over the growth of western civilization, while preserving the absolute power of the white race.  These people are not merely disenfranchised and struggling white lower class families, who have grown weary of government policy aimed at helping every other group but theirs.  No, they actually believe they are better than people who are non-white, and deserve to take control of this country.  Does this sound conservative?

For those who are very sound conservatives, you should know we are being associated with the alt-right, by both left wing media members and politicians.  This simply needs to be explained, once and for all, with precision.  Conservatives believe in limited government, first and foremost.  When government action becomes necessary, it begins at a very local community level, and then moves through cities, counties, states, and if necessary, rises to the federal level.  Each individual citizen, regardless of race or other group identification, is entitled to equal protection under the law.  Conservatives believe in a free market economic structure, which promotes the idea of equal opportunity, based on performance, not on identity.  With this freedom, comes the condition of personal responsibility, which is necessary for success.  These core principles are then applied to any given situation, to ascertain the necessary action taken by conservatives.  The alt-right?  This group, on a fundamental level, does not believe in equal opportunity or basic equal rights under the law.  They are not opposed to big government solutions, so long as they are skewed in their favor, and execute their white supremacist goals.  They operate on a core belief that whites are superior intellectually, morally, and skillfully compared to minorities, simply because they are of a different race.  They describe their movement as the white side of identity politics.  The verdict?  Conservatism and alt-right white supremacy are vastly different, fundamentally. 

Now we've established that conservatives are not alt-right, and vice-versa, but what do we do from here?  It's disavowal time.  Who must disavow?  All conservatives.  The GOP party leadership needs to take a firm stance against these racist thugs, and cut them off when they attempt to lie their way into significant commonality with the party.  I'm speaking directly to President Trump, his administration, GOP Congressional leadership, and prominent conservative governors.  Most of the conservative political pundits have already done so, but those who haven't need to jump on the bandwagon.  As individual conservative citizens, we need to spread this message to as many as we can.  Sharing this information with friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers is a great way to bring the message directly to the public, from a trustworthy source.  Don't be discouraged by those who are quick to label you alt-right.  Explain basic conservative core values, and show the sharp contrast with alt-right ideology, and allow the facts to win people over.  The more education out there, based on the truth, means the left will have a much more difficult task when attempting to label conservatives racist.  This will not stop them, however it will ensure the public is better equipped to see through their charade. 

I condemn the actions of this past weekend's murderous thug, as well as any who advocate or engage in violent, hate driven action.  Freedom of speech should be protected, no matter how disgusting, provided it isn't directly threatening.  The right needs to alienate the alt-right, and the left needs to condemn Antifa.  I'm on the conservative right, and I hereby disavow the alt-right and any hate group, as well as their morally bankrupt actions and beliefs.



A Comprehensive Look Into The Never Ending Story Of Colin Kaepernick: The SJW. And How It Has Unhinged The Leftist-Biased Sports Media

Stephen A. Smith, co-host of ESPN's hit 'debate-style' morning show First Take, has gone full social justice warrior for Colin Kaepernick.  He claims the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback has been unfairly discriminated against by the entire league, in an effort to silence his beliefs on racial injustice and police brutality.  Furthermore, he now says that the most important agenda item is to get Kaepernick hired, so that other black NFL players will not be discouraged from speaking out on issues about which they feel strongly.  This is typical of the left, to force privately owned businesses to bend the knee to their demands, because their cause is morally superior.  The reality of this situation is that there are many factors involved in why Kaepernick has not been hired by any of the 32 NFL franchises.  Furthermore, I disagree with the fundamental idea that the workplace should be used as a platform for political protest, exempting employees from consequences stemming from their actions.  With all of this in mind, let's take a look at the many facets involved here:

First up, how strong is Colin Kaepernick's case based on his value as a quarterback?  There are tons of individual metrics and statistics measuring quarterback performance, but ESPN's Total QBR (quarterback rating) is the best single metric available, combining multiple statistics, to determine a quarterback's value.  Total QBR combines several traditional quarterback statistics, factors in decision making, contextualizes individual plays, and applies this to the team's overall performance, to determine how much the quarterback contributes to a team's success.  I referenced ESPN's Total QBR records from 2016, and found compelling evidence to support teams not hiring Kaepernick based on poor performance.  Among the 30 qualified quarterbacks (those who met the minimum requirement of downs played) Colin Kaepernick checked in at 23rd.  23rd is not considered "good," but this would seem to make a case for Kaepernick getting a job.  However, when looking at the individual metrics which determine the level of skill of certain aspects of his game, we find he possesses a glaring deficiency.  The statistic which gauges a quarterback's ability to pass the ball, is crucial to determining potential quarterback success.  This measures a quarterback's passing ability, specifically in terms of their decision making and clutch performance.  Among the other 29 qualified quarterbacks, including the seven rated below Kaepernick, the ratings range between 84.4 (Drew Brees, no. 5 in Total QBR) and 10.2 (Case Keenum, no. 30 in Total QBR).  Colin Kaepernick's rating is -0.3.  Simply put, his passing ability and efficiency is rated far below his peers in the NFL.  In fact, the only reason Kaepernick's Total QBR score isn't abysmal is due to his running ability.  The problem with relying on running ability is that defenses will eventually stop worrying about the pass and shut down the run.  This has happened with nearly every running quarterback who failed to develop a respectable level of passing ability.  The other key issue for teams to consider is the high risk of injury, which follows QBs who rely on their legs.  The data is against him, here.  The idea that Kaepernick's failure to find a job has nothing to do with his ability, is simply untrue.

