Why I’ll Take Clinton Over Sanders

I don’t have anything nice to say about Hillary Clinton. She’s a flip-flopper, a liar, arrogant, divisive, and a phony. What she says her policies are doesn’t matter because she’s just another establishment politician without a moral foundation, and she’ll do whatever she has to do to secure her job through 2024. Her goal is to become president, and stay president.

I actually do have some nice things to say about Bernie Sanders. He’s passionate, sincere, unfiltered, consistent, and seems like a cool guy. And his policies do matter. He’ll do everything in his power to fulfill his campaign promises if he becomes president, and he has a strong moral foundation. His goal is to revolutionize the United States of America, and he seems willing to sacrifice himself to do so.

This is exactly why I’d rather see Hillary Clinton become president than Bernie Sanders.

If Hillary gets in, most Americans will continue to dislike and distrust the government. This is good. Central government is inefficient and dishonest, and it undermines Liberty. Our country was essentially founded on that fact. The Constitution does not list limits to our freedoms, but rather limits to the government’s powers. The Founders of our country were not interested in deputizing the government to organize and manage the population. Instead, they stated that the essential function of our government is to protect our rights to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. And if we have an [insert expletive] like Hillary Clinton for president, more and more of us will realize the beauty of America’s founding principles.

If Bernie gets in, the majority of country will increase their worship of and dependence upon the government. When the government becomes our daddy and is responsible for putting roofs over our heads, food on our tables, and us through school, we have a major problem. A paternalistic, authoritarian, Socialist government will lead to the end of Independence and Liberty. In the same way that your dad doesn’t let you stay out past midnight because he knows what’s best for you, and you listen because you love him, the government will eventually incur fatherly respect, and we will do as it says. While there’s no one in the world who appreciates a strict, disciplinary, and involved father more than I do, I do not see the government as a viable option to play that role. We are supposed to mature past childhood, not prolong it through government meddling.

Might some of our vitals and statistics like wealth equity and healthcare coverage improve under Sanders? Maybe. But numbers lie, and I don’t want to be treated like one.

America is supposed to be a bastion of freedom. And a free people are wary of government and authority in all its forms. Free people are responsible and accept the consequences of their actions. I’m a free and living man pursuing what I define to be happiness. And that’s why I’ll take the typical shill who reinforces my love of Liberty over the false prophet who will try to make me forget it.

Why I’ll Take Clinton Over Sanders

Random Philosophizing: The Three Animals You Can’t Kill

A few years ago, I would have been one of those jerks losing my mind over Cecil the Lion being killed. I would have shared a whiny Buzzfeed article and written a comment like how about he tries hunting a lion without a gun! Then we’ll see what kind of a man he really is!

Ugh…

I used to think that sport hunting was morally wrong, and I hated slaughterhouses for turning so many animals into steaks and chicken nuggets. But in reality, I just hated my life, so everything seemed morally wrong. I was unhappy with the way things had been going, and I blamed the world instead of myself.

Now, I’m feeling good. In fact, I’m feeling so good that I’m writing a blog about what kinds of animals should not be killed and why! Happiness manifests itself in strange ways, doesn’t it?

Without further ado, here are the three kinds of animals that you cannot kill in ascending order:

  1. The Critically Endangered Animal

There are four northern white rhinos left in the wild… and you can’t kill them.

This species, unlike the majority of species, is now a finite resource. Unlike grass, chickens, or mosquitoes, we know how many are left, we know it’s not enough to sustain the species’ existence, and we know it’s unlikely we can produce any more.

I pride myself on being reasonable, but I admit that I can’t fully defend this point. It is based on feelings and assumptions, not ethical principles. What I mean is, so what if there were no norther white rhinos left?

Anyway, if you are attacked by a northern white rhino, you can totally kill it. Human life is more valuable than endangered animal life, which I will blabber about in more detail shortly.

  1. The Animal in Custody

I am the proud owner of a sugar glider named Penelope… and you can’t kill her.

You can’t kill her, you see, because she is mine. I own her. I am responsible for her. I pay for her food. I clean her rancid, ammonia-smelling piss off my shirts. I let her bite my fingers and scratch my arms when she wants to play. And I wake up at 3am to see what she’s barking about (hint: it’s nothing).

A man’s property and dependents are an extension of himself, and Penelope is an extension of me. For the same reason that I can’t key your car, you can’t squish my beloved marsupial friend… because, in a way, you’d be squishing me too.

