No Liberals, More Gun Control Isn’t the Answer

Earlier today three currently unidentified suspects shot up an office party at the Inland Regional Center, a facility that serves people with developmental disabilities in San Bernadino, California. And before the bodies were even warm, politicians were doing what they do best- politicizing another awful tragedy. IMG_6215.PNG


Every time something like this happens more talk of gun control comes up and more politicians begin begging for you to give them more power and take more of your rights away. They use the same talking points over and over again, claiming that if we only had more gun laws then these tragedies wouldn’t happen. I guess no one told them that California has the strictest gun laws than any other state in America.

A common argument to this is that it’s because the law is not federally put into place. There’s many countries in the world that do have strict federal gun laws-yet still a high rate of violence. The media tends to cherry pick countries that fit their narrative, without actually looking at the world as a whole. For instance, they usually bring up countries like Canada and Britain who have more gun control but less homicides than we do. They don’t like to talk about countries such as Switzerland, who has very relaxed gun laws yet a very low crime rate. Then on the contrary, Mexico who has very strict gun laws yet high crime rate. Brazil also has very strict gun laws, yet the homicide is three times higher than the homicide rate in America. Since liberals like to use Canada as their model for gun control, let’s talk about Canada. In the 1920’s, before Canada adopted any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986 when gun laws were adopted, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the United States.

Also, violent crime such as rape, assault, burglary, etc tend to be higher in countries that have stricter gun control. A theory on this would be because citizens who follow the law are able to obtain a gun legally and use it to protect themselves against these violent criminals.


So we can see there is no direct correlation with strict gun laws and lower rates of homicide and violence around the world. The media tries to pull up countries that are supposedly are more “developed” like us but in reality have little in common with us when it comes to diversity and often times geographical size. All countries are different and have different cultures. Laws often do little to change one country’s culture and social environment. Criminals will get guns if they want guns some way or another, and if not guns they will find another device to kill with.

Strict gun laws in many way hurt law abiding citizens. There have been numerous incidents such as Carol Bowne’s case, how she followed the law to get a gun legally to protect herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend, yet the waiting periods in New Jersey were so long to get a gun that she ran out of time. Her ex ended up stabbing her to death in her driveway.

People want to keep guns away from the mentally ill. It seems like a reasonable stance, but how do we determine who with a mental illness is a severe threat and who is not? 18.5% of Americans, almost one fifth, have some sort of mental illness. There’s many people who have a mental illness who don’t feel like going to shoot up a school. Are we really saying that we should deny 1/5th of Americans their constitutional rights because of a diagnosis? Also, leftists want to make it harder for people with felonies to get guns. Again, this seems like a reasonable stance, but sometimes kids make stupid mistakes that then lead to their rights being taken away as adults. For example, getting caught with a fake ID is a felony. There are plenty of teenagers who have fake ID’s, a very nonviolent crime. They shouldn’t be denied the right to have a gun because of disobeying a silly law in the first place.

“So we do nothing?” is a statement I often hear when I tell these facts to leftists. They say it in a tone as if somehow we people who are against gun control somehow don’t care about these mass murders that are happening. We all acknowledge there is a problem. Funny how most of these mass shootings happen in “gun free zones.” Criminals don’t follow laws so obviously gun free zones don’t mean anything to them. Allowing for more citizens to be able to legally conceal and carry could allow, and many cases have allowed for these killers to be stopped. Police usually take 10-15 minutes to arrive to the scene of a crime, and in that time who knows how many people a murderer could kill. Someone with a gun could stop this person in the meantime and avoid a lot more deaths. So yes I do think that these mass murders are a problem and shouldn’t be taken lightly. I am not however in favor of more oppressive and not useless gun laws that take the rights away from law abiding citizens.

