The Liberal Bias on College Campuses is Very Real.

Don’t think professors with a liberal bias have an agenda to push on college campuses? Think again.

I’ve been attending a course this fall semester entitled The Human Experience. It involves reading various short stories from a variety of authors, then discussing them with classmates via an online forum. There’s also a personal essay to write which serves as the final paper. Sounds simple, right?

The professor of this course has spent the past few weeks giving me terrible grades because my answers aren’t "correct". Mind you, these discussion questions have been completely opinion based. Because my answers haven’t been the ones you’d typically get out of a modern fascist liberal with Trump Derangement Syndrome, she’s labeled me a racist problem student.

I’m a Chancellor’s List student with a 4.0 GPA… and I have an 81 [C] average for the course. It just doesn’t add up. On top of that, I’ve been receiving harassing emails from the professor with various links to websites “proving me wrong”. That’s just absurd.

Over the course of this past weekend, I turned in an assignment that discussed the importance of race in regards to poverty, drug abuse, and education. How this has anything to do with short stories is beyond me, but just go with it for a moment. This assignment was subjective; and yet, my opinion was backed by evidence and empirical data. I didn’t write about my feelings, I wrote the truth. My document satisfied all of the criteria set forth in the professor’s syllabus in terms of style, grammar, and length. For those of you that know me well enough, I’m certain that you’re aware that I know how to write correctly (not tooting my own horn, of course). That should at least earn me a B or higher, right? Wrong.

I got an F on the assignment. Why? Because my response was clearly racist, capitalistic, and I don’t understand the “ethnic experience as it pertains to continued white oppression and the disadvantage that all minorities face world-wide.”

Here in exists the irony. How would the professor know what race I am? I don’t use any sort of photo in my online discussion posts and I’ve never met the professor face-to-face. I have never stated my race publicly in any of my college discussions. This has all been purposefully done as a means to prevent people from making judgments about my character based solely upon the color of my skin. In an academic setting (or any other setting for that matter), a person’s race should not matter. I’m about as far from a racist as you can get.

In response to the professor’s poor assessment of my latest assignment, I asked her two simple questions via email:

1. What sort of opinions do I need to express publicly to earn an A in her course?
2. What kind of political ideology is the right one?

No response was received.

It gets better, though. Earlier this afternoon, the professor surprisingly called me on the telephone. She used foul language, called me a racist yet again, and said that I would never get a decent grade on anything I ever submitted to her. She was "sick of racist people" like me and refused to "tolerate my attempts to degrade her safe space for all students." 

Yeah… all students except those she disagrees with politically.

When I asked her how she knew what race I was, she said that she'd looked me up on the internet and seen that I am a "ginger fuck". That's right... my professor stalked me on the internet.

I stated that the phone call was being recorded and she immediately hung up. Shocking!

I’ve already withdrawn from the course and registered for another one, so it doesn’t affect me academically at all. And yet, this incident just goes to show that our college campuses have become anything but bastions of free-thought, knowledge, and respect. Many college professors have a clear, politically driven bias to enforce. They’re the de facto thought police of our youth, seeking to warp students’ minds at a highly crucial point in their lives. I’m quite thankful that I am an adult student, unable to be corrupted by such nonsense.

For those of you reading this with children, be careful with their future. Give them the tools they need to be free, independent thinkers. Instill in them a sense of confidence and righteousness. I want all people across this globe to have access to an education… but college in the United States is looking more and more like anything but a place of learning.

That is, unless you’re a rabid communist with a love for identity politics.

Hillary Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" or: The Shame of Judging Our Fellow Americans.

This is an editorial on the recent "Basket of Deplorables" comment made by Hillary Clinton referencing supporters of Donald Trump. This isn't intended as an explanation of what happened in detail. If you're not aware of the situation, you can read about it here and here.

A great number of left wing commentators and pundits are saying that Hillary Clinton's "Basket of Deplorables" remark didn't go far enough. In essence, these mouthpieces and Clinton surrogates believe that MORE than half of Trump's supporters are racists and villainous miscreants.

I'm a moderate independent with zero love for either the Democrats or Republicans, so I have no problems with calling it like I see it.

Hillary Clinton is full of fluffy, glitter-laced unicorn crap.

You know who supports Trump? People that don't trust the federal government (and rightfully so). People that don't want to give a corrupt criminal organization more of their hard-earned money. People that are tired of being told what they can and can't do within the bounds of their own home and with their own property. People that don't want to be taken advantage of by Uncle Sam. These people have every reason to feel the way they do. It has nothing to do with hating people of different skin tones. It has nothing to do with xenophobic nationalism. It definitely has nothing to do with wanting to spread hate and fear.

Most importantly, there are people like me that flat-out refuse to support a dishonest, untrustworthy war criminal like Hillary Clinton... no matter how 'progressive' and 'thoughtful' she claims to be. Trump is the only viable agent of change to a large number of our fellow Americans. Not because he's likable or altruistic, but because he's simply an alternative to the status quo -- more corruption, more death, more greed, more destruction of the American dream.

Sure, I'll be the first to admit that Trump can be a blustering, egotistical, inarticulate jerk. And yet, at least Trump isn't Hillary Clinton. For many of our fellow Americans, that's the 'lesser of two evils' in this election cycle. Shame on you (and those big-mouthed pundits) for looking down on that decision. Shame on you for judging our fellow citizens who are just trying to make the best of a bad situation. Most of all, shame on you for ignoring reality. Hillary Clinton is perhaps the most slippery and nefarious politician I've known in my lifetime. I'd say her husband Bill is worse, but Hillary actually took steps to cover up the crimes he committed and silence the women he violated. She's revolting in every capacity. Hillary Clinton is a traitor to humanity, all in the pursuit of money and power.

Trump might be a pompous braggart, but at least he hasn't made direct decisions that have gotten people slaughtered. As far as I'm concerned, the American men and women in that "Basket of Deplorables" have made the right call.

VA Secretary McDonald Likens Veteran Wait Times To Disneyland, Says They Don't Matter.

Some people just don't get it.

Earlier this morning, Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald made an appearance before the Christian Science Monitor breakfast event. In speaking about the wait times many veterans suffer experiencing to receive medical care from the VA, he had this to say.

“When you go to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? Or what’s important? What’s important is, what’s your satisfaction with the experience? And what I would like to move to, eventually, is that kind of measure.”

Expanding further upon his assertion that wait times don't matter, McDonald stated that he does not believe an evaluation called the "create date," which assesses a veteran's wait time by counting from the day the veteran first asks for treatment, is a "valid measure" of a veteran's level of care.

Clearly, Secretary McDonald has no earthly idea what the hell he is talking about.

