Page 1



Founded 1987 • Volume XXIX, Issue VI

Editor-in-Chief Jordan T. Raitses

Copy Desk Chief Elizabeth Elliot

Publishing Manager Patrick McAuliffe

Communications Manager Kayla Jimenez

Business Manager Alex Carros

Editor Emeritus Sean Glendon Dan Kersten

Staff Writers

Thomas Casey, Aditi Roy, Zachary Borodkin, Luke Kusick, David Keptsi, Max Newman, Dylan Klein


Bella Rubinton, Michael Lombardi

Special Thanks To:

Intercollegiate Studies Institute Collegiate Network Binghamton Review was printed by Gary Marsden We Provide the Truth. He Provides the Staples



by Max Newman

5 Total Transparency by Bella Rubinton 7 Thoughts From a Past by Michael Lombardi Editor 8 Our Token Republican by Luke Kusick Isn’t A Republican 9 The Conservative by Patrick McAuliffe Example of Dr. King 10 Shock and Outrage by Dylan Klein by Kayla Jimenez 11 Global Gag Reflex 12 Tipping the Scalia Pt. II by David Keptsi 14 Welcome to Hypocri-City by Patrick McAuliffe 15 PP and Leftist Eugenics by Alex Carros


3 Editorial 4 Campus Presswatch

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! Direct feedback to 2


Vol. XXIX, Issue VI


Dear Readers,


From the Editor

ello again my friends. We’re back at it again this month with more philosophical nonsense, debates, and fiber. Unfortunately, we couldn’t fit more memes into this issue, but I still think you’ll enjoy our A+ original content. Worst case, you can use our print issue as kindling to keep warm. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ President Trump has been in office for more than two weeks now, and Max illustrates why he and his fellow right-wing populists won’t get tired of all the winning, both here and abroad. Dylan expresses his shock at a Trump presidency but claims that it’s to be expected in a country like America. With the rise of the right, it is a time to decide what it is that “the right” stands for. In another debate format, Luke argues that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., used as a symbol for conservatives for decades, is far from worthy of the title, while Patrick counters that Dr. King still has much to be respected and admired for. Writers both old and new come together for this issue. Former Editor-in-Chief Michael Lombardi shares his thoughts on his time at the Review and comments on the growing cultural authoritarianism and restriction of expression perpetuated by the left. First-time contributor Bella responds to a Pipe Dream editorial regarding transparency in government, calling for reasonable standards and expectations for our elected representatives at every level of government.

The federal government’s role in abortions is also a contentious issue for our writers. Kayla discusses the possible positive side of President Trump’s “global gag rule” executive order that bans federal funding overseas for organizations that provide abortions, while Alex exposes a possible racebased eugenics program as an ulterior motive of the pro-abortion left. Finally, Patrick highlights intellectual inconsistencies on both sides of the political spectrum in a new mini-series, and David returns to comment on Justice Scalia’s new replacement in Neil Gorsuch, a topic he first broached in last year’s March issue after Scalia’s death. Speaking of the supreme court, I was recently told that it was unfair that the Republicans could appoint a justice immediately, while Obama could not. I may not agree with the Senate’s childish rejection of all of Obama’s nominations, but it’s still necessary to remember how important separation of powers is. I’m no constitutional scholar (aka not a polisci major), but just think of how horrible it would be if a single president could get anything he or she wanted without checks and balances. We’d be like England! A cautionary tale. Sincerely,

Jordan Raitses

Our Mission

Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university. We stand against tyranny in all of its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Views expressed by writers do not necessarily represent the views of the publication as a whole.



CPampus resswatch “No, I’m Not Protesting” Mahdi Farahikia Pipe Dream, February 2, 2017 “Today, I am falling victim to yet another political nonsense.” #relatable. Finally, Pipe Dream acknowledging that acts of government can be nonsensical! Thanks, Trump. “I came to this country legally 6 1/2 years ago on a single-entry student visa. It has never been my intention to “steal” an American’s job. In contrast, I picked the United States because it was advocated to me that the land of the free and home of the brave is where dreams come true. I never thought it was going to be easy. So, I dreamed big to be the change that the world needs and I took the steps to fulfill that. Oh, did I say I have paid my taxes, too?” Sounds good, we congratulate you on your drive and initiative. That’s what coming to America is all about. And you clearly want to be immersed in American society, otherwise a multiple-entry visa might be more advantageous. “From personal experience, I don’t see much of a positive consequence in [engaging in protests]. Once, a friend left me out of a gun control debate because “You’re not a citizen!” It’s not hard to imagine hearing the same response now. In my opinion, there is nothing constructive in a continuous altercation that would arise when the other side would demonize me for my nationality.” Nobody’s demonizing you for your nationality. There is, by definition, a legal difference in the rights and obligations of citizens and non-citizens, no matter where they come from. Paying American taxes and learning in American schools is beneficial to our visitors, but to have a say in what policies should be implemented and how they should be implemented means that you need all your skin in the American game, and




Written by our Staff

that is done through nationalization and the path to citizenship.

“Democrats Need a Vision” Adam Wilkes Pipe Dream, January 30, 2017 “But if we strive to be the empathetic and caring children that our parents raised, we ought to force ourselves to feel like we are all in this together.” WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. That doesn’t necessarily mean we all have to submit to collectivist policies that end up in a zero-sum game. “The diagnostic for why the Democratic Party and everyone to its left was defeated in the calamitous presidential election of last year has spurred ruthless and healthy debate.” Has it? We’ve just heard a lot of people angrily complaining and/or whining. But I guess that’s what the youth are calling debating these days. “Instead of building a wall on the southern border, let’s build a network of wind farms and solar energy plants across all 50 states. Let’s invest trillions of dollars in both creating millions of jobs for the disillusioned and putting the brakes on climate change. Let’s make the bankers who ripped us off in 2008 pay for it. Let’s create a division in the Justice Department, of only the brightest and most diverse leaders, a big budget and broad legal authority, to identify and scrutinize any police department engaged in militarism and brutality. Let’s create a nationwide public health insurance option with premiums so beautifully low it’ll force Aetna and Cigna out of business unless they reduce their copays and premiums as well.” How about we just skip all of that and stop expanding the government’s reach, regardless of whether leftist or right-wing agendas are being pursued?