This is why it’s illegal to kill a rancher’s cows or your neighbor’s parrot, even if it yammers like an idiot.

However, if Penelope attacks you, do what you have to do to keep yourself safe. The same goes for my dog Waffles.

  1. The Metacognitive Animal

I am aware of my own thoughts… and you can’t kill me.

When an animal becomes aware of its own thoughts and consciousness, it is no longer an “animal”. Once it has recognized itself, its ability to conceive, and has in some way or another displayed this capability, it acquires personhood.

And before you say so you think it’s okay to kill babies and the mentally ill, note that this rule applies to all members of the species. Humans have the potential to become metacognitive, and we are not so smart that we can determine a given person’s potential, so we have no right to end any human’s life. And if your hamster stood up one day and said dude… I’m a hamster!, we’d have to spread the word that hamster life is now supremely precious too.

I’m not sure if Koko the Gorilla or other individual primates have been proven to be metacognitive, but if they have, killing any member of the proven animal’s species is wrong. I think this is self-evident, and it’s why it breaks our hearts to see more intelligent animals like dolphins, elephants, and dogs die. These creatures are closer to the brink of metacognition than most, so we are more empathetic to their doom. And it’s why we don’t feel the same way about a deer or a fish getting taken down on a wildlife show (we sometimes enjoy that).

As applies to the two previous kinds of animals, there is nothing wrong with killing a metacognitive animal that is trying to do serious harm. This is the justification for self-defense laws. Depending on the situation, it might even be okay to kill a metacognitive animal that presents in imminent threat to animals 3 and 2, but I’ll let you think about that one on your own.

In addition to these three kinds of animals, I would say that killing anything without a good reason is wrong. You can swat a fly that’s pestering you, a pig that you want to eat, a tree that looks like it might fall on your house, or a pet that’s more burden than benefit. But you shouldn’t kill an animal just because it’s there or just because you can. That’s brutality. And abstaining from brutality is what makes us human and gives our lives infinite value in the first place.

Random Philosophizing: The Three Animals You Can’t Kill

The Form of Inequality We Really Need to Address

Wealth inequality, institutionalized racism, the gender gap, heterosexuality, Islamophobia, the Washington Redskins, immigration laws, and others are incessantly on all of our collective minds. This evil world is completely unequal, and not even public demonstrations or hashtags have been able to make carbon copies out of all of us. English is still being spoken throughout America, and religious freedom is alive and well. If you thought life had meaning, you were wrong. Everything sucks, and there is nothing we can do about it.

However, these colors of inequity pale in comparison to one shade of injustice which has plagued man throughout human history and continues to perpetuate itself without ever being addressed on a grand scale: The Height Gap.

As a 5’6” and a half gentleman, I have experienced the darkness of being one of The Short in a society dominated by The Tall (much of the aforementioned darkness is a direct result of literally being stuck in their shadows). We, The Short, are forced to stand on our tippy-toes and on phone books while The Privileged Tall are able to reach condiments and canned goods on the top shelves without any effort at all. The Tall never have to worry about where to sit in a movie theater or where to stand at concerts. They excel at basketball (an inherently heightest sport) and exercise their membership in the heightriarchy by folding their legs completely over each other on the subway. The Tall see further than the short, and refuse to empathize with the fear of being used as an armrest as The Short are forced to do on a daily basis. Our people are hatefully mocked by the media in the form of Munchkins, Dwarves, Oompa Loompas, and Smurfs, and we, The Short, have had it up to here (which isn’t as high as we’d like it to be in the first place) with being viewed as lower-level citizens.

To reform height inequality in America and throughout the globe, I propose electing Bernie Sanders to be our President, Fuhrer, Chairman, and Supreme Lord of All Physical and Metaphysical Matter. Just as he promises to steal property and wealth from the upper class and arbitrarily distribute it to his constituency, Sanders is the only man who might be willing to take action on height inequality by hacking off segments of The Tall’s limbs and surgically adding them to the bodies of The Short. With Obamacare already in place, the medical processes would be paid for by The Rich, so The Short would not have to contribute anything to alleviating this form of discrimination unless they are rich themselves.