Another contributing factor is actually due to Colin Kaepernick, himself.  According to ESPN's Dan Graziano, Kaepernick is reportedly seeking a contract similar to that of a high end backup, or low end starter.  He also stipulates that he must be afforded the opportunity to compete for a starting job.  Again, going back to the data covering his latest season, he needs to be realistic in what he is asking for, understanding that his value has greatly diminished, based on his own play.  The NFL is just like any other business, in that an individual is paid based on his market value.  If the asking price is too high based on current demand, then teams will not sign the individual.  Colin Kaepernick is attempting to hold the NFL hostage, by forcing a team to sign him, leveraging his popularity among key sports media and political figures.  If he wasn't, he would engage in actual negotiation with teams, and settle on terms more in line with his actual value.

Headlines all through the 2016 NFL season were telling us over and over that ratings were down significantly, and they were right.  The Presidential election did have a measureable impact here, but overwhelmingly NFL fans were telling the media there was one reason they weren't tuning in.  That reason?  Colin Kaepernick.  Without getting into whether you agree with his position or not, this is a fact which cannot be ignored.  According to a Sports Illustrated story in October 2016, which cited a study by Seton Hall University, 56% percent of NFL fans surveyed said they believed the 11% decrease in ratings was due to Colin Kaepernick's protest of the National Anthem.  A Yahoo/YouGov study surveyed 1,136 American football fans, and found that 29% claimed they were tuning in less than previous years, with 40% of those citing Kaepernick as their reason.  The fact is that based on the evidence, including lower ratings and polling data, Colin Kaepernick cost the league money and viewers last season.  This is very important, because this factors heavily in the decision to hire Kaepernick or not.  The NFL is made up of 32 separate franchises, all in the businesses of making profit.  Employers are not going to hire individuals they feel will have a negative net impact on their business.  They are perfectly within their right to do so.  Actions have consequences, but the left opposes this idea, on the grounds that leftist ideology is undeniably right and just.  Because of this belief, any person or businesses who gets in the way of the progressive machine must be met with fierce opposition, and forced to comply with the left's demands. 

Finally, let's address Stephen A. Smith's claims that not hiring Colin Kaepernick discourages blacks in the league from speaking out, and his assertion that a team NEEDS to hire him.  The idea that a person can use their workplace to protest, and not be subject to any consequences is a load of garbage.  Private companies have the right to fire or reprimand employees if their political activity significantly disrupts the employer's business, according to the California Labor Code.  It is not the responsibility of the NFL or its individual teams, to further the cause for social justice warriors.  The NFL may choose to advocate on behalf of certain causes, but it is free to do so as it sees fit.  This is pure conjecture, but I wager that Colin Kaepernick would have reached those he was trying to reach, without risk to his employability, had he kept his politically divisive protest separate from his job in the National Football League.  Stephen A. Smith is correct when he says that blacks will be discouraged from speaking out in the future, if Kaepernick ultimately remains unsigned, but he is more correct than that.  This should send the message to EVERY NFL player, that while on the field and in uniform, they represent the franchise paying them millions of dollars.  They represent the league that organization is part of.  There will be consequences when you choose to turn a football field into a political debate stage, or a protest.  I think that's a fair message, and the right message.  You are there to do your job, as your employer defines it, and to follow the rules and guidelines your employer sets.  If your actions result in the company sustaining significant disruption or damage to their business, you will likely become unemployed. 

I'm not on the "Go away forever, Colin Kaepernick" train, but I do believe the (sports) media needs to back off from their crusade to force the hand of the NFL and its franchises.  ESPN and other sports media outlets need to get a clue, and stop injecting politics into sports, or else risk further damaging their industry and the industry they cover.  Professional athletes need to understand their responsibility to their employer, before morphing into Maxine Waters or Malcolm X, while on their field or court.  And finally, Colin Kaepernick needs to work on his abilities and understand the dynamics of market value, if he wants any shot at playing another down in the NFL.


The Left's Minimum Wage Madness and Upward Mobility

One of the pillars of the Democrat party's new slogan "The Better Deal" is the idea of artificially raising the wages of low income-earning Americans.  Their plan is to push for a higher minimum wage, until they reach their utopian level of the "living wage."  $15 is the current number the left claims will solve the problems of those who are at the bottom of the pay scale.  Is this really the best way to go about raising the wages of individuals?  What responsibilities do individuals have for their own success, as well their family's well being?  Have we seen examples of this before?  The left would have you believe the answers to those questions are yes, no, and don't worry about the past.  However, as you might have guessed, conservatives beg to differ...

