Can Bernie Sanders' Proposals Work?

If this election term has taught us anything, it is that the American people are not looking for the norm, regardless of how many Superdelegates Hillary Clinton uses to make herself look more popular than she really is. And when Donald Trump is who most believe to be the only alternative to the Democratic candidates, a man like Bernie Sanders becomes all the more appealing (I mean, if not him, it's a narcissistic fascist or a felon, so it's not surprising...). That said, Donald Trump certainly doesn't fit the establishment mold of the remaining Republican candidates, and his leads in the polls stick true to today's narrative: Americans don't want politicians who are politicians.

Republicans would have us believe Donald Trump has all the buzz, but I would beg to differ; posts about Bernie Sanders plague infect envelop fill my Facebook News Feed on a daily basis, and while Trump often trends via his childlike behavior, Sanders is making headlines with his policies, even if they don't scream sensibility. You see, Sanders is a self-admitted socialist, albeit a Democratic socialist, and this has become quite popular in recent months.

No one really knows what he means by Democratic socialism, and when asked, he spews forth some liberal ideologies the left already upholds and suddenly everyone thinks they agree with him (note the vague answer in the video above). It also helps to be promised free stuff, which makes the youth feel tingly in their no-no places, while struggling (and lazy) adults are excited to receive things they didn't earn, lightening their burden.

(Receiving everything whilst doing nothing: the Millennial way of life. No wonder Sanders is so popular.)

The different socialist views can get confusing, because there really isn't a lot of difference between some of them, but enough to require denomination-like separation. Democratic socialism is distinct from social democracy, which is distinct from Marxist-Leninist socialism, etc., etc. I want to focus for a moment on the two forms relevant to us in America: Democratic socialism and social democracy.

We happen to have a good example of social democracy today, in the form of Barack Obama. To explain it as simply as possible, social democracy is a capitalist economy and political democracy, with economic and social intervention, specifically a welfare state. Democratic socialism likewise requires a Democratic political system, but the economy revolves around the even distribution of production (what most understand as socialism), relying heavily on middle-class labor.

Either way, it's all socialism, so we'll just call it that.

Recently, I have seen some information coming out, regarding how Sanders is going to pay for all these goodies he promises everyone. It appears some believe Sanders will save us $18.8 trillion. Observe the following chart:

The information in this chart conflicts with some other calculations that have been made. The best thing we can do is analyze the collective information and make informed opinions for ourselves. This chart is being used as a rough outline of Sanders' economic model, and I encourage everyone to do the research for themselves.

According to the chart, in ten years it is estimated Sanders' plans will save America $18.8 trillion. His health care proposal seems to make the biggest dent, costing $15 trillion but apparently saving $32 trillion by removing current plans. This seems great on the surface, but people aren't considering the fact that we will still be the ones to pay for our coverage. Sanders plans to impose a payroll tax of 6.7% on employers, and 2.2% on individual incomes. But consider that the likelihood of employers covering such costs without taking it from employees' paychecks, is highly unrealistic. Basically, employers offer health care as a package their employees pay for, and the higher the tax on the employer, the more we pay out of our paychecks to cover it.

In 2013, we spent nearly $1.3 trillion on health care, while in 2014 it doubled to $3 trillion. Sanders' plan would see the top 5% of income earners contributing about half of the estimated health care costs, but the sum from all income earners would still fall drastically short of what was spent in 2013. (If you'd like to sift through some numbers for yourself, have at it.) A single-payer system is certainly much more beneficial, I concede, but Sanders' outlook is unrealistic in terms of just how much costs will need to be cut to succeed (as much as 50% or more, a rather tall order). It is also worth noting that Berniecare will be mandatory, and not just fining you for not having coverage at the end of the year, but forcing you to have coverage and making you pay for it by increasing the amount taken from your paychecks.

As you can see in the chart above, Sanders relies on taxes to cover everything. To cover the costs of tuition, he's taxing the rich. To prevent the cutting of pension plans, he's taxing the rich. To pay for child care services, he's taxing the rich. In other words, it's not fair for those people to be rich while so many are not, so Sanders will steal their money and distribute it for the good of all. If you have ever listened to Sanders talk about the rich (he's rich, too, lest we forget), he rarely, if ever, does so without correlating their wealth with corruption. And while he's not entirely wrong, he's virtually placing every rich individual in the same circle, and punishing them for being wealthy. Tax is theft. Sanders is willing to steal from the wealthy to give to the poor. This is just as wrong as the rich taking from the poor, of which we are wise to note his exaggerations.

Understand this chart is not entirely accurate, as it is not just the rich whom Sanders is taxing; the rich are having their taxes increased, but so are most of the rest of us. The money from our paychecks will be going to those who don't work at all, and without our consent (I suppose he has the consent of his voters, but they don't speak for everyone). And while in a utopic society we would all willfully give our earnings to those in greater need, it should be our will to do so, on an individual basis, not the will of the government. He has taken choice out of the equation, and this, friends, is slavery.

Apart from raising the minimum wage to $15/hour, the thing people are most excited about is the promise of tuition-free schooling. I'd like to focus on that for a moment.

Liberals...

I don't think anyone would argue that college tuition is painfully high. I also don't happen to think people have considered why it is so high and what can be done to lower it. Did you know half of our tuition fees are going to pensions? Illinois State University and University of Illinois have comparable tuitions, costing about $30,000 per year. Roughly $15,000 of this goes toward pensions, pensions which should be coming from the money saved by the teachers receiving the pensions, not the tuition fees. In 2006, only 20% of college tuition went toward pensions, making pensions the driving force behind tuition increases today.

