• About

Posts By Connie Morgan

0 The Abortion Debate

  • December 17, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

Abortion is a topic that frequents our headlines and newsfeeds. Most recently Ohio’s 20-Week abortion ban is bringing the debate to the forefront of our conversations once more. This topic is extremely important because it involves life, both in terms of the fetus and mother. I’d like to showcase two points of view on the subject in debate style. Laura Jones will be arguing for legal abortions at any point in the pregnancy. Dylan Morgan will argue to make abortion illegal after week 20. Both had up to 650 words to use to defend their view and 300 words to respond to the other’s statement.

Pro-Choice Argument
By Laura Jones
A woman has a right to bodily autonomy. Always. An unborn fetus cannot survive outside of the womb, essentially making it a parasite. It will not survive without her body, but it is HER choice whether to donate that body to another. If someone dies and they are not an organ donor, their body cannot be used to save another life. A dead person should not have more of a right to their body than a pregnant woman. It doesn’t matter how far along the pregnancy is, what the circumstances of fertilization are, or what the father thinks. It is her body, and always her choice.

In this country, we have freedom of religion. That means that you are free to believe a fetus is a person, in which case you can choose not to abort a fetus. It does not mean you are free to force that belief on other people. You are free to believe that a fetus is a person as soon as the man ejaculates. I am free to believe that it is not a person until it exits the womb. It’s a difficult boundary to tread when it is something that so many people are so passionate about.

I don’t like the idea of using abortion as a form of birth control, but the rights of my fellow women are more important to me than that. Pregnancy is a huge burden on a woman in every way imaginable. It’s a ridiculous commitment to devote your entire life to bringing a person into the world, not just for 9 months, but for the next 18+ years. The average overall cost of having a child and taking care of it is over $300,000.00. There is absolutely no way that a woman should be forced to give this much of her life and fortune to someone else without her consent.

Now that we have established a baseline, I want to dive into reasons and time frames and why they are problematic.

           First: Reasons. Many people are in favor of abortion in cases of rape or incest, but not in cases of consensual sex. Problem: Rape and incest are not only incredibly difficult to prove, but bring up difficult memories, family tensions, and cost money to prosecute. It is incredibly financially and emotionally unfair to make this requirement a law.

           Second: Time frames. A common argument is that abortions should be allowed before a certain time frame in the pregnancy, but not after. Problem:  Many women go a LONG time without knowing they are pregnant. I personally know someone who was not aware she was pregnant until literally the day before she gave birth. Now, in that case, the child would have been viable outside of the womb. No doctor in their right mind would abort that healthy fetus. It would instead just be born alive and if not wanted, would presumably be given up for adoption. Another problem is that it puts incredibly unfair restrictions on women who have late-term complications. Even with those loopholes included, if a fetus dies at 35 weeks, but is not a danger to the mother, she could be forced to live with the dead fetus inside of her until it is at full term, because removing it would be considered an abortion, which would not be legal if these laws were enacted. This is not only incredibly traumatic, but also completely unnecessary.

A man does not have a right to be inside me if I do not consent. Neither does a fetus, whether it is a person or not. My body is my body is MY BODY. It does not belong to a man, a fetus, or the government.

Pro-Choice Rebuttal
By Dylan Morgan
The time of viability is important even to you as you claimed, “no doctor in their right mind would abort that healthy fetus;” a great conclusion to my opening statements. I question your statement, “an unborn fetus cannot survive outside the womb.” If by unborn you mean it remains in the body outside the womb (ectopic pregnancy) you would be correct and it would necessarily be aborted as should be the case any time the health of the mother is at risk or the fetus is no longer viable i.e. dead. If you are claiming because it is in the womb it is not viable you would be incorrect as nearly 1 in 10 babies are born premature indicating viability occurs before the 38-40-week term. Your entire line of reasoning makes a viable fetus hostage to the mother, contrary to your parasite argument.

Your statement, “many people go a long time without knowing they are pregnant” is misleading. About 1 in 450 women do not know their status until week 20 or later. This is about 0.22%, not what I’d call many. Even still, because you don’t know your status after 20 weeks’ does not give you the right to terminate viable life simply because you do not believe it is so; especially when science has proven it to be. You yourself claimed “person or not;” person meaning personhood meaning bodily autonomy. Why then do your rights supersede those of a viable fetus?

You do have a right to your body, but should you consent to allow a man inside you are also consenting to allow a fetus; even with the necessary precautions. Both consenting adults need to be prepared to take responsibility for their actions. I only propose the decision-making be complete before the time of viability.


Pro-Life Argument
By Dylan Morgan
Abortion. Because I am a man some would say I have no right to broach the subject but that’s ok, I don’t mind. Before beginning a discussion on this topic I need to make some acknowledgements. First, scripture is not nor should it ever be the basis of policy. Second, though statistics on the subject vary and data on the matter doesn’t exist in this modern scientific era, if abortion is made illegal at conception it could potentially lead to abortion practices putting the health of the mother at risk. This is unacceptable. Finally, I believe the health of the mother is paramount and takes precedence throughout the pregnancy and there should be no law inhibiting this.

Now down to brass tacks. I believe abortion – except for cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother – is a blemish on any society. The ability to create life is a great responsibility and should be treated as such. The ending of life, starting at conception, should not be justified simply by a lack of desire/ability of the parents. According to a Gallup poll from earlier this year, the country is split with 47% pro-choice and 46% pro-life. This narrow margin and steadiness of the statistic is indicative of the political steepness of the issue. A scientific approach with the knowledge of who is actually affected may go a long way in clarifying the issue.

The argument by pro-choice proponents claims it is the body of the woman and therefore her choice whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. To argue a fetus is not a part of woman’s body to do with as she pleases, a distinction needs to be made. Fortunately, a distinction was made by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

Justice Blackmun stated in the opinion of the Court, “regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.” The key term is viability, described as the point at which a fetus is capable of living outside the mother’s womb. At this time, logically we can say the fetus and mother are two separate entities as the fetus is no longer dependent on the mother, though modern medical science would then carry what was the mother’s burden. The distinction of viability demonstrates the fetus is not a part of but merely inside the mother’s body.

The traditional time of viability is in the 24th week of gestation however, there have been cases in which a successful birth has been achieved before the 22nd week. This is why I support a 20-week abortion ban similar to those enacted by numerous states. The ban does not conflict with the Roe v. Wade decision allowing regulation at the time of viability and, according to statistics from the CDC for 2013, only 1.3% of abortions took place after that time. Taking into account health of the mother, presumably some of that 1.3% would still be able to legally terminate their pregnancy indicating a low impact of the law while adhering to the time of viability.

Thusly I claim a 20-week abortion ban, taking into account the health of the mother is both legal and logical. Such a ban serves only to protect the viable life inside the mother and therefore is not a “war on women”. Should a person fall into the small percentage who decides after 20 weeks they are not ready for parenthood, pregnancy does not have to lead to child rearing. The child can be put up for adoption and every state has safe haven laws. By informing pregnant women of their options, hopefully we can more easily end the needless termination of viable life in the womb.

Pro-Life Rebuttal
By Laura Jones
Making abortion illegal at any point in time is a violation of a woman’s rights to bodily autonomy. At no point in life should a woman be forced to have something inside her body that she does not want there. That is the equivalent of rape, which in my opinion, is the most revolting crime one could commit. I agree with you that bringing life into the world is a gigantic responsibility, and as such, is one that should not be undertaken by those who are not ready for it, under any circumstances. The only person able to determine that is the mother.

