Democracy or Idiocracy?

Is America's system of government under trial? Andrew Roberts, a concerned British historian, wrote for the New York Times in his article "1776- would you like to reconsider?" stating that "the American primary system, which has thrown up two presidential candidates who are despised by 60% of Americans, is broken and urgently needs to be reformed." 

How is it that 60% of Americans despise our two choices for president when it is those same citizens who took part in voting for them in the first place? Is this out of impracticality? Dismay? Failures in leadership? Democracy?

The United States is an entertainment-driven nation according to the Nielsen Company which states "more than half the homes in America have three or more TV's". As many of us have come to know, television can be an ineffective way to process news if not analyzed properly. A more shocking statistic comes from the Cable News Network which exclaims "Americans spend an average of $70 billion a year on lottery tickets!" It seems the states have become accustomed thrill, playing the lottery, a game of chance. As a result, oftentimes, we tend to choose exciting over practical. This may be a reason we have wound up with very flamboyant candidates for the presidency. 





Another reason that our country may have ended up with this 
unique pair could be out of fear of a specific candidate winning the election. "You do not want Hilla the Hun to win- vote Trump!" You would not want pumpkin Hitler to win- vote Hillary!" How many times have you heard, through word of mouth and figuratively every article on the internet, voting for a third party candidate is obsolete?



Are faulty leaders to blame for the less than ideal options we have to choose from or is it democracy itself that is in need of reform? I have stated before in my previous blog "Argument is the Answer" that our way of government is messy, yet liberating. 

China, on the other hand, appears to be doing extremely well in regards to business, investment, and workforce. Coincidentally, China's president Xi Jinping has been elevated to what they call a "core" leader. This does not give Xi Jinping new powers; it does, however, gives him the solitary authority of the Chinese Communist Party. Seeing that Xi Jinping is a dictatorial leader, the concern of him having too much power does arise. 



The New York Times shows that a Chinese document proclaims “for a country and for a party, a leading core is vitally important”. The autocratic government of China seems successful for the time being. The downfall of a single concentrated power is shown throughout all of history. Over time, an unchecked, unbalanced leader will become corrupt; not looking out for the interest of their people, but considering only their own interests. 

Are both forms of government not to be trusted? I would say that a democracy is essential for the people to be represented. Ironically, the people are very diverse and each individual has to compromise for any law to pass, any candidate to get chosen and any decision to get made. This is why it is important not to compromise too much by settling on matters or candidates we the people undervalue. 

Safe Spaces Not Safe for Education

The New York Times article "Can Cries of 'Free Speech be a Weapon? Students Say Yes" covers a response to “And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities"; which includes a plethora of hot-button topics including trigger warnings, microaggressions, safe spaces and controversial campus speakers.

The full article, "And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Free Speech at U.S. Universities" suggests solutions vouching for limits of  speech that could make students feel 'unsafe'. PEN, an organization which declares its purpose is to "promote literature and defend freedom of expression worldwide" claims to be a 'marketplace of ideas' and a 'guardian of intellectual integrity' yet it is pushing to restrict speakers off campuses that offer novelty into the shallow pool of mainstream media.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of petitioning the government, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. However, throughout the nation's history, the Supreme Court has ruled that these rights may be limited in the interest of the greater public good. 

Some restrictions on speech are understandable, necessary and constitutional. Scenarios in which free speech may be limited is when it is has a tendency to lead to illegal action, is lewd or indecent or evokes a danger which is false. This form of speech would be unlawful and potentially dangerous. 

This is when the very definition of "dangerous" is changed to accommodate those who are easily offended. Millennials, facing no real harm when a speaker would oppose their worldview, will redefine "unlawful". Students are now announcing that what they would consider an 'intolerant' speaker, hurtful when, in reality, the only thing getting hurt is their feelings. There is a fine line between potential harm and emotional disturbance just as there is a difference between a 'safe space' and a therapy session. 

The students addressed in the article above are in opposition to speech that would be considered intolerant or that would not affirm to everyone on campus. In essence, they are claiming to promote "inclusiveness and diversity" when, in reality, their intentions are to reestablish free speech rights as wrong unless these 'rights' are in total conform to their way of thinking.