Sanders doesn't want to see these pensions go away, simply moving the burden from the middle-class to the top 0.3%, taxing them further to cover pensions not their own (unless that person is a teacher with a salary placing them in the top 0.3%). So, not only are the rich paying for pension plans that aren't theirs, but also the tuition fees of people who aren't them. Does no one understand this to be theft? Just because they have the money, it doesn't mean I want Jimmy Fatwallet (nor should it be their responsibility) to be paying for tuition that should be my responsibility to cover, especially when we can dramatically reduce these costs by eliminating the pension portion of the tuition fees.

Sanders' other popular train-wreck-of-an-idea is to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour. I actually agree with Sanders' thinking, in that the minimum wage should more resemble a living wage, but I don't believe a large jump to $15 is the answer. In my opinion, a minimum wage between $11/hour and $12/hour would account for the rate of inflation. The reality of surviving on minimum wage is no doubt grim, as a single adult without kids can reasonably cover most expenses working 40 hours a week, while adding kids to the mix makes minimum wage unstable. This is also dependent on location; different cities/counties/states have different tax rates and costs of living, and the minimum wage might go further in one state over another. Typically, states have accounted for their standard cost of living, raising their minimum wage above the federal standard, which should allow for full-time employees to cover the bare minimum of expenses.

But covering the bare minimum isn't enough, I would argue, though I don't believe minimum wage should be a thriving wage so much as a surviving wage (I use both of those terms fairly loosely, just to make my point), and here are just a few reasons why:

1. If someone can work at McDonald's for $15/hour, while a paramedic, who works much harder, also makes $15/hour, why would someone choose the harder job to make the same amount of money? Similarly, if the minimum wage of a fast food worker far exceeds the cost of living, that worker will likely feel less inclined to move up the ranks, let alone find another, better paying job. Can you imagine how many people would choose sitting at the front desk of a hotel for $15/hour over breaking their back in a factory for the same amount? We need people working necessary jobs, not choosing straight-out-of-high-school jobs for the rest of their lives.
2. If minimum wage far exceeds the cost of living, the cost of living will inevitably increase to compensate. In the end, the minimum wage can never remain a thriving wage, because the cost of living will always make it worth less. This is why I argue for a surviving wage, one that allows people to keep up with the cost of living, without hindering the drive for self-progress. I believe a thriving wage eliminates the need for self-progress, which hinders the progress of the economy as a whole.
3. Despite what some "experts" like to say to favor their agenda, employers will struggle. My former job offered no overtime, very minimal raises (typically 1%), and certainly no holiday pay. And each time the minimum wage was raised, my raises were not reflected, bringing me right back to minimum wage. Employers can't afford major wage increases without increasing the prices of their products (here's where we would see the cost of living effected). Meanwhile, in order to make up for the loss of revenue due to payroll costs, employers will be forced to trim the number of employees they have, as well as cut the hours of non-salary workers, relying on the salary workers to fill in the gaps. Therefore, the very thing created to help make people's wages go further, is the very thing that may leave them without a wage at all.

This is why I argue for a more considerable wage, something between $11 and $12. I believe such a wage is still reasonable for employers, yet doesn't risk further inflation (again, it meets up with the current rate of inflation).

In spite of all this, we still haven't answered the question of whether any of this can actually work. In short, yes, but that depends on your definition of "work." If by "work" you mean we can function, I suspect this can work. The hard workers will be carrying the lazy and non-workers, and those who have worked hard for the wealth they have generated will see it stolen from them and given to the undeserving, but sure, we will still function as a society...for a while. But if you mean "work" as in we will prosper, absolutely not.

Ultimately, acceptance of Sanders' ideas is the result of ignorance. They hear him talk about free stuff, and the programs he will cut in order to pay for the free stuff, but is no one going to bat an eye at the fact that taxes are still being raised in order to pay for all of this free stuff? If you haven't learned by now, we only receive things freely because someone else pays for it, and none of us are entitled to that which someone else works for. And if that's not enough, I believe whole-heartedly that socialism will destroy the will to progress and improve this nation, leaving us comfortable in a world of self-entitlement and selfishness, no matter how selfless socialism appears on the surface.

Strange. I think I read this summarization in meme a few minutes ago...

 

Unity, Not War

War. Republicans love it, Democrats pretend to hate it. And unless you have been living under a rock, you have probably heard statements made by Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in support of blitzkrieg-style warfare against ISIS, the cessation of immigration for Muslims into America, the surveillance of mosques, and even the inhibition of Muslim U.S. citizens from returning to the country should they travel outside of it. Lo, and behold, the thousands upon thousands who cheer for such wickedness against their fellow man, condemning the actions of Muslim terrorists, while worshiping promises of eradication made by our nation's “leaders.”

Hypocrites.

Craving a fascist society so long as their conservative standards are met, Republicans flock to fascist Donald Trump as if he is a modern day Jesus, the savior of a broken land and divided people, here to put a stop to the liberal agendas that have defecated all over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and national stability. He says, “War!” and they say, “Charge!” Forget about the fact that there will continue to be civilian casualties—you know, people not responsible for terrorism—let's just bomb the hell out of ISIS and wipe them off the map. Yeah, that'll show'em! We'll just march in there and establish our dominance, marking our territory as if the alpha male. I remember when we did that about a decade ago. Do you?

It was 2001. Afghanistan was in our sights. America went in, guns blazing, blinded with an emotional response to the attacks on the World Trade Center, ready to topple al-Qaeda and help bring some stability to the Middle East. Or so our leaders claimed. We killed thousands, lost many of our own, and the result?: we failed to destroy our target, started the longest war in U.S. History, and became the catalyst for other terrorist groups elsewhere. Good job, Bush administration!

But, as we all know, history tends to repeat itself. In 2003, Iraq was the target. We invaded Iraq on the basis of misinformation, and we eventually wound up killing Saddam Hussein in 2006. As a result of our presence, the Middle East's instability increased, giving rise to a more powerful version of the very enemy we sought to eradicate in 2001: ISIS.