“Let’s not retreat from globalization; let’s celebrate it. Instead of squeezing the budgets of underdeveloped countries as a condition for loans from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, let’s help them attain working conditions on par with the global north, so businesses don’t have to move their jobs overseas. And if they do, let’s build sweeping highways and sleek railroads to connect the cities of the Earth. Marseilles to Lagos in five hours. Scranton to Bogotá in 10.” Have you ever studied economics? Moving jobs overseas is comparatively beneficial for both parties, lowering the cost of a company’s labor and giving workers in developing countries an income much higher than what they could earn on their own. And of course, don’t forget the free market option of just...not taking the job. As for faster travel, is such a goal attainable either from projected scientific achievement in the near future or from artificially raised labor costs across the globe? “We can call ourselves progressive.” We could, but we could also, preferably, not.

Vol. XXIX, Issue VI



Total Transparency: A Response to Pipe Dream By Bella Rubinton


n the January 23rd issue of Pipe Dream, Nicholas Serrao wrote an editorial about transparency in government, where he cited last semester’s VPAA election as an example of transparency gone wrong. As a former SA Congress representative that has served one semester as a representative for Hillside and another one for Hinman, I completely agree with this statement. Transparency is not about taking people’s private conversations within government and leaking them to their constituency. It is about making the objective, personal choice to be honest and open about all opinions, whether political or personal. During my year on the SA, I was on the Internal Affairs committee, which is responsible for chartering clubs and reviewing constitutions, among other things. Raul Cepin was the vice chair of IA prior to being elected to the VPAA position. I also ran for vice chair, and lost, and briefly ran for VPAA before dropping out to run another candidate’s campaign. From my perspective, as a member of the SA who was not a member of the Planning, Research, and Elections committee, the screenshot of the GroupMe conversation was not only misleading, it was an invasion of privacy. It was also leaked at an opportunistic time and swayed the outcome of the election. To be frank, this dishonest, unethical, and opportunistic leak was

a large part of the reason I resigned from the SA. Yes, we should hold our elected officials accountable for their actions, but the comment that led to Jeremy Rosenberg’s resignation was made in a private, PRE-only GroupMe chat that was not intended for the public. As a student body, we have created a culture where we pressure students into resigning from elected positions based on one insensitive comment as opposed to looking at their overall records, which may be otherwise clean. My first SA meeting as a Hillside rep was the one where Dillon Schade resigned as president. Both of my two semesters were plagued by the SA being accused of racism. The relationship between the SA and the student body has been contentious, to say the least. Congress representatives are intended to represent the students, but a large amount of students do not vote in SA elections. Instead, they choose to make their voices heard only when criticizing representatives. If a person does not vote in an election, at any level, or only decides to participate in their government when controversy ensues, they are selectively involved in democracy. This should not be taken as seriously as involvement by people that vote and participate wholeheartedly in the electoral process. While I know there are people

who think I resigned because I couldn’t handle my elected position, that is untrue. I have been volunteering on local and national campaigns since I was a high school graduate spending a year in New York City on Helen Rosenthal’s grassroots City Council campaign and then serving as a constituent services intern in her district office. I can handle being involved in government when I think that government is being held to reasonable standards by its constituents. These standards should apply to elected officials in all levels of government, whether it is student, local, state, or national. Dillon Schade and Jeremy Rosenberg, by being forced to resign, were not held to reasonable standards by the student body; they were held to impossible ones. Zero tolerance standards and the desire to have a student government where it serves as a safe space for the student body, even in offthe-record messages, are impossible unless people are silenced. Part of our right to freedom of speech is allowing for dissenting opinions without punishing and publicly shaming those who hold them. The Student Association, as well as the larger Binghamton University community, should start opening sanctioned spaces where debate is not only safe, but welcomed. Without this, the campus climate will continue to be full of divisiveness as opposed to encouraging unity.

Their World is Collapsing, By Max Newman Ours is Being Built


n the day after President Donald Trump won, shockwaves were felt around the world. Much of the liberal world was in shock, agony and despair. Many on the Left questioned how Donald Trump could have possibly defeated their coronated queen, Hillary Clinton, and many called for “constructive and open conversations” about how to move forward after such a traumatic turn of events. However, to those on the nationalist right, Donald Trump’s victory was, of course, an incredibly welcomed and celebrated upset. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s populist National Front, iconically hailed Trump’s victory by saying, “Their world is collapsing, ours is being built”. In my opinion, Le Pen’s statement could not be more true. Marine Le Pen is right (she usually is) that the world of liberalism is collapsing and the world of right wing populism is being built. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to realize that this is happening. Since 2010, right wing populism (the notion of putting your country first above all else and fighting back against neoconservative/liberal elitism) has grown rapidly in both the United States and across Europe. Nationalist parties from National Front in France to AfD in Germany to the Swedish Democrats in Sweden have skyrocketed in the polls, largely thanks to the European migrant crisis. Additionally, populist leaders have become heads of state



THEIR WORLD IS COLLAPSING in countries such as Hungary, Poland, Australia and now, the United States of America. When we dig deeper, however, we need to look at not just the fact that this is happening, but why. Rod Little of the BBC says in an impassioned video, “And when the penny drops, liberals will realize the true magnitude of 2016. Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and the huge growth of populist movements across Europe isn’t simply a case of uneducated, bigoted untermensch sticking it to the liberal elite out of stupidity or spite. It has to do with a huge paradigm shift away from the vapid liberalism that has kept the poorest of us poor and which has caused misery and mayhem in the Middle East and beyond. 2016 was momentous, similar to 1968 but it was the conservative reaction against the identity politics and infantile leftism running amok over the past few decades. This paradigm shift has been a long time coming.” Just like Marine Le Pen, Rod Little is right. Right wing populism has grown quicker than anyone could have imagined. I know that I could have never imagined the ideology would be as strong as it is today after Obama’s 2012 re-election. I tell this story to a lot of people often now that President Trump has been elected. Three years ago, I asked my father whether a patriotic, unafraid and non-PC candidate in the mold of a British man with a funny sounding name (his name happened to be Nigel Farage, who I barely knew at the time) could ever become President of the United States. My dad told me no, because America is “too politically correct and the pendulum has swung to the point where the GOP can only win if it nominates moderates.” I believed him, and with this logic, supported Marco Rubio from April 2015 until July 2015, when I started supporting Trump and never looked back. Over three years later, I’m glad to say that my dad’s theory has been proven wrong. Donald Trump’s incredible election to the presidency didn’t just remake the Republican Party, his upset win did something much bigger. Donald Trump’s victory, all thanks to us “deplorables,” brought right wing nationalism back from total obscurity. Before Donald Trump’s victory, right wing populism in America found itself on the fringes. While it has been growing quickly in Europe, the movement was still on the fringes of the mainstream right wing. The Republican Party was largely dominated by its now dying establishment wing of big business supporting, free trade advocating, mass immigration loving moderates who did everything to support Jeb Bush and John Kasich in the primaries. A smaller, yet vocal minority of Tea Party conservatives ranging from Ted Cruz and Mark Levin to Justin Amash and Glenn Beck supported small government libertarianism, and it is the Tea Party anger which would eventually propel Trump to the nomination. Before the days of Breitbart, and Michael Savage talking about nationalism and the need to restore American greatness, there was Pat Buchanan in the 1990s. As I have been reading Breitbart and listening to Michael Savage since 2012, I have been wondering if their views of America would ever come true. I never genuinely believed that their version of America - an America of patriotism, traditional values and a country which actually struck fear into our enemies - would ever happen again. I was certain that our best days were behind us until the greatest upset in presidential history happened on November 8, 2016. Now, Donald Trump is President and the forgotten man