Height Inequality is an even more immoral problem in society than wealth inequality. At least people who have money either earned it or maintained what they inherited. In height, there is no merit to be heard of. People are simply born at their maximum distance from the Earth without any effort or need to preserve it. This breeds a sense of entitlement among The Tall. They don’t see a thing wrong with holding their heads higher than the rest of ours, a prime example of Tall Privilege.

Once we are all equal in height, the world will be a much better place. The government can take over garment manufacturing since a one-size-fits-all policy would make sense. This would prevent us from having to suffer from inequality, responsibility, and freedom ever again.

Remember, guys: we are all in this together (except The Tall who must be forced to pay their fair share in inches). Let’s #FeelTheBern as one and eradicate Height Inequality once and for all!

The Form of Inequality We Really Need to Address

6 Rebuttals to the “But Socialism Works in Scandinavia” Argument

Have you been in a debate with a Cult of Sanders member recently? Pretty easy to win that argument, right? You cite the Constitution, the horrific death and despair socialism has caused in Russia, China, Germany, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Cuba over the course of the past century, the supreme moral values of Human Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that Socialism fails to acknowledge, and the fact that LBJ’s War on Poverty has been a completely futile effort among other overwhelming arguments. But just as your socialist counterpart is teetering on the brink of beginning his metamorphosis into a full-grown Libertarian adult, he pulls out his trump card: Socialism works in Scandinavia.

It’s a devastating blow. I mean how can you argue with that? The Nordic nations are considered Socialist, and they are comprised of some of the happiest, healthiest, and most successful people in the world! It seems like it’s time to put away Old Glory, and get in line with the collectivist horde.

Snap out of it, friend! The debate is not over!

In the following entry, I will list and elaborate on six powerful arguments that will critique the effectiveness of the Nordic Model and teach Bernie Sanders and his followers why they should never use Scandinavia to support their agenda ever again.

Much of what I am going to report is taken from Nima Sanandaji’s revealing book called Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism which can be read for free here. You can also hear Sanandaji in a discussion about his findings here.

Here are the arguments. Enjoy!

  1. The US and Scandinavian Populations are Incomparable

This point proves that the discussion is irrelevant from the get-go. It’s a logical fallacy to compare apples to oranges. But when talking to Socialists, reason and logic may not matter, so you better have some statistics to persuade them.

To make this easy, I’ll break down some demographic factors that make any comparison between The Land of the Free and Scandinavia erroneous:

Population

Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland)

  • 26 million people (average of under 7 million per country)

USA

  • 300 million people (California alone has almost 39 million residents)

If the Scandinavian countries were US states, Sweden would be the 11th biggest, Denmark, Finland, and Norway would be 22nd, 23rd, and 24th respectively, and Iceland would be the smallest behind Wyoming.

In other words, the USA is, um, substantially larger than Scandinavia, and none of the Scandinavian states have the burden of an intrusive and distant federal government like ours. Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if Stockholm announced it was going to take over the education and health insurance systems of the other Nordic nations? If anything, the stability and success of Scandinavia could serve as justification for the 10th Amendment and State’s Rights.

Do you remember when Mitt Romney was called in idiot for suggesting that his Obamacare-like policy, which was so successful in Massachusetts, would not have worked at a federal level? It looks like he may have been right.

Diversity

Scandinavia

  • 90% of Denmark’s population is ethnically Danish.
  • 94% of Norway’s population is ethnically Norwegian.
  • 94% of Iceland’s population is ethnically Icelandic.
  • Only 3.4% of Finnish citizens are foreign-born.
  • Sweden, peculiarly, does not keep these kinds of records, but we can all take a wild guess as to where the vast majority of their population hails from.

USA

  • 37 different ancestry groups are represented by a population of over a million people in the US.
  • The immigrant population of the USA is twice the size of Scandinavia as a whole.
  • The US’s illegal immigrant population alone is made up of at least 11 million individuals, a greater population than that of any entire Scandinavian nation.

When cultural and ethnic backgrounds are homogenous, management isn’t very difficult. If you’re on a road trip with your friends to go to an AC/DC concert, picking a radio station is not too hard to do. But when you’re with your coworkers who all have different musical tastes, it might not be a bad idea to turn the radio off altogether.

Multiculturalism is not something the Scandinavians are forced to deal with. This is a uniquely American challenge, as far as Western Civilization goes. One-size-fits-all policies may work in less diverse regions of the world, but America is a land of rugged individualism and liberty. Considering our varied religions, customs, and values, Socialism is not plausible here.