Yes, America created the very enemy we are still claiming to fight. Our current failure-in-chief continues to press for the death of Assad, as if we haven't seen the consequences of similar intervention in very recent history (Egypt, anyone?). After years of bombings and bloodshed, the Middle East is no more stable than it was before we killed Saddam Hussein, and Iraq has yet to experience the peace Bush promised them when we rode in as wielders of desolation. And did we learn anything from our failures? Not a thing. Instead, we proceeded to tear Libya apart, allowing the enemy we created to use the tattered country as a hub. Strange. One might think we are fighting with ISIS, rather than against.

In retrospect, we know the war with Iraq was a terrible mistake, and when asked about whether the war as a good idea, the current GOP candidates are in mutual agreement as to our failure, especially Rand Paul, who stressed exactly why our interventionism is a mistake:

I firmly believe much of our conflicts are rooted in the fact that humankind has, ironically, forgotten we are all humans. We have forsaken love, peace, and diplomacy, in favor of vengeance, slaughter, and control. We see ourselves as black, white, brown, red, or yellow, instead of simply people. When we stop seeing ourselves as human and merely define ourselves and others by ideologies and skin color, we fool ourselves into thinking there can ever be unity, for unity is not forged in blood and fire, but in love and concern, in wisdom and strength to seek peace above all else.

We so often view the world dualistically, but this is where we err, for the world isn't confined merely to what is good and what is evil, lest we understand that good and evil are often differences in perspectives. We do a disservice to our fellow man and to ourselves when we don't allow ourselves to be challenged by that which opposes our worldview. This nation's hatred for Muslims is a good example of that. People don't mind saying how Islam is an evil religion, but when asked what they know about the religion, they only answer with examples of jihad. Or, when asked if they've ever read the Quran, they say no, yet somehow they are experts on the religion. It is seemingly okay to carry a deep hatred for a belief system and people they don't understand, all while calling for our President to wipe them off the map.

Again, hypocrites. 

I urge America to try a different approach, to be better than those who seek to do harm against us and others, to stand against war and needless bloodshed and in support of helping our fellow man rise to their feet, to become the best they can be for themselves and for others. If we work on building each other up, regardless of our differences, instead of bombing each other down, maybe someday the world will experience a little unity.

Refuse Refuge

Those blasted terrorists (pun intended) are at it again, using the refugee crisis as a Trojan horse, just as the almighty Donald Trump had foreseen in his infinite wisdom.

Yea, we shalt not take in those in need, for fear for being blown to smithereens, saith the Lord.

Just kidding. That's from the Republican Bible.

Wait. That's not what scripture says? Correct, Padawan. Catch on quickly, you do.

All sarcasm aside, this is a pretty big deal. And instead of stringing you along point-by-point, before giving you the big reveal, like some mid-season finale, I'll just state the major point of this article right now: he who does not help those in need, is a coward.

I don't intend to use this article nor blog as a theological platform. I already have another blog to serve that purpose. However, it is my Christian brethren with whom I most make my appeal in this article, for I believe, of all people who should be willing to help those in need, it should be Christians at the top of the list.

This isn't just a religious matter, of course, though I will come at it from that angle at various points. We need to be aware of the fact that this is a matter of Americans being scared. That's right. You can deny it, play it off to be a matter of taking caution and preventing the possibility of another attack on American soil, but it's really just fear which prevents you from being a decent human being.

A Better Understanding of Islam

Social media is full of posts about nuking Muslim countries, sending in troops to slaughter them all, etc. You know, the things Jesus never said to do. We have allowed the media to do the thinking for us, and that's a very big problem. We are told ISIS is our enemy, yet our intervention in the Middle East is what created ISIS. So, here we are, wanting to remove Assad because he doesn't serve our interests, while we supposedly wage war on ISIS, who is also at war with Assad. And that's only part of the problem.

Meanwhile, the hate train is running ever smoothly in America, where we think we understand Muslim culture and beliefs. One of my favorite posts in the past couple days is a picture with verses from the Quran, something I had seen shared by almost a half dozen friends and acquaintances:

See, it is my experience that Christians can't even understand the Bible most of the time, let alone know enough of the Quran to share pictures citing verses they've never looked up for themselves. These same people, many of which babble like a baby to pretend to speak in tongues, and can't discern scripture enough to know the “end times” have long passed, have no business spreading hate toward a religion they don't understand. And since they can't feel bothered to check the verses their internet memes cite, I have decided to do so myself, analyzing some of the verses in the picture to the right (I will cover the first eight citations, but am willing to engage regarding the remaining four should someone wish to).

2.191: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

First, I'd like to note that this is certainly contrary to Jesus' call for us to turn the other cheek. The Quran has many verses condoning violence, which is not in line with the Christian faith (should you disagree as per the Old Testament, please provide your proof-texts so that I may teach you what they really say and why they say it). However, consider the context of this verse, as well as what it actually says. If one makes it past the first seven words, perhaps they might notice the command to kill is only in the case of the enemy's oppression, returning unto the enemy that which has been done to them. What it does not say, is to just kill anyone and everyone, despite what the media and other sources might tell you it says.

Verse 190 teaches only to “fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,” not to kill unnecessarily. In fact, verses 192 and 193 further enforce this point, as it is stated, “But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful,” and only to “fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression.” It is further written, “Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” In other words, this passage calls for Muslims to defend themselves against those who seek to harm and oppress them. Contrary to Christ's teachings? Yes. A call to kill everyone who is not a Muslim? No.

3.28: Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah, except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.

Remember Paul's words about fellowship with unbelievers, that it is not good to be unequally yoked?

2 Corinthians 6:14: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?

This is, in essence, what the passage in the Quran is saying. Both are warning of the risk to one's faith should an unbeliever maintain fellowship with a believer; belief and disbelief are as darkness and light, separate and in opposition with each other. I suspect the Quran verse also regards the potential threat of violence at the hands of the unbeliever, in which case this verse is still only just a warning to stand guard in the presence of such company.