Liberal Bias is Everywhere You Look

It’s not easy being a young libertarian, especially in college. Although, it’s really not safe for us anywhere since liberal bias is everywhere you look. I would have to say my first experience with outright liberal bias in academia was probably my junior year of high school. In my journalism class we watched this documentary called “Outfoxed” which was basically a whole documentary attacking the right wing news channel Fox News. I said something to my teacher about it, and she said the documentary was supposed to show unethical news and was targeting all news channels. You can tell by the name of the documentary alone, that wasn’t the case. And it wasn’t. Not only did we watch it, but we had to write a paper on it after.

My experience with liberal bias in academia has gotten worse since I’ve entered college. I used to joke about my sociology class being so bad that it should of been named “How to be a liberal 101.”  Almost every single topic we talked about had some kind of liberal spin to it, and my professor made it no secret that she was a liberal. I remember we watched Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko” which was all about socialized healthcare. It was completely one-sided, of course. We also had to write a paper on that afterwards. I was looking over my shoulder at the student sitting next to me paper and the first line went something like “After watching this video my eyes have really been opened and I think we definitely need socialized healthcare in America.” I remember being so angry. This kid probably knew nothing about healthcare and now has all his decisions made up because of one very biased documentary. In my paper I included that she should show the other side of why socialized healthcare might not work. Her response was “Sociology is a liberal topic.” And for the rest of the semester it was just the same continued scenario, liberal topic after liberal topic.

In my cultural anthropology class my teacher had us read articles weekly and write papers on them. My favorite one was about Mock Spanish. Basically, it was saying that by me joking around and saying “Adios” or “Bueno noches” to you, I am mocking the Spanish language and therefore being racist because I am not of Spanish decent. In my paper I noted that how I found some videos on Youtube of people from other languages making fun of English speakers and the way we talk. By the logic of the Mock Spanish article, was that somehow racist? My professors response was that racism had to have prejudice+power, and white Americans have power so therefore can’t be racist. Yep, that’s right. My professor had just proved to me that he is in fact a tumblrina.

I recently just moved to Murray Kentucky where I attend Murray University. I came here thinking that I’m in the south now so college wont probably be as biased. Oh boy was I wrong. My current major is social work because I was wanting to work in the mental health field (I’m thinking about changing it now) so I knew it was going to be slightly slanted left but I had no idea it was going to be this bad. My first two classes are pretty much just all about welfare and welfare programs. Okay whatever I can deal. One day my professor had us talk about the accomplishments/failures for Clinton, Bush, and Obama. We spent most of the time talking about the failures of Bush. When it was Obama’s turn, my professor made the statement “maybe not the failures Obama has made just things he hasn’t quite yet accomplished yet.”  We spent so long talking about the failures of Bush, that by the time we actually started talking about Obama class was already over. My diversity teacher also is so liberally biased that it’s almost funny. She spouts about the wage gap that has been proven wrong many times again and how minorities in America are so deeply oppressed. Some of my favorite comments she has made would be “People look at me and think I’m white but I’m actually 1/8th African American” and also “I’m lucky because I know I wont ever be subjected to police brutality because I do look white.” This one I found very offensive, since I had a friend who died under police negligence, and he was white.

It’s also outside of the classes as well. I noticed that the liberal vibe was so bad around here on campus that I started some chapters with conservative/libertarian organizations. One of these organizations was Turning Point USA which is an organization that promotes small government, freedom of speech, and civil liberties. I wrote chalk on the schools side walk with the hashtag #BigGovSucks. It was all erased by the next day. It’s funny though, because the “Bernie Sanders for President” was on the sidewalk for about a week before it was erased.

My student coordinator for another group I’m in “Students for Rand” also had some bias thrown his way. While trying to tell universities about the organization, he emailed a professor at another college asking him if he could tell students about the organization. This was the professors response.

My chapter leader for Turning Point has also been kicked off public university campuses for tabeling there and trying to recruit students, even though it’s a public university and the law says she is allowed to be there.

