Don’t fool yourself, Trump may have the financial leway to tell it like it is, but Trump is only looking out for Trump. His interests just so happen to align with the US being an economic force in the world again. And to that, he will try to get the economy moving in another direction….but not because he has some duty to the constitution, or is married to a specific political ideology
 July 2, 2015 at 1:27pm
Just think about that for a second….
Women are getting raped on their way to the US.
Trump brings up a good point….WHO is doing the raping?
The answer is many of the male central & south americans that are riding the trains that take them to the US border. Do these rapists just stop raping after they cross the border?
No…of course not.
That said….Donald’s statement is still true, even if “in-artfully” spoken.
Does the technicality of the women getting rapped before they cross the border mean it’s okay to not call the people that raped the women on the way rapists?
 June 30, 2015 at 2:22pm
You’re right….our rights end where others start.
So what to do about the people that will be fired because they expressed an opinion contrary to what the SCOTUS decided? (1st Amendment)
What to do about the churches that will be legally compelled to provide marriage services to gay couples, despite it being against their religion? (1st Amendment)
Most of the people I’ve seen voice complaints about the Justice’s ruling were not concerned about gays being able to marry, so much as they were worried about what legal cases will be brought up as a result, basis of the ruling should also allow for polyamourous marriages (Love is Love), and the dangerous waters the Fed government has waded into….with the Judicial branch effectively legislating from the bench by assuming Love as a right in the constitution, and inventing words out of whole cloth to make bad legislation pass legal muster.
 June 25, 2015 at 1:08pm
That’s the *potentially* larger issue…the legal precedent this sets for future rules. By the SCOTUS conflating a literal US state with a figurative state (meaning any government, including federal), the lawyers & judges looking to centralize more power to the federal government could potentially use this ruling to re-interpret other laws that make reference to the same.
Which, as you point out, is one of the sole purposes of the Constitution & Bill of Rights….to protect the republic from turning into a dictatorship or other form of tyrannical government (which usually happens when you concentrate enough power to a small group of people, or person)
June 25, 2015 at 10:21am
I’m a kid of the 80s, and I was taught racism was a pre-judgement or descrimination of a person, or group of people, of a particular race, based on a stereotype of that race, or a limited interaction with someone of that race.
In essence, don’t make assumptions about a person based soley on the color of their skin.
Since then, the definition has expanded to include actual, or percieved slights against a person of a minority race, from a person of a majority race (white). And now, finally with all this talk of white supremecy, that if your white & not actively fighting to end white supremecy, you are a racist.
My contention is that this has changed over time to accomodate an emerging desire to live in a multicultural society, where protected classes are established for racial minority groups. Otherwise, the special treatment required to establish the protected classes would be in violation of the old definition of racism.
Regarding your example to prove your theory that everyone is racist is based on a false premise. Living as a white American in a Kenyan village isn’t just living with people of a different race, it’s living with people of a different culture. Black Americans would be equally uncomfortable living in a Kenyan village as White Americans…because of culture, not skin color.
June 25, 2015 at 9:39am
Regarding racism in America…your point is true….so long as we keep redefining racism. When you view all people’s actions through the prism of race; when you believe that all people are inherently born racially prejudiced against people of other races than you….then ALL slights, failures, and mistreatment a person experiences in life is due to racism (regardless of context). It’s a self perpetuating prophecy. They’ve designed the premise to support their conclusion.
Regarding conservative vs liberal media, yes…there are more conservative outlets today than int he 90s, but you have to admit that most are marginalized by mainstream media, and outlets like The Blaze, Daily Caller, PJMedia, etc. generally only preach to the choir.
So while the number of outlets may have come more into balance (although still outnumbered) the weight of each news outlet is not balanced.
Not saying some people don't view life through the lenses of race and then use it as an excuse. There are definitely some people who do. But things like locking your doors when a black guy in the city walks by your car is racism, maybe not as bad as making blacks slaves, but it is still being prejudice based on race. That kind of racism is still very prevalent.
And your point about the media doesn't hold any water for me. Because liberal media is more successful with moderates and liberals the conservatives are marginalized and not considered mainstream media?
Besides, while liberal media might have more outlets, Fox News is the number 1 news network in America and the 4th most popular cable channel for any genre. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/01/cable-news-ratings-q1-2015-cnn-msnbc_n_6984866.html
Conservative media also heavily dominates talk radio. I can barely even think of any liberal radio hosts that are on regular airwaves and not satellite, but I can name a dozen conservative talk show hosts off the top of my head.