Just last year, an in-depth report (read it here) published by the Veterans Health Administration Office of the Inspector General discovered an egregious backlog of over 800,000 veteran records trapped in a waiting status. These records were various applications by veterans for health care of all different types, shockingly going as far back as the 1980's! Of the total, over 300,000 records were linked to veterans whom died while waiting to receive care. Just think about that number, folks. Out of every 100 veterans seeking care trapped in that pending status, 37 died before they received treatment.

So no, Secretary McDonald, wait times for veterans are a massive problem. Much less, to compare the frustration that many veterans experience in receiving care to waiting in line at Disneyland? That's beyond insulting... it's inflammatory. This isn't some ride on Space Mountain. It's a matter of life and death! Of course the quality of care that is delivered to veterans is important. No one disputes that. And yet, if veterans have to wait an eternity to receive said care, what's the point at all? Because of the long wait times and lack of system cohesion, many veterans seek out healthcare from sources other than the Veterans Administration, or they simply go without care altogether.

Why is Robert McDonald so out of touch with the men and women he's charged with caring for? His career speaks for itself. A lifelong businessman, McDonald has not once done anything remotely related to the military. He joined Procter and Gamble, initially managed the Tide brand of laundry soap, in the 1980's. Over the course of the next three decades, he hopped the globe managing various facets of Procter and Gamble's business operations. By 2010, he was the company's chairman of the board; he retired in 2013 a very wealthy man. President Obama nominated him to be the new Veterans Affairs Secretary in 2014, met by unanimous confirmation by the Senate.

That's right... our President and Senate selected a man that made his fortune selling laundry soap to lead the Veterans Administration. How could we ever be surprised that McDonald considers veterans to be as important as amusement park rides?

Waiting in line for the Little Mermaid Undersea Adventure or to get healthcare? To Secretary McDonald, what's the difference?

The Recklessness Of Calling The President A 'Nigga'.

At President Obama's final White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner this past Saturday night, jokes were told and punchlines were... well, punched. And yet, I can't help but feel a little disappointed after watching the event. Larry Wilmore, a rather talented comedian and news pundit, hosted the event. I typically enjoy Wilmore's comedy, but his closing remarks left me scratching my head. To quote:

“I’m going to keep it 100. Yo Barry, you did it my nigga.”

Now, I'm not going to lob accusations of racism at Wilmore. I fully realize that he did not intend anything atrocious by calling the President a 'nigga'. In fact, Wilmore most certainly intended the use of the word as a friendly gesture. And yet, the callous implementation of such a derogatory label represents the very problem I have with someone identifying the President a 'nigga'. Or, for that matter, anyone else. Our President, love him or hate him, holds a distinct honor of lofty esteem. The office of the President deserves respect, even in moments of anger or disagreement. It's not the person filling the shoes of Commander-in-Chief, but the position itself that should be venerated.

Wilmore's use of 'nigga' represents a continuing social dilemma that I've written about previously (read here, here and here). For hundreds of years in this country, minorities of African descent were chained, enslaved, beaten, attacked, raped and all-around denigrated, only to be called 'niggers' as a stamp of sub-human garbage. As recently as the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's, our fellow citizens bled (and in many cases died) to live as equal men and women, free from the label of 'nigger'. Over the course of recent history, 'nigger' has morphed into 'nigga', essentially as a product of slang and street culture. Though they may be spelled slightly differently, they are one in the same. 'Nigga' is spelled phonetically to represent common vernacular.

And here we are, 2016... our President (a man of mixed heritage, nonetheless) being called a 'nigga'.

Such reckless abandon for our own shared history, no matter your ethnic heritage or place of origin, is grossly negligent. Despite the friendly motivations by calling another man a 'nigga', are we so blind as to not understand what the word means? Do we not understand the immense struggle behind such a connotation of disparagement? I don't believe in censorship of any kind, but I do believe that we must be responsible for the words that we speak.

No man is a 'nigga'. Not your friend. Not your family member. And most certainly, not the President.

The Honduran Death Machine Backed By Hillary Clinton.

One of the many riots that took place following the 2009 coup in Honduras. Seen here, supporters of the ousted President Zelaya clash with riot police.

On June 28, 2009, a violent coup d'état erupted in the Central American Republic of Honduras. The death and turmoil that took place have not ended since. Many indigenous activists, defenseless citizens and those deemed unworthy by the new regime have been cleansed.

That coup was wholly backed and facilitated by the US State Department, led by Secretary Hillary Clinton.

Former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was a progressive leader. In his time as President, he supported making the morning-after pill legal. He wanted equal civil rights for LGBT citizens. Zelaya also supported numerous rural peasant and indigenous movements within Honduras, in an effort to preserve ancestral lands from mining, deforestation and dispossession.

Since Zelaya's removal in 2009, the morning-after pill has been made completely illegal in Honduras, to be punished with the same severity as performing or receiving an abortion. Nearly two hundred known LGBT residents have been found murdered in the street, as of 2014. Even worse, multinational corporations seeking to generate valuable bio-fuel sources have moved in with ease, claiming land belonging to impoverished farmers. The Honduran countryside, once extremely rural and quiet, has now become a militarized death zone propped up by corporations and their private execution squads. Anyone that challenges the current Honduran leadership is apprehended without trial or simply eliminated. For forty five days after the coup, constitutionally-backed civil rights were paused -- no freedom of speech, movement, or assembly. Even worse, habeus corpus was suspended, meaning the government could detain anyone, anywhere, without probable cause or reason. If the members of the coup didn't like you, then they could jail you permanently without due process.

Needless to say, Honduras is not a country you'll want to visit any time soon. So how does Clinton tie into all of this bloodshed?

In the time before the coup, President Zelaya's willingness to help protect rural farmers against corporate interests was not supported by the American government. Making the situation even worse was Zelaya's policy of working with Venezuela via trade and mutual defense. If you'll remember, Venezuela (then led by Hugo Chavez) has long been a thorn in the side of the US foreign policy agenda in Central and South America. The drama with Venezuela is ongoing.

After the coup took place, Zelaya and his government were removed and taken to Costa Rica by the Honduran military. Typically, events such as the coup that took place are deliberated by the Organization of American States (OAS). The OAS is a multi-national union of North, Central and South American countries, of which the United States is a member. And yet, when Zelaya arrived in San José, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias (a strong ally of the US), was tasked with moderating isolated talks with the leaders of the military coup and the deposed Honduran President.

 Clinton met with President Zelaya only once during the unrest in Honduras.

That's right -- Clinton's State Department formulated an off-the-books mediation process, granting those whom committed the violent take-over equal footing with the legally elected Zelaya-led government. The OAS was to be circumvented. How do we know all of this? By law, US Government emails are routinely declassified for the public to read. The proof is right there in black and white. At least, the parts that haven't been redacted. The messages exchanged between Clinton (known as 'H' in email correspondence) revealed an intensely calculated series of maneuvers to keep the talks in Costa Rica going for as long as possible, even though they knew the talks would fail. That was the whole point, though.

