With the winds of radicalism shifting the Democratic Party further and further left, Joe Biden is the only viable candidate Democrats have to challenge the Trump train.
While many candidates are going focusing on the primary, Biden is looking at the big picture. All the calls for universal healthcare and universal college and every other socialist idea does not apply to the center voter, who overwhelmingly went Trump in 2016. Biden is the only candidate to express a love for the United States, something no other Democratic candidate has done and something Midwestern voters are more likely to support. Biden is (so far) the only candidate to be beating Trump. Keep in mind the election is young and the polls right up to the end had Hillary Clinton winning. -Jared Zimmerman
0 Comments
Early this week, the Venezuelan people have risen up against the dictator Maduro and pro-government forces (it should also be of note that this soon to be civil war is still raging with no clear winner at the time of this writing).
Yet it should be interesting to note that while there have been uprisings and revolutions against monarchies and communist tyrannies, there is not one example of a capitalist nation being overthrown by a majority of the people (of course every nation has its anarchist and communist but this is not what this article is about). The greatest example of this is is post world war two Germany. Specifically pro-capitalist and free West Germany and the "pro"-communist slave state of East Germany. If socialism/communism was really the wanting of a majority of people, then people from West Germany would have been flocking to East Germany. However as we all learned in history class, the East put up a wall to not keep its western counterpart out but rather to keep its own people from leaving. It should be revealing that if a country has to put a wall up to keep their people in then that nation is no longer free. And in all of history there is not an example of a capitalist nation trying to keep its free people from leaving in prutisit of their own well being. Capitalism is that of the individual and socialism is that of the collectivist, where individualism does not matter and which one can be taken out in order for the "good" of the group. -Jared Zimmerman On Wednesday, Social Media giants Facebook and Twitter were dragged before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both heads were left rather speechless and Sen. Ted Cruz's questioning.
The question was whether or not a quote by Mother Teresa on abortion was hate speech. The question was asked by Sen. Cruz because a multitude of Pro-Life groups on both Facebook and Twitter have been banned due to "hate speech" and one of these groups were banned due after they tweeted Mother Teresa's quote on abortion being anti-women. It should also be noted that the pro-life movie, Unplanned had their official Twitter and Facebook accounts deleted. All in all it does seem contradictory to deem those Pro-life and their message to be hated speech but to left those on the other side of the aisle do as they please. Now of course the problem isn't that a company is banning people. We live in a free market society and companies can do as they please. The problem is that this banning looks to be like political discrimination but more importantly both companies consider themselves "neutral" meaning they don't take sides in these sorta political exchanges. Yet their practice doesn't seem to be at all "neutral". All in all if we are considering Mother Teresa hate speech, I think it's safe to say our civilization and nation are over. -Jared Zimmerman A few days ago marked the 70th anniversary for perhaps one of the most important alliances in the 20th and 21st centuries, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
NATO was a direct response to the "iron curtain" that was the Soviet Union. Everywhere there was a Soviet or Communist presence there was NATO. For example it was NATO troops that kept South Korea free and NATO's arms that supplied Afghan freedom fighters from counting their resistance to Soviet occupation. After 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5, the article that declares that an, "attack on one is an attack on all" and many member nations joined the US led coalition in both the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. While the threat of communism has mostly been won, the threat of Russia, China and terrorism remain every high. In fact NATO is currently training Ukrainian forces to fight off the Russian invasion that embarked in 2014. NATO is also currently supplying the South Korean and Japanese militaries (in Japan's case it's their "defense force") against possible war with North Korea and China. However NATO is mostly an anti-terrorism organization currently. With all member nations sharing intelligence on possible terrorists in their respective countries. All in all, NATO needs to stick around and step up is role in the protection of individual freedoms around the globe. -Jared Zimmerman With President Trump having been in Hanoi, Vietnam with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un for the past couple days it is necessary to say that the idea of Kim Jong-Un simply stopping his nuclear program because President Trump asks him to is ignorance of the highest degree.
The only reason North Korea is even on the world stage is because of its nuclear program. Without it the Kim dynasty is nothing and would be quickly disposed of by their own people. Besides the word of North Korea is utterly worthless and the Kim dynasty has been running circles around the US since we've opened up talks in the last century. The proper policy of dealing with dictators is strength. Internal reform in any dictatorship is almost unheard of throughout history and the free worlds response to such atrocious countries has been one thing, force. This is how we dealt with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union (proxy warfare) and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best way to handle North Korea is by increasing our military presence in the region, stronger sanctions by not only the US but also our allies. The US must also pressure NATO to focus not only on Russia and terrorism but also on North Korea and Chinese aggression. The US must also pressure North Korea's master, China and one of their largest trading partner, Iran. The way to deal with the Chinese is through India as India is the only US ally that is in close proximity to China with the capabilities of to deal with the Chinese. However Pakistan is a threat to India and India does not have the military strength nor the infrastructure to fight a two front war. This means it is necessary for the US and NATO to pressure Pakistan (through sanctions and a military presence) to stay out of it. When it comes to Iran, things tend to be more simpler (or as simple as can be when it comes it global politics). In fact the US hardly needs to get involved as a Middle Eastern coalition against Iran is already forming which consists of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and a few other countries. Iran is undoubtedly much like Iraq in the early 2000s and that being said it is necessary to learn from our mistakes in Iraq to make sure that they don't repeat. This can all be summed up with what John F. Kennedy stated in his inaugural address, "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty." - Jared Zimmerman Many that are running or planning to run on the left side of the aisle have made the minimum wage issue a prime concern of their campaigns. This does make sense as 58% of Americans according to a Pew Research Center poll support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. While those that support an increase may have the best intentions, good intentions don’t make good economic policy. In fact, raising the minimum wage has disastrous effects on the economy and hurts those that it aims to help.