It’s also in the media. Basically all of Hollywood is liberal and very loud and proud about it. It’s in the music we listen to. For example the song “American” by Macklemore is basically a song all about making fun of republicans. Part of the lyrics are “Now listen Palin, I heard you like beer
Me too and I don’t have a six pack, but I got a beer bong in my pants.” I was just so amazed by this because if there was ever a song about Hillary Clinton and they said something like this about her, all hell would break lose. It’s on television shows such as “Orange is the New Black” basically saying abortion is a good thing for poor women. In almost all the award shows now of days there’s some kind of liberal spin to it. It’s all over Hollywood, there’s no escaping it.

This is why the youth mostly always votes democrat. Because we are brainwashed by schools, our peers, and by Hollywood to think that liberals know best and the republicans are evil. Now I’m not a liberal or a conservative, I’m a libertarian. So I don’t agree with a lot of the republicans are certain stances either. But I think when young people opened up their eyes they might realize they actually are libertarians. Young people seem to care more about social issues than not, while libertarians are for social freedom. While the democrats are just now in favor of ending the drug war and marriage equality, the libertarian party has always advocated for it. Young democrats get tricked in by thinking big government programs are good because they sound good. “Free college” and “free healthcare” are just two to name a few. They just figure that someone will pay for it. What they don’t realize is that when they get older and start paying taxes, they’ll be the ones paying for it! Once you explain these kind of things to the youth and talk to them more about big government actually hurts the middle class, they start to listen. That’s why I’m such a huge fan of Rand Paul. He reaches out to young people and minorities and places the right has failed to go to.

Liberal bias is a definite problem. For too long kids on the right have had to sit quiet or be indoctrinated into liberal thought because of college and the media. That needs to stop now. When you’re young you’re supposed to be learning about life and seeing things from all different points of views. The bias in college and media have deprived millennials from this. It’s time to take a stand, and the first step is realizing it’s a problem.

Death Penalty is Legalized Murder by The State

The death penalty has been a heated debate in the United States for quite some time now. It’s legal in America but states vary on their stance on it. In thirty-one states the death penalty is currently legal while in nineteen states the death penalty has been abolished. Like stated before the death penalty is a very controversial topic. When I think about the death penalty it reminds me of The Obsolete Man. It was an episode from the series called the Twilight Zone basically portraying a fictional situation where the state could consider if a person valuable or not to a society, and thus kill them if they think otherwise. It might be kind of a reach, but this is similar to the death penalty. It is essentially giving the state the power to choose who is and isn’t obsolete.

The argument against this would be that these people sentenced to death did horrible and horrendous crimes which is why they need to be sentenced to die. I don’t think anyone is denying that these people need to be punished. But is being sentenced to death really the worse kind of punishment? A lot of criminals would rather have the death penalty instead of living in a cell for the rest of their life. People would object to this by saying that the prisons are too cozy and these people shouldn’t be let off that easy. I agree, which is why I think some of the criminals who do the terrorist attacks and kill multiple amount of people should be sent to a max security prison with tougher rules and more manual labor. By sentencing them to death you are just as bad as the killer is.

If someone killed my family so I decided to kill them, it doesn’t matter how wrong the killer of my family was or how gruesome it was, I would still go to jail. So why does the state get to get away with it? Just because they are more powerful and other people think it’s justified? I’m sure people would think me killing the murderer of my family was justified, I still would be in trouble for it. The state is held to a different standard than we are which is wrong. Just because they have different titles than we do doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be accountable for their actions.

Another argument the pro death penalty use is that we shouldn’t use our tax dollars to feed and shelter these murders. On the contrary, the death penalty actually is the more costly choice. In California alone cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner cost taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. This was the trend among most states where the death penalty is legal. A lot of times prisoners are on death row for years until they are finally executed. The constitution requires a long and complex judicial price for capital offenses. So in the end, the death penalty is actually the more costly decision.

The government can’t even deliver mail right and were going to give them the power to kill people? 4% of people who have been sentenced to death were actually found guilty. You might be thinking that is a small amount compared to the people that are, but it shouldn’t matter how little the statistic is. Even one person being killed who was innocent is way too many. Even if the system was 100% accurate I still wouldn’t support it, but this is just another reason not to. Since 1976 1,389 have been executed in the United States. 4% of that number would be fifty-six people. Fifty six people who were killed unjustly by the state, for no reason at all. But the state can get away with it. How is that justice?