One of the many emails exchanged by Clinton during the turmoil in Honduras. Note the large swathes of her text that have been redacted.

Long story short, Clinton and the State Department got what they wanted. The negotiations in Costa Rica ended miserably, leaving Zelaya deposed. The upcoming Presidential election in Honduras went as planned in November, 2009. Zelaya was restricted from completing his elected term. The new Honduran government, led by Porfirio Lobo, immediately became corporate friendly, flooding numerous international energy groups and US military assets into Honduras. In the eyes of the Clinton-led State Department, Honduras was suddenly on good terms with the US again.

It couldn't be any more obvious that the turmoil in Honduras was a strategic play by the US and its mutual corporate interests, all in the name of profit and war. Not once has Clinton ever called what happened in Honduras a military coup. She's side-skirted the issue at every opportunity, as to never go on record specifically naming the atrocities that happened. And yet, Clinton claims to be a proponent of peace and prosperity.

When you step into the voting booth and look at Clinton's name on the ballot, I ask that you to think of the people that have been affected in Honduras. Is this who we want to lead America?

Further Reading / Sources:

The Guardian: Honduras and the dirty war fueled by the west's drive for clean energy

Common Dreams: The Hillary Clinton Emails and the Honduras Coup

The Nation: The Clinton-Backed Honduran Regime Is Picking Off Indigenous Leaders

My Conversation With A Crazy Donald Trump Supporter.

While selling two computers today (remember my Dumpster Computing article from a few weeks ago?), I met an honest-to-goodness Donald Trump supporter. Not just your average blue-collar, red-blooded American Trump supporter. Oh no! I met the conspiracy theorist, whack-job, Alex Jones listening, 9/11 Truther, I moved to Southeast Asia to find a wife Trump supporter.

Needless to say, things got interesting.

In total, I spent a good forty-five minutes talking with this person today. For the sake of anonymity, I'll refer to him as "Harry". Harry was a perfectly decent fellow. He spoke politely to me and didn't make any ill-threats. Our conversation began by him noticing the Bernie Sanders sticker on my vehicle. At first, he chided me slightly for supporting Sanders. He said he had nothing against Sanders and liked that he's not taking corporate money. Yet, the conversation quickly evolved into a discussion about his strong support for Donald Trump. I didn't necessarily mind the conversation; I greatly enjoy talking about politics. I saw an opportunity to hear the perspective of a staunch Trump supporter and took it. What I didn't expect was the following to become evident about Harry. Here were some of his talking points:

• The 9/11 attacks were a Saudi Conspiracy allowed to happen.
• The World Trade Center was blown up with secretly planted thermite charges.
• Mexicans are taking American jobs by the millions.
• More than 40-50% of Americans are unemployed.
• Illegal aliens are voting.
• Trump may be assassinated like JFK.
• "5 or 6 people" control the entire planet.
• Obama was selected to be President in 1994.
• China is going to take over the USA.
• George W. Bush operated a secret CIA black-ops hit squad.

Over the course of our conversation, my eyes were wide open. I was intrigued by Harry's far-out accusations and assumptions. The truth became clear...

I had encountered one of the kooky Trump supporters that everyone warns you about.

The conversation itself reflected less upon Trump as a candidate and more on the type of people that actively support his campaign for the Presidency. While there are undoubtedly sane people whom support Trump, this guy fit the negative stereotype perfectly.

• Caucasian
• Older
• Lower Class (told me so)
• Dislikes Immigrants
• Big Gun Advocate
• Scared of Other Countries

All in all, it was quite the comical experience. He spoke of the World Trade Center attacks being an inside job by the Saudi Arabians (of course, there was thermite planted in the WTC). Harry was emphatic that Trump could potentially be assassinated, much in the same manner as John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert. He was sick and tired of Mexicans flooding into America by the tens of millions and sending money back to their families. Even worse, these illegal aliens are supposedly going to the polls and voting! I can go on and on, but you get the idea. Towards the end of our conversation, I jokingly alluded to many of his concepts being talked about on the wildly speculative Coast to Coast AM talk show. Immediately, he said...

"Yeah man! I listen to Coast to Coast! Alex Jones, too."

I wasn't shocked.

I'm glad I met Harry. He really gave me a laugh and provided me with a unique insight into a portion of Trump's support base. Though, he made sure to let me know as we parted ways...

"I'm not the only one who knows the truth. Lots of people know what I know... and we're all voting for Trump."

Somehow, I can believe it.

--------------------

I'd like to reiterate my personal position on this article. In no way am I saying that Trump believes or supports what Harry told me. While I don't necessary agree with many of Trump's social policies, I also don't think negatively of him. Should the 2016 Presidential election become a race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and I had to pick one, I'd definitely vote for Trump. At least he's an outsider with his own money, not beholden to any special interests. Hillary is a continuation of the status quo, bound to ruin or nation even more so than it already has been.

Islam's Problem With The Human Body.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was in Rome on Monday to solidify relations with Italy. In the wake of the revolutionary multi-national nuclear deal with Iran that saw the removal of crippling economic sanctions, this was largely a friendly visit to normalize dialogue between Iran and one of Europe's biggest power players.

Unfortunately, for all of their supposed prestige and sovereignty, it seems the Iranian president and his delegation simply couldn't handle the sight of naked statues.

In the lead up to a press conference between Rouhani and Italian Premier Matteo Renzi at the Capitoline Museum, officials within the Italian government decided cover up various nude statues within the facility. They were afraid that the nude sculptures would offend the Iranians, taking into consideration their Islamic beliefs.

Yet again, the Islamic faith proves itself to be archaic and ridiculous.

Not only was art censored for Rouhani, but alcohol was also restricted from being served at an official state dinner held in his honor.

How can anyone take seriously someone of such a sensitive and shallow nature? Is Rouhani not a grown man? Does the sight of a naked man or woman send his brain into total meltdown? Can someone else not drink an alcoholic beverage in his presence without inciting a holy war?

Obviously, the answer is no. And yet, this man is to lead an entire nation.

This is yet another skid-mark in the long and winding catastrophe that is the Muslim existence. The human body is only offensive if you demonize it through shame and ridicule. Though, considering the stone-age dogma preached within the Quran, that's the harsh reality of this ordeal. There are billions of Muslims on this planet that aren't comfortable in their own skin. They disparage the female image especially -- hiding it in varying degrees from one country to the next. This is no way to live life, dreadfully afraid of human anatomy.

The image of a naked person is only as offensive as you make it out to be.

Do you find the following image objectionable?

Hillary Clinton Should Definitely Be Worried About Bernie Sanders.