If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, illegality is not the way. As you stated in the beginning of your argument, illegality leads to unsafe medical procedures. An arbitrary cutoff when a fetus might be viable outside the womb is yet another obstacle for women’s rights. One that I would argue will not change any abortion statistics.

If only 1.3% of abortions happen after this cutoff, some of which will not be illegal due to danger to the mother’s life anyway, what is the point? The remaining small portion will just turn to unsafe measures. I suggest better policy for sex education, access to birth control, and access to affordable prenatal care. These policies have been proven to reduce abortions by as much as 40%, without violating anyone’s rights.


About the Authors
Laura Jones
Laura has a Bachelor of Music Education from Pacific Lutheran University. She is passionate about politics, the rights of the oppressed, and fighting social injustice. She was a teacher in Seattle and Lakewood for three years before deciding that teaching was not for her. She now resides back in her hometown in rural Washington State, living blue in a county that turned red in the last election.

Dylan Morgan
Dylan has a Bachelor of Science in Biology from the University of Washington. He now attends the College of Dental Medicine at Roseman University of Health Sciences. In his spare time Dylan enjoys hiking, reading science-fiction and he recently picked up his saxophone again.

 

0 liberty hippie

  • December 14, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · Slide Images

0 The Hypocrisy of the Left

  • December 13, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

Although I am not a Trump fan, although I am not a Hillary fan, like nearly everyone else in the world I was shocked when Trump beat Hillary and beat her soundly. Trump’s victory and the resulting coverage confirmed a feeling I have had my entire adult life. The left is full of hypocrisies. Not to say the right isn’t hypocritical, they certainly are, but the way in which the left (and 65% of this comes from the media) has become too much for voters, especially those specifically hurt and attacked as a result of these hypocrisies. Here’s an easy to read list of examples.

Love trumps hate, is what they say. But the instant Trump won my newsfeed lit up with Hillary supporters spewing tweets and statuses that reflected everything but love.

collage-2016-11-10-18_54_36The “When they go low we go high.” When Michelle Obama said this in a powerful speech everyone went nuts. These words were put on bumper stickers and t-shirts and displayed everywhere you looked but did the dems go high? No. They lost an election and decided that vandalizing cities in response would be a good idea..

Liberals are the champions of owning your curves and embracing your flaws. Call a beauty queen fat and you shouldn’t be president. Make Naked Trump statues and place them in cities around the nation, totally cool. Comment on Trump’s skin and hair, totally fine. Refer to Chris Christie as the “elephant in the room,” hilarious!

screenshot_2016-12-11-10-08-39-1The Democratic Party claims to be the worker’s party. If you truly believed in worker’s rights you wouldn’t wear any brand that is a part of fast fashion.  

The left claim to care about the environment while they and their leaders own million dollar homes, eat factory farm animal products, sport fast fashion, smoke cigarettes and fly around in private jets.

screenshot_2016-12-11-10-08-45-1It’s only Republicans who want to go to war. Wrong. No, Bernie isn’t in the clear either. In 2013, Obama promised he would not put boots on the on the ground in Syria…guess what’s happening now.

The party for Black people? Don’t make me laugh.

The left believe’s Trump’s sexual assault accusers but rarely acknowledge Bill Clinton’s.

The left advocates for sub-populations but rarely mention that the VA has become an absolute trainwreck under Obama with veterans literally dying because they can’t get in to see health professionals as part of a socialist healthcare system. They’re concerned about mental health issues but do not mention the suicide hotline failing veterans.

Where is the evidence that these men are rapists?
Sooooo. All happy white guys are rapists?

The left hates stereotypes but they live and die by stereotypes. You’re an uncle tom not worth celebrating if you’re Black and conservative. All women who voted for Trump are victims of internalized misogyny. Evangelicals are alt-righters and so on and so forth.

Women are anti-feminist if they don’t support Planned Parenthood, but it’s feminist to support a candidate whose foundation receives donations from Saudi Arabia (where women have no divorce rights and need a male guardian) the United Arab Emirates (where women need male approval for marriage and husbands are permitted to assault their wives and children), Qatar (where women need male approval for marriage, women must obey their husbands and marital rape is permitted) and Oman (where women face discrimination when it comes to child custody and divorce). All this according to Human Rights Watch.

Cultural appropriation is disgusting…except when Elizabeth Warren claimed she was a minority when she listed herself as a Native-American (because of the stereotype that American Indians have high cheekbones) in an Association of American Law Schools directory.

The left explains that white people voted for Trump because his racial and anti-women tones wouldn’t effect them, but the left doesn’t call out celebrities who are so wealthy and famous that they can vote for economic policies that won’t affect their lifestyles in the slightest.

The left said to undermine Obama is treason, yet now they now plan on undermining Trump.

screenshot_2016-11-19-00-24-23-1The left is blaming “fake media stories” for Trump’s win but don’t point out that almost half of consistent liberals trust The Daily Show as their news source. Hillary is now complaining about “fake news” but what about when she lied about Benghazi and Bosnia? Oh and also when she blamed right wing conspiracies for the Lewinsky scandal. Brian Williams even had the gall to call out “fake news” when he’s built career/persona out of lies.

Riots are a form of free speech and should be allowed but a speech about free speech on a college campus should not be.

If the people your wall will keep out are illegal immigrants from Mexico, unacceptable, if they’re possibly Trump voters that’s ok.

screenshot_2016-11-16-16-16-51-1
Wanting Trump to fail is wanting all of us to suffer. So much for love!

Love Trumps hate but $1,000,000+ in damage is cool.

Trump appointing three generals (Mattis, Kelly, Flynn) is scary…but when Obama appoints Jones, Shinsheki and Blair no one says a word…

The left praises Canada and jokes about moving there…a country with border laws and strict guidelines on how to become Canadian. Interesting that no one wants to go to Mexico or really any country whose main inhabitants are non-White.

All cultures should be valued and heard…except for farm and rural culture which essentially would not be represented if the electoral college was completely abolished. Even Hillary tells us to “cherish our democracy.”

When Hillary wears white it’s powerful, when Melania Trump wears white it’s racist.

As a private business, respectfully declining your services to gay couples because you disagree with their lifestyles should be punished, declining your services to Melania because you disagree with her lifestyle is heroic.

Republicans get called out for being too white but the left is quiet in regards to the incredible lack of diversity among the media. Special shout-out to the Huffington Post.

screenshot_2016-11-16-16-14-47-1Speaking of the Huffington Post, “If you judge people for how they like their steak, you might be a Trump supporter.” At the same time “Donald Trump likes his steak well done, AKA the worst Possible Way,” also, keep telling us how fake news ruined the election.

Love Trump hates, but also, “New Yorkers have a duty: Be Rude to the Trumps.”

They claim red states are poorer but don’t take into consideration cost of living.

My friends on the left share these stories but not these videos.

The left points out the people that will no longer be insured if Obamacare is repealed but don’t point out those that are punished via a fine because they can’t afford their premiums, or those that have insurance but their premiums/deductibles are so high it’s as if they have no insurance.

They hate one percenters but their candidates are one percenters.

The leftist media puts pressure on Trump to condemn the riots (and when he did CBS held onto the tape for two days) but didn’t pressure Obama or Clinton to do the same with the Black Lives Matters or post-election riots, despite innocent people being hurt in both cases.