Permitting what the majority considers 'non-offensive' speakers exclusively is not only an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, but also a limitation on education itself which requires conflict to thrive. Education, by definition of dictionary.com, is the process of "developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life." How, then, can these young adults strengthen their preparedness for a mature lifestyle when they are encouraged to sit in a padded room with puppies having heard anything they have been 'triggered' by.

This new form of 'free speech' only applies to those with the majority of the power for the time being and downsizes anyone who wishes to speak against the status quo. These Millennials are quite frankly, as Albert Molar put it, "in the name of inclusiveness and diversity (shutting) down exclusiveness and diversity, a diversity of opinions."

Argument is the Answer

Over the years, my eyes have been opened to increasing numbers of people who think negatively of debates. In fact, many characters I have come to know discourage controversy and, by default, critical thought. They tend to believe debating serves no purpose; always ending in both parties leaving with their opinions unchanged.

In Joseph J. Ellis's novel American Creation-Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic chapter three, he summarizes the authorization of our ever-compromising government.

After the Revolutionary War, George Washington, and his soldiers finally freed the colonies from the tyranny of Britain. Although Washington's men prompted him towards becoming the new nation's leader, he chastised them. He refused to repeat history by crowning himself king of the infant nation. However, being under the Articles of the Confederation during the battle, George understood all the shortcomings of them and saw they would not be fit for a successful nation, either.

The Articles of the Confederation, which is the first government of the newly born United States of America, was formed under the Constitutional Convention and informally followed from 1776 to 1781. The Constitutional Convention was a meeting of political pragmatists that knew protecting everyone's property and rights mean they can also secure their own.

Under the Articles of the Confederation, each state had its own central government. For the states, this posed many weaknesses. A decline in international ensued and the value of money dropped since each state printed its own currency. The threat of social disorder and foreign enemy attacks skyrocketed. The deficiency of the Articles became too much when the state of Massachusetts could not effectively deal with Shay's Rebellion. Joseph Ellis describes this as " a six-month rebellion in which more than 1,000 armed farmers attacked federal arsenal to protest the foreclosure of (their) farms".



The Articles of the Confederation, although liberating, left the 
federal government without enough power to properly govern the states. Under the articles, the federal government could not draft soldiers or tax citizens. Therefore, it could not pay off the Revolutionary War debt and had no national currency. It was around this time in which both Washington and Madison came to the conclusion that the Articles of Confederation needed to be replaced with a national government that possessed a clear mandate to equip the states in both foreign and domestic policy.


The first ten months of the Constitutional Convention is a period of time which Joseph Ellis describes as "the most far-ranging and consequential political debate in American history". In this moment of time, two primary parties in the great debate were assembled. The federalists, those who wanted to ratify a constitution consisting of guidelines for a strong central government and the anti-federalists, those opposed to what they perceived as a reestablishment of the oppression they have just been liberated from.



Federalists had the goal of establishing a system of government 
under which the national government and state governments share powers (federalism). The idea of an institutionalized Constitution is to have a unique form of shared sovereignty and division of power. Under federalism, delegated, expressed, or enumerated powers could print  money, regulate interstate and international trade, make treaties concerning foreign policy and declare war. Secondly, reserved powers could issue licenses and run federal elections. Finally, concurrent powers were permitted to collect taxes, build roads and operate courts of law.

On the other hand, anti-federalists were in disagreement with any form of government; believing them to be far removed from the citizens it would ostensibly represent. The anti-federalists, afraid to fall under yet another oppressive rule, anchored themselves in the revolutionary ideology that regarded any powerful central government as a domestic version of the British government they had been previously freed of.

James Madison proclaimed the chief goal of the federalists was to offer a Constitution that would be a rescue rather than a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution. Madison was so intelligent that if he worked diligently, he had the ability to convince the people.

Patrick Henry argued that he, along with the rest of the anti-federalists, were protecting Americans from a hostile takeover by an elite minority. Henry was an incredibly persuasive speaker. In fact, he was so prominent that Jefferson joked to Madison the only thing he could do when confronted by Henry is "devoutly pray for his imminent death". 

After the Henry-Madison debate finally concluded, the people concurred a new form of bureaucracy was needed. The Constitution was then sent to each individual state for ratification. 