As of the writing of this article, the race for the 2016 Democratic Presidential nomination couldn't be any closer. The first primary of the season, the Iowa Caucus, is scheduled for February 1, 2016. Current polling data averages (from Real Clear Politics) show that Clinton has approximately a 12.5 point lead on Bernie Sanders. This takes into account the paltry 6 points being drawn by probable loser Martin O'Malley. Sanders' polling numbers have been trending upwards in Iowa, with Hillary's heading down. When accounting for the margin of error present in all polling, and the fact that O'Malley may finally drop out of the race after the Iowa Caucus and birth his supporters to Sanders, Hillary should be worried about ultimately winning the nomination. Real worried.

Settle down Hillary. You've got a real problem on your hands.

Even if Clinton does manage to win in Iowa, a strong turn-out for Bernie is still a win-win for the independent candidate from Vermont. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain with increased nationwide media exposure, something his campaign all but deserves in spite of being ignored by most news outlets for months. Hillary's undeniable influence over the Democratic National Committee in choosing to limit the number of televised debates to a measly six certainly hasn't helped Sanders' exposure, either. Considering Sanders is thoroughly leading polling by 6 points in New Hampshire, where the nation's second primary takes place, a burst of momentum from Iowa is all he needs to squash Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the first female President.

Clearly, this is Hillary's election to lose and Sanders' to win. Increasing Sanders' exposure via the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries can only add to his chances of success. Since July, he's gained more than 20 points on Hillary in New Hampshire and a whopping 40 points in Iowa. Can you say upward momentum?

Hillary has every reason to be worried.

Sanders speaks to a stadium filled with supporters at a rally in North Carolina.

Yet, let's consider the probable outcome pundits, pollsters and statisticians have been telling us for months on end -- Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and face off against whomever the Republicans put forth. Polling currently shows that Donald Trump is leading the GOP field. Let's say it is Trump versus Clinton in 2016. Hillary has a huge problem, and it all relates to the progressive left and their stalwart support for Bernie Sanders.

Many of Sanders' supporters simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

Polling data reflects a battle between Trump and Clinton as incredibly close. Even worse, polls questioning a fight against either Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz prove to be even more dire for Clinton. Yet, this polling data fails to take into consideration one valuable point. Clinton has had a terrible time earning the support of the progressive left within her own party. She's seen as a hawk, bought and paid for by Wall Street and Super PACs. Progressives have endorsed Sanders almost exclusively, leaving Clinton to run purely on name recognition and a massive influx of cash from big banks, Super PACs and special interest groups. In an election between Trump/Rubio/Cruz and Clinton, there's a very good chance she could deliver the White House to the Republican candidate.

I've talked to many Sanders supporters and read a plethora of articles about his voting base. They like that he's operating on small, personal contributions from individuals and not accepting money from corporations, banks or Super PACs. He's seen as the most progressive candidate in the entire field, one that can be trusted to lead. Though, if faced with being forced to vote for Hillary Clinton, many progressives simply won't vote for her... or may abstain from voting altogether. This leaves Clinton with a real dilemma.

Alternatively, if Trump were to face off against Sanders in 2016, the latest Quinnipiac poll has Sanders winning by an astounding 13 points.

I'm not saying Sanders is a shoe-in to win the Democratic nomination in an upset victory. He's got a lot of work ahead of him to gain nationwide exposure and pull even more of Clinton's base. What I am saying is that Clinton faces a very difficult path to the Presidency... if she survives the primary season first.

Denying Citizenship To The Children Of Illegal Immigrants Is A Slippery Slope.

It's around this time every four years when you start hearing Republicans spouting off the same tired old dialogue...

"Illegal immigrants are ruining our country! We should deny citizenship to babies born from illegal immigrants."

A line of "illegal" immigrants waiting to leave Ellis Island around the turn of the Twentieth Century. They were just inspected and granted citizenship.

It seems every presidential election cycle, this is one of the tent-pole arguments conservatives want to harp on and on about. Obviously, this is a tactic to shore up conservative base support before the first primary elections are held. The only way to win the Republican primary process is to go extra hard-line conservative.

Sure, our nation has an issue with illegal immigration; I readily admit that. But the problem doesn't exist with the immigrants... it exists with our nation's muddling and inadequate immigration policy.

I take great issue with conservatives, the so-called protectors of liberty and limited government, trying to place qualifying restrictions on childbirth. This is one of those 'give an inch/take a mile' scenarios. Let's play it out, shall we?

First, citizenship will be denied to the children of illegal immigrants, even though they were born on US soil. Then, they'll edge even further into the murky waters of citizenship. You'll have to be of a certain race. Then you'll have to be of a certain religion. Before long, you'll have a nation where only a select few are allowed citizenship from birth. For everyone else, they'll have to earn it -- enlist in the military, become a civil servant, etc. All others will be considered as outlaws and bound for deportation. Of course, they'll tie the right to vote to this matter. Eventually, we'll have a nation cherry picked for conservatives and by conservatives.

No one wants that reality, do they? Well, other than conservatives.

Let's look at another perspective in this immigration debate. How would the United States, both strategically and morally, deport defenseless children and infants? Besides being a regulatory nightmare, we'd knowingly be sending innocent children into war zones. Effectively, to the rest of the world, we'd be saying our children are more important than your children. I might not be a religious man, but I know that's flat out wrong.

I would never say that our nation's immigration policy is perfect -- it is far from that. An endless wall of bureaucratic red tape prohibits most immigrants from ever attaining citizenship. Those lucky few immigrants whom have the time and resources to jump through all the hoops to becoming a citizen truly do not represent the masses. Many immigrants, especially those coming from Mexico, Central and South America, are fleeing from lands of violence and death. They don't have years to wait for citizenship -- they're just trying to survive. America, that shining beacon upon the hill, is their last and best hope for a future.

Look at it this way -- millions of people are dying (literally) to join Team America. They love our nation and our way of life. Why wouldn't we want them to join up with us? That's more voices in our corner; more support when we need it. More Americans to do... well, what America does.

I'm not saying open the doors and let everyone in. Yet, we assuredly need to expedite the immigration process and cut the red tape. The Republicans are fans of cutting red tape and limiting the power of the federal government, or so they try to convince us.

Or maybe... Republicans are just a bunch of xenophobic, regressive crybabies.

If they're good enough to tend to OUR fields and harvest OUR food, shouldn't they be OUR neighbors?

The Government Doesn't Care About Rape (Because It's Run By Men).

A standard rape kit.

NBC News reported this week some alarming statistics about rape. Upon an analysis of roughly 1,000 police department entities across the United States, they found over 70,000 unprocessed rape examination kits.

Here's the kicker -- there are over 18,000 police departments in the United States.

Those 1,000 police departments represent a paltry 5% of all American law enforcement bodies. If that average holds true for the other 95% of police departments, that means there's probably one million or more unprocessed rape kits spread from coast to coast.

Wrap your head around that number for a minute, folks.

1,000,000.

That's 1,000,000 rapes. 1,000,000 instances of violence. 1,000,000 predatory acts going unpunished. Countless droves of rapists walking the streets, with no sense of accountability. 1,000,000 women with no support from the justice system, which supposedly has their best interest in mind. 1,000,000 women forced to endure an invasive and painful rape kit examination. All for nothing.