BINGHAMTONREVIEW.COM and woman will be forgotten no longer, and a genuine nationalist who vows to put America First is the most powerful man on the planet. The Republican Party has been largely remade in President Trump’s image, as Trump advisor Stephen Moore correctly noted when Moore told Congressional Republicans, “Just as Reagan converted the GOP into a conservative party, Trump has converted the GOP into a populist working-class party. The GOP is no longer the party of Reagan. We can scream and whine all we want but this is the new reality.” Stephen Moore’s comments surprised many GOP lawmakers in Congress, and unfortunately, it’s not shocking that GOP lawmakers are surprised. Republican lawmakers in Congress just don’t get that the GOP is no longer the party of Reagan, as the days of small government conservatism are probably over, just as Moore said. Now, the Republican Party is becoming more of a populist party, as we can see this through Trump’s willingness to withdraw from the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA, as well as many Republican voters’ views to cut Medicare or Social Security, even while the current crop of lawmakers desire this. The Republican Party was radically transformed in 2016 from the party of big business and country club elites to a party of voters on the populist right, but this transition, which has been a long time coming, can only truly manifest itself if the GOP electorate makes the transition happen. The Republican Party has a golden opportunity under President Trump to redefine itself and truly cement itself as a party of right wing populism. We have the chance to build up our new world as a world of putting America and its people first, espousing unabashed patriotism and caring for the forgotten Americans of struggling Rust Belt town, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and not cutting off their Medicare or Social Security, and the chance to finally bring back strong borders. Our new party has the chance to follow in the footsteps of our European associates in Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and Frauke Petry and actually break away from the neoconservatism which repelled so many in the 2012 election. We must realize as an ideological movement that their leftist world is crumbling, and our world is being built. This is happening in both Brussels and in Washington. Like all things, change takes hard work and dedication. It’s up to us, the voters, to make sure this new party of Trump and the new American political landscape gets built, because most Republican politicians in Congress are still stuck on a sinking ship of old ideas such as privatizing Social Security and expanding H1B visas. We need to make sure the new Republican Party gets built and more importantly, that President Trump’s vision of America First takes shape. The exact same thing goes in countries from France and the Netherlands to Germany and Sweden with their respective populist movements. It’s up to us, the right wing electorate of both America and Europe, to make this dream a reality. President Trump said it best himself in his inauguration speech by saying, “We must think big and dream even bigger. In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving. We will no longer accept weak politicians who are all talk and no action -- constantly complaining but never doing anything about it. The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action.” Now is the hour of action. Let’s not let our opportunity go to waste.

Vol. XXIX, Issue VI



Thoughts From a Past Editor By Michael Lombardi


nce upon a time I served as Editor in Chief of the Review, and before that a writer and executive board member. During my tenure of editor of the publication I was most proud of being able to contribute to the system of free speech and discourse we all hold dear. While my personal leanings are of a libertarian, conservative slant, I did not hesitate to publish articles from the whole spectrum of viewpoints for this reason. A key part of running a journal of opinion is to always be receptive to new ones. If I felt an article had merit and encouraged its readers to think, I would happily print it. I am deeply troubled however by how free speech and discourse seem recently under assault more than ever, especially in the collegiate world. This is a trend I began to notice during my days with the Review, but lately it has metastasized into something far more sinister. Back then conservative groups brought several speakers to Binghamton’s campus who weren’t particularly popular with some of the far left-leaning members of the student body. I remember during the presentation of one speaker, Daniel Pipes, students trying to break down the doors to the hall in which he was speaking to interrupt his presentation. I also remember the door of the Review office being vandalized with spray paint soon after we had released an issue. Now these events were annoyances more than anything else, but once again came to illustrate a disturbing trend: that of interrupting, sometimes violently so, people exercising their rights to speech in order to suppress them. On the night of February 1, 2017 this trend reached a terrifying climax. Notorious Breitbart editor, internet troll and alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos was to give a speech at UC Berkeley. By now you must have seen the awful images of rioting, the smashing of windows, the looting of businesses, and finally, acts of arson. Of their own merit these are disgusting, shameful acts which need to be

punished under the full power of the law, but their real goal is something far more insidious: the suppression of speech through violence and intimidation. Now I am not a big fan of Milo or of his often abrasive and obnoxious antics, but to violently stop him from speaking to an audience willing to listen sickens me to my very core. Freedom of expression is the thing which we hold most dear as Americans; it is the thing I personally held in the highest regard when running this publication and we should be terrified that it is under assault in such a manner.