Some Christians try to use the bible to support why they think the death penalty should be legal, which I find wrong. A lot of times they’ll pull up verses from the Old Testament law which was the old covenant. Christian’s today do not live by the old covenant because Jesus came and renewed it. Even in the Ten Commandments it says “Thou shall not Kill.” Jesus says to follow the Ten Commandments and quotes it throughout the gospels. Jesus also talks about forgiveness and compassion for his people. Who are we to play God? Who are we to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? That’s not for us to decide. As Christians we should know that God will be the ultimate judge when it comes to what we do on earth. The murderers and the rapists will deal will have to answer to God when the time comes. That should be enough punishment on its own.

All in all the main reason I’m against the death penalty is because it gives the state way too much power over its people. The government should not be held to less of a standard than the average American. They are still putting people to death and they are still committing homicide. It doesn’t matter how justified and what are feelings think should happen to the person, it is still murder just with a different name. Two wrongs will never make a right, no matter how hard we try. The death penalty doesn’t fix anything, it’s just an endless circle of hatred and government overreach.

Should Healthcare be free?

If there was a way to make everything free in the world and no one had to pay for anything I think that would be awesome.  But in the real world, not a utopian world, nothing is free. I like how people like to say “free healthcare” and “free college” but the fact is that nothing you are given is free. Someone out there paid for it or better yet maybe you are the one that’s paying for other people. So the better question is, do I think healthcare should be given to others through taxing more money from other people? No, I do not.

Socialized health care has been a heated debate in America for quite some time now because our country does not offer government funded healthcare for everyone. The reason why this is is because our country is mainly capitalistic. We of course are not 100% capitalist and no country is, but economically we are freer than many other countries. Socialism seems good on paper but the problem with socialism is that it’s all about force through the government. If you don’t comply with the government’s rules and what taxes you should and should not pay eventually some man with a gun is going to come to your door and force you to do so. Now don’t get me wrong I think taxes for things that would be difficult to privatize are needed, such as police, military, prisons, the three branches of government, things of that matter. Most things on the other hand can be privatized and health care is one that can and should be.

Socialized healthcare isn’t free; in fact it’s quite expensive. In Canada in 2014 families reported paying $3,592 to $11,786 for public health insurance in 2014. This survey also found that Over the last decade, the cost of health care insurance for the average Canadian family increased by 53.3 percent. This is larger than the increase in income (34.7 percent), shelter costs (40.7 percent), clothing costs (33.4 percent) and food costs (15.6 percent). Over all an average family in Canada is paying a whopping 41.8% in income taxes. This means almost half of their income is going to the government. An average Canadian family makes 76,000. Let’s say they have to pay 11,786 a year for health insurance. That’s more than 15% of taxes going to health care alone. For someone whose family who doesn’t need access to health care as often this means they are virtually paying for other people’s health care with 15% of their own hard earned income.

Most government ran programs are for the most part not so efficient. Socialized health care is no exception to this rule. One example of this is the gruesomely long wait times that universal healthcare has. For example, in Ontario Canada for someone with prostate cancer has, on average, a 96 wait day period to be treated. To get a MRI on average you’ll be waiting 126 days. A knee replacement in Ontario can have a waiting time as long as 291 days. 33% of Canadians have reported having to wait over four months to get some kind of medical treatment while compared to America only 8% said they had to wait this long. The wait time is so long for some Canadians that many of them have come to America to get treatment. The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.

Also in countries with government paid healthcare there is less patient flexibility. Say your knee is really hurting you and you think you should get a knee replacement surgery. A lot of times doctors in countries that provide government ran healthcare will turn you away until basically you can’t walk anymore. Then on top of this you have the long waiting period, so you’re talking maybe years until something is done about it. Health care funded by the government doesn’t give you as much choices as if it would if it were done by the free market.