Trump loves hate. But a large number of the reported Pro-Trump hate crimes post-election have proven to have been fabricated.

screenshot_2016-11-13-18-46-34Slate defended the electoral college…then they called it an “instrument of white supremacy.”screenshot_2016-11-13-18-46-38

screenshot_2016-11-09-20-05-59-1No one on my feed expressed any concern about the electoral college…until their candidate lost. I can’t back up this theory with stats but no one believes for one second that the left would be up in arms if the results had been the other way around…in fact they would’ve called Trump supporters out if they had reacted the way they are now.

The left wants to give the government virtually unlimited power, but never stopped to think what would happen if that power went to someone they didn’t like. Conservatives have warned of this for a long time.

Even when people are arrested, the anti-Trump protests are referred to as “largely peaceful,” not exactly how the Tea Party protests were reported.

Love Trumps Hate but this. And this.

Trump is the most anti-LGBT and anti-woman and most racist president ever!…but he has an openly gay man on his transition team, the first female campaign manager to win, he hired the first woman ever to be in charge of supervising the construction of a skyscraper and black executives/supporters exist within his circles.

Actually ALL Republicans are racist and sexist and homophobic…but a Republican nominated Clarence Thomas, the two highest ranking Black cabinet members and the first ever female Black secretary of state were under a Republican, a woman has been nominated for Republican VP, the first Black secretary of housing and urban development was under a Republican, the first Black secretary of transportation was under a Republican, the first secretary of education was under a Republican, the first female secretary of the interior was under a Republican, the first female secretary of agriculture was under a Republican, the first female secretary of housing and urban development was under a Republican, the first Asian female to serve in the cabinet was under a Republican, the first woman to serve in two different positions under two different administrations was under a Republican, the Republican Party has had more foreign born cabinet member than Democrats, there have been a handful of gay Republican members of congress plus this last election the Republican presidential ï included an Indian-American, Black man, woman, two Latinos and a pumpkin.

The moral of the story is that everyone must be called out. Liberals need to call out conservatives but they need to call out other liberals too and vice versa. We all should be held to the same standard. That’s one of the biggest lessons this election should teach us but it’s one that seems to have gone right over the left’s head. When a negative story is breaking on your favorite candidate, honestly ask yourself how you would feel if the candidate you didn’t like was accused of the same mistake. Your reactions to each should be the same.

Donald Trump has flip-flopped and fallen victim to a large number of hypocritical criticisms and rightly so, but I think voters felt like they always know what Trump is thinking even if it’s different from what he thought a week ago. Donald Trump has gained respect even from those who are part of #NeverTrump because he calls out the media. The large number of conservative Never Trumpers may have actually helped Trump and the Republican party because it showed that many on the right can see past party lines.

There are things Democrats believe in that I can get down with, but I can only take so much silliness…and apparently millions of Americans feel the same way.

0 Thanksgiving Reflections

  • November 26, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

According to Psychology Today, these are the five keys to success:

Accountability – We are responsible for our thoughts, our feelings, our attitudes, our words, our actions, and our reactions
Values – Directions on a compass; our principles – who you are.
Mindfulness – maintaining a moment-by-moment awareness of our thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, and surrounding environment.
Positivity – the state or character characterized by the presence or possession of features or qualities rather than their absence.
Attraction – Positivity is associated with increased success, Positive people attract other positive people and tend to get better jobs, have more successful careers, and better relationships.
Dominoes – This is a mindful approach to goal setting that focuses on process over outcome and gain over blame.
Divine Visualization – A goal achievement technique invented by Mark Divine.
Inspired Action – Action inspired because it is deep-seated and meaningful to you.

This list we’ll be revisited.

Thanksgiving day got me thinking. We all know the story about the Mayflower leaving England, landing on the shores of Plymouth, Massachusetts. The pilgrims had no idea how to take care of themselves in the “new world”until Squanto taught them the agricultural ways of the new world which resulted in a celebratory feast between natives and pilgrims known as the first thanksgiving.

While the story of pilgrims paint a picture of happy co-habitation between white people and natives we know this isn’t really reflective of the entire Native American experience. For example, many people protest the celebration of Christopher Columbus who enslaved, diseased and generally mistreated natives.  80 – 90% of the Native American population was killed between Columbus contact and today.

Pequot War, 1637 – Around 500 Pequot killed or enslaved
The Trail of Tears, 1838 – 1839 – 4,000 Cherokee died
Bear River Massacre, 1863 – 450 Shoshone killed
Sand Creek Massacre, 1864 – Around 400 Cheyenne and Arapaho killed
The Camp Grant Massacre, 1871 – 118 Apache killed
Wounded Knee Massacre, 1890  – 146 Siox killed

This is just a shortlist of notable moments in native to white people interactions. I’m sure you can think of many more, because there are many more.

The Trail of Tears was the beginning of the establishment of Native American territory. The Indian Removal Act was signed by Andrew Jackson in 1830 and tens of thousands of natives were forced to move to a territory in Oklahoma. Next came The Indian Appropriations Act of 1851 which authorized the creation of Indian territories in what is now Oklahoma. The Dawes Act of 1887 followed that but it wasn’t until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also referred to as the “Indian New Deal” that progress was made in protecting Native rights and tribal sovereignty while reducing some of the early privatization of native land. What this means essentially is that reservations were finally allowed to govern themselves. They became nations within a nation with representatives who operate as liaisons to the American federal government. In 1934, American Indians were finally allowed to govern themselves within their tribal borders of course.

So the American government and non-native Americans felt/feel really bad for what had/has happened to American Indians. Most people have come to know that a beautiful, wise and underappreciated group of people were wrongly treated by early settlers of North America. As a result various freedoms, exemptions and laws specific to American Indians have peen passed, created etc.

American Indians pay federal income taxes but are not subject to state taxes, although tribes can decide within themselves to tax residents. Tribes get special hunting and fishing allowances. There are countless grants, scholarships and other forms of aid available to American Indians to the extent that as long as they get into a university, school will be paid for. Additionally there is funding for trade schools and tech education available to American Indians as well. Apprenticeship programs for American Indians are offered and facilitated by the government and private organizations around the country. American Indians now have the opportunity to get whatever kind of training or education they desire, cost free to them.

This is what so many of us are dying to have right? A free education? Tax free employment? Housing grants? Congressional internships? Indian Health Service? And so many more government subsidized opportunities. Of course this doesn’t undo the damage done to the Indian population but at least modern day Indians should be thriving right? Well…not so much. This is what the situation looks like for American Indians:

According to the National Congress for American Indians.

  • They die at higher rates than other americans from alcoholism (510% higher), diabetes (189% higher), vehicle crashes (229% higher), suicides (62% higher).
  • Indian youth have the highest suicide rates among all ethnic groups and suicide is the second highest cause of death for Indians age 15 – 24.
  • The rate of aggravated assault among American Indians and Alaska Natives is roughly twice that of the country as a whole. (600.2 per 100,000 vs 323.6 per 100,000).
  • 5% of Native Americans receive a graduate or professional degree compared to 10% for the U.S. population.
  • Only 9% of American Indians have earned a bachelor’s degree compared to 19% for the U.S. population.
  • Natives are overrepresented in prisons. For example, in Hawaii, natives make up 10% of the overall population but 39% of the incarcerated.
  • In 2014, 67% of American Indians graduated from High School. This compared to the national average of 80%.

Despite government assistance, American Indians are not doing well. The unemployment rate at Standing Rock reservation was over 60% as of 2014 and the poverty rate is 43.2%, almost three times the national average. It’s a recurring theme with minorities.

