Social Issues

We can all thank Ronald Reagan for this one. While running to become the 40th President of the United States in 1981, Ronald Reagan used a campaigning tactic that was seen and used never before in modern day politics. He took taking peoples’ interest away from his foreign and domestic policy and economic policies, and instead, introduced them to social issues, issues that every American could connect and understand better. This technique was genius, because it allowed more Americans to connect, understand, and ultimately vote for him come election day. However, this concept of, to be blunt, even caring about social issues is garbage. With my political views, I believe in both economic and personal freedom in everything that we as citizens do. The government has no right and business to get involved with how we as Americans live our lives in regards to social issues. Quite frankly, they should not even be discussed in modern day politics and the fact that they are, speaks volumes of our over controlling and tyrannical government.

First, a big problem that we face is the bridge that connects the church to the government. I personally believe that religion should be separated from politics, because both are ideological filled entities that have different representations, antics, and overall status. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. They do not go hand and hand and this connection currently within our society of religion and politics creates irrational and infeasible ideas as individuals are so passionate about one of the two that it skews their opinion on the other. Likewise, the tie to religion in politics has been a binding force against the efforts made to legalize gay marriage. If a man wants to marry another man, let him. Same with a woman. Individuals should follow any religion and set of beliefs that they wish to and their beliefs should not be influenced by the government. With this in mind, it leads to just another example.

The government has no right to be involved with Americans’ bodies. More specifically, there should not be the current issue of Pro Life vs. Pro Choice. The answer should always be Pro Choice for the following reasons. First, it is the mother’s body, uterus, and fetus so it should ultimately be her decision on what she does with it. Let us suppose that for this blog’s sake that a girl got raped and impregnated. She should very much so have the option to do as she pleases. The same applies with usage of birth control or other medications to provide the individual with what they want. Additionally, even if abortions become illegal, they will never fully be eradicated. In fact, by banning abortions to be completed at medical institutions such as medical centers or hospitals, it means that Americans will just take matters into their own hands and perform their own form of abortions. This would ultimately put these uneducated and inexperienced individuals at a higher risk of death since they do not know all that the procedure entails. All in all, the government has no right to be involved with our bodies and the decisions we make about it. 

Finally, the idea remains the same for other social issues such as marijuana and guns. Marijuana should be legalized for its numerous values that it would bring to our country. For example, marijuana is indeed safer than alcohol. Additionally, there have been instances where marijuana has helped those affected by Parkinsons and seizures. Finally, with the legalization of marijuana, dramatic eminent success will come in regards to the economy. We have a social security problem? Legalize and taxing marijuana can fix that. Furthermore, the constitution assures that every citizens has the right to bear arms and that is exactly how gun rights should continue within this country. Like abortion, completely banning guns will never happen because the demand for them will always be there. By banning or even creating more strict gun laws, the government is setting us up for failure, as individuals will resort to finding a way to get them at any case.

These are definitely issues that we have been hearing in either a political debate between candidates or one between you and a friend. The ultimate line is that the government has no business in being an overpowering and controlling entity that determines what we do in this life, shaping our own destinies for us. This country prides itself on free choice and freedom, yet I feel those descriptions are tarnished with the government we have today. So yes, to better conclude this entire blog in one sentence I would say that I completely believe that yes, I want gay married couples to protect their sexuality and marijuana plants with guns.  




Big Government Sucks

Seeing this title, you all may be concerned. You’re probably thinking to yourself, “Oh no, here comes another rant by a racist Republican about how he hates the concept of a “big” government.” However, we need to clarify something first and foremost. I am not a republican. While I demonstrate certain characteristics of a staunch conservative, I can assure you all that I do not definitively fall under this classification. Likewise, I am not a liberal either. Once again, I actually do also demonstrate certain aspects of this classification as well, but will never distinguish myself as a democrat.