If we recognize that there are a considerable amount of individuals, many of whom with families to support and struggling to make ends meet, then how do we go about helping these people?  The left's idea is always to give people what they need, via redistribution.  Is this necessarily the best policy for all parties involved?  Setting politics aside for a moment, I feel most people understand the idea of having individuals work for what they receive.  Even those who are already working, and being paid a wage equal to the value of the work being performed.  We are setting individuals up for a lifetime of mediocrity by continuing to give them that which they have not earned.  Instead of relying on the government to force employers to pay people above what they're worth, the individual should be working to become more valuable.  This can be done through additional training, schooling, and just working harder.  Employers generally want to hold onto excellent employees, and will give raises and promotions to those who first prove their worth.  If the government must be involved, I believe providing training to those who want to better themselves, is the best form of assistance.  The last thing I want to make very clear is to those who are out there, working in very low skill jobs, such as the fast food or hospitality industries: If you believe you should be able to support a family performing tasks an average inexperienced fifteen year old can easily do, then you are the problem, not your employer.  Get out there, and get a real job.  They do exist.

This wonderful country is still the most free nation in the world, albeit considerably watered down.  With this in mind, individuals are still very much in control of their potential for upward mobility.  It starts with school, including high school, college, trade schools, etc.  Work hard learning how to read and write, performing mathematics, and acquiring any other necessary skills to make yourself employable.  Make sure to follow the widely accepted three basic rules of avoiding poverty, which include graduating from high school, waiting until at least age 21 to get married then have children, and just getting a job.  According to the Brookings Institute, of the Americans who have followed these three rules, only about 2% live in poverty, and 75% have successfully joined the middle class.  Take that, government redistribution theory!  This is the responsibility individuals have to themselves and their families.  Each person should be preparing themselves to enter the labor force, while making sure they do not make the critical error of having a child before they are ready to support them.  Although, if they do slip up, hard work and determination can make up for any failures in the three areas.  I know, because my wife and I are a perfect example of overcoming the portion concerning when not to have children.  We weren't married, or ready to support a child, however we worked hard and persevered. 

Finally, getting back specifically to the minimum wage issue, we can learn from experiments in the recent past.  Basic economics teaches us that as the cost of creating goods and providing services increase, the price of those goods also goes up.  If the price of goods for consumers remains stable, then the overhead must be addressed, for businesses to remain profitable.  These are the inevitable consequences of changing prices for labor, raw materials, and regulations.  This was on display in Seattle, when in 2014 the city decided to raise their minimum wage to $15.  Studies done by left leaning groups hailed the move as a great success for those who were formerly "oppressed" by the previous minimum wage requirement.  These studies were widely refuted by non partisan groups who actually looked at the facts.  What they found was that there was very little change overall, to the group who had their wages artificially raised.  This was due to the nature of business, about which I just spoke.  Employers were faced with rising labor costs, enforced by government, which meant rebalancing would need to take place, to regain the previous profit margin.  A University of Wisconsin study into the fallout found that worker's hours were reduced by an average of 9%, and monthly take home pay went down by $125.  Businesses might also decide to cut their workforce, to make up for the elevated costs of employees. 

In the end, we cannot forget another crucial piece of truth, and this is the inevitable increase in prices for the consumer.  If employers happen to keep their employees working the same hours and receiving the same benefits, thus causing an increase in their workers' net wealth, profits will have to be sustained at some other cost.  This is passed onto consumers.  But wait, "consumers" include the minimum wage group who just received a substantial raise, correct?  Yes!  What leads to more clamoring over the "living wage?"  Cost of living.  Included in the cost of living are the prices for everyday goods, which happen to be produced by the very businesses who are being forced to raise their production costs.  As the cost of living rises, there will need to be a corresponding rise in minimum wage.  Chances are, the Democrats will realize this will continue to happen, and will aim to outpace the inflation of prices of goods, by raising the minimum wage in larger increments.  This would be disastrous, and would ultimately lead further down the road to full fledged socialism.  All of this in the name of helping individuals by giving them something they have not earned.  I choose more freedom, and less government regulation and intervention.  We have got to move the needle in the opposite direction, and reunite generations of people who have been indoctrinated into the idea that the government is not only capable of, but is responsible for taking care of them.  Individuals need to be taught that they hold the power in their hands, to carve out their measure of success, from the incredible opportunities afforded to them, in this country. 

Why Are People Poor?

Politicians and political pundits are constantly engaged in battle over what to do about those living in poverty.  The Democrats want to solve poverty through government redistribution, and Republicans preach focusing on empowering individuals to help themselves.  The ideological divide is deep.  With so much controversy over what should be done to solve this problem, one would expect much attention to be paid to what causes people to be poor.  As far as I can see, this is not so.  So, we are going to discuss the various reasons people are poor, and possible solutions to help people overcome them.

Both sides tend to agree that broken familial structure tends to produce the environment conducive to churning out individuals destined to remain impoverished.  People who have children at a young age, tend to be involved in less stable relationships, with high failure rates.  Studies show that there is a direct correlation between single parent homes and higher crime rates, poor scholastic performance, and lack of upward mobility.  Add to this the fact that this is compounding over several generations for many poor families.  The question here is what to do about this.  What can the government do to help?  The immediate answer is to begin the process of strengthening the existing families.  The church and the community are both suited for this work.  Becoming part of a church will, among its many benefits, immediately open opportunities for mentorship, aid, and will provide the foundation for sound moral judgement.  The missing familial structure is always filled in, by loving individuals, happy to help those who seek it.  The local community has a place, as well.  Privately funded youth mentorship programs, resource centers, and parenting skills mentors can all help provide a struggling family with the tools needed to assure they are preparing their children adequately for adulthood.  Of course, the families themselves have a lot of responsibility here.  Help will only carry them so far, and then there is the necessity for growth, on their part.  Where does the government fit?  I would say their job is to get out of the way, and not incentivize the breaking apart of families, via tax policy and assistance.  The government's job is NOT to take the place of the family. 