In order to make up for what had been done, United States government decided to start giving Native Americans everything. Education, health care, casino rights (through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act). And with casinos came per capita systems where many tribal members receive a stipend simply because they have Indian blood. These stipends can range from a few hundred dollars a year to more than $100,000. Put all of these benefits together and essentially you are set. College, health care, social security, and for many a steady paycheck for doing nothing at all. Considering all things done to the American Indians seems like the least we can do right? Well, on paper perhaps, but you’re ignoring reality and human nature if you believe this system to be a good idea. If all the opportunity is there, why is the situation for native so miserable?

Imagine you’re a father. You find out your girlfriend is pregnant and you panic. You leave town. And on your way out of town you take all the money out of your joint bank account with your girlfriend. So now she has no money, no partner, can’t afford car payments anymore, can’t afford house payments anymore and she moves back in with he parents to raise your baby alone.

Then you have an epiphany. You realize you have royally messed up. You feel terrible and you really want to be in the kid’s life so you go back. By now the kid is five years old but you’re determined to make things up to your kid. So you promise the kid you’re gonna pay for his health care, his education, and even if he doesn’t go to college you’ll give him a yearly stipend and you’ll give him a place to live. You promise this kid all kinds of security because of the terrible thing you did. All he has to do is…exist.

Using your intuition how do you think this would turn out? Would you apply to college if you knew you’d be financially stable without going? Would you care about your grades in high school if you knew you didn’t have to get grades to be set for life? Would you still get a job if you knew you didn’t have to in order to get by? Would you make an effort to learn how to be self-reliant if you literally did not have to rely on yourself?

Of course, some people still would do these things and that’s the 5% of American Indians who go to college. But most people need more than pride to motivate them. But let’s talk about that “pride.”

This relates to the opening of this blog. What does it take to be successful? What does it take to have self-esteem? What does it take to have pride in oneself? There is no accountability when you can be a terrible person but still receive your benefits. How do you even develop a personal value system if you are never faced with a challenge or forced to fend for yourself? Mindfulness isn’t needed when all your medical bills are covered. There’s no need to have a positive attitude when you’re positive your necessities are covered. While surrounding yourself with your culture has it’s merits, any new train of thought is unlikely to find it’s way into your life if your family has run in the same circles on the same piece of land for decades. If there is no need for goals there is no need for Dominoes. Divine Visualization, or visualization if any kind would be waste of time if your needs are being met. Where do you find inspiration in a place where no one has to overcome anything to live a decently financed life?

I am not saying the government provides a millionaire lifestyle for Indians. It certainly doesn’t. In fact there are ongoing battles between natives and the federal government ranging from the Dakota pipeline to to sacred volcanoes in Hawaii. But what it does provide is a safety net that’s near impossible to cut a hole in.. I consider myself to be a pretty self-motivated person but if I knew my bills were paid for regardless of what I chose to do with my life I am not sure I wouldn’t get comfortable.

I am not forgiving what has been done to American Indians and I certainly don’t want anyone to forget it. But the method in which we have tried to right our wrongs has only lead to weaker Indian Nations. I believe it comes down to this; achievments fuel pride, pride is the root of self-esteem and self-esteem is the fuel to success. Giving things away for free takes away the foundation for building pride, promotes mediocrity and takes away any need for inspiration.

There’s a reason why good parents know not to spoil their children. What do you teach people when you give them everything? You teach them that hard work isn’t really necessary.

You feel good about the things you earn. You respect that which you worked for. You take pride in overcoming obstacles. You value items your saved up to purchase. Think about saving for a year to buy a car and having a car given to you by your parents. Which one would you cherish more? Think about the 3rd place medal you won with your team vs the participation medal everyone got. Which one are you more proud of?

American Indians did not deserve what happened to them. Our country surely owed them something. We all know there is no excuse for the way they were treated and unfortunately the United States tried to right those wrongs in perhaps the worst way possible. When you abandon your child and come back five years later you don’t offer them the world, you offer them the opportunity to have the world. Reward hard work and offer to teach the skills needed to be able to work hard and excel in something.  

The government is bad at everything. This includes territorial expansion, righting wrongs and taking care of their minority populations. The “let’s give everything away for free” method has been tried. The American Indian population is the result. In the words of Poe, “It’s a wonderful idea but it doesn’t work.”

1 The Third Party Blame Game

  • November 14, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

How many times have you been told to fight for what you believe in? Motivational posters, memes, blogs, Tumblr posts. “Fight for you dreams,” “Never stop fighting for what you believe in,” “Let your voice be heard.”  This message gets relayed to all of us over and over again. So I started voicing my opinions and fighting for what I believed in…and was promptly told I was a horrible person for doing so by the very people who were the strongest proponents of the ”your voice should be heard” message. I guess those people only want you to share your opinion if they agree with you.

I’m referring to the outrage many are expressing towards third party voters. According to the internet I am privileged, a fuck up, worthless, the same as a Trump supporter, not worth any respect, an entitled child, I don’t care about minorities, I don’t care about women, I should be blocked/deleted/excommunicated, and according to Rachel Maddow I don’t care who is president…

My first reaction was to get emotional and individually defend each one of those attacks. Instead, I will set aside emotion, as many are struggling to do right now and think critically.

First off, the assumption that if those who voted for Gary Johnson voted for someone else they would’ve overwhelmingly chosen Hillary and not Donald is just downright silly. For goodness sake, let’s look at what parties Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld came from, oh right, they were originally Republicans. Now let’s look at who endorsed them.

Drew Carey (supported Mitt Romney in 2012)

Marvin Bush (the forgotten Bush brother)

Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney

John Stossel (famous conservative pundit)

Greg Gutfeld (Fox News contributor)

and many, many more right leaning folks.

In fact, 23 card carrying Republican politicians endorsed the Libertarians while only two Democrats did. On a political stage, conservatives represent 92% of Gary supporters. This means Trump votes lost, not Clinton votes lost.

One of the most prominent Libertarians right now is Rand Paul, but wait you say, he’s a Republican! Well yes, he runs as a Republican because that party has more notoriety, hence they are more electable than a party many people know nothing about. He and other Libertarians such as Justin Amash and Thomas Massie (both were re-elected by the way) and obviously Johnson and Weld ran as Republicans. I don’t know of any Libertarians who run as Democrats when they have to pick between R and D. If you are a Libertarian with aspiration what party do you default to? The Republican Party. So it would make sense to think the opposite true. If you are conservative leaning and can’t stomach Donald Trump, where would you default to? The Libertarian Party.

Now let’s look at where Johnson did best, meaning he polled at 5% or higher.

Alaska, a red state where GJ received 6% of the vote.

Colorado, a swing state where GJ received 5% of the vote. There’s evidence that Gary Johnson voters saved Colorado for Clinton.

Indiana, a red state where GJ received 5% of the vote.

Kansas, a red state where GJ received 5% of the vote.

Maine, a blue state where GJ received 5% of the vote.

Montana, a red state where GJ received 5% of the vote.

New Mexico, a blue state where GJ received 9% of the vote.

North Dakota, a red state where GJ received 6% of the vote.

And finally Wyoming, a red state where GJ received 5% of the vote.

Out of the 9 states where Gary performed highest, six are conservative states and one state that wasn’t included was Utah, a red state GJ would’ve done well in had it not been for independent Evan McMullin. In Utah, Mormons voted overwhelmingly for third party conservative candidate Evan McMullin, pulling 20% of the vote away from Trump. (Votes that presumably usually got to the Republican candidate). In the blue states where Gary polled high, Clinton still won but by small margins, Gary Johnson likely saved her in Maine and Colorado.