“Our young college men and women deserve better! They deserve to form their own opinions, to be introduced to ideas from all arenas.” No matter how unpopular a speaker or a topic may be, their right to speak their mind should be unequivocal. Violence and destruction in the name of censorship and suppression is a tired old trope which has been used too many times by some of the worst elements of humanity. Furthermore, it is even more frightening that these tactics have been working. Universities around the country have been cancelling appearances by controversial speakers such as Milo out of fear that this will happen to them. I say that the day we live in fear of

speeches and ideas is the day we forfeit everything our nation stands for, everything countless Americans have fought and died for over two centuries. Our young college men and women deserve better! They deserve to form their own opinions, to be introduced to ideas from all arenas. Censorship and suppression of speech through violence has no place in a free society. I would like to close with an excerpt of my editorial of my very first issue of the Review in November 2010, describing the course the publication would chart under my tenure. I feel these words need to be repeated now more than ever. “We make no apologies for who we are and what we stand for: a journal of conservative and libertarian thought. However, this does not make us afraid of the other side, as discourse is what makes our society great. So send us your thoughts and opinions positive or negative. Fresh new ideas are the lifeblood of a publication. Rigidity and stagnation its mortal enemy.” We cannot stand for the abolition of the free exchange of ideas in any manner. I would fight till my last breath so an individual with different views from my own would be allowed the right to say them. For all of us who hold our freedom of expression to the utmost, it is our solemn duty to do the same. Most Sincerely, Michael M. Lombardi Editor in Chief 2010-2011





Our Token Republican Isn’t a Republican By Luke Kusick


n honor of trashing the ever-growing pseudo-intellectual right wing and dwelling further and further into neo-reactionary ideology, it is time to take on the token of everything that conservative want to be and everything that it isn’t in one man. Since it is Black History Month - also sometimes known as Black Fake History Month due to the recent phenomenon of giving the credit of inventions to black inventors when they did not actually invent the device, i.e. peanut butter was not invented by George Washington Carver - it is time to take on a threat to the right wing that has not been called out, and that threat is Martin Luther King Jr. That man, whom everyone on the left and the right want to take credit for, was NOT a Republican and is in no sense of the word right wing. Martin Luther King Jr. is sometimes revered as an agent of change and the epitome of how an individual can make a difference in society. Martin Luther King Jr. was a serial adulterer who had a taste for prostitutes, and was also a serial plagiarizer. Even his doctoral dissertation is now known to be wildly plagiarized! According to “The Martin Luther King Papers”, in King’s dissertation “only 49 percent of sentences in the section on Tillich contain five or more words that were King’s own....”! The lack of respect for intellectual property and intellectual integrity would result in immediate expulsion in any modern academic setting and would force any individual who was so blatantly intellectually dishonest to hide his head in shame for the remainder of his life. Ultimately his lack of honor is not what simply excludes him from the glorious and honorable right wing, nor is his lack of respect for intellectual property necessarily a reason to banish him from the right. Rather, it was the ideas that he held and the laws that he wanted to impose upon America that ultimately and permanently side him with the left. Martin Luther King Jr.’s civ-



il rights movement ultimately led to one of the most destructive and reprehensible bills to be passed, which King glorified: the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill effectively limited what a private employer could do with his private business and his employees. The law effectively tarnished the rights of any individual to do with his business and his property what he pleased which is an essential tenet of right wing political philosophy and ideology. This law meant that an individual business owner is barred from discrimination on any account. I’m not going to get into a huge argument over discrimination, but essentially banning any form of discrimination is an attack on how any individual can handle their property. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to attack the institution of private property in a way that would make his people feel more equal amongst private owners rather than among the federal and state government, which are not allowed to discriminate because their property is technically owned by all the taxpayers. Since this is the case, then one cannot at all agree with the notion that Martin Luther King Jr. was a right-winger. Besides his blatant disrespect for property rights of private citizens, Martin Luther King Jr. was also a close ally with communists within his movement. In fact, communists and members of the Communist Party of America were leaders within the civil rights movement, influencing King’s opinions about America as he regarded it as the biggest perpetrator of violence. The Communist Party of America was clearly molding Martin Luther King Jr.’s ideology with their anti-American influence. As reported by a pro-black group, the Kwanza Report, he stated that “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” was America. His allegiance with the left, specifically the anti-American, anti-capitalist left, proves without a reasonable doubt that he was not and would never have been

on the right. Now to address the common myth that Martin Luther King Jr. used to perpetuate the idea that he was committed to nonviolence and that as a leader he was beyond any fault. In actuality, Martin Luther King Jr. was perfectly fine with using violence in order to force his idea of civil rights down America’s throat. Martin Luther King Jr., when talking about the actions and ideas of Malcolm X who was a violent black separatist who wanted nothing to do with White America, said, “Our people have made the mistake of confusing the methods with the objectives. As long as we agree on objectives, we should never fall out with each other just because we believe in different methods, or tactics, or strategy.” Now when it comes to violence, it is clear that violence is a tool mostly used by the left. Even in the modern era, we can see that the left constantly employs violence as a means to an end, whereas historically right wing individuals do not, or at least to a lesser extent. Now is the time to throw down this false idol of the right wing and stop appealing to the name of a morally deficient dead man. Besides leading the end of Jim Crow South, a huge achievement of course, he is not a glorious right-winger who is a model for the modern day.As a moral individual he lacks all sides, from constant extramarital affairs to academic dishonesty on levels that would never be tolerated in any modern university. As a political leader, he had no respect for property owners, he allied with communists, relied on anti-American and anti-capitalist propaganda, and was pro-violence if necessary. As a proud member of the far right, it is time to push the middle ground right-wingers and Republicans to the far right by acknowledging that the man Martin Luther King Jr., who may have even been registered a Republican, was Republican in name only.

Vol. XXIX, Issue VI



The Conservative Example of Dr. King By Patrick McAuliffe


his past month of January, we took time off from everyday life (and started classes a day later than I originally anticipated) to honor the life’s work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil rights activists to this day look up to Dr. King’s movement for integration and civil rights as a model for championing their own modern causes. How well they follow through on that example is up for debate, but the intentions are there. Luke argues that Dr. King is a Republican In Name Only, but I think this RINO still has something to offer conservatives in terms of providing a positive symbol for the right way to participate in the democratic process. The segregation and racism that Dr. King opposed was state-sponsored and state-enforced segregation. This was first passed through the gradual Democrat infiltration of Southern legislatures and the enactment of “Jim Crow laws” in the decades following Reconstruction. If Luke takes offense at the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its regulation on private businesses’ actions, he should also understand Dr. King’s motivation for seeking to change a different kind of business regulation in the Jim Crow laws. In fact, it was a private business’ resistance to these laws that led to their strengthening, in the landmark case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The doctrine of “separate but equal” would have doubled the cost to the East Louisiana Railroad Company for two sets of train cars for blacks and whites. This, in conjunction with the efforts of the Citizens’ Committee in Louisiana to purposefully place a ⅞ white, ⅛ black man (namely Homer Plessy) in the whites-only car to protest the discrimination,1 showed how private individuals, groups, and businesses, not the state, are the real catalysts for change in a society. As a civil rights leader with a non state-sanctioned movement - often getting into violent clashes with state enforcers like the police - Dr. King would certainly agree that this is the case. Luke brings up many criticisms of Dr. King that can be easily debunked by a quick search on Snopes. (The following evidence is being cited from “Four Things About King” on The “glorious and honorable right wing” is certainly worthy of using Dr. King as a moral example. Dr. King’s plagiarism of his academic dissertations does exist, but the academic committee that investigated such plagiarism did not decide to revoke his doctorate. They claimed that “despite its flaws, the dissertation ‘makes an intelligent contribution to scholarship’ ” ( In the Tillich work that Luke cites as plagiarized, that paper written by Dr. King was titled “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman”. King’s plagiarism was direct comparisons of these philosophers’ ideas about God to his own, and merely leaving out the citation of direct quotes and passages ( The committee reviewing Dr. King’s plagiarisms (convened in 1991, much closer to the “modern academic field” than his own time) did not consider them serious enough to bring charges for revoking his doctorate. The attacks on Dr. King’s political and sexual character that Luke also brings up can again be debunked by the same