A literal mountain of rape kits, sitting unprocessed in a warehouse.

Currently, a rape kit will cost about $1,000 to fully process, from start to finish. Sure, processing 1,000,000 rape kits all at once would cost a whopping billion dollars ($1,000,000,000). Let's compare that number to what our government has spent on other more useless things, though.

• War on Terror = $1.7 Trillion
• War on Drugs = $1 Trillion
• Vietnam Conflict = $950 Billion (Adjusted For Inflation)
• F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Jet Fleet (Currently 7 Years Behind Schedule) = $400 Billion
• 2012 Presidential Race = $2.6 Billion (Total, All Parties)

This doesn't even take into account the fact that the rape kit backlog goes back as far as TWENTY YEARS in some places! You mean to tell me that over two decades, our government couldn't find a billion dollars worth of change in the proverbial couch? Give me a frickin' break.

There's only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from these figures. It's not that we can't afford to process the shameful flood of unprocessed rape kits...

Our own government simply does not give a damn.

Why? Because it's run by men. Unfortunately, women represent only a fraction of our elected government officials.

• 19.4% of Congress
• 24.8% of all State Governors
• 24.2% of all State Representatives
• 17.6% of all Mayors

I can wholly guarantee you this -- if women properly represented half of all government officials (they make up 50.8% of the total population), that backlog of rape kits would not exist. This isn't a matter of being a feminist, or supporting equal rights for all (which I do). It's merely common sense. Men can be aggressive assholes; just ask the women they rape. Over 93% of all perpetrators of rape are men. I'm not saying every man elected to a government office is a rapist -- far from it. What I am saying is that without an equal number of female voices to address the concerns of women, our government will continue to not do anything about rape.

States I Won't Reside In (And Neither Should You) - Part III.

Here it is, folks. This is the final part in my States I Won't Reside In (And Neither Should You) series. Here are Part I and Part II if you're catching up. I've combined my results from the previous two parts and come up with a ranking of all fifty states -- from least likely to most likely to reside in. Here's how I did it.

For each map (one climate based, one social based), I awarded points in the following manner:

• A state marked as "no major reason not to live there" earns a +1 per map.
• A state marked as "would only consider living in certain specific areas" earns a +0.5 per map.
• A state marked as having only one specific problem as a deterrent earns a -1 per map.
• A state marked as having "more than one reason not to live there" earns a -2 per map.

Behold, a compiled list of results! There are eight categories of point totals (-4, -3, -1.5, -0.5, 0, 1, 1.5, 2). We'll start at the very bottom and work are way to the top.

-4 Points (The Worst of the Worst) ~ Black

• Florida

-3 Points (Pretty Bad) ~ Dark Red

• Alabama
• California
• Louisiana
• Mississippi

-1.5 Points (Fairly Objectionable) ~ Red

• Georgia
• Minnesota

-0.5 Points (Probably Not) ~ Orange

• Arizona
• Kansas
• Massachusetts
• Nebraska
• New York
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• Utah

0 Points (It's a Toss Up) ~ Yellow

• Connecticut
• Maine
• New Hampshire
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington

1 Point (Slightly Better Chance) ~ Light Blue

• Alaska
• Idaho
• Iowa
• Michigan
• Montana
• New Jersey
• Pennsylvania
• South Dakota
• Texas
• Wisconsin

1.5 Points (Probably Would) ~ Dark Blue

• Arkansas
• Colorado
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Kentucky
• Maryland
• Missouri
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• South Carolina
• Tennessee
• Virginia
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

2 Points (The Best of the Best) ~ Green

• Delaware
• Nevada
• Ohio

Wow, what a list! Who would have guessed that my top three states that I'd consider residing in would be Delaware, Nevada or Ohio? Each state affords its residents both wonderful natural beauty and a friendly climate. Ironically, all three are also key geographic hub locations. Ohio is an excellent starting point for traveling all over the Mid-West. Delaware is perfect for getting up and down the East Coast. Nevada is centered squarely in the West. If you like to travel (and I do), then each of these three states is a prime candidate.

As we go down the list of results, we can see that there's lots of other states I'd consider living in, but only in certain metropolitan areas. Arkansas would be a perfectly acceptable state for residence if living near a major city, as would Missouri.

Farther down the list, there are states where it would take some serious convincing for me to live there, like Vermont (beautiful and friendly, but terrible winters) and Utah (gorgeous landscape, but too many religious fundamentalists).

Then we have the dredges of the states, places like Alabama, California, Minnesota and Mississippi. I'd have to be under duress to consider living in these states. They are not appealing to me at all.

Finally, in last place, all by its lonesome... we have Florida. What a terrible, terrible place to ever live. Never in a million years would I even dream of owning a home in the Sunshine State.

Thanks for following along on this journey, my friends. I'd be curious to see your own results. Complete the two maps, tally up your points and share the results. Until next time!

States I Won't Reside In (And Neither Should You) - Part II.

Yesterday, I wrote about the states within America that I would and would not choose to reside, based solely upon climate and potential for natural disasters. Today, I'll do the same thing, but base my selections upon only social factors -- population size, overarching poverty, predominant political conservatism, lack of progressiveness and religious extremism. Here's that map again, but it certainly looks different from yesterday.

(Part III of this series is available here.)

Each color symbolizes the following:
Blue - Too Populated
Brown - Would Only Consider Living In Certain Specific Areas
Green - No Major Reason Not To Live There
Purple - More Than One Reason Not To Live There
Red - Too Conservative

As you can see, the entire country is awash in brown. When it comes to selecting a state to reside, social factors are a much more specific qualifier to choose against. Most states harbor tangled social climates that are both ultra conservative and progressive - these are typically representative of rural and metropolitan areas, respectively.

I'll explain further, by color and the associated issue.

Too Populated (Blue) - Only one state occupies this color - California. There are simply too many people living in the Golden State for me to feel comfortable residing there.

Only Specific Areas (Brown) - This is the vast majority of the United States. More often than not, it boils down to living in a rural area (typically conservative) versus a metropolitan area (more progressive). One state that exemplifies this perfectly is Kentucky. Your major cities in Kentucky and their surrounding communities are fairly moderate and accepting of people from all walks of life. Yet, the rural parts of the state are highly conservative in nature. Other states like Michigan, Virginia and New Mexico represent a conflict of economics -- some parts are highly impoverished with little opportunity for growth, while some parts are full of chances for success.

No Major Reason Not To Live Here (Green) - These are states where the political and social climates are just predominately right. Such examples include Nevada and Vermont.

More Than One Reason Not To Live Here (Purple) - Such states where multiple factors would deter me from ever residing there. Places like Florida (highly populated, conservative, impoverished in areas) and Alabama (too religious, too conservative, impoverished) hold little to no interest for me.