3.85: And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.

I think this sounds a whole lot like the (false) teaching of hell for unbelievers, as taught by Christians. Not sure why this was used in the picture. But while we're on this point, if the picture above is to prove that Islam is not a religion of peace based on damnation for unbelief, is Christianity a religion of peace whilst maintaining the same (mistaken) belief?

5.33: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

This verse is rather clear: those who wage war against Muslims (i.e., the attacks come from the other side first) are to be punished. This is nothing that isn't stated in 2.191. Is it peaceful? No, it is not. But remember, it does not say to do this to anyone and everyone who is not a Muslim, but to do so to those who attack first. I do not condone such teaching, and neither does Jesus, but one must admit that it does sound like the typical Christian response to conflict (yeah, I'm talking about those of you who call for nukes to be dropped on Muslim nations). So, ask yourself, based on what this verse says, if you aren't waging war against a Muslim, do you have anything to worry about? Similarly, if you were pushed far enough, would you respond any differently?

8.12: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels: “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

There are some things to consider. First of all, this text regards the spoils of war (8.1). And, as we learned from verses previously analyzed, such punishment is called for when war is waged against Muslims. But more to the point, while this is not “peaceful,” war isn't peaceful. If it were, it wouldn't be war. Secondly, what's not said is just as important: this isn't a command to behead unbelievers for fun, but rather to do so as punishment for waging war against Allah (8.13). Deuteronomy 7 has much to say regarding conflict between the Israelites and other nations, not the least of which is for the Israelites to “smite them, and utterly destroy them.” Deuteronomy 20 reads similarly, as regards the spoils of war.

The context of war continues throughout this Surah. According to the picture above, apparently 8.60 states, “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” But again, context is king; this all pertains to war. What is far more intriguing is the verse which follows, in which we read: “But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou also incline towards peace, and trust in Allah, for He is One that heareth and knoweth all things.” This is consistent with 2.190-193. Surah 8.65 is no different, addressing the reward of faithfulness during conflict. To summarize, 8.65 states that faith causes perseverance. Gee, I've never read that in the Bible before.

Surah 9.5 is the go-to verse for Islamophobes. The problem (apart from neglecting context)? Translation. (We know all about this, don't we, KJV users?) It would appear there are translation issues which cause discrepancy between this verse and the ones before it. This verse had been quoted by Osama bin Laden in 1996, and ever since then right-wingers have had a field day with it. Some common translations of this verse seem to command Muslims to “fight and slay Pagans” or “infidels,” but how it should actually read is, “...then kill the polytheists wherever you find them...” But even with the translation issues, context still prevents the Westernized interpretation.

Now, I'm not saying this verse is okay now that we know it says to kill polytheists. What I am getting at, is that context tells us how to read it. The Muslims (monotheists) had made treaties with the pagans (polytheists) (9.1). At that time, a third of Arabia had become Islamic. What is discussed in this Surah is that which came after the peace treaty of Hudaibiyah. Note, too, that this all pertains to the pilgrimage to Mecca. These “sacred months” are an allotted ceasefire, so to speak. This also assured their practices could be done safely and peacefully, allowing people to make their travels without harm. Surah 9.5 is not a universal declaration for killing pagans, but should be read within in its historical context. Treat yourselves to a little study on this Surah and you will quickly learn of this Surah's abuse, by both agenda-driven Muslims (extremists, one might say) and Westerners. (Here are a couple links for you to get started.)

I don't condone the killing of people for the sake of unbelief. Even the Old Testament contains a plethora of verses condoning the killing of not only unbelievers, but sinners in general. Yet, I'm willing to bet, if we suddenly had an Israeli refugee crisis on our hands, we wouldn't hesitate to take in Old Covenant-keeping Jews, whose law differs less than we might think from Islamic law.

I'm also not equating the Quran with the Bible. I know why God did things the way he did back then (hint: covenant faithfulness, honoring promises to the fathers, etc.), whereas the make-believe religion of Islam is nothing more than the vain delusions of a false prophet. But one must also realize the hypocrisy in rejecting an entire people based on the words of a holy book that only some have twisted for their agendas, when some of those very same words are found in our holy book. So, why the discrimination against Muslims? Is it because some of them have blown up themselves and others in the name of their religion? If that's the case, perhaps we should deport all the Catholics in America for the deeds committed by those whom Christianity has tried to distance itself from (do the Crusades ring a bell?).

These are touchy things to bring up, but we needn't be afraid to do so. It is my conclusion that we mustn't be so hasty to demonize every last Muslim based on a few verses the misinformed like to wave in our faces. Are there bad apples? Most certainly. Islamic extremism should not be ignored, let alone accepted. But are we going to disregard an entire people because of a few? Are we so enveloped in fear that we cannot provide love and care to the thousands in need solely because we might get some of those bad apples in our bunch?

                                                                         We Are Afraid

In the wake of 9/11, America grew to fear terrorism like never before. I have my own convictions as to what happened that day, who is responsible for it, etc., but I won't go into that now. What I do want to address is the fear that emerged from the ashes that day, fear that has yet to ebb fourteen years later.

We have been at war with the Middle East for a very, very long time. Since 9/11, we have had multiple wars over there and have created more problems than we've solved, one problem being ISIS themselves! Because of extremism, we have branded a religion of 1.5 billion people as “terrorism,” disregarding the fact that only a comparative handful actually fit that bill.

My Christian brethren, when someone brings up the Crusades, what do you tend to do? Blame it on the ones actually responsible, right? When someone correlates Christianity with the Westboro Baptist Church, what do you? Separate yourselves from such people, right? Even the cult denominations, like Mormonism, are but a different religion altogether in the minds of the Christian majority. And do any of you like it when our entire faith is defined by the few who have made it look bad? Of course not!