The term, “libertarian,” is defined as, “an individual who believes in the doctrine of free will.” In regards to Republicans, they believe in strong free will economically and fiscally, but believe in strict regulation with social issues such as abortion, marriage laws, gun rights, and many more. On the contrary, this concept flips for democrats as they are more open about social issues, but believe the government should have a legitimate say in finances and economics. As a libertarian, I encompass the free will aspects of both parties and distinguish myself as a completely different political party. I’ll be honest, I hate government. I’m not necessarily saying that I want no government, AKA anarchy, (lets be honest, that is so infeasible and impossible to have), but I want a government so small that I can fit it in my pocket!

First, I believe that the government is not necessarily out for our best interests. Anyone who wants to disagree with me on this, look at minority groups throughout history such as Native Americans, Hispanics, and the black community across the country. Being oppressed socially throughout history, these groups turned to the government to aid them the most, only to realize that the government is just as corrupt as the hateful people across this country. Additionally, the government is full of evil and manipulative individuals who are driven and influenced by special interest and direct constituencies. Money runs our government and people honestly are not out to improve their country, but rather, themselves. With career politicians and SuperPACS just to name a few, money plays a huge role in our government and dictates a lot that happens in legislative form.

Furthermore, big government inhibits our potential growth as a nation. So many times, we reference to history and honor the individuals who innovated and revolutionized our society with inventions in technology, travel, infrastructure, and pretty much every other aspect of life as well.  However, with taxes going up as you climb the social ladder, these individuals get robbed for their success, killing incentive to innovate. Now I get it, “these individuals make so much that having them pay more taxes doesn’t make a difference.” However, it’s the gesture and action that doesn’t make sense to me, as the ends don’t justify the means. If I’m going to do well, why should I put my career on the line to innovate, when in essence, I will just get knocked back down the ladder that I fought so hard to climb up. this reminds me of an old adage that sates,”Why rob Peter, just to support Paul?” Our government has the audacity to rob the entire country as a whole and meanwhile, they indulge in useless and unnecessary spending, one of the biggest reasons why we as a nation are just about $20 trillion in debt. This alone leads me to my next point.

For as powerful and equipped with “smart” individuals as the government is, you would think that they would know how to balance a budget. WRONG! Time and time again, even if we are not completely aware, the government spends more than allocated for within our country’s budget. This not only drives up inflation rates but makes us weaker as a nation among other nations.

All in all, we have a problem with the day we are operating nowadays. By being constantly controlled by the Washington Machine that we call “Government”, it almost seems as if the American Dream is possibly dead or even inaccessible. However, with a smaller, less involved, and less controlling government, this all could change. Government is not our key to success but the ball and chain that weighs us down instead. Government does not make Americans’ lives easier, but tougher and more limited. Finally, we must remember moving forward a little quote that Ronald Reagan once said. He stated that, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”



This past Tuesday, I attended the deliberation, From Make Believe to iPhone Screens: How to Approach Children’s Use of Technology. In this deliberation, the group brought up the growing usage of technology within our society, focusing on kids from Pre-K to 8th grade. At the beginning, they first summarized the current state of this topic. Studies say that up to 25% of children ages 2 to 5 have a smartphone. While there are some benefits of the growing usage of technology in our youth, there are also noticeable drawbacks that we can equate to this growing trend. The three aspects that this group focused on during this deliberation were regulate, educate, and encourage.

Beginning with the topic of regulate, they asked valid questions such as if government intervention would be viable or just to enforce to make sure that kids at this age did not get too much exposure to technology. However, I disagreed with this claim and the people who supported it, simply because the government has no right or reason to do this. Additionally, questions were asked and discussion was brought up about regulating how much technology should be allowed for kids this age in the public school system. Several different perspectives were brought to the table during this question, and it was very interesting to see how other people were raised and how their schools operated while they attended as a kid.