But looking at where Gary was most popular and what politicians encouraged their followers to vote for Gary, if you were to force Gary voters to choose between Hillary and Trump the split would probably be about 70% to Trump with about 30% going to Hillary. Estimates before the election predicted that Hillary was losing slightly more votes to GJ and other third party candidates than Trump but that doesn’t seem to be the case when you look at the results.

Now, those pesky battleground states. I will break down what percentage of GJ votes had to go towards the other candidate to cover the spread. I don’t take into account where the remaining GJ votes (if there are any) would go to but this will hopefully show how unlikely or likely it is that GJ votes cost or gave a candidate the election.

Colorado. A state where third party votes likely saved Hillary. 43% of GJ votes would have to go to Trump to beat her.

Maine. A state where third party votes likely saved Hillary. 54% of GJ votes would have to go to Trump to beat her.

New Mexico. Gary’s home state where his numbers were huge. Hillary won. 88% of GJ votes would have to go to Trump to beat her.

Florida. Trump won. 58% of GJ votes would have to go to Hillary to beat him.

Pennsylvania. Trump won. 48% of GJ votes would have to go to Hillary to beat him.

Michigan. Trump won. 7% of GJ votes would have to go to Hillary to beat him.

North Carolina. Trump won. Even if you gave Hillary all of Gary’s votes, she would’ve lost.

Virgina. Hillary won. Even if you gave Trump all of Gary’s votes, he would’ve lost.

Ohio. Trump won. Even if you gave Hillary all of Gary’s votes, she would’ve lost

Wisconsin. Trump won. 26% of GJ votes would have to go to Hillary to beat him.

Nevada. Hillary won. 71% of GJ votes would have to go to Trump to beat her.

New Hampshire. Hillary won. 5% of GJ votes would have to go to Trump to beat her.

Iowa. Trump won. Even if you gave Hillary all of GJ’s votes she would’ve lost.

So. Looking at the numbers if my estimate of roughly 30% of GJ votes going to Hillary is correct, Wisconsin and Michigan could’ve flipped. It’s not likely that Florida would have changed hands.

Let’s say that these states did flip in Hillary’s favor. Hillary would gain 26 electorates while Trump would lose 26. Bringing Hillary’s total to 254 and Trump’s to 264. So, with the absence of GJ, neither candidate would’ve gotten to 270, the Republican controlled house would’ve decided and Trump would still be president. And that’s assuming no other states flipped…buuuut realistically if you forced Gary Johnson voters to choose between Trump and Clinton some states would flip in Trump’s favor.

If my estimate of roughly 70% of GJ votes going to Trump is correct, New Hampshire and Maine would’ve been in danger of flipping for Trump. Let’s say they did. Hillary’s total electorate count would now be 246 and Trump’s would be 272, winning him the election. Of course these are just estimates but hopefully you can see how it’s very likely Gary voters gave the popular election to Hillary. Third party voters almost certainly helped Hillary win the popular vote. And on that note let me point out once again, conservative independent Evan McMullin.

McMullin won 21% of the conservative vote in Utah and small percentages in other states. There’s little question as to where McMullin voters would’ve voted had they been forced to choose between Hillary and Trump. And if 90% of McMullin voters had chosen Trump instead, Trump would’ve won the popular vote.

So for those of you blaming 3rd party voters for your loss not only does that morally not make sense, it statistically doesn’t make sense. Trump voters elected Trump. Democrats not showing up to vote elected Trump. Democrats voting for Trump elected Trump. Women, Latinos, Asians and blacks elected Trump. But to say that third party candidates “cost Hillary the election” is just not likely to be true. If this election showed us anything it’s that there is a huge difference between what people report they will do versus what they will actually do and/or that the polling system is horribly flawed. To assume GJ voters would have overwhelmingly swung Hillary is to ignore that reality.

Third party voters could say the same about Hillary (or Trump) voters. If y’all hadn’t settled for one of the two weakest presidential candidates of all time Gary Johnson might be in the White House come January.

Even if GJ voters did give the election to Trump, most of us wouldn’t care. One of the main reasons so many people went third party is because they decided Trump and Hillary were equally bad. Perhaps in different ways, but equally bad nonetheless. They are so bad that one exit poll suggested about 63% of third party voters would’ve not shown up at the polls if forced to pick between just Hillary and Donald. Attacking third party voters is polarizing and doesn’t make us want to come to your side. Something the left (and right) don’t seem to understand. If you want people to join your cause, making fun of them and name calling probably isn’t the best idea.

I understand people are outraged, confused and saddened. A natural reaction to those feelings is to find someone to blame. But maybe instead of lashing out at people who made what they felt was the best decision based on their values and experiences we should all be reflecting and taking responsibility. What did I do to get us to this point? What did I not do to get us to this point? How can I be a better person? How can I help inspire others to be better people?

Now many on the left want to abolish the electoral college because it is a “rigged system” yet they’re mad at me for taking a stand against the same system? The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me…hmmm I think I have an idea for another blog.

“For Democrats to blame third-party voters is disingenuous and a remarkable demonstration of their unwillingness to look at their own failure and anti-democratic process.”

*All statistics pulled from Google Elections on Wednesday, November 9th. Results may be slightly different now.

4 I Can Do Black All By Myself

  • November 4, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

My whole life people have been telling me how to be black. Movies tell me, the news tells me, white people tell me, black people tell me, young people, old people, my family, complete strangers.

People have told me how to wear my hair, what schools I should attend, what sports I should play, what men I should date, how I should talk among many, many, many other recommendations. Keep in mind these recommendations aren’t for how to be a good person or how to be a successful person, these are recommendations on how to “be black.” All black people have been told at some point how to be black but it’s especially common with me, who just like our president, is a halfie.

There’s a lot of racial tension in America right now and understandably so. Shootings, KKK, Colin Kaepernick, Black Lives Matter. I’ve cried about it numerous times. Hate, frustration, confusion, sadness, resentment all of these feelings (on all all sides) get turned into what I think is mostly fear. This fear is energy that gets turned into different outputs depending on the person. And no matter what a person’s fear is, it usually gets projected onto other people whether the fear is legitimate or not. I’m guilty of projecting my fears, most people are.

Lately, I have been on the receiving end of countless projections because of my ethnicity. People are now telling me how to be a black voter. I’ll just say it, there’s a lot of pressure to vote for Hillary if you’re black. The main reason being that if you don’t vote for Hillary you’re voting for Trump (even if you aren’t literally voting Trump) and he is definitely going to reverse any progress made in regards to the black experience in America. People have gone so far as to tell me that as a black woman, if Trump is elected, I won’t be able to vote in the next election. A lot of these fears are pretty silly as explained here. Also, don’t tell me who to vote for and try to use my race (or gender) as ammunition against me.

Things people have told me:

“Yes Hilary is corrupt but think about the alternative.”
– I am thinking about the alternative and there are many other than Trump.

“The media is biased but when there’s so much at stake in this election we should just ignore it [ and vote Hillary].”
– Radio and television media is 98% white owned. Telling me to shut up and stop questioning the media is the same thing as saying shut up and stop questioning white people. Also, I shouldn’t have to explain this, but media bias, no matter what kind is extremely dangerous. 

“Hillary Clinton’s racism is tolerable.”
– My mouth dropped when I read this because it came from a person of color. So you’re admitting she’s a racist but it’s the kind that’s acceptable? Let’s start playing the “under certain circumstances it’s tolerable” game. Can you tell me under what circumstances rape is tolerable? Can you tell me under what circumstances child abuse is tolerable?