The Constitution was established through a messy progress of 
compromise and debate that still continues to this day. Even when it may seem that bedlam ensues through this process, it is imperative to remember that a prosperous nation would be inconceivable without it. Seemingly tedious arguing is, in reality, the very foundation of America. 

In light of the groundwork of this great nation, don't groan at the next dispute you hear. Instead, remember that controversy is not about providing answers, but rather about providing a framework in which unanswered questions can be further discussed.

Swampy Shenanigans

The Clinton-Trump presidential candidate debate aired on CNN December 26, 2016, sparking the interest of Americans and others worldwide. The first presidential debate featured the only female presidential candidate who has made it this far-Hillary Clinton- and business a man who has previously not involved in politics-Donald Trump. Let us not forget Lester Holt, who may have played a little more than his part as host of this event.

I have noticed that many Americans do not prefer either candidate featured in this debate. This is when I started to ask myself how each nominee made it to where they are at. Hillary, being wedged in the political system for 30-some years now, appears to have the upper hand in swaying voters and pleasing crowds. She was a possible choice in the 2008 election and the 67th U.S. secretary of state. Clinton gathered much publicity through her positions and simply being a woman. Her policies ostensibly do not call for an immense change in the United State's status quo.



Trump's political background, or lack thereof, greatly contrasts Hillary's experience. Donald's 2016 presidential campaign is his first time personally running for a political position. Any other bureaucratic participation he may have branches from his involvement as a business man and citizen. Any viewer will find it nearly impossible to dismiss Trump's flamboyancy. He has accumulated popularity by means of his colorful personality and his passionate need to shake the state of affairs in America's economy.

Why are both options are seen as undesirable to the people? "Crooked Hillary" earned her nickname by carrying out the role of a dishonest politician willing to try anything to make it in the big leagues. Citizens are discovering her willingness to change policies and be a lenient are part of a ploy to please the undecided voters. Whereas Trump is presented as a man who firmly stands on his policies and ideas that will "make America great again". His unwillingness to budge on, for example, foreign policies and unpracticed skills on political correctness oftentimes leave Donald looking like a raging toddler.

Each successor, seemingly pedantic, made it this far for a reason. They are both very animated figures in government and did well hanging on the rickety roller-coaster of democracy long enough to ride up to the first presidential candidate debate. People seem fed up with the heated arguments of these two and often in the process forget that a nation without debates is not free. The American republic is open to messy, abstruse, discussions because we have liberty.

Who is the better choice? Essentially, it boils down to keeping the status quo or drastically changing it.

Picture America as the stagnant water in a swamp. Algae is continually collecting on this water. This water has been dirty for a while now and people are afraid to disturb it in fear that new problems will arise in removing the grime in the swamp. There are legitimate reasons for not wanting to change the water. After all, there could be unseen epidemics that could occur from changing the ecosystem of the marsh. However, the people are disgusted with swimming in the contaminated swamp and will not stand for it any longer.

United States citizens are fed up with the tired political policies of politicians that fail to better our economy. America is hungry for change.

Protecting Planned Parenthood

September first the Washington post reports "California legislature poised to criminalize the distribution of Planned Parenthood type 'sting videos'". The California legislature is considering and nearing approval to pass a bill. This bill will make it a crime, punishable by a jail sentence, to carry out and distribute undercover video or audio stings against Planned Parenthood and other similar groups. The number one abortion clinic in America is being exposed. Reporters have shown audio and footage of the clinic's brutish and gruesome ways. The undercover reporters have revealed that Planned Parenthood is selling tissues and organs of unborn fetuses. The California legislature is protecting Planned Parenthood from future threats of undercover investigations. The legislature is fearful that reporters will find any illegalities in Planned Parenthood's doings.

The videos consist of undercover journalists posing as organ traffickers talking with the clinic directors.  A director has admitted to altering abortion procedures in order to save baby body parts that can be saved and sold to human organ buyers. Another director was videotaped haggling over prices of the fetuses. One even jokes that she would "like to get a Lamborghini out of the deal."