Moving on to educate, what I believe to be their strongest point, the group discussed possible ways that we can educate parents and even kids about the positive and negative impacts that too much technology can cause. For example, while some can argue that kids are becoming too dependent on technology, it is becoming a norm across the world as the entire planet has revolutionized the way it operates in practically every field. I found this as the most interesting discussion and this group who deliberated this point also did the best.

Finally, moving on to encourage, what I sadly must determine as the weakest point, reiterated previously said claims and how we should sometimes encourage kids to use technology and sometimes encourage them to get away from technology. Like I said, a lot of the points mentioned before seemed to be echoed during this point, and plus it was at the end of the entire deliberation, causing me to lose interest after being there for so long.

My overall opinion on this deliberation was that it was mediocre at best. They had many things that I did not necessarily enjoy and a few things that they did that I commend them for. There was no real introduction for the entire deliberation, all of the speakers but a few spoke very quietly and lacked confidence in their claims, there was a lot of dead air, and many points were repeated, which means that maybe they should have reevaluated the three approaches they took. On the contrary, they asked many good questions and were kind and seemed passionate on the subject. If I had to give it an overall grade in my opinion, I’d give it a solid C.

The Most “Un-Patriotic” Act of All Time

When our Founding Fathers declared for the new world, they had a dream and a vision. They were going to escape tyrannical British rule and self govern themselves in a democratic environment, where a higher power did not decide the destinies, decisions, and lifestyles of individuals, but instead, the power of the individual made these important decisions instead. 

As we have all learned from previous history classes, once they came to the new world, they eventually wrote and signed the Constitution. Formatting the new laws, systems, and means of operation in a so called contract that they all later signed, this was the new foundation and guideline to live life by. Along with this, also came the Bill of Rights.

As I distinguish myself as a Libertarian, I guess you could say that I simply love the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. I believe that the men who wrote them were ahead of their time in beliefs and ideals, they were not biased in any means possible (other than against authoritarian rule), and I personally believe that you will never find another group of men that cared more for the United States of America, like the Founding Fathers. Needless to say, I am a strong believer and advocate for following the Bill of Rights and Constitution avidly. However, in recent governmental policy, it seems as if the Bill of Rights and Constitution are nothing more than irrelevant documents from the past that politicians find loop holes in to jeopardize our long and hard fought freedom.

To be more specific, I am talking about the Patriot Act. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, the government created the Patriot Act. This act allowed for the government or government constituents such as the National Security Agency (NSA) to mass collect previous emails, internet searches, computer archives, phone calls, and any other form of personal data from anyone that they deem necessary, whenever they deem necessary. They claim that it is in order to reduce terrorism, but I view this heinous crime as nothing more than an abuse against my rights.

The Bill or Rights defines the Fourth Amendment as, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and the persons or things to be seized.”  Clearly, the Patriot Act collides and tarnishes with every American’s Fourth Amendment.

I get it. It was post 9/11, terrorism like this has never really happened before, and the country was both anxious and scared, but there are different ways that we could handle terrorism than this. I firmly believe that every American has the constitutional right of privacy. Whether they are exchanging phone calls or emails, looking up embarrassing searches on Google, or anything else behind closed doors, with their personal devices and lives, the government should not even have the possibility of abusing our rights like this. Simply owning a phone or computer, should not be the death warrant to your Fourth Amendment.

In fact, many professionals who have specialized in the effects of the Patriot Act have determined that most of the time, the Patriot Act is not even successful in carrying out what it was made to do in the first place. There are two simple reasons why this is a failure (aside from the governmental abuse). Information is not collected from everyone, but it alternates in people. Therefore, real terrorist data can go by unnoticed simply for the fact that NSA was collecting the wrong information. Additionally, these servers collect so much at a time, that it can be nearly impossible to effectively search through the information in time before a potential attack would even happen. With both of these reasons together, it is essentially that we are looking for a “needle in the haystack,” and sometimes the needle isn’t even there.