  1. Scandinavia was Kicking Ass before Socialism

In today’s victimhood culture, people tend to start stories in the middle. Instead of being honest and exposing the choices they have made in the past, they conceal everything but their current state of affairs. It’s a great way to bypass responsibility, incur sympathy, and legitimize excuses.

This same immaturity is used by worshippers of Socialism. They see the Scandinavian nations ranking near or at the top in many positively-regarded qualities (like life expectancy and poverty rates) and declare Socialism the champion of political practices.

But by taking a quick glance at the history of these countries, something striking is revealed: they were already outperforming the rest of the world when Socialism was implemented:

  • Sweden had the highest growth rate in the industrialized world from 1870-1936 (when it was decidedly Capitalist).
  • Sweden fell from being the 4th wealthiest nation in the world to the 13th between 1975 and the 1990s (coinciding with the peak of its Socialist policies).
  • In 1960 (before Socialism hit Scandinavia), Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark ranked 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th in life expectancy respectively. They are currently 7th, 9th, 11th, and 25th in the world. The US is 26th.
  • Wealth equality existed in Scandinavia nearly a century before Socialism.

All of this can be found in Sanandaji’s book.

To argue that Socialism has improved Scandinavian life on a global scale is like saying Brad Pitt became more handsome when he married Angelina Jolie; Brad has always been a beautiful, beautiful man.

  1. Business Creation and Employment have been Stagnant in Socialist Sweden

Of the 100 biggest employers currently in Sweden, zero were founded after the Socialist takeover around 1970. Six of America’s top-twenty employers (Yum! Brands, The Home Depot, Sears Holdings, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and FedEx) have been founded since then.

Since 1950, net job creation in Sweden has been relatively zero while the population has increased by nearly a third from 7 million to 9 million. The US has increased the amount of available jobs through every presidential term since 1950 and earlier.

Our system is beating Sweden’s when it comes to jobs.

  1. No Scandinavian Countries Have a Federal Minimum Wage

Raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour! No, $15 an hour! No, $4,562 an hour!

On this subject, I think I’d actually like to take the Scandinavian’s lead. There are zero federal minimum wage standards in Scandinavia. That’s right, zero. That’s roughly the same as the amount of years Bernie Sanders has spent doing something other than being a politician for the past 40 years.

Would it be a good or bad idea to remove minimum wage standards in the US altogether? It’s a good debate to be had. But raising the minimum wage at the federal level has nothing to do with the Nordics.

  1. No Scandinavian Countries Allow Birthright Citizenship

Birthright citizenship is a policy which grants citizenship to anyone born inside the granting country’s jurisdiction. Though there are strong arguments against this actually being legal in the US, America and Canada are the only two developed nations in world which permit birthright citizenship. This is according to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Most of Central and South America also allow birthright citizenship, but that’s basically it throughout the world.

In a free society, immigration is a good thing. More people means more producers, more consumers, and more ideas and innovation. A nation’s economy grows as its population does, so birthright citizenship should not only be welcomed but encouraged when people are free from government programs and coercion.

In a Socialist society, increasing the population is a nightmare. A large central government produces nothing. It only consumes salaries for bureaucrats and funding for federal programs and facilities, and redistributes the wealth which already exists. More people means more hands in the pot, and a consequently smaller share for everyone. While it may be morally deplorable, disallowing birthright citizenship in Scandinavia follows a smart Socialist model. If Bernie Sanders is elected and decides to turn us into Sweden, he better take their and Ann Coulter’s advice on immigration.

In Scandinavia, as well as other parts of Europe, right-wing political parties are rising as a response to the Syrian refugee crisis (as well as the economic disaster that is the EU). Unlike the US, European nations do not assimilate with their foreign born populations very well, so no American should pay attention to accusations of racism or xenophobia from any European. We are by far the most generous nation to immigrants in the world.

  1. Poor Scandinavians=Poor Americans, Rich Americans>Rich Scandinavians

As Margaret Thatcher brilliantly demonstrates in this video, Socialism is not about improving the economic situation, but balancing it. Rather than finding a way to make everyone in society richer, Socialism threatens to bring down both the rich and the poor for the sake of equality.