There are very poor people out there who cannot afford healthcare so this is why socialized healthcare gets talked about. For one, doctors can never turn away patients based on financial need in cases of emergency. Also people tend to forget about what charity can do. St. Judes hospital for kids with cancer is all supported through donations. There’s plenty of charities such as community action organizations, America Red Cross, Catholic charities, and plenty more that help people pay their bills. The help out there is endless. The problem with having everything provided to you by the government is that it gives away people incentive to give. They think “Oh well the government is already paying for their bills so I don’t have to.” Charities are voluntary and giving people who have the money or feel like it’s their duty to step up to do their part. In hard times the goodness of people start to shine.

What we need to focus on is how to get the actual price of healthcare down. The more government gets involved the more and more prices are going to go up because they’re going to pay regardless. Total health care spending in the United States is expected to reach $4.8 trillion in 2021, up from $2.6 trillion in 2010 and $75 billion in 1970. Of course there’s other reasons, but we can see a direct rise in health care every time government gets involved. For example, with Obamacare, premiums have skyrocketed. In 2014, premiums in the non-group market grew by 24.4% compared to what they would have been without Obamacare. Of course The Affordable Care Act is not the same as universal health care, but you can see even with government getting involved here how much prices have gone up. My solution is to get government out of health care altogether. Let free markets compete with one another to lower prices of hospital bills and private charities help those who can’t afford healthcare. For the majority of us health care will cost us something, but it’ll be a lot cheaper without government intervention. Like my favorite economist Milton Freidman says, “There’s no such thing as free lunch.”

Is Feminism Relevant?

Feminism is a word that has a lot of different meanings to different people. Some people think of misandry, while others think of empowerment. The textbook definition of feminism is “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” When people hear this definition, some will think “Aren’t most of us feminists? We all for the most part believe in equality for the sexes, right?” That would be correct. But people fail to differ the differences between first wave, second wave, and third wave feminism. I would call myself a first-wave feminist. But I do not agree with modern feminism today or think that a feminist movement is relevant in the United States, which is why I call myself an egalitarian.  I believe women in other countries in the world are in desperate need of a feminist movement. But here in the western world, neither sex is oppressed.

Let’s dive in to the differences between first, second, and third wave feminism. The goals of first wave feminism in the 19th century and 20th century were more on a political ground.  First wave feminism gave women the right to vote in 1920 and let their voices be heard equally to men. Also in the 1800’s more and more states were allowing women to own property in their own name and control of their own earnings. Now let’s get to second wave feminism. Second wave feminism started in the 1960’s in the states and then traveled to other western countries. Second wave feminism took more of a social ground, and fought for things such as sexuality, family, the workplace, reproductive rights, de facto inequalities, and official legal inequalities. Second wave feminism also drew attention to domestic violence and marital rape and changes in custody and divorce law. The equal pay act of 1963, civil rights act of 1964, Equal credit opportunity act and numerous of other laws were put into place to ensure equality of the sexes.

I agree all of first wave feminism was important and most of second wave was important (Roe vs. Wade was a feminist movement during second wave that I don’t necessarily agree with). Third wave feminism has taken a new realm of its own. Now some things of third wave feminism aren’t terrible, it talks about gay rights and trans rights and broadens its horizons more to women of color. Actually I would even give third wave feminism the benefit of the doubt (somewhat) and say that it is addressing some necessary things, but the way it’s doing it is all wrong.

Women and men both suffer from disadvantages I will admit. But feminism primarily tends to focus on women’s issues more than they do men. A lot of feminists will tell you that this isn’t the case, but just look at some of its loudest members and some of the current feminist campaigns. It’s all directed towards how we can help women. This is assuming that men’s lives are perfect and we shouldn’t worry about them. A lot of feminists will tell you they don’t hate men, and I believe them. I don’t necessarily think feminism has to be equal to man hating. But feminism is about woman’s rights, not men’s. That’s the difference.