Snopes article and testimony by associates close to Dr. King. Fraternization with Communists, specifically Stanley Levison and Jack O’Dell, advisors to Dr. King and a branch manager of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference respectively, was a major scandal at the time of King’s work. Levison was taped and monitored by the FBI for the duration of his role in King’s movement, but the agency could observe no evidence that Levison was still involved with the Communist Party at that time. Levison claimed to have left the Party in the late 1950s, before his involvement with Dr. King. O’Dell’s reputation was slandered when the FBI planted stories in conservative-leaning papers that he had ties to the Communists, and in response Dr. King publicly stated that O’Dell was no longer in the employ of the SCLC. After it was revealed that O’Dell had not in fact been fired by King, O’Dell wrote a private letter to King disavowing his ties to the Communist Party. He was fired from his position in the SCLC anyway because the vast majority of the public still perceived him as a Communist and Dr. King did not want to endanger the reputation or validity of his movement. In regards to Dr. King’s alleged lucrative taste for prostitutes and extramarital affairs, it is for the most part hyperbole. Ralph Abernathy, the successor of Dr. King as the head of the SCLC, admits that they “understood and believed in the biblical prohibition against sex outside of marriage. It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation” ( Abernathy cites Dr. King’s courteous manner with women and his easy, pleasant company as possible reasons why such a temptation might have been hard for him. Dr. King may seem like a hypocrite, but as a Christian reverend, he believed in forgiveness from sin and ultimately redemption. As Abernathy states, Dr. King “was...a man who attracted women, even when he didn’t intend to,” and if his intentions were in conflict with his desires, it is only a sign of a willing spirit but a weak flesh ( Although Martin Luther King, Jr. never endorsed a Republican candidate or showed any sign that he consistently voted Republican, what he stood for is more than worthy of conservatism. Right-wing fascism and the authoritarian left would naturally take issue with Dr. King - civil disobedience over national cohesion, chances for forgiveness over strict punitive measures, attempts to find common ground over “us-versusthem” - but the modern conservative can comfortably claim Dr. King’s fight against an unjust establishment and his focus on content of character over color of skin as worthy examples of informed, active, and principled citizenship. References: Reckdahl, Katy, “Plessy and Ferguson unveil plaque today marking their ancestors’ actions”, The Times-Picayune, 11 February 2009. Mikkelson, David. “Four Things About King”, 15 January 2017. 1





Shock and Outrage: Should Have Seen It Coming… By Dylan Klein L ately I’ve had a lot of trouble focusing on schoolwork. I’ll be sitting at my desk attempting to read ancient Russian literature, all the while casting sidelong glances at Hunter Thompson’s “Gonzo Papers, Vol. 1: The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales From a Strange Time.” All of a sudden, I find myself cuddled in bed pouring over the pages of “The Great Shark Hunt”, Russian literature no longer demanding any of my attention. Thompson’s prose is singular, feral, and insightful. His anti-establishment persona and the ferocity with which he condemns Richard Nixon, the political and journalistic establishment, and the Kentucky Derby is a hell of a lot more fun to read than the story of Vladimir discussing religion with his emissaries. Every time a celebrity says she can’t believe or understand how America could elect Donald Trump as president, or that she is shocked and outraged by the result of the election, I respond by getting angry and frustrated. Once the initial frustration wears away, I become deeply sad because I feel bad for her. She is more out of touch with everyday Americans and American culture than she realizes. The election of Donald Trump shouldn’t have surprised anybody who cared to take a deep look at our value system and social tendencies. Americans have a rebellious streak, a need to reject authority, that originates all the way back to the American Revolution and our split from Great Britain. Beyond just rebellion and rejection of authority, Americans fetishize the naughty and the badass, or anything that gets the dick hard and the adrenaline pumping. When I put down my ancient Russian literature and choose to read Hunter Thompson instead, I am rebelling against authority in my own way on a small scale, and reading something a little less innocent. I feel confident enough to say that every American rebels and rejects authority in his own way. The guy funneling beer down his gullet



at the frat party might be rebelling against strict, overprotective parents. The obese woman might be challenging society’s definition of beauty or the constant sexualization of women’s bodies. The kid from the ghetto buys Vineyard Vines to reject standard ghetto garb. The election of Trump is just a larger scale version of the rebellious acts Americans partake in on a daily basis, such as my decision to read Thompson instead of Russian

“The election of Donald Trump shouldn’t have surprised anybody who cared to take a deep look at our value system and social tendencies.” chronicles. The millions of Americans who voted for Trump were exasperated by Hillary Clinton and the political establishment. It was only natural for them to vote for Trump. Celebrities might argue that one can’t justify Trump’s election by comparing it to what they perceive as individual, small, and harmless acts of rebellion, except they’d be wrong. The frat guy can cause great harm both to himself and people around him by getting blasted. Imagine if he was too lazy to take the bus back home and decided to drive and ended up killing pedestrians. This is not to say that Trump’s election is not dangerous either because it is. Who knows what kind of power trip Trump will have when he finally has nukes at his fingertips? But the point is that both are dangerous and both are a result of American’s rebellious spirit. It is hypocritical of celebrities to bitch about Trump but not spend just as much effort asking why society allows immature, not fully developed, and hormonal teenagers to guzzle as much booze and get twisted on as many illegal drugs as possible. It may be difficult to admit, but Americans love doing things that are dangerous, wild, sexy, and either illegal or teetering on the line of illegality.