So why, then, must we be guilty of the same? I don't believe in the Muslim faith. I never have and never will. I recognize the bad apples among them, just as I recognize the bad apples among us. But I do not go so far as to view the Christian faith in a negative light because of few who make it look bad. This is the same issue we have with the demonization of law enforcement, which my Conservative friends loathe seeing. And as one who is working to become a homicide detective, I, too, do not like to see the bad apples become the face of all of law enforcement. How, then, can we justify demonizing the Muslims in this way?

None of you have even read the Quran to know what it teaches. Most of you have never even met a Muslim to know whether your stereotypes are justified. Instead of seeking solutions, you seek eradication. Instead of peace, you desire war. Instead of providing love, you generate hate. You don't want equality, you want convenience. You do not seek freedom and liberty, you seek oppression. So long as it benefits you, everyone else be damned. This is truly what it boils down to. In your fear, you have become nothing but hypocrites and cowards. We must set aside differences and reach peaceful solution. Lucky for you, I never address a topic without providing steps toward a solution. #JasonWatt2024

For starters, we have people at home who need our help. Our veterans need our help. Our homeless (of which many are veterans) need our help. Our veterans can hardly survive on their disability settlements, yet we want to bring in 10,000 refugees and put them on welfare. That simply doesn't work well for us, contrary to what our Democrat (Socialist) friends tell us. So, first and foremost, our own people need help.

Secondly, bringing in 10,000 or more refugees is not an option. Not all at once. Assuming there really is a concern of ISIS members infiltrating the refugees (a debatable concept), we will have much more success in containing such threats if we bring in small numbers at a time. Perhaps start very small, no more than a thousand at a time. It will allow us the opportunity to know just who we have brought into our country, their connections, etc.

Thirdly, welfare is not the solution. The employment situation in America is rough. No one (except our President) is oblivious to this. But this doesn't mean there aren't jobs available, namely the ones no one wants to do, and to be frank, government assistance is not providing incentive for people to find work. So, let's actually find people work. Let's get our homeless and veterans work. It may be degrading for some, but last I checked, fast food restaurants are always hiring. Gas stations are always hiring. Hotels are always hiring (namely housekeepers). There is work for those who wish to do it. If they don't want to work for minimum wage in a customer service job, there's no shortage of construction work in America. They can do grunt work, instead. The point, is that there are jobs available. It's just that no one wants to do them. And even if it's just to get these folks a little income to get them on their feet, it is better than nothing! It is certainly better than having tens of thousands more relying on federal assistance and in the grip of our government.

We need to be smart about this. There is probably no fail proof way to go about it. And let's face it: the Syrian refugees are not entitled to our country; it is not their right to come over here. But we have another truth to face: these are human beings, fleeing from conditions none of us wish to endure, who need love and open arms as much as the rest of us.

Who are we to turn our faces from people in need? What kind of message do we send as the human race, let alone as Christians, if our first response is one shrouded in fear? Shouldn't we strive to be best we can be, for ourselves and for others?

There is one race: the human race. In the end, are we not all the same?

Rights for All, Except for You, You, You, and Definitely You

The necessity of freedom is a no-brainer. At least it should be. For many Americans, this is the most important factor in determining which candidate they will vote to be President. Whether liberal or conservative, Americans care a lot about liberty, though they certainly come at the issue with different perspectives and double standards. Our nation was founded on principles of freedom and accountability, and while there is most certainly an attack on that freedom, it isn't coming from one side exclusively.

From the left, there is an obvious attack on the freedom of religion. For example, with the legalization of gay marriage, gays who are denied wedding services by Christian organizations and businesses file lawsuits for having been discriminated against. With the passing of Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), gays believed it gave people legal grounds to discriminate against them. Truth be told, there is no federal law protecting people from discrimination regarding their sexual orientation, so Indiana's RFRA didn't add grounds for discrimination that the federal courts haven't already allowed. Rather, state RFRAs protect religious freedom, something which has not been protected at the federal level. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on sex, race, nationality, color, and religion. But nowhere in this law are people protected based on their sexual orientation. Some states, however, have chosen to make civil rights laws of their own providing such protection gays and transgenders, and businesses offering public accommodations are legally bound to these laws, even if privately owned. Courts, too, have begun following suit with the Supreme Court's leanings of protection under Title VII of the law, at least for certain situations.

To give one example, Christian-owned bakeries have been such targets of persecution. Rather than finding a business which will cater to them, gays do not respect the rights of the owners to operate their businesses as they see fit, and pursue legal action, as a result. Because of their self-entitlement issues, they hurriedly make cries of discrimination, forcing the business owners to provide service, pay massive fines, and even close up shop in some cases. In other words, they want people to accept their lifestyle choices, yet they do not have the same respect for others. Do some states require privately-owned businesses to provide service without discrimination based on sexual orientation? Yes. But does this mean gays should force these businesses to provide service, when there are so many other businesses who willingly do so? I don't believe so, as doing so only shows the same disregard for personal freedom gays themselves have fought against.

To avoid such conflict, states would be wise to pass RFRAs. In fact, twenty-one states have versions of the law. And while it is unconstitutional to have the law at the federal level, it is not so for the states. Enforcement of this law would protect religious business owners from such legal actions as those sought by gays for refusal of service. These business owners would be able to operate their businesses according to their values, just as other businesses can operate according to theirs. Thus, when a Christian-owned business refuses service to gays because of religious obligations, the persons being refused must simply find service elsewhere. Likewise, if a business does not seek to operate in accordance to such beliefs, they may do so.

You will not find this writer stating this often, but this is one instance in which we can learn from Jews. Ever hear of Kosher foods? To define it simply, this is food that meets Jewish dietary guidelines. Now, do you hear about Jews filing lawsuits against businesses and manufacturers for not supplying Kosher foods? No. Why? Because there exists such businesses and manufacturers who do supply Kosher foods, from whom Jews then purchase. It's that simple. For gays, this would mean seeking service from those who provide it with no religious obligations, rather than suing these businesses for not catering to the self-entitlement of others.