“I’m voting for the candidate who cares about black issues, and the only one that does is Hillary Clinton.”
– Are you sure about that? The Democratic party has been the party of black people as long as my dad has been alive. So over 50 years, half a century. Black people vote overwhelmingly in support of democratic candidates. So let’s take a look at where it has gotten us.

Black people are still poor.
According to the St. Louis FED, the average unemployment rate for black people across George W. Bush’s term was 9.7%. The lowest it has been since Nixon. Under Obama the average has been 13%. The black unemployment rate has been high and low under presidents on both sides. According to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 25.7% of SNAP recipients are black, double the percentage of total Americans that are black.

Black homes are broken.
72% of black children are raised by a single parent. The year before Obama was born, only 22% of black children were raised by a single parent.

Black people are killing each other.
According to data recorded by the
FBI, 90% of black homicides are committed by black people. This figure is higher than white on white crime.

Black people are resorting to crime more often than whites.
According to the
NAACP, together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics made up approximately one quarter of the US population in 2008. One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime. 1 in 100 African American women are in prison.

Black people receive harsher punishments for the same crimes as white.
Five times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites. Black people are punished more harshly than whites for committing the same crime.

Bill Clinton is half jokingly referred to as the “first black president.” What made him so great for black people? Was it the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act? The one that lead to sharp increases in the incarceration rate for people of color? So much so that Hillary now distances herself from the policy she once supported?

Those things weren’t specifically Hillary (although she supported them) but Wikileaks have helped show us that black people are most likely just a means to power for Hillary.

Her camp was disappointed that the San Bernardino shooter wasn’t more white sounding.

They supposedly picked Donna Brazile (who was recently fired from CNN for feeding Hillary debate questions) as the interim DNC chairperson because she is black, not because she was the most qualified.

What about when Hillary’s camp said they wanted to “use” Eric Garner to bolster their stance on gun control? His daughter, Erica Garner sure didn’t appreciate it.

I don’t know what evidence anyone has to make the claim that Democrats (or Hillary) are what’s best for black people. Things are not getting better for black people, they are steadily declining. The Democrat method, and we can debate the reasons, is not able to bring about lasting positive change for black communities, and they’ve had decades to do it.


The “it could be worse” theme is one black people have had to put up with through the entirety of our existence in America.

“You might be a slave but at least you in the house and not out in the fields.”

“You may live in slums but at least you ain’t slaves”

“You might receive prison sentences at a much higher rate than white people but at least you aren’t in the middle east.”

“You may not be able to get that job but at least you can have this job”

“Your wife may have been raped by those men but don’t say anything because they could’ve killed her.”

And here we are again. I am being pressured everywhere I turn to “vote for the good of my race.” Well I am voting for the good of my race, and based on the evidence, for me, that means Hillary (and Trump) are out. Black people don’t need someone to save us, we need someone who will create an environment in which we can save ourselves. Send me articles, share statistics, do all of that, I truly appreciate it but let me come to my own conclusions. Stop telling me to settle for corruption, manipulation and greed. I won’t settle anymore. I don’t want black people anywhere to settle. Telling black people to settle is pointless, we’re very good at it and have been doing it for centuries. It’s time to stop settling. Don’t settle for less pay, don’t settle for horrible court systems, don’t settle for perpetual violence, don’t settle for backwards beauty standards and don’t settle for inhuman presidential candidates.

0 Why Third Parties Matter

  • October 26, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

“Why would I vote for someone who has no chance of winning?”

You’re right. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and every other third party candidate has no chance of winning. While technically it’s still possible for a third party to win you’re more likely to get struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark. Ok, I don’t know if that’s true but statistically it’s nearly impossible for anyone other than the two major candidates to win at this point. Throughout the entire race Gary Johnson has been the highest polling third party candidate. This means Gary Johnson has the greatest chance at sparking history making change in American politics.

At this point, there is only one way in which GJ could possibly become president, and that is if neither Trump nor Hillary get the 270 electorates needed to become president. In order for this to happen a third party candidate would have to win a couple states, preferably a substantial blue state and a substantial red state or key swing states. This most likely isn’t going to happen but lets say it did.

Let’s say GJ won New Mexico and Utah and as a result no candidate got to 270 electorates. You can’t just have the most electorates, you have to have 270. If no candidate reaches 270, The House of Representatives decides between the three candidates with the most electoral votes. The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans so you can count Hillary out and with most of the party denouncing Trump, he doesn’t seem like an option either. GJ and his running mate Bill Weld were both Republican governors so they would likely be a comfortable choice for Rs who can’t stomach voting for Trump or Hillary. In this scenario, each state would get one vote. Right now predictions are that Republicans would be 33 votes, Democrats 13 and three states would be a toss up because they have an equal number of R and D reps. So theoretically if no candidate got to 270 electorates, Gary would stand a good chance at finding himself in The White House.

The funny thing with this scenario is the senate selects a VP but only from the top two candidates. The senate will most likely be controlled by dems meaning Tim Kaine would most likely be chosen as VP under GJ. Sounds weird but, according to GJ he wouldn’t mind, in fact he wants both Dems and the GOP to serve in his cabinet.

This scenario is fun to think about but highly unlikely.

Gary Johnson may not have a chance at winning but what he does have is a chance at getting 5% of the popular vote. If he gets 5% of the popular vote then the Libertarian party officially becomes classified as a “minor party.” This means in 2020, like the other two parties, the Libertarian nominee will receive a lump sum of cash from the government. (I realize this will create a bit of a conundrum for libertarians on whether to accept the funds or not because they are vehemently anti government handouts but that’s something for a different blog). This will most likely equate to about $10 million. It’s a not a lot compared to what major candidates raise but keep in mind Gary Johnson just hit over $10 million in total raised last month. If he had those funds at the beginning he could’ve started out with a much stronger campaign. Although the libertarian party is already on the ballot in all 50 states as a recognized party they would be guaranteed ballot access and be listed higher on the ballot then they currently are in some states.

So the question still remains, why should I vote for a third party, and why should that person be Gary Johnson?

First is representation. The point of a president or any government elected official is to represent the interests of its people. America is a diverse country with no official language, no official religion and thousands of different cultures melting together to form one hell of a force. It’s something to be proud of but it also means there are hundreds of different needs, dreams, experiences and stories to go along with this diversity. Can two parties really cover all of those needs? Two genders aren’t enough, two sexual identities are not enough, two spider man timelines aren’t enough, how in the hell can two parties be enough? Can anyone honestly look me in the eye and say two parties cover the needs of all America’s citizens?

Second is political standards. Politicians like to point out what other countries are doing as a way to convince us we should be doing that too. Like when Trump said we should have more libel laws like the UK or when Bernie said we should be more like Norway. It makes sense to compare and at the very least be aware of what the rest of the world is doing. One thing neither major party will do is point out a two party system is far from modern. Twelve parties are represented in the UK’s House of Commons. Italy, Australia, Germany, and many more, all have more than two political parties represented in their federal and local governments. Diversity is celebrated. We know diversity is important..but apparently not when it comes to political representation. Two choices is not really a democracy, it’s an oligopoly.

Third is corruption. Relating to the previous point, there is a reason why major party politicians don’t point out the United States is not like the rest of the world when it comes to our political structure. This is one thing the two parties can agree on, a third would be bad for both of them. Another party means less power for the current two major parties. Think about this, two groups of people control what happens in America. Two groups. Even when a party loses the presidential race, they still have a mass amount of power within the house and senate. Two philosophies control what happens in our country.