Las Vegas is a cultural icon, one that represents the untamed part of American society, where people go to fuck, smoke, drink, gamble, and party to excess. Millions of Americans listen to rap and hip hop, types of music that glorify, violence, crime, the pursuit of money above all else, and the mistreatment and sexualization of women. All this goes to show that Americans had it in them to vote for Trump for president and craved the adrenaline rush and the immense pleasure that doing so gave them. I believe that the feeling of pleasure somebody gets when snorting coke off of a prostitute’s body is the exact same as the joy somebody else felt as a result of voting for Trump. However, that is not to say that voting for Trump or doing lines of coke are good ideas. It just means that celebrities and other people who don’t understand or are outraged and shocked by Trump’s election shouldn’t be taken seriously when they protest Trump, because they should also be calling for the destruction of Las Vegas as we know it and refusing to listen to rap and hip hop. Maybe I’ve been too harsh on celebrities and those who are genuinely upset about Trump’s election. They have some legitimate concerns about a Trump presidency. I just think it’s lazy and ignorant of them to say that they are shocked and outraged that America would elect Trump, considering our natural rebelliousness and our obsession with the naughty and badass. It’s very much like a pimp getting shocked when a friend offers him drugs, “Gosh, no I’d never do drugs.” When the pimp has been living a life full of vice, it doesn’t make sense that this would be his reaction. Yet this is the same reaction that these celebrities give when Trump gets elected despite the fact that hip hop and Vegas have been around and doing their damage for decades now. Uh oh, time to get back to my Russian literature homework. Or actually, I’ll probably just end up reading “The Great Shark Hunt.”

Vol. XXIX, Issue VI


Global Gag Reflex


By Kayla Jimenez


consistently contentious issue is publicly funded access to reproductive services. From the Women’s March(es), to the viral photo of Trump signing the executive action reestablishing the Global Gag Rule surrounded by men (God forbid!), women’s “issues” have been all over the news. People are all up in arms about a group of seven men telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies – yet the executive action is not actually telling women what they can or can’t do with their bodies! Rather, it is determining what receivers of federal dollars can and can’t do with the money (which, btw, is a totally fair thing for government officials to do, whether they have penises or not). This executive action doesn’t limit the rights of women, it limits the ways that federal aid can be employed internationally. On the surface, it seems like a dick move. If federal aid is already being serviced internationally, why not have it fund abortions? Personally, I see it as some pro-life bull, but let’s not get into that whole argument (this time). The Global Gag Rule does not make abortion or providing services related to reproductive health illegal nor does it entirely prevent abortions from occurring. According to the Engender Health Organization, the “Global Gag Rule” requires that any overseas organization receiving U.S. aid not have anything to do with abortion. This isn’t my favorite thing, but it’s (thankfully) not the end of reproductive health rights for women domestically and internationally… it’s only the beginning. There are three things that can happen: 1. If an organization receiving funding wants to continue to provide abortions, it will unfortunately lose U.S. aid – which sucks, but it likely receives aid from other sources, and will be able to continue to administer abortion services, just without U.S. aid. 2. If an organization turns down aid in order to continue providing

abortions, there will be more federal dollars floating around that can potentially be applied to other uses. 3. If an overseas organization decides to accept the aid, they can still provide sexual education, birth control, contraceptives, STI treatment, and the works with the money; the only thing they can’t do is discuss or provide abortions. Bear with me while I try to explain why this may actually be a good thing. Providing abortions in poorer countries (which is likely where the aid is going) that do not have extensive access to general health care is costly. Surgical abortions are an invasive medical procedure, requiring a very sterile and safe environment. A regularly maintained clinic would be necessary to perform abortion procedures, and establishing and maintaining a clinic requires a lot of planning, infrastructure, and is both expensive and risky. If the people living in the area where aid is being invested are not accepting of abortions, the clinic may be attacked, women visiting the clinic may be at risk, and the entire investment of aid may be destroyed/wasted due to local intolerance of abortions being provided by foreign NGOs. Let’s say that instead, abortions were to only be administered using the pill (a medical abortion). This would somewhat eliminate the need for a clinic, but some sort of center would still have to exist. Although the pill seems simple and worry-free, it’s not. It basically forces a miscarriage to occur, so women who take the pill will bleed heavily and will likely have tissue matter exiting the body as well. If these pills are administered in a community where abortions are disapproved of socially and/or culturally, legal or not, the women are at risk of being verbally or physically attacked should someone discover their abortion, be it a family member, friend, whoever. If aid were to be used mainly for reproductive/sexual education, STD/ STI treatment, birth control, and

contraceptive distribution, the money could be used more efficiently and with less risk. More women could be safely provided with these other resources if funding is primarily focused on the other less costly aspects of providing reproductive and sexual health services. Providing abortion services likely consumes a majority of funding while putting women and clinics at risk. With the Global Gag Rule in place, organizations can focus on utilizing their resources on other portions of sexual and reproductive health services, which may actually yield positive results. In all honesty, this policy does seem to be some sort of tactic to appease pro-life individuals and groups, but maybe it has some logic behind it. If US aid is already being provided to overseas organizations and NGOs, I don’t see why that aid can’t fund any abortions. Some organizations may turn down the aid, returning the money to be used by the federal government domestically, but the government would probably waste the money somehow anyways… In the end, this is overall a shitty policy. However, I at least tried to portray it in a more positive light. I’m personally more concerned with defunding Planned Parenthood domestically, because private clinics typically function just as well as Planned Parenthood, if not better, and do so without causing unnecessary controversy over what the government should and shouldn’t fund or consuming tons of taxpayer money. Amazing how that works, huh! All in all, try not to get too depressed by headlines emphasizing how many more women will die because of the Gag Rule. Hopefully, the rule winds up allowing U.S. aid to be used more effectively in providing contraceptives, STI treatment, and sexual health education abroad, and that there will be other countries and donors funding and providing abortions.