 June 25, 2015 at 9:18am
Fair point….but there is a cause for folks to go on welfare too. I remember growing up poor, and while we likely qualified for welfare, we didn’t dare take it.
I’d say the sense of personal responsibility is at the root of it all. The more we prove that we are not capable of taking care of ourselves, on our terms….we will be taken care of by the government, on their terms. And plenty of folks are just fine with that….either because they feel their race of people are owed it because of past transgressions, or because we are entitled to it because we are born citizens of one of the worlds most *wealthy nations.
Mason C. Weaver wrote an incredible book that connected the dots for me, called “It’s Okay to Leave the Plantation”
Read it….he makes a 1 for 1 comparison to the old plantation system with the modern government welfare system
 June 24, 2015 at 1:33pm
Context matters….did Amy mean to use the word in a derogatory manner? I’ve seen the show, and she does not. She used it as a term of endearment. A guy could use the same word and mean the same thing…and it shouldn’t be viewed any differently.
Assuming a guy automatically means the word in a derogatory way, just because he is a guy, is sexist. There is an assumption that of all the contexts that the word could be used, it’s automatically the derogatory form because of the gender of the person who used it.
Gender (or race) does not determine the meaning of a word…context does.
 June 24, 2015 at 1:27pm
Fair, but at what point do you stop respecting the office?
If said respect was given, based on an older interpretation of what the role of that office is…..would changing the role of that office require a re-evaluation of the respect it’s owed?
If Americans are to give blind respect to the office of the president because it’s the lead role in the world’s most power “free” nation….would the presidency still require blind respect from the people if the president becomes a King?
Politicians in our political system are supposed to be representative of “the people”. They are supposed to work for us, not the other way around. I have a harder time giving the same amount of respect to Jimmy Carter as president, as I give George Washington. They held two completely different interpretations of the office & the country they govern.
 June 24, 2015 at 1:20pm
The idea that people can change the meaning of words (and symbols for that matter) is absolutely true. The idea that only a certain group of people can change the meaning of the words is false.
I know that has been the unspoken social rule, where only members of a group that the word references has the right to re-purpose it, but it’s that very thought process that alienates an entire group of people from the conversation.
Ending race based discrimination requires the participation of ALL people, of ALL races…with each group having the opportunity to participate in that conversation.
“White people” being told they have a liability to participate in the process of ending racism, while not being provided a voice at the table is no conversation at all….its one group of people telling the other group how it’s going to be…and for a lot of folks, that is the end goal, which is problematic for true racial harmony.
Regarding the president using the word…I don’t see what the big deal is. Yes, if you want to go down that road of disrespecting the office, you can make an argument for him avoiding the word. My contention is that the president has disrespected the office in a million other ways without ever having said a word, or appearing in anything related to pop culture….so what does it really matter if he goes on the Late Show if he’s shredding the constitution with a pen & a phone.
 June 23, 2015 at 4:52pm
Point taken, but you have to at least admit there is more context regarding Roof’s world view with the Dixie flag than with a bag of Lays & Budweiser.
I’m sure the Dixie Flag means something more benign for many people in the South, and banning the flag will not stop a single person from being racist, or becoming racist.
The decision to remove it is Purely political. Republicans don’t want it to be a stupid emotional knee jerk distraction for the upcoming elections, and Democrats want to feel good about doing something symbolic to fight a societal injustice.
 June 23, 2015 at 1:36pm
Yea, I don’t get what all the fuss is over Obama, or Lemon, using the word.
In Obama’s case, he used the word to make a point that we have made “progress” with race relations, but it hasn’t been enough. I can argue against the point he is trying to make, but him using the word shouldn’t be offensive…or “beneath the office of the president” (Going on WTF is beneath the office of the president)
In Lemon’s case, he used the word in a teaser for a segment on his show, in effort to get folks staying on CNN through the commercial break. You can certainly make the argument that Don (or more likely his producers) used the word to be intentionally inflammatory as to hold people’s attention…but him showing the word on a placard should not be offensive.
That word should not get “Voldermort” treatment, but it does and stupid nonsensical rules around who can use it, and in what context, fill in the void….which just further exacerbates the issue.