Today in 2015 women are not oppressed in America and are equal to men. Different yes but they are equal. A lot of feminists will object to this and name things like the social stigma, sexual abuse among women, the wage gap, etc which they try to prove on why men and women are not equal and why the female sex is oppressed. I think the majority of Americans believe that women should be treated equally. I’m sure there are people that don’t, but you can also turn the tables on that and say that there are some women that believe in female superiority (see radical feminism.)  That leads me to my point, the social stigma’s that are put on women; you can also see a counter stigma that is put on men. For example, women have been “slut shamed” for having many sexual partners, while men are at times praised. But the reverse exists as well. If a man choses to stay pure, society views him as weak, unworthy, dorky, and weird. I often hear about women being objectified in media, but they tend to also recognize that males are as well objectified in the media as sexual beings. But here’s the difference, you don’t hear men complaining about these kind of things. There is a men’s right activist group yes, but it’s not very well known like the feminist movement is. Why can’t feminist call out inequalities everyone have? Because that would ruin the image they are trying to create as women being the oppressed sex, and make them have to admit that all sexes deal with their fair share of problems.

Sexual abuse and rape is a big deal, I would agree with feminists on this. But like I stated earlier, the way they go about talking about rape and sexual abuse is a problem. For one, the 1 and 5 women have been sexually abused is a mythical statistic with extreme study bias. The statistic comes from the National institute of Justice who only surveyed two colleges. The response rate was low for one (only 40% replied) and only included women’s answers even though men were allowed to do the survey as well. Some of the questions were misleading as well. Some of the questions talking about if being drunk while having sex didn’t make clear if the other partner took advantage or if that partner was also drunk. It’s a fine line I agree, but I don’t think sex between two drunk people counts as one being raped.

This false statistic has been repeated time and time again but yet politicians still repeat and so do many feminists. It feeds into this perpetual victim state that 3rd wave feminism tries to feed into. I’ve heard feminists say a lot as well that we shouldn’t try to teach women about how to protect themselves but we should teach men not to rape. This is so silly it’s sad. You can’t just teach people not to do monstrous things like rape, the same way you can’t teach a murderer not to kill people. This claim is actually assuming that all men have the potential to rape and want to the rape, which is entirely false. There are sick and twisted people out there, which is why we need to teach women to defend themselves by all means possible. Also, this again like stated earlier, is focusing on women. Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than men are, but men are still victims of sexual abuse or physical abuse. Often time’s male abuse victims are not taken seriously because of the stigma around men that they can’t be sexually or physically abused.

The wage gap is also another faulty statistic that has been repeated plenty of times. I won’t get into it much because I’m planning on writing a paper just on that, but basically the wage gap only adds up the amount of men make vs. the amount of women make. It does not account for other factors such as job choice, education choice, time taken off by women, women who work part time, men being more aggressive in asking for raises, etc. It simply just puts the medium wage of a man compared to the medium wage of a women. When you add in for these factors, the wage gap pretty much disappears.

So in the United States, feminism isn’t relevant. Men and women are both equal, economically, socially, and politically. Women can vote, women can drive, women can divorce freely, women can work wherever they want, women can go to college, women can choose not to have kids and not stay at home if she doesn’t want to, women can wear pants, etc. Every right in America that men have, women have as well. The third wave feminist movement hasn’t accomplished much and has turned into more complaining than actually doing. I hope fourth wave feminism comes along and is more gender neutral like egalitarian

The SJW myth of “white people can’t be victims of racism” debunked.

So yesterday I made fun of a tweet on twitter that was making the claim “you can’t be racist against white people.” And oh boy did a shit storm come in. Feminists and sjw’s were in my mentions saying some of the funniest of things for example:


There were tons more but these were the highlights. I was also told plenty of times “why do you want to be oppressed so bad?” Also “stop crying mayo tears.” (That one was my personal favorite.) For awhile I was having legit conversations with them and trying to understand their way of thinking, but then they just started saying the most outlandish things so I just started to troll.

So back to how this started: I stated how black people can be racist against white people and that’s when all hell broke lose. There arguments for this was mainly because whites are not oppressed and have never been oppressed because of their skin color.