This is a perfect example of why government is a problem. No one man (or entity in this case) should have this much power over another man. Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves, seeing our we give up their hard earned freedom, liberty, and rights, to government rule. It’s similar concepts like this, that made them leave in the first place. So this all leads me to the end of my rant and a question I am curious to ask all of you. Are you willing to give up guaranteed privacy, for possible security?

“Campers” in the Capitol

In 1947, the United States Congress passed the Twenty-second Amendment, setting a limit of two terms for the President. Their main reasoning for this decision was that, “Too much power, for too long, is a threat to our freedom”. In the minds of many Americans, the new amendment made sense, as new Presidents, beliefs, and actions would cycle through the Oval Office over time. Recently though, a related question commonly asked is, “why is there no Congressional term limits as well?” Yes, the First Amendment assures all Americans the right to vote and elect whoever they please. However, career politicians are a huge detriment to society, as their long lasting tenure in Congress, hinders advancements and progress needed to better the country. Therefore, an advantageous step for the better commonwealth of our country would be to introduce a two term Congressional limit.

Instilling term limits would definitely help eliminate corporate influence in politics. In politics today, the biggest problem a representative faces once getting elected, is how they will get reelected come the next election. Therefore, representatives instantly turn to lobbyists and win their vote, by making sure their beliefs and actions align with those of the “generous donors.” Clearly, instead of focusing on what is right for the country, politicians focus more on getting reelected. With term limits introduced, this asinine tendency would be eliminated. Politicians would have less time in office to develop financially beneficial commitments to lobbyists. Knowing that they only have a maximum of two terms to serve, they would not rely as heavily as they do today on campaign donors. Therefore, politicians would face less corporate influence and would not let money run United States Politics, making it possible to be more productive.

Furthermore, the implication of Congressional term limits would lead to a more productive Congress. There is simply no denying that over the past couple of decades, Congress has been through extreme political gridlock. Both sides consistently bash the other, members have remained close minded, and Congress in general has failed to negotiate and compromise. A big reason why not many bills have been passed is due to the career politicians we currently have, “camping out” in Congress. The average age of a member in Congress is 62 years old. In fact, ten members of Congress which are all older than 62, have all been in Congress for more than thirty years, with the exception of two members, who have been in for more than forty years. Just to put things into perspective, there are currently four members of Congress who voted in the Civil Rights Act in the 1960’s. Simply, these politicians care more about their careers, rather than helping the country.

If term limits were introduced, the desire to hold on to party seats and need for reelection would not be the driving force of these politicians. Term limits would drive out these old, washed up politicians, who, as they get reelected, care less and less about actual problems the country faces. Instead of worrying about big problems and potential problems in the near future, politicians only care for the less important problems which will guarantee them a job come the time for the next election. Therefore, term limits would introduce new people with strong ideas, who are not looking for a career upon getting elected, but rather, are fulfilling their two term duty to do what is best for the country.

Finally, better politicians would be elected into Congress if a term limit existed. A big part on who gets elected for anything is money. Whether it is for the town mayor or the President of the United States, money is the secret weapon used to win any election. However, with this in mind, those who seek election or reelection, often come from a wealthy family and lifestyle, and are sheltered from problems the average American has to face day in and day out. Adding term limits would help dissolve the relationships between members of Congress and lobbyists, therefore reducing the wealth gap between candidates. Then, by being on more equal playing ground, the average American who has lived through these problems could be elected over the millionaire who has lived past ongoing dilemmas. Therefore, term limits would produce politicians who are more familiar with current issues and are not affected by corporate influence.

The United States needs to take control of career politicians as they only hurt the country. As unemployment, poverty, violence, and debt all continue to rise, there is simply no denying that we need change in this country, specifically to Congress. Therefore, a two year term limit should be instilled within Congress, an idea completely identical to the Presidency. Introducing a Congressional term limit would weed out corruption, career politicians, and corporate influence. On the flip side, it constantly brings in new ideas, and more familiar politicians who want to better the country, not hurt it. Clearly, term limits are needed to essentially better the country and the lives of those who live in it.