The hardest job of any employer is to find good employees and to keep them. How do they keep these valuable workers? This can be done through benefits such as higher pay, healthcare, vacation days and so on. When employers have to compete with other employers for labor, the workers benefits increase. In fact, a 2013 Congressional Budget Study found that just raising the minimum wage to $10 would cost the nation 500,000 jobs. Even a slight rise in the minimum wage by just $1 could result in a 4-10% increase in the likelihood that a business will close according to the Harvard Business School. With the current minimum wage at $7.25 and the new call to raise it to $15, that's an $8 increase which will result in a 32-80% likelihood that a business will close. On top of this, new entrepreneurs will see these high costs and simply not try to open new businesses. This means that already established companies will go under, causing job loss, and new companies won’t take their places, keeping those jobs lost. Even the lucky few who do get to keep their jobs will see their hours cut as employers try and stay afloat. In fact in 2013 Seattle raised their minimum wage to $13 an hour and the average worker lost $125, a rather large pay reduction for those struggling to make ends meet, and anyone who’s had a job will know that there's always that ping of jealousy upon finding out a coworker makes more then they do. So in order to keep their more senior or specialized employees happy, businesses will have to give them a raise as the minimum wage would now make the most basic dishwasher’s pay the same as the more advanced, and perhaps older, fry cook. This would further strain the profit margins of businesses and in order to reduce costs, employers will be less likely to hire teenagers who are looking for their first job as that unskilled teenager is just that, unskilled, meaning that a business will have to pay more for unskilled labor when they could pay the same price for a more skilled laborer. In order to have the dream job you need to have the first one. With new businesses no longer starting up and employers having to fire workers to keep costs down, this creates a California situation, meaning that in places like California (with a high minimum wage) we have employees competing for jobs which usually means they’ll take whatever comes their way, no matter the benefits offered (or lack thereof). This would mean that businesses no longer have an incentive to offer better benefits for their workers as there is a lack of jobs so people will take what they can get. In economic terms, this is a lack of supply (jobs) with a high demand (people wanting jobs) causing a shortage and an inelastic situation. However let's say the minimum wage (both state and federal) are abolished, wouldn’t that just mean employers will take advantage of their employees? The answer is they’ll try to but we forget that we live in a free market society meaning that I don’t have to stay at a job that only offers me $5 an hour. Instead, I am free to go next door to the place that is offering $10 or the place across the street that’s offering $12 an hour and healthcare. The point is, businesses will have to compete amongst themselves for workers. No matter how greedy the employer, they still need workers and the only way to get them is with good pay, minimum wage just hurts both the employer and employee. -Jared Zimmerman Since the United States has pulled out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal, most (if not all) our European allies have followed suit in limiting business to Iran. This has lead to the isolation of Iran, turning Iran into a sort of North Korea in terms of ostracization.
This forced isolation is a good thing as it keeps the radicals (indeed Iran is a radical nation) from, "infecting" for lack of a better term, mainstream society. This isolation has also stunted Iran's nuclear program as Iran is no longer getting the necessary materials needed to make atomic weapons (though they are most likely still trying). However Iran is also no longer getting raw materials to help rebuild its collapsing infrastructure. This lead many Iranian youth to protest the dictatorship of Iran a couple of months ago. As this infrastructure continues to disintegrate more protests if not open rebellions are almost certain to take place and the West must be ready to aid these groups (though this is a matter for another day). Another plus to the US pulling out of the Iranian Nuclear Deal and Europe turing it's back on Iran, is the more or less forced relationship being built between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Twenty if not ten years ago someone were to say that the Jews and the Arabs would be working together in the Middle East most of the world would laugh. Yet here we see the age old idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" being done to the benefit of not only the Middle East but also to that of the United States. Instead of American troops having to be sent there (a threat to lives and taxpayers) we see Israeli and Saudi troops working together in the region against Iran. Overall it would appear that everyone (save Iran) is benefiting from the US pulling out of the deal. - Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 2/8/19) Right off the bat it is necessary to note that one: in no shape or form does this piece seek to bash homosexuals. This article is simply a thought experiment. Two: For a majority of this blog, I as the author have tried to refrain from majority opinion pieces and rather majority factual articles. However this piece will have to be an exemption.