The figure displayed in this article illustrates these results fairly well. The poorest 10% of people in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the US all earn about 38% of their nation’s average income. Since the US has the highest average income of all those nations by a substantial margin, poor Americans may actually earn more than poor Scandinavians, and probably don’t pay taxes. Conversely, some of this may be offset by superior welfare programs in the Nordic nations (I admit that much of this is just conjecture). Additionally, the poor in Norway are a bit better off than the previously mentioned nations in terms of average income, but that may be due to Norway’s wealth in oil.

As far as the wealthy go, the richest 10% of Americans earn a whopping 210% more than the average American wage of $45k per year. As for Scandinavians? The richest 10% earn a little more than double their respective national averages with Norway again being a bit better off.

Is this what Bernie Sanders wants for America? Does he want the richest people in our country to be less well-off simply because their earnings are more unequal? Is he willing to risk making the poor even poorer for the sake of equality?

And just for kicks, shouldn’t the oversensitive people worried about macroaggressions be a little offended by Bernie Sanders wanting us to be more like the whitest, blondest, bluest-eyed people in the world?

I’m just joking about that last bit. You see how silly some of you sound?

You should definitely skim through Nima Sanandaji’s Scandinavian Unexceptionalism: Culture, Markets and the Failure of Third-Way Socialism before you take any of this stuff from me. He also touches upon the deterioration of work ethic in Scandinavia, the fact that Scandinavian emigrants are more successful than average Scandinavians, and that the Nordic nations with the least Socialistic tendencies tend to avoid the negative effects of Socialist policies.

It’s important that those of us who prefer Capitalism to Socialism to not only claim the moral and legal high ground (which is easy), but to be prepared with the practical superiority of a free society too.

6 Rebuttals to the “But Socialism Works in Scandinavia” Argument

Unsmearable: One Way Ben Carson is Beating the Odds

I’ve been enjoying the political spectacle that is the 2016 Presidential Race. I love the fact that so many non-establishment candidates are going strong and challenging the way we view politics and government as a whole. From Donald Trump’s brash and unapologetic posturing to Carly Fiorina’s passionate and provocative appeal to Ted Cruz’s Constitutional, Tea Party principles to Bernie Sanders’ sanctioning of Socialism, it’s refreshing and fun to participate in discourse that forces all of us to put our thinking caps on.

As of now, the candidate I am most impressed with is Dr. Ben Carson (though I am in line with Rand Paul’s worldview more closely and think Ted Cruz would make a better president). His story is fascinating, and he seems Coolidge-esque in wanting to simply follow the Constitution and restore freedom to the people.

There are likely more, but here are eleven simple compliments that Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, must give the neurosurgeon from Detroit:

  1. Ben Carson is a great doctor.
  2. Ben Carson is a kind-hearted and charitable man.
  3. Ben Carson lived the American dream.
  4. Ben Carson is honest and unafraid to speak his mind.
  5. Ben Carson is thoughtful.
  6. Ben Carson is humble.
  7. Ben Carson loves America.
  8. Ben Carson supports the Constitution.
  9. Ben Carson is principled.
  10. Ben Carson is not a typical politician.
  11. Ben Carson has raised a wonderful family.

Is there another presidential candidate out there who can garnish that many positive comments from every reasonable person in America (maybe even the whole world)?

It has been a daunting task for the left, Hollywood, and the mainstream media to vilify Dr. Carson, but they have certainly been making an effort. Let’s take a look at a few of their attempts:

Dr. Ben Carson Would Not Vote for Sharia Law

During an NBC interview, Ben Carson was asked whether or not he would support a Muslim candidate for president. He firmly said no. Immediately afterwards, Carson was being called Islamaphobic, and even Kareem Abdul-Jabbar questioned Carson’s understanding of the Constitution.

What was not publicized by the mainstream or social media was Carson’s response to a follow-up question about supporting a Muslim for Congress:

“Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there’s somebody who’s of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I’m with them.”

Carson further clarified his feelings in a ridiculous interview on CNN, and also made it clear that “if there is a devout Christian who is running and they refuse to reject the ideals of our Constitution, or they want to establish a theocracy, I cannot advocate for them.” Basically, if you think that drawing Mohammed is criminal, you don’t get Dr. Carson’s vote (mine neither).

There are three things that I have to touch upon here. The first is that Kareem is wrong. You are allowed to consider a candidate’s religion when you cast your vote. You can consider his favorite NBA team too. We all get to vote once for whomever we’d like to—period. Ben Carson said nothing in the vicinity of making it illegal for Muslims to run for office. He simply enacted his First Amendment right to free speech.