A third party means campaigning would have to be more precise. With more options people would be less likely to vote against someone and more likely to vote for someone. With only two choices each party can just point to the other as an excuse for their behavior. “Hey I might’ve messed up on XYZ thing but if you don’t vote for me then you’ll end up with that other horrible person.” This isn’t a choice. This is torture, and without more voting options you can expect elections like the one right now to become commonplace.

George Washington warned of the dangers of a two party system:

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”

This couldn’t be more relevant today. Having to to choose one of two sides creates a war between neighbors, friends and co-workers. It’s Us vs Them not We vs The Issues like it should be. George Washington worried a two-party system would eventually lead to a single side seizing control which is why he and others advocated for the many checks and balances we have today. But Checks and balances aren’t always enough.

So why Gary Johnson? Because according to polls he has the best chance at hitting the 5% needed. There are other options. Evan McMullin looks like he might actually win Utah and Jill Stein has a strong following as well. But McMullin isn’t even on half the state’s ballots. He’s on 11. What’s more is he doesn’t represent a particular party so even if he did get 5% of the vote nothing would change moving forward. A vote for McMullin might feel good on your conscience but it does nothing for the future of this country. Sure you can say you didn’t vote for Trump or Hillary but you might as well vote for Pedro because that vote would be just as useful. Jill Stein is simply polling behind Gary at this point. I would be delighted if both her and Gary hit 5% but it just doesn’t seem statistically possible at this point which is why I encourage you to vote for who has the best shot at making changes. After the two-party ceiling has been broken we can talk about introducing more parties.

This election is over as far as who wins. Every major poll has Hillary Clinton winning. In fact, according to a combination of polls and projections HIllary has a 93%, read it 93% chance of winning. Odds like that aren’t common. Hillary is trying to win Texas. I’ll repeat, a Democrat is spending money on Texas because a Democrat has a real shot at winning Texas. Unheard of. There is no better time to to put your foot down and vote third party.

Two parties are not enough. Gary Johnson is the candidate with the best chance at changing the political landscape this time around. Maybe next election it will be someone else belonging to a different party but right now GJ is the guy. I want my vote to matter, I want to vote my conscience, I want representation damn it. Two parties don’t accomplish that and they never will.

0 Lesser of Two Evils? : Trustworthiness

  • October 19, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

People don’t like Hillary usually because they feel they can’t trust her. Whether it’s Bosnia, Benghazi or the day’s latest WikiLeaks, if you trust Hillary I’m going to wonder if you’re paying attention…to anything.

But this is not about Hillary. Oh no, this is about Trump. Trump fans will tell you that we have to elect Trump because Hillary is shady and she should be in prison, while I won’t defend her, I’m not convinced shady isn’t a word that can’t be used to describe Trump too. Supporters are drawn to Trump because they see him as straightforward and forthright. But when you really look at what he’s saying it’s usually unclear what he means.

“I’m actually very different from most Republicans,” Trump said when asked about raising the minimum, saying he would be “open to doing something with it.”

Alright..doing something about it? What does that mean? Is raising the minimum wage something you’re willing to talk about but not act on? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?! It’s very difficult to hold someone accountable when they speak this way. Mind you, in the primaries he stated that the minimum wage was too high. So which is it?

Guns are important to conservatives but it’s unclear how important they are to Trump.

“I’m a very strong Second Amendment person,” Trump has said numerous times on the campaign trail. Though to what effect is unclear.

What kind of guns? What kinds of restrictions? On the trail he has mentioned eliminating gun free zones and wouldn’t support any further gun restrictions that wasn’t the case in his 2000 book, “The America We Deserve” he described wanting a “slightly longer waiting period” to buy guns. He’s drawing huge crowds of gun lovin’ folks but his stance on the issue certainly doesn’t seem to be set in stone.

Then there’s his views on Hillary. I don’t think I need to go into detail ‘cause we all know the story. Trump went from inviting the Clintons to his wedding and referring to Hillary as a terrific woman back in 2012 to now calling her the “worst secretary of state in history.” Four years ago, he thought she was doing a great job…now she’s the worst secretary of state in history?

You know what though, people are allowed to change their minds. I get that. New information and new experiences can certainly do that, I know my views are fluid and probably always will be. But Trump has lied and flip-flopped on the campaign trail. Isn’t hammering out your views and values something you do right before you run for president? Changing your mind from a view you had a decade, or heck even four years ago, I’ll give you that. But changing throughout your campaign is concerning. Here are many examples of him flip-flopping while on the campaign trail.

Trump’s lies are consistent and confusing. What I mean is that Donald Trump lies to make himself look better but he also lies…just to lie. Like this one for instance:

“We don’t have any chess grandmasters in the United States.” – Donald Trump

Completely false, why are you lying about this? Or how about this claim:

“My opponent has no childcare plan.” – Donald Trump

Actually, it’s right here.

Or how about when he claimed Ted Cruz “never denied” his father was photographed with Lee Harvey Oswald?    

Not only is there absolutely no proof this is true, Ted Cruz did in fact deny the claims months  before Trump made this statement.

I could write pages on Trump lies ranging from white to what the actual f&*%. I didn’t even touch on his claims such as “I’m a successful businessman,” (multimillion dollar losses and bankruptcy) “the molestation accusations are absolutely false,” (probably not according to research and your own words) or the people who took his Trump University classes “loved it.”  Why does he lie so much? Why does he lie about stuff easily proven to be lies? Why does he lie about stuff that didn’t matter at all until he lied about it? Well psychologists may be able to answer that better than I. Their theories can be read here and here.

I get the appeal of someone who isn’t PC or someone who “tells it like it is.” But again and again and again Trump isn’t correct, let alone politically correct and he rarely if ever tells it like it is. People are mistaking fabrication for bluntness. Where the latter might be refreshing when accompanied with truth it’s worthless when accompanied by wild inaccuracies.

When you teach your sons and daughters to be honest would you even think of using Trump as an example? Would you be confident in directions he gave you? Would you want his honest advice on the stock market? Trump hasn’t lied about insider government happenings and he will only be given the chance to if he is elected president.

2 Lesser of Two Evils? : Sexual Assault

  • October 13, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

Donald Trump is a scumbag. His comments about women are unacceptable and beyond offensive to me. I have never defended Trump and have long thought him to be a sad man with sociopathic tendencies, average intelligence and almost no moral code. I try to avoid using the word hate but it is defined as “passionate/obsessive dislike for someone” and that is exactly how I feel about that excuse for a man.

While it seems most of my friends agree that Trump is slimy, there has been inconsistent critiquing of the presidential candidates in regards to sexual assault. I think Donald Trump is bad but Hillary…

One meme I keep seeing says “The problem isn’t that Donald Trump is a misogynistic sociopath, it’s that his supporters don’t care.” I agree. That is a problem. But what I also say to myself is “The problem isn’t that Bill Clinton is a sexual predator, the problem is that Hillary doesn’t care, though she promises us that she does.”

Bill Clinton has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 10 women. Hillary has been accused of bullying, threatening and de-legitimizing Bill’s victims.

Below is a list of the higher profile cases involving accusations against Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. You can click on their names to read more about each case.