Education is important for the prospect of upward mobility.  Most better than minimum wage-paying jobs require at least a high school diploma or GED.  Beyond that, a college degree or certification continues to be a dividing factor between lower and upper middle class.  Generally, the more educated and qualified the individual, the likelihood of gainful employment rises.  Coming from these broken homes, children are simply not getting the in-home support needed to aid the educational process.  Relying on the public school system to educate our kids, without parental involvement, is foolish and hurts our children's chances of future success.  This is one area in which households with both parents hold a significant advantage over single parent households.  There is only one parent available, and they are likely working full time, and taking care of all of the domestic responsibilities.  There isn't much time for help with homework, but it simply must be done.  One way the government can help here, is to provide parents with vouchers, so that every parent has the ability to choose the right school for their child.  A greater emphasis on working to identify students who need help, and getting them the help they need, should be a high priority.  Volunteers for tutoring failing students should be matched up with needy students. 

Last, but not least, is opportunity.  Opportunity is defined differently by the left and right.  Jobs need to be available and open, and individuals need to take necessary steps to meet the requirements for a prospective job. Typically, high crime areas are located in the most poverty stricken areas.  These rates tend to go hand in hand, as I stated earlier.  This is important to this issue, because of who provides opportunities for employment: businesses.  Businesses are not inclined to move into areas with particularly high crime rates, which puts those living in these communities at a disadvantage.  What should be done?  The government exists to take care of this one.  Effective policing policy, removing criminals and gangs, and ensuring the safety of the community is the first step.  Next, volunteers and community members should work together to clean up these neighborhoods.  Make them attractive to businesses looking for real estate.  Present a more safe and welcoming community, and businesses will be much more inclined to return to these impoverished areas.  This will significantly increase employment opportunities for individuals who reside in these communities, ultimately providing the necessary spark to generate upward mobility.

People are very often born into poverty.  Their familial situation is a strong indicator of the likelihood they will become or remain poor, as adults.  Education is a powerful force, which can thrust individuals up and out of poverty, if the proper environment is provided, and attention is given to our children's unique needs.  Opportunity for employment is crucial, otherwise everything else is for naught.  Encouraging entrepreneurs to invest in businesses, and ensuring safer environments for them, provides the opportunity for young adults to enter the workforce, and begin their journey up and out of poverty.  The government should protect our rights and stay out of the way, and communities, volunteers, and churches should pick up the slack, so we aren't continuing to push people toward government reliance for survival.

Does The Left Hate Sports?

I believe the true, green, activist left has had it out for sports for a long time.  As the Democrat party continues to follow its lunatic fringe toward the Alinsky cliff, this will only continue to grow and include more haters.  Why, you ask, does the left hate sports?  Competition, inequality, and the meritocratic nature of success are each reasons, chapping the left's collective hide.  The good news?  America, meaning average citizens, loves its sports! 

I would wager competition is the name of the boogey man, in every progressive household, in America.  The idea of winners and losers is contrary to the entire mission of the left.  Their belief, regarding everything, is to take the natural varying positioning of individuals, and artificially adjust each individual back to the median.  Take some of the success from the winners, redistribute that to the losers, until the graph is a straight line.  Where does this belief spring from?  I believe this comes directly from the belief that equality, to the left,  means equality of outcome.  If there are winners and losers, then there is no equality of outcome.  Furthermore, if there is no mandate to rectify this gross infraction against superior left morality, then there is no role for the government to fill.  That is the most important takeaway from their competition phobia.

As I alluded to, the left is intolerant of inequality.  Equality is supposedly a main pillar, supporting the Democrat party's platform.  Equality of what?  Outcome, of course.  This is their main concern, regarding the level of success each individual deserves.  They believe every person deserves the same amount of wealth, without regard to how this wealth is acquired.  Delving further into this idea, we inevitably come to the root of this "problem" for the left.  That is the fact each person is born with certain genetics, which vary drastically.  Certain individuals are blessed with excellent genetic blueprints, affording them the opportunity to develop the necessary skills needed to compete athletically, at the highest level.  Those of us who have any life experience, worthwhile in this area, understand that simply being physically gifted does not mean a person will find success in sports.  It takes hard work, dedication, and discipline.  Each of these are sound conservative building blocks for a successful human being, regardless of genetic makeup.  Differences which give advantages and disadvantages simply cannot be tolerated, by the left, due to the fact that they lead to inequality of outcome. 

The previous two reasons converge and manifest in this final idea.  The major professional sports leagues are each examples of meritocracies.  A meritocracy rewards individuals based on their ability, skill, and application of both to the given task.  It's simple; if you do well, you will advance.  The left is only concerned with those who don't do well.  There is this never ending quest, on their part, searching for the reasons people fail.  Of course, they are searching for the societal reasons they fail.  After all, individuals do not succeed or fail, they are simply the product of society's discrimination, biases, and ignorance.  Professional sports, however, continues to keep plugging along, paying the best, and crowning the champions.  Maybe this is the reason the left has infected sports media, turning much of its attention to current world events, politics, and the type of garbage regular Americans turn to sports to escape.  ESPN is unwatchable for many sports fans, especially conservatives.  Athletes are choosing to speak out about polarizing causes, often siding with the left, while not tolerating any opposing view.  ESPN has even fired employees who have merely voiced opposition to progressive ideology (see Curt Schilling). 

