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
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 Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb) introduced the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act on Monday which was promptly shut down by all but three Senate Democrats.
The goal of the bill was to protect babies that survive abortion. For instance if a mother were to want an abortion while she is in labor (which is perfectly legal in several states) but happened to give birth before the abortion can be successfully carried out, the child would be given all possible treatment to keep that child alive. Or if a baby survived a botched abortion then doctors would legally have to treat that child in all ways to keep that child alive. Many say that this is not an issue but Virgin Governor, Ralph Norman, in a radio interview stated that in a new law that, "The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." New York State passed a law that allows abortion "under any circumstance" no matter where in the pregnancy the mother is at. Once a child, even one that survived an abortion, is born, there is no excuse for saying this is a "women's rights" issue as that child is no longer apart of her body. There is no law requiring a mother to bring her child home from the hospital. No law saying a woman can't leave her child on the doorstep of an orphanage or a church. There is no excuse for Democrats to have voted against this bill. The morality of the United States is crumbling pretty damn fast. -Jared Zimmerman 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 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. On Friday, the world lost a good man. And it truly was the world that lost him as is evident throughout our own country and in Kuwait where Bush lead the coalition to liberate Kuwait from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
Bush was a member of the greatest generation, fighting in the Pacific during World War II (during which he was shot down), he was head of the CIA, Vice President for both of Reagan's terms and finally the 41st PResident of the United States. Yet it should be noted that his last words were to his son, George W. Bush, "I love you, too". We need to come together in moments like these and respect the man not for politics (of which there are numerous things I disagree with) but for what he was, a man that wouldn't attack his opponents personally, a war hero, a husband and a loving father. We also shouldn't try and use the death of anyone to try and push our own political narrative (like what happened at John Mccain's funeral). All in all, farewell 41. -Jared Zimmerman Due to the outcry against President Trump on redefining the word "sex" in Title IX (back to its original meaning of biological sex) the debate on "transgenderism" is now back in session.
If we keep to the standard of biology (XX and XY) then we get the answer that there are only two genders. However once we stray from this hard standard there are a multitude of questions/problems that need to be answered. For example this idea of basing policy or decisions on how an individual feels has opened up the doors to ideas such as "transspecies" (the idea that someone can identify as another species), "transagism" (the idea someone can identify as a different age then there biological age) and even "transracialism" (the idea that an individual can identify as a different race). These new ideas of course have a brought upon a flood of problems or soon to be problems. Some of these problems/questions that need to be answered by the "trans" movement are: can someone that is biologically 35 years old marry someone who is also biologically 35 years old but identifies as someone who's 6 years? And if there's someone whose 25 years old and they currently have a job but now they self identify as an 8 year old does that person's place of employment now have to fire them as keeping that person hired is now child labor? Or how about a person who is biologically a 14 year old can that kid now identify as a 21 year old and thus be able to buy alcohol? Of course these questions may seem ridiculous and they would be utterly ridiculous if we stayed at the standard of biology but that's not what the "trans" movement wants. They want to go based off of a person's feelings and by going based off this there is no reason anyone can't be anything and the "trans" movement can not pick and choose which "transism" it wants to support because to do so would be a complete contradiction to their entire movement of feelings. - Jared Zimmerman As of this moment, there is absolutely no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford. Two days ago a long time friend of Ford, Leland Ingham Keyser, someone who Ford claims was at the party that she was alleged assaulted at by Kavanaugh, has denied that she was ever at a party with Kavanaugh. This makes her the third person to deny that such a party ever existed and since Ford claims there was only four at the party, that just leaves her word against three. As of this moment, Ford is set to testify this Thursday before the 21 person Senate Judiciary Committee. As of the last 24 hours a new allegation against Kavanaugh has sprung up by a Deborah Ramirez. However there is reason to be skeptical as Ronan Farrow and coauthor Jayne Mayer of the New Yorker wrote, "She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the hill independently, and it has co cornered her into an awkward position." Of course if any of these allegations are true then Kavanaugh should be removed from the nomination process and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. - Jared Zimmerman |
The latest in our crazy culture.Archives
May 2019
Categories |