Why We March: Standing in Solidarity for Life

On January 27, hundreds of thousands of people converged on the nation’s capital to stand for the most valuable human right — the right to life. I was lucky enough to be one of those people.

The group I was travelling with arrived on Tuesday, and we did some sightseeing throughout the week. Washington Monument. Check. Lincoln Memorial. Check. Arlington National Cemetery, Vietnam War Memorial, World War II Memorial. Check, check, check.

It didn’t take me long to realize that this was much more than a trip to knock a few items off my very short bucket-list. The following day, at noon, our group went to a Planned Parenthood facility to pray. The gravity of the week hit me as I stepped off the bus and saw the “clinic.” The building was grey with modern architecture, located in the middle of a neighborhood, quite unironically, right next to a preschool being dismissed for the day. With the knowledge of what goes on behind those dark grey walls right next to the vibrant life of young children, I could not help but avert my eyes and stare into the rich, clear blue sky and feel the crisp, January air. I finally scrounged up enough courage to look at the intimidating building.

The glass was tinted just enough so I couldn’t see inside, not that I wanted to. It was as though I was looking at the face of Satan himself. We began our prayer. A short time later, a young woman, no more than 14, and her mother walked out of the clinic, escorted by a nurse who would have fit in better at a morgue. The girl carried a vomit bag, and while the mother seemed fine, this poor girl’s face told a much more sinister story. You could see the fear, humiliation, despair, and depression eating away at her heart. The tears immediately started to fall at the spectacle, mostly because I knew that there was nothing I could do. I knew, at that moment, that she had a hard road ahead, a road of regret, judgement, and depression. There was nothing I could do to change her future. There was nothing I could have done to save her from the procedure itself. This poor soul had lost her innocence at such a young age, and in such a gruesome, brutal, dehumanizing way. That experience ate away at my thoughts for next 48 hours.

I was blown away by the cogent case the Vice President made on Friday. After what we had experienced that week, it was the perfect tone setter for the march.

march-4-life

We began our two-mile walk at 1:00, and, as a group, we were not only marching for babies exterminated by abortion, but also for families, mothers, daughters, even fathers that have been hurt by this grave crime against humanity. My mind flashed back to the girl walking out of the Planned Parenthood two days before.

Not only do we march to save the babies, but also to alleviate the pain endured by so many every single day. The solution cannot be a court decision or an executive order. It must be a change of heart. And that only comes through prayer and sacrifice. With those two things, every American can stand in solidarity for the right to life.

Advertisements

Women’s March Greatest Threat to Free Expression

America’s whitest, loudest, (and dare I say biggest) snowflakes congregated in cities all over the country on January 21. Just one day after Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States. To protest what? We do not know. At first glance one might think “women’s issues” (whatever that means), moved on to killing babies, then they discussed gay rights, and then talked about racism, and finally ended on calling President Donald Trump a Nazi (original).

As one can easily figure out this march was politically charged. It had no real purpose but to whine and protest the newly elected President. There was no single common goal, there was no discussion of how to fix these goals, just malcontents complaining about how America did not decide to have it their way (mind you, America had been doing “their way” for eight years and saw little progress).

First off, no matter what you have been told, women do not make 77 cents to a man’s dollar for equal work. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2015 report, the average woman’s take home pay is 83 percent of that of a man. On the surface, that’s a big problem, but with a few control factors, that gap is quickly wiped away. For example, the average woman works between 36 to 38 hours per week, as opposed to the average man who works between 42 to 44 hours per week. On a 40 hour work week that’s between a 10 to 20 percent increase. Keeping pay fair, that means a man should make between 10 to 20 percent more than women on average. That doesn’t even take into consideration the types of jobs that women usually take as opposed to men. Throughout the country, women tend to choose jobs that allow them to stay close to home, have more flexible schedules, and do not require much travel or risk. Typically, these types of jobs have higher paychecks attached because of the added inconvenience, risk, and stress involved. On top of all of this, Time Magazine ran a study in 2010 that found, in the 50 largest cities in America, when job title, marital status, education, and experience is kept equal, women are paid 108 percent of what men make. Think what you will, but basic statistics wipe away the myth of a gender wage gap very quickly.  