I would like to add before I continue that nowhere is the word oppression in the definition of racism. (Apparently a white man made the definition so he doesn’t count, but well get to that later.)

But the fact that white people have never been oppressed is absolutely crazy. Here is some research I did claiming otherwise:

Barbary Pirates who were Berbers and Arabs put more Europeans into slavery than Blacks who were sent as slaves to the Americas.

Mongol invasions of Eastern Europe, which some historians call these the most deadliest conflicts of human history.

The ethnic cleaning of the Greeks during World War One by the Turks.

Armenian genocide.

Libya expelling Libyans who were ethnic European, including the ancient Greek and Italian groups.

Turkeys invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

50 people are murdered a day in South Africa and 20 of those people are white, even though whites are only 9% of the population, and they are mostly being killed by people of color.

These are just a few examples but there’s tons more. I would like to point out I’m not a white supremacist. I don’t think the majority of whites are oppressed. But there are examples of oppression of people of fairer skin.

I want to also point out that POC are more prone to racism than white people and there are  more documented examples.

But these people are saying it’s impossible to be racist against white people so because of that you can do anything and say anything you want to them.

Some girl asked me “does it really bother you that I call you cracker or all white girls drink at Starbucks?” It doesn’t bother me no, but then again really any kind of jokes don’t bother me. But that is still missing the point.

The moment a group thinks harmless name calling is okay is when things began to escalate. At the Economic Freedom Fighter (EFF) launch in Marikana, people were holding up banners like “We need to kill them like they killed us.” This is the thinking of “these white people are so privileged so we can just do whatever we want to them.” That is not okay and this is when it becomes a problem.

You can’t just go around changing definitions. Even I agree that the definition of feminism is really what feminism means, but people have made it into something it wasn’t meant to be. (Topic for another day.) The most silliest argument that I’ve ever heard was that since a white man created it he can’t really know what racism is.

In that case, does the guy that invented the word cancer had to have cancer? Or the guy that created the word poor have to be poor? No of course not, so we shouldn’t give the word racist a free pass.

Again I acknowledge that racism is more prevalent towards POC. I’m not denying that. But this whole “you can’t be racist against white people” thing is a new social justice warrior movement, not something that has always been preached. It’s uneducated and not actually factual of what racism is. The problem with people preaching this is that they are preaching since you can’t be racist towards whites, whites can’t be victims of race crimes and whites can’t be victims of oppression. So since this is true, we shouldn’t take an opinion of a white person seriously unless they agree with us and we can treat them anyway we want to because they deserve it.

Racism will sadly always exist. There’s always going to be sucky people out there with shitty ideas and believes about people just because of the color of their skin. So it’s up to us a group to rise above racism and call it what it really is, regardless of what color the racist is.

Why I’m Pro life.

Abortion is a topic I’ve always felt very strongly about. I’ve always been pro life because I believe that abortion is equivalent to murder. I shouldn’t even have to say “I believe” because by definition it is murder, just legalized.

I go on pro life rants a lot because it is something I feel so passionately about so you best believe I’ve heard every argument in the book.  So today I am going to go through each one of those arguments.

Let’s start with the most common one.

It’s just a clump of cells, a parasite, not significant life so therefore it is not murder.”

People that say this are spoon fed this talking point. For one to believe that life is this insignificant during early stages must have not really looked at the development in the womb.

So let’s take a look shall we?

According to, at 6 weeks of pregnancy, the baby already has tiny arms and legs that are able to move. A heartbeat is also detected at 6 weeks as well.

At 8 weeks, primitive neural pathways are formed in the brain. The baby also has developed knees at this point.

At 9 weeks, earlobes are developed.

At 10 weeks, fingernails are developed.

At week 14 the baby can make facial expressions such as frown or grimace.

At week 16 the baby has toenails.

At week 17 the baby starts to develop hearing and can move all of it’s muscles and joints freely.

At week 19 the baby’s brain has been assigned specialized areas such as areas for smell, touch, taste, hearing, and vision.