In my opinion, the left does hate sports.  The manifestation of this hate is the political pundit and sports analyst hybrids, masquerading as honest sports journalists.  The popularity of sports means progressives would be crazy to attack head on, but they have no problem running an end-around.  Even if they aren't the best runners... (wink wink).


Recently, a friend of mine informed me of this idea of "adulting." I looked the word up, myself, and the word did not exist, according to credentialed dictionaries. was the first place with a definition, so I checked it out. It basically said "adulting" is a verb meaning to engage in any activity adults typically engage in, or action taken, which reminds one of being an adult. Basically, if you take the trash out, you are "adulting." If you take on any responsibility, whether minuscule or major, you are "adulting." Puzzled? I was too, until I began to think along the lines of several people my age.

A lot of people I know, around their 30s, are still engaging in many of the adolescent activities we frequently engaged in over ten years ago. Many of them have families, significant others, or at least basic day to day responsibilities. Their days are spent as adolescents, broken up by fleeting moments of responsible decision making ("adulting"). Now, I don't want to begin an all-out assault on this word. It has a meaning, and it mostly rings true. What I would like to delve into are the behaviors, and causes of behaviors, associated with the idea of "adulting." 

I was taught that being an adult was a full time job. The type of full time job, which requires a 24/7 commitment. The Bible teaches us to remain sober minded, and to always be striving to obey the word of God. There is no room for taking days off. Many secular parents teach their children these exact same values, understanding that applying these values prepares children for adulthood. Adulthood is the term we should use to describe our daily lives, which brings with it the idea that we are always adults, even though we fall short at times, and we are putting forth the effort to continue to honor our commitments, and take care of our responsibilities. 

This is not necessarily a right or left issue. Parents on either side should be preparing their children for the "real world," diligently. However, I would like to highlight a couple of ideological reasons the left is churning out more and more 30 year old adolescents: The basic idea of government intrusion, playing the part of the parent, and making everything "better." The Democrat party always identifies government action as the "best practice" when it comes to solving problems. You don't make enough money? We'll give you more, because you deserve more. You want to know how to raise your kids? Our wonderful public school system will take care of that for you. Do you feel threatened by the truth? Here's a "safe space" for you. Every solution, even though woefully misguided, is mirroring the role of parents in people's lives, and continues to act as their parent throughout adulthood. 

Here's my favorite phrase: "personal responsibility." The left has set out to completely remove all personal responsibility, which is a main component of freedom, from the lives of Americans. Every need has a corresponding program, and every grievance or cause is taken up and fought for by Democrat politicians. Safety nets upon safety nets abound. The Democrat party does not have an interest in personal freedom. They want to control our lives. 

With the vanishing role of actual parents in children's lives, as well as the breakdown of so many families, it's no wonder this country's young people are finding themselves further and further separated from what makes us adults. Responsibility, decision making, and discipline are among the most important characteristics of being an adult. My generation continues to symbolize the failures of parents to produce well-adjusted adults, our inability to grow up on our own, and the course the government is setting before us, relegating us to everlasting adolescence. We know what is facing us, and we can fight back with conservatism. The question is: When are we going to wake up, fellow millennials?

Equal Rights and Fairness

The difference in approach to "equality" from either side of the aisle is night and day.  Conservatives are never characterized as caring about equal rights, but instead are often called racists, when we suggest that laws should protect EVERY citizen under the law, regardless of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or any other classification.  Is it racist to believe every individual is capable of taking care of themselves, regardless of how they look?  I was under the impression that making general assumptions that a group cannot perform equal to other groups, simply because their skin is a different color, was the definition of racism.  We live in an upside down world, where equality means pushing certain groups to success, while expecting others to fend for themselves.   

Conservatives believe our rights are given to us by our creator, not the government.  The government merely acknowledges those rights, and promises to fight to protect and uphold them.  Among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  These are the basic human rights every person is endowed with.  Conservatives believe every person deserves to have these rights protected equally, and nobody should be shown any favoritism, under the law.  You see, Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity.  The idea here is that obstacles are removed, so that the individual is responsible for their own success.  This means the individual is to be protected from government oppression, as well as criminal interference from their fellow citizens.  If this protection is upheld, then the individual will most likely be in control of their own success or failure.  That is how Conservatives measure equality.  This is why Conservatives fight against affirmative action, fight for welfare reform, and any other type of governmental attempts at so-called "leveling the playing field."  Conservatives argue the playing field is very level (not perfect), and furthermore the programs the left employs do not produce the results they seek, instead promote generational cycles of dependence.

The Left sees equality as a call to action.  They don't see it in terms of whether every person is treated the same, and given every opportunity to succeed.  On the contrary, they view equality as something the government is supposed to engineer into our populous, via social programs, affirmative action, and redistribution.  Their idea of equality is called equality of outcome.  This is the fundamental split between the left and right view of equality.  According to the left, if two individuals grow up in identical socioeconomic situations, and one ends up better off than the other, then something must be done to make their outcome more equal.  The idea here is that individuals are not responsible for their own decisions, rather society is responsible, therefore society deserves to pay to raise these people up.  In the end, equality in its basic and fairest form, equality of opportunity, is not achieved.  It is ignored, while a certain percentage of the population is given more capital to succeed, which is taken directly from those who usually haven't received a comparable amount of help from society.  All in the name of progressive equality.