I'm wondering…If President Obama was correct about our progress, why is the word, used in the course of a conversation, still considered to be such a hateful term? If you aren't attacking someone with it, it's just….well…another word that's been in our vocabulary a very long time.
 June 22, 2015 at 3:20pm
Reduce the rate of *gun* violence, but at what cost?
Is it worthwhile IF violent crime with bladed & blunt weapons increase?
Is it worthwhile IF home invasions & theft of personal property increase?
And when the psychos resort to homemade bombs to blow up elementary schools….what will be the American people’s appetite for that level of violence?
There is a fundamental concept regarding decision quality that is missed on a lot of folks…
Treating a symptom…1) leaves the root cause untreated, where it will continue to cause the same issues 2) creates unintentional problems…where there was 1 one issue, now there are 2
Crime committed with guns are a symptom of a deeper problem.
If you fix racism, Roof doesn’t shoot up a church & kill 9 people. No one loses their LEGAL rights to LEGALLY operate a firearm.
If you create additional laws to make guns near impossible to LEGALLY own, there is STILL a chance Roof gets his hands on a gun to shoot up the church (He’s still racist), or he builds a homemade bomb and blows the church & people inside of it up….or at the very least takes a few people out with a blade or shiv….while at the same time prohibiting law abiding citizens from obtaining fire arms that would be used for hunting & protection of one’s self, family & property, and other non criminal uses.
See how that works?
 June 22, 2015 at 2:34pm
Fair point, and the thought did cross my mind….as I tried to figure out how someone that worked for an organization that is lead by the guy that wrote & printed “Control” reaches these conclusions. It must be a devils advocate piece….and if that’s the case, the author surely didn’t frame the article in that way.
Instead, it was pitched as one of those “Don’t fall into the talking point trap…and here’s why….” stories. Only that after you click on the article and read the points, he only uses hypotheticals and very loose logic to make fair, but easily dispatched, points.
If it wasn’t a purposeful “strategic planning” article, the author surely failed at making a case why pro-2A advocates shouldn’t use the arguments he attempted to counter.
June 22, 2015 at 12:23pm
3) Lets not forget the killer purposely chose a “gun-free” zone to kill. As a matter of fact, in almost all of the previous mass murder cases, they chose “gun-free” zones (schools, movie theatres, church) to kill. Common sense would suggest that these venues are chose precisely because there is a reasonable degree of confidence that NO ONE there will have a gun to oppose them.
Let’s take it back a step….IF there’d been a reasonable expectation that someone at that church could be a concealed carry holder, he wouldn’t have attacked that place to begin with.
How do I know that? How many shootings are there at gun shows, NRA conventions, or other venues where there is a reasonable expectation that someone might return fire? That’s right…none.
And at the very least….as many have pointed out….even if you do accept the premise of the author, having *some* chance to eliminate a threat is greater than *none*
4) Lots of grey space with this…but I think it’s absurd to suggest hand guns & semi-auto rifles are sufficient to repel a state military, but not useful from repelling threat of personal injury, death or property loss. Folks have already stated that while gun deaths per capita might be higher than other civilized nations…violent crime is far higher than in the US (see point 3)
June 22, 2015 at 12:09pm
Good retorts by many here, but what I didn’t see anyone articulate is the cost vs benefit related to the arguments the author makes.
1. Yes guns make it “easier” to inflict damage than melee weapons, and are “easier” to operate than bombs. Recognizing that evil people will continue to kill without guns (albeit more inefficiently) would someone like Roof being able to only kill 1-3 people, instead of 9 justified, if it means that law abiding citizens are also banned from using guns?
Does preventing a “mass murderer” from committing *more* murder justified by a gun ban, if it mean “x” number of people suffered loss of life, property, or injury because they DIDN’T have access to a gun during an altercation with a criminal?
2) Apples & Oranges comparing Iran & Nukes with the ability to own guns in America. If preventing Iran from getting a nuke also meant all countries (including the countries that AREN’T publicly stating they’d use them to wipe a nation of people off the map) had to give up their nukes, then you can try to make that argument.
However, that’s not the case. The free world trying to prevent Iran from having a nuke is similar to the US creating laws that prevent dangerous criminals from owning guns, while protecting the right for good faith actors (law abiding citizens) to own them…which has been the case for gun laws in the US for a long time now
3) Lets not forget the killer purposely chose a "gun-free" zone to kill. As a matter of fact, in almost all of the previous mass murder cases, they chose "gun-free" zones (schools, movie theatres, church) to kill. Common sense would suggest that these venues are chose precisely because there is a reasonable degree of confidence that NO ONE there will have a gun to oppose them.