So no, the baby is a lot more than “just a clump of cells.”

Abortion in America is legal up to 24 weeks, and in some countries such as Canada, it is legal all through the 9 month period.

Argument I get to this is “well most abortions happen early on when the baby isn’t developed at all yet.” Most abortions do occur in the first trimester (before 13 weeks) 89%-92%. While 7% occurred from 13 weeks-20 weeks period, and while 1.4% occur after 21 weeks, according to

But even before 13 weeks, look how much the baby has already developed! And I only named  the highlights, there’s SO much more that’s going on at this point. The most significant sign of life to me is the heart beat which occurs 6 weeks of pregnancy. Also another one that amazes me is the brain development at 8 weeks. To me that’s all I need to hear to think that it’s significant life. I’m not one of those pro lifers that is against birth control or even against the plan B pill. I think whenever a baby has a heartbeat and brain waves, it’s significant life. Most women don’t even know they are pregnant until this time.

Also, the “hasn’t developed enough” argument is dehumanizing. Is a 5 year old any less of a person than a 10 year old, just because the 10 year old is more devolved? Of course not! So why do we change the way of thinking when it comes to the baby in the womb?

Arguments I hear to this are often like the following: “A fetus isn’t significant life until it doesn’t need it’s mother to survive outside of the womb.”

So are you telling me that everyone that requires a breathing machine or some kind of another force in order to live are not considered “significant life?” Of course not! Same goes with babies living in the mothers womb.

This is where the abortion debate really comes down to. You either believe it’s significant life, or you don’t. But there’s also other arguments people like to bring up.

“Would you really force a victim of rape or incest to have a baby?  What if the woman was going to die? What if the girl is only 13 years old? She’s still a child herself!”

Before I answer this at all, I’m going to let some statistics do the talking.

Less than 1% of all abortions are because of rape/incest. A very very tiny percentage. It’s not as common as the pro choice movement tries to act like. Also, less than 1% of all abortions happen under the age of 15.

3% of abortions occur because the mothers life is endangered.

Most abortions occur between the ages of 20-24, where no doubt a women is not a child anymore. The main reason why women get abortions is because of inadequate finances.

So let’s make this straight, these hard cases don’t make up the majority of abortions, not even close.

If there was a law ever against abortion, hard cases such as rape/incest or mothers life is endangered would be available. I personally don’t agree with it in the case of rape or incest but that is such a small percentage, if 99% of babies were saved, that would make me happy.

Another common argument, one I actually can sympathize with is “If abortions are made illegal they will happen unsafely.”

This does have some truth to it. But hopefully with harsh sentences to abortion doctors this will help decrease the majority of abortions happening. I know I know, prohibition never works. I agree. Which is why at the end of the day my goal is to not scream “make abortion illegal!” It’s to scream “stop having abortions, period.” It’s been so desensitized in our culture with phrases such as parasite, clump of cells, just a nuisance, etc. Abortion is a gruesome, horrible procedure. I won’t get into it but if you would like to see just google it. It is by definition murder, but we act like as a society that it’s no big deal because that’s what the media tells us. It’s a big deal. Make no mistake about it.

“What about the mothers that can’t afford to have a child? Are you forcing them to become a mother?”

Of course not. Adoption is always an option. There’s been plenty of success stories with adoption, but of course you’ll only hear about the bad ones. There’s plenty of families out there that can have kids and would love if you gave them that opportunity to be parents. Of course there are kids that fall through the cracks, but they are still given the chance to rise up later in life. I will never think that a child should rather be killed, than not at least given the opportunity to succeed.

These are the major arguments I hear about abortion that I often discuss with some lovely people on my twitter account (redhotpolitics, go follow me!) and I was really inspired to share with all of you. This is why I’m pro life, not because of religion (I am a Christian, but even if I was an atheist I would still be pro life) or because that’s all I’ve been taught, it’s because I’ve researched the facts and statistics for myself. This is why I will always chose life, and I hope you will too.