What you also will not hear from the leftist media is that out of every 100 occupational fatalities, 93 of them are men. Following the same logic these demonstrators propose, would they also support making sure an equal amount of female workers die to males? Would they strive to insure a complete balance of occupation related deaths in the name of equality? No, because that is absurd, but demanding an employer to pay a women an equal amount to her male counterpart even though she worked less and has less experience is quite the advantage all over a mere difference in reproductive organs. Or, as Hillary Clinton advocated during one of her debates, that women should be paid the same as men regardless of their quality of work! Also, It is worth pointing out the same people who marched holding signs saying “I’m a vagina voter” will also be the first to tell you that your reproductive organs do not make you a woman. Let that sink in.

The march itself is proof women do not have issues. They enjoy the same right to peacefully assemble, the same right to vote, the same freedom of speech and of the press and all the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution as men. However, the greatest threat to these rights, most specifically, the right to life, and the right to free expression were the Women’s Marchers themselves. Women who wanted to join the march, but were also Pro-Life were not invited to “fight for their rights” alongside these other women. Are these women who believe in the sanctity of life less than female because of their beliefs? Are they not good enough because they do not conform to the lack of brain cells under those pink knit hats?

Look, I could go on forever about all of the double standards the Women’s March carried with them, but I will stop at just this last one. It is truly amazing that the Women’s Marchers can hold signs with the most profane, obscene, and disgusting language you could possibly think of toward women and smile, but President Trump was condemned so quickly by the media for using these same words.

Maybe instead of creating problems where there are none and condemning the President of the United States before he has even served a full day in office, they should have discussed the women in Saudi Arabia who cannot drive, or the girls in Pakistan who do not receive even basic education. Those on the left wouldn’t dare confront the horrifying reality Muslim women face, for it is too politically incorrect. In case you were unaware, pedophilia and the denial of basic human rights is permissible on the grounds of religion.

The reality is there are real issues that women in our world face today, but those who participated in the Women’s march do not care about other women, just their own self-esteem (or lack thereof). They are the misinformed lead by the malicious, and they are America’s special snowflakes.

Kellogg Community College Students Arrested for Handing out Constitutions

Oh, the irony: arresting several students for distributing pocket Constitutions, allegedly prohibiting the educational process on campus at Kellogg Community College (KCC) in Battle Creek, MI. Apparently, asking college aged adults if they like freedom and liberty is so offensive and obstructive to the educational process that campus supporters of Young Americans for Liberty must now be represented in federal court by the attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). You can check out the formal complaint here.

Students Michelle Gregoire and Brandon Withers are supporters of YAL and were asked to leave campus. When they refused, they were arrested.

Since when did distributing a public, historic, and formally well-respected document in a public location become grounds for arrest?

Evidently, when KCC adapted their 2016-17 Student Handbook. KCC reserves the right to censor its students, and censor them they did. On September 20, 2016 these students were on an open walkway on campus, asking questions such as, “Do you like freedom and liberty?” to students passing by. As YAL is not a registered student organization at the college, they were arrested for trespass and in violation of the solicitation policy listed in the student handbook. The solicitation policy states:

“Soliciting activities on campus are permitted only when the activities support the mission of Kellogg Community College (KCC) or the mission of a recognized college entity or activity. Non-College organizations may conduct solicitation activities on campus only when lawfully sponsored by a recognized College entity. All organizations desiring to conduct soliciting activities on campus must adhere to College policies and procedures. Solicitation shall not impede or interfere with College business, the education process, or public access to and use of the College grounds. The College reserves the right to stop any solicitation when it interferes with or disrupts the normal activities of the College; interferes with the educational process; or violates any of the conditions covering solicitation under this policy. All solicitation activities must have prior approval from Student Life.”

As if other students were unable to continue walking or choose not to engage with the YAL supporters. Again, this is a college campus. With “adults.”

Yet one of the college administrators seems to think that passing out Constitutions and engaging in conversation with other students, especially those from surrounding rural areas, is an obstruction to the education KCC provides.

“[He is concerned that] students from rural farm areas…might not feel like they have the choice to ignore the question.”

Luckily, the ADF has come alongside these students to help dissolve an unconstitutional policy.

“Today’s college students will be tomorrow’s legislators, judges, commissioners, and voters,” said ADF Senior Counsel Casey Mattox. “That’s why it’s so important that public universities model the First Amendment values they are supposed to be teaching to students.”
This campus is supposed to be a place which encourages free thought, a place where ideas are challenged, a place where people can change and be changed so they can go out into the world and make an impact. By censoring these individuals, and all individuals attempting to revolutionize their peers’ way of thinking, the college promotes a culture of apathy, safety, and indifference- none of which is going to align with the mission statement that seems to be so precious:

screenshot-3

So once again, oh the irony. The irony of arresting students for handing out a document protecting them from arrest. If it weren’t so sad, I might laugh.