Fairness is a term usually used by the left to justify stealing money from middle class and wealthy families, to be redistributed to lower-middle class and below families.  Yes, there is a certain percentage of the population who needs assistance just meeting their daily requirements to survive.  Food, shelter, and clothing is essential to life, especially when children are involved.  Those people in need should be taken care of, not because they are deserving, but because it is the right thing to do.  Is it fair to make one man give something to another, simply because the one who gives has something, and the one who receives doesn't?  On a logical level, this does not sound fair to me, because it isn't.  A person does not "deserve" another person's belongings.  If there is someone in need, individuals should have the right to decide whether they can and will help or not.  They should also have the right to decide how they help, and how much they will help.  A third party (government) has no business getting involved with this process.  Maybe if people weren't guaranteed a certain level of assistance, they would be motivated to make it on their own. 

If the social "safety net" is removed, or drastically reduced, people will be faced with figuring out solutions on their own.  Individuals will begin to understand they are personally responsible for their own well being, or face the consequences.  This should lead the able-bodied to get off of unemployment and welfare, and work for their living expenses.  Families will become much more important, as individuals make poor decisions, or otherwise fail.  They will be the new "safety net," helping, housing, and assisting family members in need.  Where families fall short or are non-existent, charities and churches will fill in the gaps.  People are willing to help others who are seriously in need, as well as those making an obvious effort to pull themselves up.  If affirmative action is thrown out, minorities should work harder, to make sure they are the most qualified individual for their desired school or occupation.  Fairness and equality should be consistent, across the board, with no exceptions.  Conservative equality and fairness ensures each man, woman, and child is treated equally and fairly, under the law. 

Is Affirmative Action Necessary?

Here we go.  I know this is a subject many shy away from, but it needs to be discussed.  Affirmative action is supposed to help minorities, by favoring a minority applicant over another, based on race.  The justification for this policy is tied directly to the idea that certain racial groups are being discriminated against, and therefore require the assistance, through affirmative action, to overcome this cruel injustice.  Sounds great, right?  We should want to help qualified individuals who, through no fault of their own, are being denied employment or enrollment based on the color of their skin.  Well, before you go all-in on supporting the affirmative action cause, consider the following questions: Where is the institutional racism we so often hear about, but don't ever seem to be provided with hard evidence regarding?  Do minorities have the same rights as whites under the constitution?  Should schools and businesses make decisions between applicants, based on their race?

Institutional racism is a term often thrown around to describe an institution that is racist and actively oppressing minorities, by treating them unfavorably, strictly due to the color of their skin.  This is not a singular "person" who is racist, acting on behalf of the institution, rather the entire business or school taking the same discriminatory action, with consistency.  The problem with bringing forth a charge of institutional racism, is that there needs to be proof backing up this assertion.  Merely pointing out a statistical disparity, based on race, does not prove there has been an injustice.  Feeling that there is racism, or the appearance of racism also does not rise to the level of evidence.  Too often that is enough to push for the forced rebalancing hand of affirmative action, to right the supposed wrong.  If there was proof that a company was turning down black applicants, purely based on their race, you had better believe every major news outlet would be covering it.  The DOJ would then be responsible for looking into the matter, as a possible hate crime, and the racist would be brought to justice.

The constitution did not originally acknowledge rights equally, across the spectrum of race, or between the two sexes.  However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to discriminate against any person based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  It also required equal access to public places and employment, forced the desegregation of schools, and prohibited the unequal application of voter requirements.  The idea of affirmative action was added to this, due to the acknowledgement that there obviously had been segregation and discrimination present, and that the passage of the Civil Rights Act did not "ensure" minorities would not suffer from the same historical discrimination they had previously endured.  Fast forward to 2017, which is 53 years removed from the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and racism has retreated to the dark, unacceptable corners of society.  It is not just politically incorrect to be racist, it is absolutely disgusting, and not to be tolerated.  That is how the majority of our society views the treatment of everyone in our country, regardless of skin color.  Again, I'm left to wonder if everyone generally considers each person equal, then why do we have a policy that favors one racial group over another?

How should businesses and schools, who have requirements and seek the best, choose between applicants?  Affirmative action stipulates that the favor be given to the minority, not based on merit, but on skin color.  In a very ethnically diverse, openly accepting, equality based culture, I can't think of something that represents pre-Civil Rights Era discrimination more than that.  We need to move away from the idea that diversity means better.  Diversity simply means a variety of different styles, cultures, people, or ideas.  Good, innovative, and creative styles, cultures, people, or ideas actually makes what it's applied to better.  A diverse group of idiots is no better than a homogenous group of idiots.  They're all idiots.  Being the shining beacon of freedom, this country is able to look at the value of the individual based on what they do, not how they look.  There should not be a policy, which perpetuates the same shameful injustice against white people, simply because they are white.  Where there are legitimate instances of racism, they should be called out, and handled appropriately, but on an individual basis.  Enough overarching public policy, handcuffing our businesses and education system, while also promoting those who deserve, simply by birthright, over another.