Let's take it back a step....IF there'd been a reasonable expectation that someone at that church could be a concealed carry holder, he wouldn't have attacked that place to begin with.
How do I know that? How many shootings are there at gun shows, NRA conventions, or other venues where there is a reasonable expectation that someone might return fire? That's right...none.
And at the very least....as many have pointed out....even if you do accept the premise of the author, having *some* chance to eliminate a threat is greater than *none*
4) Lots of grey space with this...but I think it's absurd to suggest hand guns & semi-auto rifles are sufficient to repel a state military, but not useful from repelling threat of personal injury, death or property loss. Folks have already stated that while gun deaths per capita might be higher than other civilized nations...violent crime is far higher than in the US (see point 3)
[-1] June 19, 2015 at 2:08pm
Point taken, and I agree….the 24hr cable / network news cycle doesn’t help….and the way social media is used today makes matters even worse. That old saying about a lie getting half way around the world before the truth comes out has never been more true than today.
That said, we also shouldn’t deny other realities either. People needed to see what happened in Ferguson & Baltimore because the way of life those folks that rioted & destroyed property that had absolutely nothing to do with the cause they were protesting is foreign to a lot of people. Something happened to those people as well, that taught them that reaction was okay & justified. No justice, no peace! Someone taught them that.
And just as a light needs to be shone on the kind of institutionalized hate this Dylann guy may have grown up with (not known at this point where his influence came from), a light needs to be shone on the institutionalized hate being fed to aggrieved racial minority groups.
Stop the special rules for special groups & treat everyone equally. Seek what you have in common with one another, not what makes you different.
Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another – right now
^^^ That is hard to do when you feel the “other” group has nothing in common with you
June 19, 2015 at 1:30pm
This isn’t government conspiracy, it’s Cloward & Piven. It’s Saul Alinsky. It’s social engineering 101, for the benefit of affecting political change in a way that makes it easier to get votes.
Yes, racism is alive and well in this country, but not in the way you think. Until ALL racism is addressed…..and that also includes the sanctioned racism that happens within the racial minority communities….racism will never go away.
If Hate begets Hate…..racism begets racism.
The fact that the social science academic community effectively re-wrote the definition of racism to specifically exclude racial bias toward whites (meaning racial minorities can never be guilty of being racists….despite use of racial discrimination against whites) should be all that you need to know about what the ultimate motive is of associated political ideologies.
June 19, 2015 at 1:22pm
1st, regarding Obama’s liability in all of this racial fallout…
The people perpetrating racist acts are 1st & foremost to blame. I don’t think people are powerless & are only products of their own environment…but I do recognize the environment does influence decision making. That said, Obama is NOT to blame….the socio-political ideology he (and millions of others) hold is…
MLK had the right idea. A melting pot society is one that integrates people of all races & cultures, under a unifying banner, with borrowed influences & best practices from each culture. People are more prone to look past, accept, or learn from differences if they feel the people they have differences with share something in common. THIS is where benefits of diversity are realized.
Instead, we’ve been following a multicultural approach, that tells people they should explore & seek out what makes them different (usually along social construct lines), and self ID along those lines. This puts people into camps or tribes. Then the tribes are told that they don’t have things they want in life because the other tribe took it from them. That their tribe gains recognition & acceptance by forcing others to tolerate their differences, without finding what’s in common. As a matter of fact, sharing cultures is discouraged…and known as appropriation!
 June 18, 2015 at 4:59pm
Yes, it does!
The kind of racism that existed during the days of slavery, trailing off after the civil rights era, is mostly gone. I’m talking about the thought process, or opinion, that black people are lesser human beings, or inferior, to whites as a biological function of being born black.
Most of the racism that exists today is as a result of societal inequity being blamed on people of “other” races. Black folks blame White folks for their situation in society. White folks blame Black folks for their situation in society. Black person acts out in a way that validates the narrative fed to the Whites. White person acts out in a way that validates the narrative fed to Blacks. Each side validates the other side, and the cycle continues.
Social engineers set off the perpetual engine by giving a little shove, and the fallout as a result keeps it rolling.
The power players that stand to benefit off of this will fight any meaningful resolution to all this tooth n’ nail.