And by the way, how many Liberals refused to give Mitt Romney the time of day in 2012 simply for being a Mormon? Can you imagine if they were asked to apologize? I was a Liberal at the time, and I wouldn’t have voted for a president of that faith.

Secondly (and ironically), Ben Carson made another interesting statement earlier on in the initial interview when asked about being criticized for allegedly having little to say about specific policies:

“I would say, ‘Listen to what I actually say when I have an opportunity to say it in something other than a one-minute sound bite.’ That’s a format that I have to grow accustomed to. That’s not the world that I’ve lived in. But a time will come, down the road, where I’ll be able to adjust to that appropriately.”

In the Twitter era, we have grown accustomed to expecting each other to be able to express our beliefs in just a handful of words and emoticons. Ben Carson, on the other hand, is a fucking brain surgeon! Though it would be nice if he could find a way to more effectively communicate with our technologically simplified minds, I really wish we would learn to think things through again instead. Having read Dr. Carson’s fantastic book One Nation, I can personally vouch for the complexity of thought this man brings to the table. But don’t take it from me (and please don’t take it from the media); check it out for yourself, or have the humility to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The last thing I have to say on this is that Ben Carson’s campaign fundraising surged after this “controversy” took place. The Good Doctor is resonating with grassroots, principled Americans, and he is showing no signs of slowing down.

Dr. Ben Carson Thinks People Should Fight to Survive

After the recent tragedy in Oregon, Ben Carson had the audacity to claim that he would not passively accept fire from a crazed gunman. He, in his off-the-cuff manner, said he would attack the gunman and encourage those around him to follow his charge.

Out of sheer desperation, Carson’s opposition called him stupid for taking this stance. He was laughed at and dismissed before his antagonists even had time to think about what he was saying.

Let’s think about it. Imagine we were sitting in a classroom, and a lunatic shooter strolled in. I think it’s fairly safe to say that there is a good chance that a few of us are not going to make it out of that situation alive. So what should we do? Do we reason with him? Do we beg for our lives? Do we follow his orders and hope someone else gets killed?

How about we get out of our seats, snatch anything that resembles a weapon, gnash our teeth, and go Walking Dead on his ass?

Have we become so pussified as a people that we think we are unable to defend ourselves? Have we forgotten that we are several-hundred-pound apes? The heroes who rescued an entire train full of people in France were unarmed, and there were only a handful of them. Imagine what a classroom full of teenagers could do?

I’m not saying that Ben Carson’s plan is perfect or even the most efficient means of surviving in that kind of a situation. But to smugly laugh it off without offering a better idea is just stupid.

Dr. Ben Carson is Religious

It is true that Dr. Ben Carson does not believe in evolution, and likely believes the Earth is closer to brand-spanking new than 4.5 billion years old.

So what?

I skim through the Constitution from time to time, and I have yet to see the clause that gives the president the authority to abolish scientific theories he disagrees with. The President does not decide how human life came into being. His job is to follow the Constitution. That’s it. As alluded to earlier, Ben Carson says the Constitution comes first.

Dr. Ben Carson Believes Straight People Can Become Gay

Many laid Ben Carson’s campaign to rest when he claimed that homosexuality is a choice by citing the occurrence of same-sex intercourse in prison. This was called homophobic and bigoted and whatever.

The truth is, Ben Carson is right (on some level anyway). While plenty of people are clearly born with homosexual tendencies, there is no doubt that others either choose to be gay or start batting for the other team for some reason at some point. Sexuality is fluid. You remember the guy that used to make fun of everyone who dated a heavyset chick? Well, does he only date supermodels now? I didn’t think so.

To this point, there is but one potential smear left. It’s a disgusting attempt to derail Ben Carson’s campaign and to avoid actually debating the issues with him. I had known it was coming for a long time, but I finally heard it on a legitimate platform recently.

During an episode of Overtime, the post-show after Real Time with Bill Maher, the first write-in question presented to the panel was about Ben Carson’s rise in the polls. After a few guests weighed in with nothing that even resembled a policy critique, Linda Chavez oinked “I think that there is a real desire in the Republican Party to have a Black Republican, and I think that’s what drives it.”