Marco Rubio Urges For “Moral Clarity”

Rex Tillerson, President-elect Donald Trump’s Secretary of State nominee, went through hearings on Wednesday from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he answered several tough questions.

The much-anticipated hearings for the president-elect’s controversial choice starred not only Rex Tillerson himself, but a senator who was once known as the rising star of the Republican Party: Marco Rubio.

In December when it was rumored that Tillerson would become President-elect Trump’s secretary of state nominee, several Republican lawmakers, including Rubio, expressed concern over Tillerson’s relationship with Russia and their president Vladimir Putin. Rubio tweeted:

Rubio later issued a statement that expressed his concern in more detail.

This immediately led to several former high-ranking Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, as well as former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice, to talk to Rubio and lobby for Tillerson. Tillerson himself met with Rubio in private on Monday.

However, Rubio did not back down on Wednesday. Rubio pressed Tillerson on sanctions against Russia, human rights’ violations in Saudi Arabia, and when Rubio asked if Putin was a war criminal, Tillerson responded, “I would not use that term.”

While it is true that Tillerson’s international business experience is a good quality for a Secretary of State and brings a unique perspective regarding foreign relations, that strength did not make up for his lack of experience in diplomacy in his hearing. On several occasions, when Rubio pressed Tillerson for answers regarding human rights’ violations and war crimes from foreign leaders, particularly Russia’s Putin, Tillerson wavered, insisting that he needed more information before being able to give a definitive answer. His refusal to label Putin a war criminal, or at least admit that the Russian military had committed war crimes in Aleppo, leads one to suspect that Tillerson is not ready to admit that his friend Putin is destabilizing the world.

This is a controversial topic in Republican circles, because while it has been traditional Republican policy to take a strong stance against Russia, President-elect Trump has made clear that he would like a friendship with Russia and President Putin.

While being friends with any country is in theory better than being enemies with one, the friendship must be mutual, and there must be conditions met. If Russia is committing war crimes, why should the United States be friends with Russia?

The questions did not stop with Russia, however. During the second part of the hearing, Rubio asked Tillerson to condemn the drug war being waged by Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, and Tillerson side-stepped the question and insisted that we needed to remain an ally with the Philippines. Then Rubio asked Tillerson if he believed that Saudi Arabia was a human rights violator, given the lack of religious freedom and freedom for women in the nation. Tillerson responded by saying that Saudi Arabia had different values, although they are progressing towards becoming more free, and by labeling them as human rights violators we could jeopardize our human rights progress in the region.

The idea that we should not place labels that may be offensive to other countries and leaders is a theme in Tillerson’s reasoning throughout the hearing, and it is not a theme that resonates well with human rights activists.

Human rights activism is at the core of Rubio’s foreign policy beliefs, and was disappointed that Tillerson could not call human rights violations for what they are. “In order to have moral clarity, we need clarity. We can’t achieve moral clarity with rhetorical ambiguity,” Rubio said during his final remarks. He said that people from China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and other countries with poor human rights records look to the United States for leadership in the world, and when they see that the United States is not prepared to condemn these human rights violators, “It demoralizes these people all over the world. And it leads people to conclude this, which … hurt us during the Cold War: America cares about democracy and freedom, as long as it’s not being violated by someone that they need for something else.”

Rubio urged, “That cannot be who we are in the 21st century. We need a secretary of state that will fight for these principles.”

Remember, Rubio believes that American strength in foreign policy is what helps the world become stable – not by going into war, but by being the moral leader in world affairs and by making sure that no power voids can be created and filled by those who seek to destabilize the world. The weakening of American foreign policy in general through the Obama Administration has arguably led to the rise of Russia and Iran as more powerful adversaries and well as the rise of ISIS. And while Tillerson has not suggested that he would like to continue with Obama’s foreign policy, his unwillingness to label dangerous adversaries in the world is troubling and could degrade America’s moral stance in the world.

There is still no confirmation that Rubio will choose to vote yes or no on Tillerson in committee. He said in an interview, “I’m prepared to do what’s right.” And it may be right to vote no.

This Week’s Edition of Liberal Hypocrisy…

Outgoing President Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Private transgender Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, who was supposed to serve a 35-year sentence for leaking Military secrets. Manning was convicted in 2013 for violations of the Espionage Act for leaking key Military documents to Wikileaks. The battlefield reports were used by Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, putting a lot of people in danger. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) put it perfectly, “I don’t understand why the president would feel special compassion for someone who endangered the lives of our troops, diplomats, intelligence officers, and allies.”