Too Conservative (Red) - Two states fall into this category -- Utah and Arizona. I would not want to live here because their prevailing political attitudes are vastly different from my own. I'd be constantly annoyed by my fellow citizens, and that's no way to live.

With tomorrow's article (Part III), I will compile the data from my two maps and reveal the states where I'm most (and least) likely to choose for a residence.

President Obama is Wrong On the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“I’ve spent the last six and half years yanking this economy out of the worst recession since the Great Depression."

That's the opening salvo from President Obama in an attack on Senator Elizabeth Warren. During a recent interview taped with Hardball host Chris Matthews on MSNBC, Obama went into great detail about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The TPP is a massive trade agreement between twelve nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Combined, this trade agreement would account for over 40% of the world's gross domestic product (GDP). As the agreement currently stands, it would drastically alter copyright and intellectual property law on a global scale. Essentially, the other eleven countries in the trade agreement would adopt the copyright and trademark policies of the United States, but then take those same laws to the next level of enforcement. This would directly influence the production of pharmaceuticals, automobiles, consumer goods, films and other forms of media. The drastic changes that would result from the TPP include:

• Internet Service Providers would be required to police their own networks and users for potential copyright infringement. There wouldn't even need to be clear evidence that a user had committed such infringement; the TPP only requires that three allegations be made. At that point, users can and will be restricted from accessing the internet through that ISP and shall be placed on a black list, which would be accessible to other ISP's. Without any sort of trial, a private person can be banned from accessing the internet from the comfort of their own home.
• Digital locks, which range from special frequencies in remotes to phone's being restricted to one particular cellular network, would be heavily bolstered. This means that copyright holders could legally shut down any form of competition to their product, without so much as a civil trial or investigation. This is particularly frightening, considering the company with the deepest pockets would win every time.
• Journalists and their sources for information would be at great risk should the TPP be enacted. They would be required to disclose private data about any whistle-blowers within a corporate institution, should that company feel their intellectual properties are being impeded upon or put at risk. The TPP is the ultimate silencer when it comes to keeping dirty corporate dealings private.
• The ability for private citizens to discuss and share their personal experiences about products or services through the Fair Use clause of US Copyright Law would be a sitting duck. The TPP would make it near impossible for any of us to comment on anything without being at risk for litigation from the holder of a copyright. Let's say you review your local Subway on Yelp and didn't like their service. If Subway reads your review and feels that it infringes upon their trademark because you mentioned them, then they can order for it to be removed. You can see where I'm going with this... big business could silence anyone for any reason.
• The TPP conveniently extends to nations where generic drugs are produced and sold to other nations, including the United States. This would mean that big pharmaceutical companies could legally restrict any country involved with the TPP from allowing the production of generic drugs that would compete with their own products.
• In cases where private consumers share various forms of media without the intent for commercial gain (transcribing an old book for others to read for free, creating a free voice dub translation for a foreign film, using a video to create a parody of it, etc.), that person could face stiff fines and lengthy jail time -- even if the copyright holder in question does not make a claim against the consumer!

As you can see, the TPP is nothing but a big push by the President and other politicians to secure profits for major corporations. When lobbyists practically own all the politicians in our government, this should be no surprise. Not only would the above-mentioned changes alter the digital landscape, but they would further increase the flow of jobs outside the United States and into nations where employment laws are extremely lenient. As if the outsourcing of jobs in this nation wasn't already exacerbated, the TPP would compound the problem to a level we've never seen before.

Obama, a fair majority of Democrats and nearly all of the Republicans in Washington are pushing for this agreement to go through. Warren, whom staunchly opposes the TPP, was called out by name during Obama's interview. He said...

"I love Elizabeth. We're allies on a whole host of issues. But she's wrong on this."

Warren has stated her concerns about the secrecy of the TPP time and time again. She's in the right on this issue -- the TPP's terms are not even public knowledge and are only available to select few. The document language of the TPP agreement is kept in private and delegates are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Essentially -- even if Obama did want to reveal information about the TPP to the American public (which he doesn't), by law he would not be able to. This is certainly a cause for alarm. Some of the TPP agreement has been leaked to the public, thanks to Wikileaks. You can (and should) read it here.

"And when you hear folks make a lot of suggestions about how bad this trade deal is... when you dig into the facts, they are wrong.”

We have dug into the facts, Mr. President. You're no different than the majority of political leaders that have come before you. Whomever has the biggest wallet has the biggest voice in Washington. The President clearly believes he alone helped to fix the economic mess left by the Bush Administration. He's obviously baffled by those, like Elizabeth Warren, whom would oppose his efforts to continue "fixing" our economy.

That's how I know he's wrong.

Would the Real Rand Paul Please Stand Up?

In the pursuit of being our next President, Rand Paul has practically flipped on every issue he once held a position on. Considering his obvious ties to the Tea Party and Libertarians in the United States, this should come off as troubling. Mind you, I don't count myself in either one of those camps, but I find the mysterious case of Rand's willfulness to appease everyone in the Republican Party to be interesting to say the least. Whereas he once promoted a marginally isolationist agenda in the vein of his father Ron, Rand has seemingly adapted to the modern Republican party -- one that supports big business, money in politics, war and all-around global imperialism.

If anything, Rand is a wonderfully blatant example of bending to the ideals of a political party to keep yourself in power.

So what exactly has Rand flip-flopped on? Let's cover a few key points.

• As recently as 2011, Rand wanted to completely sever all foreign aid to other countries. This included Israel, which has become a beacon of preservation for modern Christian conservatism. By 2014, Rand had gotten on the pro-Israel bandwagon and touted his unwavering support for them. It's amazing what a few years in Congress will do to a man's opinions. He's even gone as far as to explicitly enter bills into consideration that would specifically deny any aid to the Palestinians.
• Only last summer, Rand was clear in his objections to the United States becoming involved in any combat scenarios with the Islamic State, or ISIS. He still held to his non-interventionist ideals, saying that destroying ISIS would be ultimately a moot point. What purpose would it serve the American people? Lo and behold, he suddenly became pro-interventionist as soon as he entered the 2016 Presidential race. Now Rand comes at the situation with fury, saying that ISIS must be completely obliterated. He's in full support of drone airstrikes to cripple and ultimately eradicate the Islamic extremists.
• Rand's signature was on the letter recently drafted by Tom Cotton that was sent to Iran, in an effort to muddy the diplomatic efforts of the Obama administration to reach a nuclear anti-proliferation pact. He must have amnesia. In January, Rand was in full support of a diplomatic plan with Iran and wanted an open, non-partisan dialogue. I guess that message wasn't resonating well enough with the Republican base.
• Two years ago, Rand wanted to see undocumented residents in the United States begin a massive push to obtain legal status. He wanted immigrants to start the documentation and naturalization process without fear of being deported. Now, Rand has come at the immigration debate completely from the other side of the pond -- he deems undocumented immigrants as a massive security threat, which in no way should be granted any form of "amnesty."
• In just a span of twenty four hours in early February of this year, Rand flip-flopped on the vaccine debate. Between two interviews, he stated that vaccines have played a role in causing various debilitating conditions like Autism, only to follow it up with the notion that vaccines do not cause any conditions or disorders. I've heard of forgetful politicians, but to change your position in only a day? That's astoundingly dreadful.
• Rand led a famous 13-hour filibuster in early 2013, of which one of the points he spoke about was the use of drones. He made it clear that drones should not be used on American citizens, stating "I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court." A month later, Rand had changed his tune. He said the following on the Fox Business Network: "I've never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him." It seems the importance of the Constitution and the right to due process was only temporary to Rand.