Juanita Broaddrick
Sandra Allen James
Paula Jones
Kathleen Wiley

Other women outside of the 10 have admitted to having consensual relationships with Bill while he was married to Hillary. Many of these women claim to have been subject to threats after the affairs ended. Monica Lewinsky is the most famous example. Hillary’s response to the Lewinsky scandal was to blame Monica and herself for the affair (not Bill). Hillary called Monica a “narcissistic loony toon,” and in another, albeit human (but anti-feminist) response, Hillary blamed herself for Bill’s behavior, saying she had not been “sensitive enough” to her husband’s emotional state.

Monica Lewinsky was 22 at the time of her affair with Bill, he was 49. Think about a young, wide-eyed, ambitious intern being courted by the most powerful man in the world. Does having an affair with the president make you a narcissist? If you are a narcissist, does that give older and “wiser” men a right to take advantage of you? Who do you think had power in this situation? Who was taken advantage of in this situation? Who’s life was ruined and who continued living as an admired national figure? Who claimed she was in love while the other called it “just sex?” Who was called a whore and a slut while the other simply made a silly mistake? And who was the woman who stood by the man, pointing the blame on the girl? Double standard in action, something that’s rarely pointed out.

Hillary’s Twitter account tweeted “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported.” I agree, but I don’t think Hillary really does. In fact, many “women’s rights activists” don’t seem to really believe this. For example, when Bill Cosby was accused, many on the left (and right) called for his accusers to be heard, listened to and respected, shaming those who didn’t want to believe their claims. I was thrilled at a lot of the public response, and it seemed like we were making strides in terms of ending rape culture. Interestingly enough, the outrage hasn’t been the same in regards to Bill Clinton’s accusers, many of whom have been very vocal in the past year. Do these women not deserve to be heard and respected?

Hillary Clinton is reported as saying about Bill Clinton’s accusers, “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” She is also reported as calling Gennifer Flowers, a woman who Bill Clinton admittedly had a consensual extramarital relationship with “trailer trash.”  On top of this, Hillary has been accused of using immoral tactics when defending a child rapist, then laughing at the victim, who was 12 years old at the time.

These events aren’t recorded so perhaps they’re made up or embellished by right wingers as a smear campaign against the Clintons. That is not beyond the realm of possibility, no one can truly prove or disprove these things were said and done. But in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show in 1998, Hillary had this to say about the Lewinsky-Clinton affair accusations:

“I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”

Click here to listen to the quote at the 13:00 mark.

Really think about those words. First of all, she denies all accusations when it’s likely that she knew about the affairs before the media, whether from Bill himself, or a white house staffer. Second of all, this doesn’t sound like the words of someone who would believe a woman claiming she has been abused or attacked. Third of all, she implies that a person’s history or past behavior should be taken into account when deciding whether they were abused or not. Again, not exactly feminist. It doesn’t matter if you’ve slept with 100 men, robbed a bank, have had consensual relations with your attacker in the past or are literally insane, rape is rape and consent is consent. Although the investigation at the time was for a consensual relationship, this quote gives insight as to how Hillary views reports of sexual behavior and how they should be investigated, at least when they involve her husband.

Some may argue that the women who have accused Bill of abuse are lying for personal gain. This may be true but let’s look at the facts: According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center between 2% and 10% of sexual violence claims are false. That means that even if we applied the max 10% figure to Bill Clinton’s accusers, only one would be a false claim leaving nine true claims. Even if we eliminated 50% (so five times the estimated amount of false claims) of his accusers that would still leave 5 women whose accusations were true.

Perhaps high profile men are highly susceptible to false claims, it certainly makes sense if what people are after is publicity and a bigger payday. On the other hand, falsely accusing affluent men is taking what will already be an uphill battle of he said/she said and making it a vertical battle. Celebrities can afford the best lawyers, are often more likely to be trusted by the public and frequently have fan bases that will shun and shame and attack the victim without asking any questions. I’m not saying that these women weren’t all phonies who were paid off, but statistics and reason don’t give strong support for that hypothesis. And even if they are lying, Hillary should at least take the time to “listen to and support them” until it is proven that they have lied.  If presidents or presidential candidates are always accused of sexual assault, why aren’t Obama or Bush’s careers laced with sexual assault scandals? It’s no secret they both have a large supply of haters who would love to see their demise.

A voter in New Hampshire asked Hillary “You recently came out to say that all rape victims should be believed? But would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?”

Hillary responded with, “Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

I agree with Hillary, but I also ask what evidence disproves anything the women mentioned claimed?  And is there any evidence at all that Hillary ever believed these women in the first place? Worth noting is that the line “you have the right to be believed, and we’re with you” was deleted from Hillary Clinton’s website, it now says “you have a right to be heard.” Interesting switch. In combination, Hillary’s philosophy can be assumed to be the following: without clear and resounding proof you can accuse but you will not be believed.

I leave you with this: never mind what Bill did, he’s not the one running for president. Pay attention to how Hillary reacts. Is this a woman who actually cares at all about important women’s issues like rape, grooming and molestation? Isn’t someone assisting a murderer just as evil as the one who actually plunged the knife? Trump is not a voice for assault victims, but based on my findings I’m not convinced Hillary is either.

 

4 Tiny Beginning

  • October 5, 2016
  • by Connie Morgan
  • · In the News

I bought a property! Or is it I bought property? Not really sure but I think you know what I mean. It’s four acres just on the outskirts of Ellensburg. It’s a country-living feel but still 10 minutes away from the grocery store. So it’s exactly what I’ve been dreaming of. Enough land to have a garden, a trampoline, a badminton court…Most importantly it has room for a tiny house.

Now when I say tiny I’m being generous. My goal is to max out at 900 sq feet which some argue doesn’t qualify as tiny. I like say “it’s on the big side of tiny.” My goal is to build an eco-friendly, budget conscious home than can adjust as my needs change. (I have kids, adopt 13 cats, gain 50 pounds, etc.) Hence the slightly bigger size (for tiny).

So why tiny? Well, for many reasons. The first being that when I was about to graduate from college the common question was “what’s next?” and my answer was usually “I don’t know.” So people would press further, “well, what are your dreams?” “where do you see yourself in 10 years” or “what do you want your mark on the world to be?” That last question really got me. I thought and thought about it until eventually I had an answer; I didn’t want to leave one. I want the result of my existence to be non-existent. I want to die without a trace except for the memories the people I’ve left behind have.

tinyhouses-infographic-1000wlogo“No mark” has many meanings. It means using as little natural resources as possible. It means living sustainably. It means using humanitarian-approved products. It means fair-trade and conflict free. It means tiny living. A tiny house is the only habitat I can think of that could possibly pass all of those standards.

Economic freedom. I don’t spend very much time at home. Why would I when there’s so much to do? Why spend money on a large home when I’d rather be swimming or hiking or traveling? Statistically tiny home owners owe less than traditional home owners, have more money in the bank and are able to have careers they love without the pressure to make more and more dollars.

Keeping my priorities in check is the final big reason I am doing this. When you live small you don’t have a lot of room for worldly possessions. I have already gotten rid of bags and bags and bags…and bags of clothing (I used to have a walk-in closet). You don’t have room for lots of “stuff” so tiny home owners have to be thoughtful in every purchase they make. Do I really need this? Will this add value to my life? Etc. The inability to go on shopping sprees also doesn’t hurt your bottom line.

I thought I might share how this all works out, maybe it turns out horribly or maybe I am one day featured in Tiny House magazine. Either way, folks seem to be very curious about my plans and I don’t mind sharing. Also, if I inspire anyone along the way that’s an added bonus. To be continued…

Page 4 of 7
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel

 
Loading Comments...
Comment
    ×