Abortion clinic supporters are now backed by the California legislature in criminalizing undercover reporters exposing the wrongs of Planned Parenthood.  Wait a minute. Did you see how the spotlight has changed? The focus is now on reporters practicing their freedom of speech when the people who are selling aborted babies for a hefty profit should be the ones on trial.

The abortion clinic is not intended to help people. This is  a profitable organisation. Writer Mark Hemingway discovered "Congressional investigators produced evidence of websites where you could purchase specific fetal parts, and the companies selling fetal parts sold their services to abortion clinics as representing 'pure profit'".

The disturbing thing is they do not intend to stop and feel dignified in the act of selling the body parts . Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards confirmed that the abortion company will continue to sell the aborted baby parts. David Daleiden states that “Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards admits in her written testimony before Congress today that she is ‘proud’ of Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts harvesting program."

Many gruesome details have been discovered about Planned Parenthood's organ trafficking. Why are they shutting down investigators now that all these moral atrocities have been found? This company has a stronghold in the United States and will not be put out simply due to moral injustices. Illegalities must be found to finally remove Planned Parenthood from the country. This is why the California legislature is attempting to silence those who wish to expose the wicked organization. They are providing a shield of safety in means to protect the business from being further exposed to the point where federally recognizable crimes are discovered. 

This enterprise, although conscientiously deplorable, will not be charged for profitable organ sells due to the government not recognizing these acts as 'illegal'.   Interviewers have scratched the surface of the institution's wrongdoings but have yet to discover enough to convince the public of these atrocities. Before they can discover more, the journalists have been subdued. 

Hillary's Humanism Hogwash

The crowd at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last month during an address by the Rev.     William J. Barber II. “We must shock this nation with the power of love,” he told the delegates.CreditDamon         Writer/The New York Times

The Democratic Party is engaging in “religious talks”. Samuel G. Freedman writes: "Four months ago, as Hillary Clinton turned her attention from the Democratic primary for a fall race against Donald J. Trump, her campaign released a commercial titled 'Love and Kindness.'" In her advertisement, Hillary projects video clips of her embracing several citizens, including a grieving mother to the soundtrack of a soulful ballad. The onscreen text for this display states: “do all the good we can, in all the ways we can, for all the people we can.”

Hillary has Rev. William J. Barber II preach to America that “we are called to be a nation of love and “we must shock this nation with the power of love”. Without further investigation, this “God talk” seems like a step forward for the Democratic Party, but what is the real underlying agenda of this new campaign?

Hillary is using pseudo-religious values to manipulate the masses. Her commercial echoes with axioms from the Church and “spiritual language” to tug on the heartstrings of religious viewers. This apparent “religious shift” in Hillary’s campaign is an attempt to humanize her.This campaign also makes her appear more lovable than before and takes a not-so-subtle jab at her opponent by using the pun-inflicted: “Love Trumps Hate.”

What does Hillary mean when she speaks of “love”?  Can love be defined as being kind to family members and friends? Is it comforting those who have been there for you? Is love a warm hug from a cherished person? Do we have to love our enemies? Love is not easily defined and is impossible to define without Scripture. 

We as humans tend to view love in a sentimental way. Dr. Moss states that “the way God loves us — agape — is not about me liking someone or me feeling good about someone, but about God making a deep demand on humans to seek the kind of equitable society termed ‘the beloved community.’”As Christians, love should not be tethered to our emotions. Mathew 5:44 tells us “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” God has commanded us to love everyone.

 “Religious theology” waivers but God’s love is unchanging.How, then, can secularists uphold the values God has given to us? Truthfully, these values were never meant to and cannot be upheld without God. What moral standard does Hillary have without a single, God-given, authoritative command to follow? We cannot be sure. These new principles are being set up by fallible man. How long will they last? Again, we cannot be sure because man has a tendency to change ideas, philosophies, and theologies at the drop of a hat with no definitive standard to uphold.

Is this shift in the campaign better than the previous hate language? It depends on who is listening. As Christians, we must know there can be no solidity found in man. Psalms 121:2 helps bring some clarification on this issue by stating: “My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.” Giving reassurance and love to one another is healthy and ideal. However, we must see this standard that has been set as God’s command; not man’s. A house built on sand will crumble with the force of a storm.