The peculiar case of Rand Paul is both disappointing and insightful. While I never agreed with his agenda, I at the very least initially appreciated Rand's ability to be an independent politician. Ultimately, like most other politicians, he ran up the white flag and surrendered to party politics. There's a clear difference between changing your mind as new information becomes available (which is important to making sound decisions) and blatantly pandering to the voting base. As far as I'm concerned, that makes Rand a poor candidate for any political position, much less one that involves leading the most powerful nation on the planet. On a much larger scale, it just goes to show that most politicians that participate in the Republican / Democrat charade are not to be trusted.

Hillary Clinton - You're Not My Champion.

"Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion... and I want to be that champion."

This is the message Hillary Clinton puts forth in her first Presidential campaign announcement video, just released on April 12. I have to be honest with you. I find this initial message to be a bit troubling, as well as a stark reflection of how Hillary views herself. Chiefly, I take issue with anyone that claims they want to be your champion. Who says something like that? It's so presumptuous and grandiose. I don't need a champion speaking for me and neither do you. We are our own champions. Every day, we rise out of bed and fight our own battles. Not once have I ever turned to a politician and asked for them to espouse my life. I seriously doubt that any of my readers have, either.

"Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so." -- Gore Vidal (1925-2012)

I might be a progressive, independent voter, but I have never been a fan of Hillary's. Since Americans first came to know her in the early '90s, she has always emanated this strange aroma of discontent and treachery. The amount of space I'd have to spend explaining the murky dealings of the Clintons would require a separate article all to itself. To make a long story short, I would never vote for Hillary, even though she's supposedly the "champion" of a more moderate and progressive America. Truth be told, she wouldn't be any better than a Republican president. Both would maintain the status quo.

Perhaps the second biggest issue I take with Hillary is that she's basically assumed she'll be on the Democratic Party's ticket in 2016. This links to the previously mentioned stark reflection I spoke about. Without batting so much as an eyelash, Hillary has already positioned herself as the only Democratic choice for president. No matter that there's a whole nineteen months until Election Day 2016, or that there will be countless debates and a primary election process to go through. Nope... it's a done deal. Humph! Such pompous tomfoolery completely negates the fact that there are other worthy contenders within her own party -- chiefly Elizabeth Warren. I find Warren to be an Independent wolf in a Democratic sheep's clothing. She's one of the very few (I can count them on one hand) politicians aligned with either the Republicans or Democrats in Washington that I actually respect. Were she to run, I'd actually consider voting for her. America has been ready for a woman to be president for a long time. Unfortunately, I don't think Hillary is that woman. She's just too deeply entrenched in typical Washington politics to do the average American any good.

As it stands now -- I won't vote for anyone that's a Republican or a Democrat in any election -- state, federal or local. There's no real difference between the two parties, other than their name. They both support the same old song and dance that's ravaged our nation for decades. By creating the illusion of two parties, Americans can take sides and feel like they're on the winning team. All the while, the crooks are playing a giant shell game in Washington and stuffing their pockets. A vote for either of the two major parties, in nearly all instances, supports this never-ending machine of profit and power. As I always have, I advise you to vote for independent and third-party candidates.

Finally, I want to point out a simple, but powerful fact. Hillary Clinton, by very definition, is one of those at the top. Hillary's net worth, which is extremely difficult to nail down exactly due to loopholes in financial disclosure laws and the broken federal tax code, officially floats anywhere between $5 Million and $25 Million. This doesn't even take into account income which may not directly be in her name. Because many of her personal filings were made private once she became a Senator, there's just no real way for Americans to know how much Hillary is worth. What we do know is this -- confirmed figures for earnings from publishing, personal appearances and speaking engagements between 2001 and 2012 for the Clintons total to at least $136.5 Million. If you take this into consideration, her campaign announcement message takes on a much different connotation. The deck truly is stacked in favor of those at the top -- just ask Hillary, she would know!

"Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other." -- Oscar Ameringer (1870-1943)

Oklahoma: Atheists and Gays Not Welcome.

There's some outrageous bigotry going on in Oklahoma, but that's no surprise.

A stone monument depicting the Ten Commandments

sits outside the Oklahoma State Capitol Building.

House Bill 1125, which essentially bans atheists from being married, recently passed the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. It is now headed to the Senate, where it will most likely be approved.

How does it work? Well, it's like this. For any new marriage to be recognized, a member of the clergy must approve any and all marriage licenses. Judges and magistrates would have ZERO say in the matter. That means that the power of the legally binding contract of marriage would be solely under the discretion of priests and other respective church leaders. Of course, conservatives, Republicans and religious organizations are jumping for joy over this bill. If approved, it would mean that any clergy member whom did not see fit to wed a couple (meaning homosexuals and atheists) would not have to.

This is a crafty work of legalese meant to circumvent the potential for homosexuals to receive the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples. They're essentially tacking it onto the backs of atheists as a way around any forthcoming federal legislation. In essence, they get to kill two birds with one stone.

One of the chief supporters of the bill, Republican Dennis Johnson, has been quoted as saying...

"Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage."

I find it ironic that Mr. Johnson wants to prohibit the bounds of marriage via legislation, but finds that government has no place in the matter. I wonder if he can see the total hypocrisy in that? Have the supporters of this bill even considered that, without a legally binding marriage license, many couples (gay or straight, religious or atheist) would lose health benefits, death benefits, access to community property and child custody? Obviously not.

Perhaps more troubling is the immense power that would be granted to non-elected religious officials whom would act as de facto magistrates of the state government. By officiating the state law in a method that's clearly filtered through religious doctrine, they'd be blatantly violating the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Should House Bill 1125 be passed by the Oklahoma legislature, it will surely make its way to the Supreme Court.

Oklahoma -- a great place to live... unless you're not a heterosexual Christian.

Preserving the Freedom of Speech.

The March on Washington -- August 28, 1963

Racists are real assholes.

I have no tolerance for bigots -- racists in particular. The color of a person's skin serves no importance. Skin color is merely a reflection of genetic heritage and where our ancestors originated from on this planet. We're all from one race - the HUMAN race.