Isn't liberty wonderful? And it's really so much simpler than society makes it.

These issues aren't created solely by the left, either. On the right, conservatives are taking issue with others exercising their right to the freedom of religion. Like gays, they want freedom for all, except for everyone whose freedom gets in the way of their freedom, then its time for fisticuffs. A very recent example of this is the unveiling of the Baphomet statue in Detroit, MI on July 25^th. For many Christians, this was simply appalling. Yet, isn't the freedom of religion exactly what Christians argue for when discriminated against? So, why are Christians taking issue with Satanists who seek the same liberties as those of other religions?

Satanists do not wish to see the statue remain in Detroit. Despite failing to have the statue placed alongside the Ten Commandments monument outside the Oklahoma State House, Satanists are pushing to have the Baphomet statue placed alongside the planned Ten Commandments monument at the Arkansas State House. While the Oklahoma Supreme Court has since ruled to have the Ten Commandments monument removed, Arkansas may not rule the same in the future. Should this be the case, as it has been with Texas, shouldn't Satanists—or any religious group for that matter—be entitled to the same liberty as Christians, and be allowed to erect a monument or statue acknowledging their religion?

Perhaps more evident now than ever is the attack on the second amendment. With every shooting is the demand for stricter gun control. But despite being a preferred weapon of choice (it is effective, after all), the guns themselves aren't to blame. People are. When two vehicles collide, we don't blame the cars, we blame the drivers. When Walter J. Palmer killed Cecil the lion, everybody pointed fingers at Palmer, not the gun. So why do we blame the guns when shootings occur? There are still people pulling those triggers, just not at lions. Any more, no one wants to be held accountable for their actions. We'd sooner strip away our rights than be held responsible for something. But the fact is, the second amendment grants us the right to bear arms, and it should be upheld whether a particular group likes it or not. Even I am not the biggest fan of guns, yet I firmly and unquestionably believe we all have a right to bear them.

The list of rights being violated, and the double standards we and our government place on those rights, is far too long to cover in a single article (a book, perhaps). I feel I've made my point, however.

It's time to stop feeling entitled to everything. Society is crumbling because we feel as though everything should be handed to us, that we are owed something from the people around us. But truthfully, nothing should be handed to us, nor is anyone indebted to the personal choices we make. Is it so absurd to value personal choices this way? To hold such little regard for freedom and liberty, as evidenced by society today, there will never be anything resembling peace, resembling harmony. Please, America, I urge you to start loving and valuing your neighbor. Treat them as you wish to be treated.

I began this article stating that many Americans value freedom above all else. I do believe this is true. It doesn't change the fact that many of these same people maintain such a belief with double standards. But I believe if we are allowed to live our lives the way we want, and we allow others to live theirs as they want, we can find some form of harmony among us, the likes of which this nation has yet to see.

If you or anyone you know can get behind these ideals,vote Jason Watt for 2020.

Just kidding.

...But seriously.

Dear Republicans, You Are Part of the Problem

I have come to the realization (most) Republicans are lacking sense. Desperate to get one of 'their guys' in the White House, they'll vote for just about anybody they feel has a chance (the same can be said of Democrats, I'm sure). In the previous election, Mitt Romney won over the votes of millions, not because he had anything worthwhile to say, but because he was the only one Republicans felt had a chance to “beat” Barack Obama. Therefore, Republicans who didn't even like Mitt Romney jumped on his bandwagon when it came to making sure Obama didn't spend another term in office. Of course, as I said would happen, Romney failed to win the election.

Why? Well, there are a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact Romney is virtually a clone of Obama. He has always been remarkably inconsistent with his positions on major social and political issues, while even his healthcare plan was the blueprint for the one Obama would end up passing into law. In other words, one cannot expect to win against something, or someone, by fighting with the same ammunition, so to speak. Just as fire will not extinguish fire, evil cannot defeat evil. But to Republicans, it's all about the lesser of two evils—anything is better than a Democrat, they would argue.

And to a point, sure. Democrats are certainly hypocrites, liars, murderers, thieves—you name it. They wreck this nation year after year, polluting it with their immoral policies, failing to take control of border concerns, oppressing minorities whilst claiming to be civil rights champions, continuously providing arms to terrorist organizations, and stripping away our liberties at the same time. I can understand one's desire for not wanting a liberal as President, because it has been made evident, time and time again, just how backslidden, oppressed, and immoral this nation becomes when we have a Democrat in office.

Of course, one should not argue that most Republican candidates are much better than their Democrat counterparts. Nevertheless, I get it. I understand why electing a Democrat is so unappealing.

But when are Republicans going to learn? When is it going stop being about popularity, and start being about policy? When will Republicans start caring about the Constitution, and stop obsessing over whether their candidate worships Israel? News flash, Republicans: it's time to focus on people who can actually make a difference, and issues which actually matter.

Now, I'm not very old, despite what my gray hairs, bum knee, and achy back tell me, but I am old enough to have paid attention during the previous two Presidential elections. I didn't really have a particular party I subscribed to (not sure I do today, either), and thus, no major bias toward any one candidate. It was more important to me to understand all candidates' positions on all matters, moral and political, just as it was important to weigh the content of their character. I feel Republicans miss the mark in this regard (not to say Democrats don't, but this is an article about Republicans), and have done so consistently for years. It is time to change this.

The reason this article has come to be, is not because I'm opinionated (which I am) and just have something to say (which I do), but because I have been overwhelmed by what people are sharing on social media. And what are they sharing, you ask?

Support for D-Don—.

Sorry, hard to type out.

Support for Donald … Trump. Yup. That's right. At first this simply caused me to scratch my head, mostly from complete surprise as to just how many worshipers he managed to obtain so quickly, but I quickly began to dig a hole in my head from all the scratching when his followers continued to cling onto every word he spoke, and continues to speak. Truly, I'm perplexed, astonished, mystified—you get it.