That someone would say something so vicious was a forgone conclusion from the get-go. The Democrats, who do little aside from talking about how woeful the lives of minorities are, have the most boring, pasty-white, career-politician presidential candidates the world has ever seen. None of them have experience in the real world, and they do not understand the concept of dealing with adversity. And when you look boring and out of touch, projecting your flaws onto your opponents is a solid strategy.

Race is the only smear left. When you can’t attack a person for his opinions because you don’t listen to them, and you can’t drum up his scandals because he has none, you, as a desperate smear-artist, must attack the only thing you have left to think of: his genetics.

If you don’t like Ben Carson’s flat tax proposal, fine. Debate it. If you’re not a fan of Health Savings Accounts, fine. Explain why your idea is better. But if you are so pathetically racist that you can’t see past a man’s complexion, you have discovered that Ben Carson is smear-proof by smearing yourself.

Unsmearable: One Way Ben Carson is Beating the Odds

Thoughts from a Former Gun-Grabber

If you’ve been a Facebook friend of mine for more than two or three years, there is a pretty good chance that you’ve seen me go balls deep into the gun control debate. In the not so distant past, not only was I in favor of stricter regulations for private gun ownership, I wanted Socialist-style confiscations and bans across the board. The Second Amendment was as good as used toilet paper in my eyes.

At the time, I was less happy, less confident, and less sure about what I wanted out of life than I am today. I didn’t understand the concept of thinking things through. I subscribed to the YOLO life instead of the good life.

Now, I know who I am, I know what I want, and I understand that life is a challenge, not a fantasy. As a result, my views on many topics have drastically changed, and that includes gun control.

The following are a few reasons why I do not favor impediments to the Second Amendment of any kind:

The Second Amendment

The wording is “shall not be infringed”. There are no conditional clauses. The Supreme Law of the Land hammers this policy home immediately after guaranteeing the American people protection from federal limitations on speech, religion, and the press, and the rights to peacefully assemble and to petition the government. The Bill of Rights essentially says we can think and express whatever we want, and we can shoot the government if it tries to stop us.

The Second Amendment cannot be taken lightly because the Constitution cannot be taken lightly. If we lose the Constitution, we lose everything. Our inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness do not exist in the government’s eyes without the revolutionary document ratified by our Forefathers in 1788. The Constitution as a whole turns creative ideals into objective principles, and we must never lose sight of that.

And here’s the kicker when it comes to the Second Amendment: it is not in place to allow us to hunt or to provide us with the right to defend ourselves and our families. The Second Amendment’s sole intended function is to make sure the American people are prepared to fight back against a tyrannical government. This is a permanent policy. The Constitution is little more than a list of laws that tell the government what it may and may not do. It would be quite foolish to allow the very body the Second Amendment was written in fear of to do exactly what it forbids it from doing.

I don’t think there is much of a legal issue when it comes to states passing gun control legislation, but the Federal Government is barred from doing so unless it amends the Constitution.

The Recent History of Government

As Alex Jones once wildly exclaimed in a heated debate with Piers Morgan, “The tyrants did it! Hitler took the guns! Stalin took the guns! Mao took the guns! Fidel Castro took the guns! Hugo Chavez took the guns!”, and he’s right. The 20th Century will forever be stained by the atrocities committed by Communist, Fascist, and Socialist dictators all across the globe. And while it may seem like a stretch to assume that our federal government would follow a path similar to that of the aforementioned villains, there is no doubting that it could.

There has been no greater force of evil in human history than corrupt and immoral governments. And with a population that has elected George W. Bush and Barack Obama successively, what says Hitler isn’t next?

Self-Defense

The Second Amendment was not written for self-defense purposes in particular, but it’s a nice side effect. From a common sense standpoint, having the right to protect your body, your family, and your property with a firearm is invaluable. The Founders may have neglected to leave this rationale for gun ownership out of the Constitution for the same reason they failed to mention that the government is forbidden from establishing a prostitution ring: common sense. Of course we are allowed to defend ourselves.

The Proposed Legislation is Worthless

Universal background checks would not have prevented a single mass shooting (except maybe the Virginia Tech Massacre), and an assault weapons ban would do nothing to curb overall gun violence in America. Nearly all of the high-profile mass shootings that have taken place over the course of the past several decades were not done by career criminals, and there is little evidence to suggest that the people who purchased the guns would have failed a mental health examination had they been forced to. Many of them passed background checks and purchased their guns legally.