The idea for this piece began when a friend of mine stated that she was a liberal for various reason but then used the phrase "and because I love gay people". I then stated that as a conservative and in fact a majority of conservatives don't hate gay people but we do find a problem with homosexual marriage. I then asked her why can't a brother and sister marry? Or a son and mother, daughter and father or some other incestuous combination. My friend was dumbfounded for lack of a better term as she had never been asked this before. I must admit I found this point interesting as it is a rather common point made by those that are pro traditional marriage (if not this point then at least the famous "why can't I marry a dog" argument but I find the incestual point much stronger and often times more convincing). Anyway, the point is if a pair of homosexuals can marry why can't a brother and sister marry? Doesn't the heart want what the heart wants? And isn't it a form of bigotry that family members can not marry other family members? I mean who are we to say that no brother and sister can not marry. Of course most would (rightly) answer no that they can't but the more pressing question that needs answering is why? When asked this, most people are offended at the comparison of homosexual relationships and incestuous ones. However thirty years ago the comparison of straight relationships to homosexual ones was deemed offensive. So what gives homosexuals the right or "pass" to be offended at the comparison between themselves and inceoutusu couples when straight couples are called bigots when they object to the comparison between them and homosexual couples. Hasn't homosexaul marriage become the new striaght marriage in the way that straights and homsexuals can marry but incstous one can't? Doesn't this make straights and homosexuals bigots? Either everyone can marry whoever they want or their needs to be a standard and for most of human history that standard was traditional marriage. With the legalization of homosexual marriage, the definition of marriage is left without a standard as there is no plausible argument against inceosus marriage or for that matter sticking to only two per marriage (Belgium is already looking at the legalization of three per marriage). Again I as the author want to reiterate that this is not an attack on homosexuals or even homosexulity, this is just a question that is going to need to be answered in the coming years as this will become an issue in our lifetime. - Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 2/1/19) The 2020 elections began at the conclusion of the 2018 midterms and oh boy have things really taken off.
It began with Senator Warren announcing her run for the presidency and with former Vice President Joe Biden stating he'll "look into it." However there are deep problems with both would be candidates, Warren will/can not get over her DNA test failure (which showed that she is much less Native American then she claimed). This would give Republicans wonderful campaign ads as Warren is a major part of this new, far left progressive (which has turned regressive) Democratic party. The problem with Joe Biden is that his own party doesn't like him. Many left wing news organization such as the Washington Post and the Huffington Post have claimed Biden is "a creep" and that many female staffers felt "uncomfortable" around him (turns out there's more evidence on Biden then Kavanaugh). However while this is a major problem, a bigger problem democrats face is that Biden isn't left enough, he's much to center. When your "thought leader" is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who just stated she wants to tax Americans 70% for her "New Green Deal") you need to be left of Marx to reach anywhere near her outspoken basis (or just have failed an economics class). A third possible candidate is Beto O'Rourke, who lost to Sen. Ted Cruz (a possible Republican candidate but chances are he won't run until 2024). The problem is that fans of socialism prefer Bernie Sanders over this supposedly "new Kennedy". Yet the problem with Sanders is that accusations of sexual assault are running rampant against his 2016 presidential campaign which could lead his supporters to going to O'Rourke but even with these supporters O'Rourke isn't center enough like Biden to get those independent voters. All in all there are about "two dozen" democrats looking at their chances in 2020 so things are bound to get interesting. -Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 1/10/19) President Trump ended 2018 on a sour note (at least on the foreign policy scale) by beginning to plan the withdrawal of all American troops from Syria and half of our troop presence in Afghanistan. This is foolish foreign policy which will lead to more Iraq's and a possible nuclear taliban.
Whether or not you agree with President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq (I do but that's a discussion for later) the invasion wasn't what established ISIS. It was President Obama's premature pulling out of Iraq which created ISIS. How? Well when you overthrow a nation's government AND then leave, someone's going to take the position of top dog. Look at Europe for example. When Nazi Germany and its allies were defeated, the Soviet Union and her satellite states took power. Whether we like it or not we are in the business of nation building, especially in the Middle East. A direct consequence of lowering our troop presence in Afghanistan is the possibility of the taliban becoming more active in the region. This is especially troubling when it comes to Pakistan as our troop presence in Afghanistan has helped lower terrorist activity in that nation. However if/when we pull out then this allows a power vacuum to occur (much like what will happen in Syria and what did happen in Iraq) and since Pakistan does have nuclear weapons it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the chances of the taliban gaining nuclear capiolotes increases dramatically. All and all if we pull out we will have to return. -Jared Zimmerman (Originally published 1/3/18) |
Bringing you a
|