Bradley Manning
Chelsea Manning was convicted in July 2013 of violations of the Espionage Act

Make no mistake, Manning is not a whistle-blower, but a traitor to his country. She stole 750,000 documents from the Army, making it impossible for her to know what was in all those emails. Democrats applauded the efforts of President Obama, again another example of hypocrisy from the left. Democrats hate the leaking of documents when it hurts them but when it fits to their narrative they have no problem with it. During the election campaign, Democrats were outraged about Russia sponsoring the leaks of John Podestas emails. The leaks unveiled shady dealings related to Clinton and her stint as Secretary of State and with her campaign staff. Since it severely damaged her campaign, the left was staunchly against Wikileaks and Julian Assange. The left can’t have it both ways; if you don’t like what Assange did than you can’t support the commutation of Chelsea Manning. It also begs the question of whether Chelsea would have gotten this commutation if she were still Bradley Manning. In today’s politically correct world, Manning’s diagnosis of having gender dysmorphia could have swayed the decision of President Obama. Marco Rubio did not mince words when disagreeing with the decision of President Obama, stating

marcorubio1
Marco Rubio had strong words for President Obama

“Private Manning violated an oath as a member of the U.S. military and endangered the lives of fellow service members and individuals in contact with the U.S. government around the world….It is shameful that President Obama is siding with lawbreakers and the ACLU against the men and women who work every day to defend our nation and safeguard U.S. government secrets.”

As the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump nears, more and more House Democrats are planning to skip the inauguration in an attempt to deem President-elect Trump’s win as illegitimate. As it stands, 60 House Democrats have committed to skipping, including Representative John Lewis who recently made his tendentious comments about Trump not being the legitimate president. John Lewis did a lot for civil rights but he is out of line here and furthering a divide in our nation in which needs coming together. Mr. Trump won the election fair and square, the voters chose him. Lest we forget back during the debates when Hillary and the Democrats said Trump’s unwillingness to accept the election results was a direct threat to our democracy. So, it is safe to say now that what the Democrats are doing is sour grapes, and they need to get over it.  It’s also no surprise that of the 60 House Democrats, a combined 22 are from deep blue California and New York.

President-elect gave his views on the matter in an interview with Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt: “He(Lewis) got caught in a very bad lie, so let’s see what happens. As far as other people not going, that’s ok because we need seats so badly.” The lie Trump is referring to is Lewis made the claim this was the first inauguration he would be skipping, when in fact he also skipped the inauguration of George W. Bush. The Democrats are playing a dangerous game, risking future Inaugurations to strictly being a partisan occasion. The event is supposed to signify the peaceful transfer of power but the transition process has been anything but that.

rand-paul
During an interview with CNN, Paul praised Lewis as a civil rights icon but said he shouldn’t be immune to criticism.

No Democratic Senators have pledged to skip yet but Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) did leave that door open, saying “I think each person has to make the choice on their own, but I don’t begrudge those who have said they’re boycotting. Each person can make his or her own decision.”

This Is Obama’s Legacy, and He Knows It

On Tuesday, January 10th, 2017, Barrack Obama delivered his farewell address in the city of Chicago. The address served as a way for Obama to proclaim that he will be forever remembered and admired because of his great legacy, one that includes: the amelioration of our civil society, the expansion of the economy, the progress towards world peace, and the precedent for transparency. This, however, is merely the result of his proclivity for self-aggrandizement. Obama’s declaration that his administration is one of success is simply a false narrative. His administration has been one dedicated to: the performance of unscrupulous actions, the ignorance of reality, and the rejection of veracity. His great legacy will not be full of hope, progress, and change. Instead, it will be marked with lies, corruption, and failure.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care is a prime example of this. The setup of the policy was misguided, for its success was contingent on the amount of people that would sign up for health insurance. This was to be achieved through the government’s mandate that the people must acquire health insurance. Despite the efforts of this mandate, which was unconstitutional in its very nature, not enough people signed up for health insurance. As a result, insurance premiums rose significantly, which is something that will continue. More so, Obama claimed that families could keep the doctors of their choice under the healthcare policy, which actually turned out to be false.

Obama expanded the size of the government significantly during his administration, which resulted in an existential increase in the overall level of debt. Obama’s stimulus package, which was a response to the financial crisis, contributed to this as well. The overall economy under the Obama administration experienced some of the slowest growth this country has seen. Obama’s claims that the unemployment rate has decreased are true. But, when looked at in conjunction with the significant decrease in the labor force participation rate it is apparent why the unemployment rate has actually gone down. These are a result of the enhanced business regulations made by the Obama administration.