One thing that is certainly evident to me, is just how sick Americans are of our current Failure in Chief. And this is why I believe someone like Donald Trump is so appealing to conservatives, as he does hit the issues hard and with confidence, as well as without much regard for political correctness. He is giving people a representation of the anger they feel, which seems to translate to Trump being a worthy candidate. Truth be told, we do need a President who isn't afraid to tell it like it is. Donald Trump seems to be doing just that.

“So, Jason, what is your problem with Trump, then?” you ask.

Well, my problem isn't necessarily with Trump. Trump is allowed to be whoever he is going to be, whether I like him or not. My problem is with the thousands upon thousands of Americans too foolish and ignorant to know when they are being used by someone who is merely waving the conservative flag for their own political gain. Why haven't any of you done your research to know where Trump has stood on social and political issues in the past? For those old enough to remember, have you forgotten Trump's strict stance on assault weapons bans, waiting periods, and extensive background checks in 2000, despite his proclaimed support for the second amendment? Or how about as far back as 1990, when he believed (and rightfully so) that we must legalize drugs and bring an end to the drug war, affirming as much yet again in 2011, yet in 2015, excluding medical marijuana, he claims the legalization of drugs is bad (as stated at the 2015 CPAC). Inconsistent much?

It doesn't end there. In 2011, Trump stated that he didn't support gay marriage, nor benefits within that marriage. Yet, in 2015, Trump simply thinks the states need to decide. And whether you agree with his former position or the latter, you cannot deny that in four short years he managed to back down on the situation entirely. On abortion, Trump was 100% pro-choice in 1999 (though, disgusted by abortion itself, I am happy to learn), while today he is pro-life with exceptions of rape, incest, and harm to the mother (as stated at the 2015 CPAC). And again, whether you agree with the former or latter positions, he is clearly changing the song he is singing in order to please the crowd which will get him the votes. That is all there is to it.

Republicans are very vocal about their hatred for ObamaCare. And good for you, Republicans. You're not wrong. It is most certainly something which needs repealed immediately. But did you know your reality TV champion wanted universal healthcare for America? In case you missed that, Donald Trump wanted ObamaCare before there was ObamaCare, but in 2011 and now again in 2015, Trump is caressing the wishes of Republicans by stating his opposition to it. Could it be because he is looking for the votes of people who want real change, and thus, takes the positions most appealing to the side he thinks will win?

I believe this to be the case. Did you know Trump ran as a Democrat once upon a time? In fact, Trump has been very, very supportive of Democrats in the past, namely one Hillary Clinton. But after receiving so much heat for this fact in 2011 (and providing his usual on-the-spot lie to justify his action), he decided, in 2012, to give money only to Republican causes, despite previously stating that doing so was “dumb”! Amazing! Donald Trump serves whichever side serves him. Currently, it is the Republican party he needs to use, and therefore, the Republican party is the one he supports.

How can anyone in their right mind support a man like that? And why do so many people fail to even see this? Yes, Trump talks a big game regarding immigration. And again, I don't disagree with him there. I even respect what I believe is his honest stance on abortion. But come on, Republicans! It's time to start voting for people who aren't self-serving, arrogant frauds. It's time to actually give a damn about this nation by electing leaders who strictly value the Constitution and your freedom. It's time to start giving support to the men and women who don't flip-flop on every issue every few years, who remain consistent in their beliefs and values.

Republicans, you have failed this country. You have failed us time and time again with your incompetence and seemingly inability to make good judgments about the character of a person. All it takes are a few sweet words about Israel, a stronger border, and Jesus, and suddenly the wolves in Republican clothing have your vote.

The time is now to make a change. Will you make a change, or continue to be part of the problem?

Racism, Riots, and Sideline Cowardice

There is a sickness among us as Americans, as people. This sickness has many symptoms. Some would choose to only blame one of these symptoms for causing the sickness, while those fortunate enough to not have their minds laced with the toxins spewed forth by the viruses which walk and reign among us can perceive the plethora of causes of this sickness.

We are dying.

Little more than a corpse, we cling to this world by means of life support; people we do not trust hold our hands to guide us down the paths they choose for us, leaving us blindfolded as they kiss us on the cheek and whisper that which we want to hear to lure us into bed. We eat from their mouths, dining on the regurgitation of thieves, liars, and criminals, until our bellies are fat and full with the misdirection of they who look down upon us as gods.

America has erupted with cries of 'racism' and 'police brutality,' and the so-called victims of this oppression have reacted by rioting. These riots—not protests—are an uprising, one which will leave a trail of crumbs for the nation to follow until we have reached the point of Civil War II, should it be allowed to continue. In recent years, public awareness of incidents of police brutality has increased dramatically. Truth be told, it is nothing short of sickening to witness those sworn to protect us with their lives unleash the level of violence that has been caught on camera numerous times, or that which has been witnessed by crowds of people. In these circumstances, the officers getting off the hook with a slap on the wrist and paid vacation time is worse than the violent acts they have committed, for it means we merely turn away when life demands we stand strong, vigilant. Yes, regardless of the hatred some have developed for the police, we all share blame in causing and allowing that which we are now weary of.

There do exist those who protest these acts of violence. They are not afraid to look in the eyes of tyranny and smack it across the face. If only more would have the courage to do so, perhaps we would be more than mere marionettes of calamities and agendas. The peaceful protesters, taking a stand lawfully, they have my respect. They are honorable. Their voices are being heard and people are waking up.

However, where there is good, corruption is not far behind, oftentimes overwhelming and overshadowing the faint voice coming from the light. These people sow seeds of discord where harmony is sought, and the song being played is one composed of dissonance, detached from a melody which seeks true resolution, rather than further divide. These people sing songs of destruction. They are the rioters, the looters, the criminals. These people are the corruption they claim to stand against, the racism they claim to abhor, the injustice they wish to see corrected. They are symptoms of an ever-growing sickness, yet they, too, are among the countless infected by a virus—the collective patient zero of an epidemic of liberalism and ignorance.