All this being said, if you want to say some really horrible crap about a certain color of people, then that is your right. The First Amendment, which protects our right to freedom of speech, allows for all American citizens to say what they want.

What does all of this have to do with each other?

My brother (thanks James) recently highlighted a case where a group of fraternity brothers at the University of Oklahoma were caught on video singing a racially charged song of hate. They repeatedly used the word "nigger" in a manner that was not only insensitive, but spiteful.

And no, I do not use the term "n-word". To do so is ridiculous. We're all adults here. You can plainly see that I'm not employing the word "nigger" at someone. It's merely for context. Saying "n-word" is not only childish, but it's disrespectful to the proud men and women whom fought against its common everyday use. You can't deny the past with a linguistic loophole. We must never forget.

You can watch the racist chant here:

Back to my point...

The University of Oklahoma suspended the involved fraternity. The institution also expelled two of the students caught on camera singing their racist song. Here's my problem...

Those students caught on camera absolutely deserve all the negative attention they're receiving. What they did was horrendous and without merit. But, what they said is protected by the First Amendment, no matter how repulsive. The lesson here is simple.

To protect the freedom of speech for all citizens, you must also protect all types of speech.

You can't pick and choose which words can be spoken and which can not. If you do, then you upend the very foundation of the First Amendment. No matter what crap those University of Oklahoma students said, they should not have been expelled from campus. If anything, they should have had the opportunity to return to class and face the ire of their fellow students. I'd bet good money that they would have soon left anyway.

To preserve the freedom of speech for you and I, those same racists must be allowed to say what they want. Otherwise, how long will it be before we'll be censored for our own words -- whether hateful, compassionate or otherwise?

Also, look at it this way. Letting the racists spew their indignant philosophy makes them all the more easy to pinpoint! When a racist opens their mouth, it makes him or her pretty darn easy to spot.

The Non-Profit Football League.

University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona -- site of Super Bowl XLIX

Considering today is Super Bowl Sunday, I thought it poignant to touch upon a fact most of you are surely not aware of. The National Football League, which pulls in roughly nine to ten billion dollars of revenue every year, is a tax-exempt 501(c)6 organization.

That's right -- the NFL pays zero in taxes.

The absurdity of the National Football League doesn't end there, though. League Commissioner Roger Goodell took home over forty million dollars in earnings last year. Combined, the top five executives of the league were paid over sixty million dollars in salary. But... it gets worse.

Shockingly, the NFL receives an estimated one billion dollars in government subsidies from state and federal programs.

Yep -- you read that correctly. Not only does the NFL not pay taxes, but we the taxpayers actually give the league more money for free.

Why does the government give the NFL subsidies? Because NFL team owners are known to be fickle and ready to move to new cities at any moment. To keep teams locked into specific cities, the government awards these team presidents subsidies to stay put. Of course, the NFL worked hard to make sure the government would assist in their money-making venture. For fiscal year 2013, the NFL spent upwards of eighteen million dollars between two high-powered law firms in New York and Washington, D.C. to act as lobbyists to Congress.

As the old saying goes... money talks. In the NFL's case, it talks all the way to the bank.

Some Guy, Puppets and Election Day.

Remember, remember, the fifth of November...

That's right kiddies! Today is Guy Fawkes Day. Admittedly, Mr. Fawkes was a hapless, short-sighted twat, but his legacy has far surpassed any actual achievements he made while still in the land of the living.

What is Guy Fawkes Day, you may be asking yourself?

CLASS IS IN SESSION!

Guy Fawkes Day is an annual celebration held in Great Britain. With the advent of the internet and modern technology, the holiday has become more global in scope. On November 5, 1605, Guy Fawkes was arrested at the House of Lords in London while stewarding a shipment of explosives. Fawkes and others wanted to assassinate King James I and replace him with a Catholic figurehead. This attempt is known as the Gunpowder Plot. Of course, the whole thing failed and King James survived. All across England, citizens were allowed to light bonfires in jubilance. Through the centuries, Guy Fawkes Day has slowly morphed into a celebration of revelry and respite. In modern times, Fawkes is heralded as a figure of contempt against a tyrannous government (even though Fawkes himself was guilty of such endeavors). As it stands now, Guy Fawkes Day almost has two different versions of itself -- one that celebrates the survival of the English Monarchy, and one that exalts rebellion and anarchy.

I find it appropriate that Guy Fawkes Day falls soon after Election Day in the United States. For me at least, this day serves as a reminder that the People have the power to stand against unjust rule. Accordingly, we have never NOT had the power to remove any and all despots, fools and wealth-mongers from positions of authority within our Union. Try as they might to deceive the populace, political parties and prosperous barons can not completely take over -- in so long as the American Constitution is protected. Only a willing and callous population serves such purveyors of insidiousness. Unfortunately, that is a fair representation of our current political climate.

Not much changed on Election Day 2014. The same two talking-puppet parties retained control of our Federal Government. There are no real differences between Democrats and Republicans, except the color of their camouflage. The People sleepwalked into the voting booths and checked off their ballots for the same hollow, bought-and-paid for cretins. Hell, most people didn't even bother to wake up and vote -- overall turnout was less than 50% [UPDATE: The turnout was even lower than initial estimates - 36.6%]. There's a simple logic to my disappointment. Currently, approval ratings for Congress hover around 11%. Democrats and Republicans account for all but two seats in Congress. The only two non-affiliated independent members are Senators - Bernie Sanders from Vermont and Angus King from Maine. That means that out of the five hundred and forty-one total members of Congress, a mere 0.369% aren't a Republican or a Democrat!

Let that sink in, folks -- 0.369%.

So instead of removing the Democrats and Republicans whom are failing to fulfill the office to which they were so honorably elected, the People have decided to let them continue to not do their job! The logic makes no sense!

If you were a boss with an employee who didn't perform their duties day in and day out, would you continue to let them work for you? Of course not! You're not an idiot. That person would be fired and a new person would be hired to replace them.

Yet, here we are. The same knuckleheads are headed back to Washington to represent us. No change has occurred.

"But Jared... I voted! Doesn't that count for something?"

No, it does not. If you voted for either of the same two political parties that have a death-grip on our government, from Washington to Main Street, then you've done N-O-T-H-I-N-G! You might as well have stayed at home and picked your nose. Choosing not to vote and voting for a Democrat or a Republican produces the same result. It's a Win-Win for the politicians no matter which option you choose. Don't let the Right-Wing and the Left-Wing fool you into thinking you're making a difference. Those two wings are attached to the same gluttonous, lackadaisical pig that's flying past the Capitol Rotunda right now.

All hail the absurd flying pig in it's glorious befuddlement!

The only effective choice is to vote for ANYONE that's not a member of the American Two-Party system.

With all of these puppets, you'd think this were a child's toy room. Nope, it's just the Capitol Building. 

And now, I leave you with some prophetic words from the dearly departed Bill Hicks.