Obama’s claims of success in regards to foreign relations are fatuous in nature as well. He pulled the troops before the Middle East could be stable enough to thrive on its own, and as a result it fell into chaos. ISIS was also able to grow significantly once the troops left the area. The administration downplayed the cruel nature of Bashar al-Assad as well, and once the dictator started to attack his own people, the administration refused to provide sufficient military support. Obama did nothing to stop the advancement of Russian military forces into the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine, as well as their infiltration in the Syrian conflict. The Iranian Nuclear Deal that his administration supported provided Iran, a country at odds with western civilization, with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in the near future. Lastly, Obama’s claim that no terrorist attack has taken place in our country that was orchestrated by a terrorist organization overseas was simply a way for him to narrow down an issue so much that it makes him appear to be successful. Radical Islamic terror has grown significantly in the world under Obama’s watch. This is a result of his refusal to properly accredit ISIS-inspired attacks to radical Islam, as well as his inability to propose rational policies to combat them.

The notion that Obama’s administration was honest and competent is also false. Obama lied about the true nature of the Benghazi incident and Hillary Clinton’s private email server. He utilized executive orders as a way to go around congress and implement whatever policies suited his own interests, such as when he wrongfully declared that five million illegal immigrants would be protected from deportation. He also used the departments and agencies of the executive branch, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice, in order to usurp his Constitutionally provided powers.

The Dangerous Truth About Gun Free Zones

In Wisconsin, a bill allowing campus carry in college buildings, dorms, classrooms, etc., will be introduced next legislative session. Guns are already allowed on college campuses as long as the owner has a concealed carry license and the gun is fully concealed. However, schools are allowed to put up “Guns Prohibited Here” signs on university buildings, making it illegal to enter with one. This new bill would end that and allow guns into these premises.

Many people are outraged at the idea of allowing students to carry guns into classrooms. Students and professors alike have been signing petitions against the bill. What these liberal activists don’t understand, is right now, there is nothing, besides a sign, stopping a person from carrying a gun into a campus building. The current law cannot and will not stop anyone who wants to break it. Should a criminal want to enter a college building brandishing a gun, they will. A law prohibiting them from doing so won’t stop them. This new bill will merely level the playing field. Since any legal firearm has to be concealed already, no one will know their classmate has a gun. And because of the provisions in place, namely that a student must have a concealed carry permit, there won’t be any greater risk to student safety. In fact, allowing students to carry guns into classrooms, will increase their safety.

Those who oppose this bill represent the populace who desire stricter gun control laws. Anytime there’s a mass shooting, the first call to action by the Left is to strengthen gun laws. However, what these gun control activists don’t understand is that there are gun laws in place already, yet time after time, tragic stories come across the news. If during any one of these shootings, a victim or bystander had a concealed gun, the outcome may have been drastically different. A gun that is already present is better than one that shows up later (the police do a great job, they just can’t be everywhere at once). Strengthening gun control laws will only curtail law-abiding citizens from obtaining a gun, it won’t do anything to stop criminals. Criminals, by definition, don’t abide by laws.

If a person truly wants to harm another, they will use any means necessary. We saw this in Jerusalem when a man drove a truck into a crowd of people. If it is impossible to obtain a gun, another weapon will be found. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. In fact, tightening gun control could further increase the occurrence of mass shootings. As average civilians are discouraged from buying guns for self-defense, hunting, or game purposes, there will be fewer people to stop criminals in a life or death situation. If the assailant is the only one with a gun, what deterrent is there?

The nine states with the lowest crime rates all allow their citizens the right of concealed carry (Lampo). States allowing for concealed carry have a 24% lower violent crime rate and a 19% lower murder rate than states not granting citizens this right (Lampo). These statistics from the Cato Institute, a think tank located in Washington DC, make a strong argument for allowing private citizens the right to own a gun. The results are clear, legal gun ownership results in less violent crime being committed on average, not more.

Strict gun control laws will not solve the problem of mass shootings in America. Criminals will still find a way to obtain a gun. All gun restrictions do is stop law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. The solution should not be to create new gun laws; it should be to enforce the ones already in place. In a perfect world, there would be no need for weapons of any kind. However, we don’t live in a perfect world. Average citizens need a form of self-defense. Just ask the students at Seattle Pacific University, Ohio State University, and Umpqua Community College if they would have liked a firearm to help protect them.