Besides, as horrific as the mass shootings that continue to occur are, they are statistically inconsequential when looking at the overall murder rate in America. Does that make it hurt any less when the irreplaceable life of an individual human being is lost? No. But the fact of the matter is that shark attacks (19 per year) happen more often than these rampages (never more than 10 [referring to shooting incidents that claim three or more lives]). We would be the gun violence capital of the world with or without these mass shootings, and our middle-of-the-pack rank in overall murder would not be significantly altered. On a side not, certain US cities would be in competition for murder capitals of the world if they were their own nations.

By the way, does everyone know what military-style, semi-automatic assault rifle even means? The “military-style” part means nothing. It is simply the terminology used for a gun that resembles one a soldier might use. It is a rhetorical appeal to our sense of fear used by anti-gun activists. “Semi-automatic” means that the barrel does not have to be cocked before each individual shot. It does not mean it can spray bullets the way an Uzi does in Grand Theft Auto. And “assault rifle” is another empty term. In fact, many hunting rifles (which Obama loves so much) are more powerful than so-called “assault rifles”.

Anyway, in the same way that mass shootings account for a minimal portion of the overall murder rate in the US, rifles as a whole are not the weapon of choice when it comes to homicide. Handguns, the guns no one ever talks about banning, are used in the overwhelming majority of murders with firearms in the US.

Gun Free Zones

Nearly all of the high-profile mass murders we have sadly had to witness in recent years occurred in gun free zones. I don’t think it’s the strongest point that can be made in favor of preserving the Second Amendment, but it’s certainly something to think about.

Solutions

Our Brave Men and Women in Uniform

Instead of fighting alongside child molesters in Afghanistan or anti-Semites throughout the Middle East, bring our troops home to defend us. And before you freak out thinking that I want our streets to be militarized, remember that we have a volunteer army. The bravest among us are not drafted or required to serve; they do so for the sake of our freedoms and for the love of their country and its people.

What I would propose is to station retired and mildly-injured veterans, and maybe even some reserves at schools across the country. This could solve loads of problems:

  • Obviously, the disgusting, weak individuals who desire to slaughter innocent people for fame would have to think twice if badass US Marines and soldiers were present. Veteran Chris Mintz nearly gave his life in an attempt to stop the recent massacre in Oregon. Can you imagine how great of an opportunity he would have had to neutralize the shooter had he or someone of his level of awesomeness been armed?
  • With the likes of Miley Cyrus and Caitlyn Jenner acting as role models for our children, I don’t think anyone would argue that former service members would be an infinitely vast improvement as people for our kids to look up to. Strong, positive male role models for kids have become rare. This could be an opportunity to change that.
  • Child obesity is reaching epidemic levels in the US, and what better way to improve their health is there than time spent with our troops? When not on guard duty, veteran security forces could bring discipline and superior exercise regimens to the future leaders of our country during recess or after school. This would be great for physical fitness purposes, and as a way to build community. What’s the downside?
  • Our military budget is astronomical and we have troops stationed in about 75% of the nations across the globe. How about we bring them home, and reallocate our funding of war towards a real homeland security program?
  • I planned on citing unemployment and suicide among veterans as other problems this solution might solve. But after further research, those issues don’t seem to be as serious as we are led to believe.

There are roughly 140,000 educational institutions in the US. There are also over 21 million military veterans. Does it seem like a crazy idea to ask a handful of those heroes if they’d mind standing guard for our kids at our schools? My instincts tell me they’d be happy to oblige.

Traditional Family Values

Many news sources have been citing statistics which prove that overall crime, murder, and gun violence have been on the decline. It seems like really good news, but there is an elephant in the room being ignored: mass incarceration. There is a small country’s worth of people residing in prisons across the country, and it’s a strong indicator that our behavior as a nation is not exactly on the up-and-up.

You know what is unequivocally on the incline? Births out of wedlock. And the marriage rate has been freefalling for decades.

Surprisingly, the mass murderers who flood our media outlets every couple of months do not come from broken homes any more often than the general public.

While I don’t feel right shaming people who do not meet the standards of the “nuclear family” (who am I to judge?), our common sense and experiences allow us to generalize and say that broken homes tend to lead to rough paths to adulthood.

In the same way that my old gun-grabbing self would have ignorantly put forward unrealistic gun control measures, I’d like to make one more from the other side. How about we return to the traditional family values that made our country so great in the first place?

It’s just a thought.

Thoughts from a Former Gun-Grabber