Verdict:  Affirmative action=Unnecessary

College Leftists Are Enemies Of Free Speech

Lately there has been an assault on free speech, coming from the left, on college campuses across America.  I think everyone has heard about the numerous issues right wing speakers have faced, for attempting to simply express their ideas.  College campuses are supposed to be a haven for all view points, and a place where ideas can be expressed openly.  They are certainly not, at this particular moment.  Ben Shapiro, Editor-in-Chief of Daily Wire, who is an outspoken voice for conservatism, has encountered this garbage on several occasions.  UC Berkeley recently denied him an opportunity to speak on their campus, citing security reasons as the main cause.  Ann Coulter, a Fox News contributor and conservative author, was initially denied her opportunity to speak on the same campus, because the school claimed it could not ensure her safety.  Liberal speakers, by the way, have reportedly had no issues at their speaking events, held on the UC Berkeley campus.  You do not hear about mobs of conservative college students flocking to shut down a progressive speaker's event, anywhere in the US.  However, this has been a disturbing trend, coming from the left. 

The first amendment protects every individual's right to free speech.  It explicitly guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or an individual's right to speak freely.  The left claims they are champions for free speech, and they will fight for any person's right to it.  If you're on the right, however, your view is labeled as "hate speech," and you are kicked to the curb.  So much for opposing views, new ideas, and dissenting opinions.  It seems the philosophy of the day is leftism, and they have decided free speech protection only belongs to those who agree with their form of moral rightness.  In their view, the left's progressive ideals give them moral superiority, which renders any competing view to be characterized as "hate speech."  Hate speech is the club being wielded daily, by the left, against individuals who merely state the truth!  Try heading to a college campus to educate students about the single parenthood rate, and how that is the number one indicator of a person's upward mobility.  You will most likely be escorted off the property, immediately.  That is, if you don't encounter a leftist thug, who believes they have the right to resort to violence against you.  This is the garbage that goes on at our institutions for higher learning.  The suppression of the open exchange of competing ideas. 

It's no wonder this country continues to grow more progressive seemingly with each passing year.  The left claims the divide between enlightened progressives and conservative rubes is education.  In their eyes, since more college educated citizens tend to be liberal, this must be because they are smarter.  They have an enhanced ability to discern right from wrong, and most often choose progressivism as right.  Conservatives are just narrow-minded, uneducated hicks.  Hm... If the overwhelming political view being pushed on college campuses is one-sided, don't you think it's logical to conclude that this would weigh heavily on young, impressionable minds?  Talk to progressive-minded college students, and they will tell you they can openly express their views, and are even cheered by their fellow students and professors.  Ask a conservative student how their experience has gone, and you will hear about their decision to keep quiet about their views, the hatred and harassment they face, if they do speak out, and the disgusting reality of their having to choose between staying true to their beliefs or achieving their academic goals.   Yet, there are still plenty of students on the left, who claim they are being oppressed somehow, despite overwhelming evidence of the contrary.  These are the students advocating for, or downright demanding, "safe spaces."

The idea behind a "safe space" is that certain students, who are part of a protected social group, need to have a safe space to actually guarantee their safety.  I guess the only thing safe spaces fail to protect is speech.  These spaces would apparently shield certain students from anyone who disagrees with them in any way, and even go as far as segregating groups from each other.  That's right, there are groups openly demanding to have areas open to students of color, while specifically prohibiting white students.  The idea being that the mere presence of the white students is threatening to certain individuals.  There are American college campuses, who have student unions fighting to remove the American flag from their property, on the basis that the flag represents a threat or hate speech.  What?  Can we all just take one step back, and evaluate?  Why not provide a "place" for all ideas to be discussed and displayed, without the fear of violence?  School administrators need to stand up for every person's right to free speech, even if they disagree with them.  They should be doing everything in their power to protect the values our country hold dear, and not merely encouraging one particular opinion.  Professors on the right and left need to encourage all ideas, and discourage those who seek to suppress the views of others.  Tear down the truly divisive ideas of "safe spaces," and encourage peaceful and respectful integration.    

Keeping outside thugs out of the mix should be a priority, as well.  Allowing groups like Antifa to threaten and harm students or speakers is unconscionable, and is another layer of free speech suppression.  These groups are very prone to violence, and have made it their stated mission to shut down any event, as they see fit.  They decide who is "fascist," "racist," or "hateful," and then deploy their thugs to confront them, often armed, with the sole purpose of stopping them, by any means necessary.  These groups are engaging in criminal activity, and should be taken off the streets.

As long as this issue continues to fester, and college administrators and faculty don't change, Americans will continue to see the intolerant left, for who they are.  Conservatives will continue to be treated as though their right to free expression doesn't matter.  Our institutions for higher learning will continue to become snowflake havens, and ideologically homogenous vacuums, lacking the diversity of ideas that make this country exceptional.

Conservatives Need To Be Articulate To Win The Health Care Debate

Look up any Democrat political figure's Twitter account.  Check out their feed.  I am 90% positive you will find an incredibly generic bar graph, illustrating how many Americans will lose their coverage, face increased premiums, and even claiming deaths due to any measure of Obamacare repeal.  Republicans argue Obamacare is failing, collapsing, and destroying our world-leading health care system, and Democrats hit back with, "Yeah?  Well, if you pass a repeal bill, thousands will die!"  In response to this wild accusation, Republicans cower in fear, and immediately begin to backtrack.  Perfect.  In the face of criticism, just give up and give in.  That is the Congressional Way.  At least, the Republican Congressional Way. 