Tipping the Scalia Part Two: Gorsuch and the Kangaroo Court By David Keptsi


n Tuesday January 31st, in an alleged “grand display of showmanship,” Donald Trump announced his nominee for the Supreme Court. Conservatives were elated: a constitutional textualist in the vein of former Justice Scalia with a very solid resume. Certain Democrats, on the other hand, were already marching outside the Supreme Court with mad-lib style protest signs ready to condemn whomever Trump nominated, regardless of what they knew about them. This has metaphorically thrown Gorsuch from the Supreme Court to the kangaroo court of public opinion. In the spirit of due process, I’d like to provide a profile on who exactly Gorsuch is and address some concerns about his nomination. Gorsuch obtained his B.A. at Columbia University where he helped start a libertarian/conservative paper (totally a knock off of the arguably more prestigious Binghamton Review, in my opinion). He then obtained his J.D. at Harvard Law School in 1991, where he was classmates with the now indefinitely vacationing Barack Obama. Not content with simply a law degree, Gorsuch went on to obtain a Ph.D. at Oxford University for research on assisted suicide and Euthanasia. Impressive, right? And we didn’t even get to his career as a private lawyer and 10th Circuit judge yet. If I was to elaborate on every position Gorsuch has taken in his long career, I’d be here for a while, but several key positions reveal how he may act once on the Supreme Court. For the one-issue protester, I shall label them in bold so you can ignore everything else. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: As previously mentioned, Gorsuch researched Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide for his Ph.D. Unfortunately for those in favor of the practice, Gorsuch has come out against it, claiming “all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons



is always wrong.” Abortion and Contraception: While Gorsuch has not made a public statement as to his views on abortion, many are already claiming that he will come out against the practice. However, this may not be the case, especially if Gorsuch adopts the view of those in the pro-choice circle; in which fetus’s before the stage of viability are not considered human lives. Notably, Gorsuch gave a concurring opinion favoring Hobby Lobby in the highly publicized Hobby Lobby case involving contraception. Gorsuch sided with the company on the basis of religious freedom. According to Gorsuch, “...all of us face the problem of complicity. All of us must answer for ourselves whether and to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. For some, religion provides an essential source of guidance both about what constitutes wrongful conduct and the degree to which those who assist others in committing wrongful conduct themselves bear moral culpability. The Green family members are among those who seek guidance from their faith on these questions. Understanding that is the key to understanding this case.” (The Green family owns Hobby Lobby) Note this does not include his views on whether contraception should be legal or not, he simply believes those who adhere to religious views which are against contraception should not be forced to be complicit in its availability. Of course, many liberals are strongly against this notion, so I guess they do have something to complain about. States’ Rights: In an era where Democrats suddenly seem to care about states rights while Republicans seem to have stopped, Gorsuch has shown preference to the rights of states vs. the rights of the federal government. One of the

Scalia 2.0 comes with a chiseled Jaw, a piercing gaze, and a set of rockin’ conservative credentials

ways he has done so is by disputing the dormant commerce clause, a clause that while not actually present in the Constitution has been previously inferred by the courts. This clause allows state laws to be declared unconstitutional if they disturb interstate commerce too greatly. While I understand the states’ rights basis of his argument, this decision would allow for the state of Colorado to impose regulations favoring corporations in their state over those in other states, a form of corporate cronyism that makes his stance a mixed bag. However, as states already do this quite frequently, the focus on states’ rights may be more important in today’s more authoritarian regime. Hopefully, if Gorsuch remains ideologically consistent, he may become a balance against federal government overreach. Trump: So this isn’t really about Trump, but it kind of is, considering democrats are trying to paint Gorsuch out as some sort of Trump lapdog. In his concurrence in the case Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, Gorsuch offered a critique of the Chevron Deference legal doc-

Vol. XXIX, Issue VI


trine named after the case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In 1984, this rule states that when dealing with an ambiguous statute, the Supreme Court should defer to the interpretation of the executive branch agency that is responsible for enforcing that statute. And guess who controls executive branch agencies? That’s right, our newly elected president: Donald J. Trump! While normally Chevron Deference would likely be supported by Democrats who pay no heed to overreach of executive authority during their administration, it seems like separation of powers is the new fad amongst the youth. And if you’re worried about “narcs” coming to your door under Trump’s authoritarian command, worry no more. In Gorsuch’s dissent in United States v. Carloss, he argued that the police did not have the implied consent to enter a property full of “no trespassing” signs and knock on the front door of the house for a warrantless “knock and talk.” In this dissent, Gorsuch complains about such overreach: “A homeowner may post as many No Trespassing signs as she wishes. She might add a wall or a medieval-style moat, too. Maybe razor wire and battlements and mantraps besides. Even that isn’t enough to revoke the state’s right to enter.” Gorsuch then states that this is clearly not the intent of the Founders in framing the Constitution. Demo-

What an atrocity! We have to stop (insert name here) from trampling on our values!


Harry Reid and Harry Truman, both supporters of the nuclear option

crats should learn to accept the boon they’ve been given. If Trump does end up becoming the fascist autocrat he is made out to be, at least we can look to Gorsuch not to let us fade silently into the night. What about disregarding everything I just said and trying to stop the nomination of Gorsuch anyway? Senate Minority Leader Chuck “Fake Tears” Schumer has gone on record saying, “Make no mistake, Senate Democrats will not simply allow but require an exhaustive, robust, and comprehensive debate on Judge Gorsuch’s fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice.” But if there’s one thing Democrats should know is that they have absolutely no way of preventing the upcoming nomination, and it’s partially their fault. As of now, there are 52 Republican senators and 46 Democratic senators with 60 votes required to confirm Gorsuch. Normally, Republicans would utilize their full resources to convince 8 Democrats to side with them. However, if all else fails, Republicans possess something called the Nuclear Option, and Trump has an itchy trigger finger. The Nuclear Option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the presiding officer of the Senate (Vice President Mike Pence) to make a ruling on the validity of a Senate rule such as the amount of votes needed to end a Supreme Court nominee filibuster. Once the ruling is made, they need a simple majority of

51 votes to permanently change the votes needed to confirm a nominee to another simple majority of 51 as opposed to 60. Sucks right? Well, the Nuclear Option was recently used by the Democrats on November 21, 2013 in order to push several of Obama’s executive orders and non-Supreme Court judiciary appointments, marking the first actual use of a threat that was conceived in 1913 and supported by Nixon when he served as Vice President. Let me take this moment to make a joke about Democrats being the ones to choose the “nuclear option” given that Truman (a Democrat) decided to drop the atomic bomb. If Democrats in the Senate push Republicans on this confirmation, the Republicans have Trump’s full-fledged support in using the nuclear option. If Democrats put on a showy fight for their constituents but ultimately accept Gorsuch, they may prevent the rules of nomination from being changed, at least until the next Judge dies or retires. If Democrats can make it until the midterm elections and muster up enough support (but mostly outrage at the Republican majority) to win back the Senate, they might be able to actually do something about Trump’s future Supreme Court picks. Alas, there’s likely to be a large degree of political posturing from both sides anyway. The nomination hearings should begin in 6 weeks and I’m already preparing myself for the show.