On April 12, 2015, Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old man from Baltimore, was arrested and assaulted while in police custody. Due to a severed spine, Gray was taken to the hospital, where he died on April 19^th. His death, attributed to how he was handled by the police, sparked protests and riots, which have led to multiple police injuries, the destruction of property, looting, civilian injuries, and more. These riots began before any solid information was presented to us. All that existed at the time was speculation and little more. But regardless of the information presented, these riots are unacceptable. This is criminal behavior and should be treated as such. Every man and woman who damaged another's property, assaulted someone, or threatened someone, should be charged with a crime, regardless of their reasons.

You might remember (unless you were living in a casket at the time) the similar riots which occurred in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, in response to the death of Michael Brown at the hands of then-officer Darrel Wilson. These two riots have much in common, not the least of which is a racial similarity: Michael Brown and Freddie Gray were both black men. Both men also died at the hands of white police officers. And just as with the riots in Baltimore, the riots in Ferguson were equally wrong. Even still, few batted an eye, and few spoke a word against it.

During the investigation of Michael Brown's death, I noted on social media numerous times the conflicting stories given by “witnesses,” as well as the unlikelihood of officer Wilson shooting an 18-year-old for no reason except skin color, which was the story the liberal media wanted us to swallow. And, despite the efforts of race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Attorney General Eric Holder, Darrel Wilson's innocence was proved. The Ferguson riots were an emotional response to the death of someone in their community, with no regard for facts or details pertaining to what led to Brown's death, only that a white officer killed a black, unarmed 'teen' (18-year-olds are not teens, no matter how much the media tries to use the term in their efforts to demonize the police), and therefore, racism. Baltimore's riots have show little difference.

But what if the roles were reversed? What if a large group of whites took to the streets and began committing acts of arson, assaulting people—blacks—with sometimes flaming objects (really, Baltimore, a burning trash can?), robbing from businesses, etc., because of the death of a white man at the hands of a black officer? Because of the death of Michael Brown, the slogan 'Black Lives Matter' has caught fire among blacks across the nation, used in the protest of any black man or woman's death at the hands of an officer. What if white protesters and rioters held signs reading “White Lives Matter”? The answer is simple: we'd be label racists. This is why things like Black Entertainment Television is allowed to exist while White Entertainment Television does not. Or why a National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) exists while a National Association for the Advancement of White People does not. Why is there no outrage when black teens commit hate crimes against whites in St. Louis? Or when black officer Trevis Austin shot unarmed, white college student Gil Collar? Why don't white lives matter? Why can't white lives matter?

This fear of being labeled racist leads to the real racists getting away with crimes. It is disgusting for it to be looked down on when a white person does anything except stand 100% behind a black person, yet blacks are allowed to destroy cities to 'protest' their supposed oppression by the white man. And perhaps even more disgusting is that we allow these things to happen.

Black lives matter? That must be why, in a nation in which blacks make up a mere 13% of the population, nearly 40% of all abortions in America are undergone by blacks. If black lives matter so much, why is the most dangerous place on Earth for a black child the womb of their own mother? How sad is it for abortion to kill more blacks than the seven leading causes of death?

But let's not stop there. Young black males (aged 15-34), specifically, have a high rate of death by murder in America. The ones responsible? Not cops. Other blacks. Now, I'm not very old, nor have I spent my entire life being kept informed of black protests, but when do you think a group of blacks protested the deaths of blacks at the hands of other blacks, whilst holding signs reading 'Black Lives Matter'?

You see, black lives matter when someone else, specifically whites, take the lives of blacks. Why? Because the real racists are the ones crying 'racism.' Why don't people such as Al Sharpton, who claims to care about black lives, turn his campaigns in the direction of black-on-black violence? Why aren't Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and so many more, addressing these issues with the public, instead of focusing solely on the cases in which a non-black kills a black?

There is nothing to gain from it, that's why.

To these black leaders, blacks are merely pawns in a sick game. It's all about the support, votes, and funds. People are best kept in check when oppressed, rather than free; control the people, control the opinion. These liars and murderers blacks look up to, they don't care about the well-being of blacks. If they did, there would be actual change for them in America. Instead, all they care about is giving blacks someone to point their fingers at and blame, taking no responsibility for themselves, and even feeling entitled to that which they did not earn. Then, as a result, these black leaders are viewed as heroes among those they claim to defend.

Here is the reality check: These men, these people whom, it is claimed, understand black oppression and racism in America, they are the racists keeping blacks oppressed and in check; they are exactly where they want them to be, which is comfortably pointing blame at those who are not responsible for where they are in life. These leaders can preach their claims of how they relate to and understand these conditions of living, but it is only because they played their part in creating them.

Barack Obama shared his sympathies with the families of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Even Trayvon's family spent time in the White House after his death. This is how you know who the real racists are. This is how you know just how used blacks are by black leaders, because if race weren't an issue, if it generally did not matter to our leaders, Gil Collar's family would have been given a trip to the White House and shown Barack Obama's support against such violent behavior. Instead, because Gil Collar and so many like him were white, their deaths were swept under a rug and forgotten, while the lives of deceased black thugs and criminals are praised.

You want change, America? It is time to stop letting these failed leaders tell us what's happening in this country and open our own eyes to the truth. It is time to stand against these agendas and stand behind what is just and good. It is time to stop letting criminals and thugs get away with crime because of the color of their skin. It is time to rebuke those who stand above the law while swearing to defend it, and reserving such judgment for those who are deserving, not demonizing every person wearing a badge. No longer can we tip-toe around the sensitive issues, because when we do, we lose our voices. It is time we stand strong. It is time we persevere.

It is time we become vigilant.