I think the problem begins with the explanation of conservative principles, pertaining to health care.  The Problem?  None of the biggest voices on the Congressional right are articulately explaining conservative policy on health care.  They have allowed the Democrats to maintain control over the narrative of the health care debate.  Once Obamacare became law, and millions of previously uninsured Americans had coverage, this was always going to be an uphill battle for the right.  This takes a precise, fundamentally sound message, with the understanding that this will be met with fierce opposition.  Democrats believe it is the role of the government to take care of those who, for any reason, do not take care of themselves.  That is very broad, but it encompasses the entire shtick on the left.  They are the party of "government is the answer."  I still believe that a majority of Americans want freedom from government, at their core, but may require adequate education of the facts.  This NEEDS to be focused on by Congressional Republicans, if they want to move the debate back toward the center, which will allow for open debate on both sides. 

Republicans have the numbers to accomplish a full repeal.  They do not have the will, at the moment, which stems from their tremendous fear of being unseated.  Senators and House members need to return to their districts, and stump with a unified message detailing exactly how Democrats own the current state of health care.  Explain exactly what the ACA claimed it was created to address, and how it has fallen short of each promise, except for exploiting young, healthy, working Americans to pay for the sick, poor, and elderly.  In 2008, Democrats across the US were hitting the campaign trail hard, claiming  they had an answer for high costs and priced out individuals with pre-existing conditions.  High costs have not been addressed, and coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions was rammed down the industry's throat.  This is the message constituents need to hear,  The Democrats love to trot out their 8% uninsured rate, compared to the 16% pre-ACA rate.  Proper context is important, so that people understand how the uninsured rate is so low, and what problems the ACA addresses... or doesn't. 

After railing on the Democrats for their failure, turn to the conservative answer.  Explain that health care is not a human right, but a service which should be purchased, per an individual's ability to pay.  The system should be free of overarching government regulation, which discourages small businesses, stifling competition.  This is basic free market economic theory, which should be applied here.  The plans offered by insurance providers will not be cookie cutter, "cover all" plans, rather they will vary depending on an individual's needs.  This can drastically affect prices (think of auto insurance).  The pre-existing conditions problem has been tremendously overblown.  The reality is that most people with pre-existing conditions are currently covered via plans, which already covered them before Obamacare was passed.  Overall, as previously stated, 16% of the US population was uninsured prior to the ACA, which would most likely represent the percentage post-repeal.  A market for this segment of the population would need to surface.  This would include young and healthy adults, who only want to pay for very routine, preventative care, as well as those who aren't eligible for Medicaid, but can't afford average health care premiums.  A transition period would soften the effects of this change, on those who were previously given free or subsidized care.  This represents the most fair option, across the board, while still maintaining a focus on providing access to quality affordable insurance coverage. 

Their are few conservatives, short of talk-radio hosts and some pundits, who are laying this case out to the American people.  This is the message conservatives need to coalesce around, and deliver to their constituents.  The sooner this is done, the sooner the Democrats will have to scramble for a new opposing opinion to fight back with. 

P.S. While they're distracted with that endeavor, repeal Obamacare, please.

Bannon's Tax Reform Plan Is Not Conservative

White House chief strategist Steve Bannon continues to push for a tax increase on wealthy Americans.  The current rate, for those earning more than $5 million per year, sits at 39.6%.  Bannon is reportedly pushing for 44%.  It's this type of policy that turns conservatives off to the Trump administration, and his more populist-minded cabinet members.  President Trump's tax plan, released in April, boasted a 35% tax rate on the wealthiest, and two lower brackets at 25% and 10%.  This means Bannon's proposal doesn't just lack for conservative values, but it contradicts Trump's across-the-board tax cuts.  What impact will this have, when the Trump administration and Congress begin working on tax reform?  What should conservatives seek in tax reform?

Hopefully Bannon's tax reform advice is tossed aside, and left for dead.  President Trump had it right the first time, with his tax cuts for all Americans.  The conservative view on taxes is directly related to the conservative view on government: Limited.  This country has already allowed our bloated government to grow to a point never intended.  The true conservative agenda would lay out a comprehensive plan to make budget cuts across the board.  Defense spending would probably be the one exception, however a look into spending defense dollars more efficiently would definitely be worthwhile.  The idea is very simple, once summed up: Return the money back to the people, which weakens government, and strengthens the people.  Returning the money means returning the power, which does not seem to be a popular notion in Washington.  Realistically, this is a conversation had by many fiscally conservative Americans, on a daily basis, but never manifests itself in the form of policy.  Republicans have no problem campaigning on these promises, but when push comes to shove, they focus on what they feel gets them reelected: Continuing the status quo.  This particular branch of the subject warrants much more discussion, but I digress.  Returning to my original point, Bannon's idea of "returning the money to the middle class, by sticking it to the rich," is not conservative.  It is the Bernie Lite plan, which doesn't actually reduce the total tax burden on US citizens, rather it shifts it to the more wealthy segment of the population... My friends, this is Bannon Redistributionism.  This is not traditional conservative tax reform.  I only hope Trump listens to his more conservative advisors on this one.