Welcome to Hypocri-City


By Patrick McAuliffe


hilosophical, ethical, and political consistency is something everyone should strive to attain in their lives. If it is lacking, one’s ideology quickly falls apart under the slightest scrutiny, and a sound system of beliefs allows for the clearest debates where both sides can fully understand each other’s position. The two major political parties and movements of our day, the liberal Democrats and the conservative Republicans, are too often guilty of this hypocrisy. How such logically flawed politics became so widespread is a very nuanced question, one I hope to show in due time. Because this is a more conservative publication and you’re probably here for the right reasons (pun intended), I want to start by pointing out some fallacies in today’s liberalism. I took notice of some recent rhetoric among my liberal feminist friends, especially during the Women’s March protesting the inauguration of Donald Trump. Right-wing and conservative women ridiculed the march for ignoring the various abuses committed against women in other parts of the world while asserting that the march seemed pointless for women in America, who already have the right to vote, make choices, and determine their own life path. These conservative women, well-spoken and respectful in their criticism of the march in most of their social media posts, were ridiculed and talked down to by responding third-wave feminist posts. The main issue that supporters of the Women’s March had with the critics of the march is the assertion that the activism and accomplishments of past feminist movements invalidated any right to criticize this new feminist movement, especially by women, who had benefitted from the actions of women from Susan B. Anthony to Margaret Sanger to Gloria Steinem. If this is an acceptable mode of thought for some liberals, modern discussions of Marxism should be obsolete. After much of the world has lived under a capitalist system for centuries, humanity has advanced farther and faster than ever before in matters of science, technology, and productive efficiency. Because of all these great things, should the negative consequences of capitalism be also ignored, after everything capitalism has done for people living in it? It’s no secret that race relations haven’t improved very much, if at all, over the last several years. There are genuine racists and bigots in America, but most of the people that are labeled this way (according to some liberals, people that voted for Trump) are moderate, upstanding citizens. Radical Islamic terrorism and violent Black Lives Matter protests too often make national news, and the customary battle lines are drawn, with right-wing ridicule and left-wing defensiveness. The latter side’s defense usually runs along the lines of “#NotAll(insert group here)”, which is logically correct. Just because one sees that “X is Y” (a BLM protest was violent, or Muslims were motivated to attack Brussels), does not necessarily mean that “All X is Y” (BLM as a movement stands for violent resistance, or Islam is a religion of war and violence). I recognize the hasty conclusions that many conservatives jump to during these times of crisis; I only ask that liberals hold themselves to the same standard.



“The people, the collective, seemed quite important at that time, when it was convenient to their own political interests. However, once the people have elected a left-leaning politician into office, the focus becomes on what that one person can do for everyone, how well they can centrally plan and organize their city or home district or state or nation.” When Brock Turner, a white rapist, gets an easy sentencing for his horrific act, or no white person today owns slaves or was responsible for the centuries of American slavery, try to avoid generalizing to say that whites will always receive vastly shorter sentencing disproportionate to their crime or that modern whites benefit from slavery outlawed more than a century ago. These types of identity politics have the strange dichotomy between encouraging individuals to be more than what their group is portrayed as in the media, and compartmentalizing all people into a specific identity with its own set of expectations, unspoken rules, and cultural separation. As Bill Maher put it, “How dare you! Where do you think you are, some sort of melting pot?” I find this contradiction between advocating for the individual and an emphasis on a collective quite fascinating. It carries over to more than just race as well. In the wake of Trump’s victory, Democrats vocally opposed the anti-democratic Electoral College, giving Trump the presidency without the popular vote. The people, the collective, seemed quite important at that time, when it was convenient to their own political interests. However, once the people have elected a left-leaning politician into office, the focus becomes on what that one person can do for everyone, how well they can centrally plan and organize their city or home district or state or nation. College professors, media personalities, and other liberal intellectuals have an adverse reaction to any movement resembling populism - preferring instead to prescribe the economic and political direction of the nation from their own opinions - despite vehement complaints that the “will of the people” was violated should anyone with an opposing (right-wing) view assume power. Do the liberal cultural elites care about the values and struggles of the people, or do they exploit the need for them in the democratic process to further their own agendas? To change such fundamental fallacies in the thinking of so many who believe them is a monumental task, one that will not be completed anytime soon. Unlike many more belligerent conservatives and libertarians, I don’t mean offense by this article. If there is a way that these contradictions are reconciled, I would love to hear it and understand. In the next issue, I’ll be pointing out some fallacies in the conservative mode of thought, and tie both sides together with what I believe to be the main cause of the contradictions of both sides. Welcome to cloudy Hypocri-City, we hope you enjoy your stay!

Vol. XXIX, Issue VI



PP And the Left’s Secret Love of RaceBy Alex Carros Based Eugenics


n January 23rd, President Donald Trump reinstated the federal funding ban against global NGOS (non-governmental organizations) that provide abortions. This was not unexpected in the slightest and is merely the latest act in a decades long back-and-forth between Republican and Democratic administrations: Republicans place the ban, Democrats lift it, Republicans reinstate it, etc. However, many liberals correctly recognized that this decision acts as a sort of omen for more aggressive ones to come: namely, the fact that Planned Parenthood will lose all of its federal funding within the next two years. Progressives, including and especially feminists, are particularly fond of this organization. Apparently, the right to kill your children in the womb represents power or something. So, as you might expect, they’ve gone completely apoplectic over the idea that Planned Parenthood will no longer forcibly receive other people’s money and *GASP* that they’ll have to pay for their own abortions and birth control pills! All of the leftist rhetoric is now out in full force. Take your pick: Republicans are sexist, Republicans are all men making decisions about women’s bodies, Republicans hate the poor, Republicans are only interested in the unborn, yadda yadda yadda. Before I go on, let’s make something abundantly clear: no one is trying to take away your birth control, only the taxpayer (a.k.a, “other people’s money”) funding for it. Without Planned Parenthood, you will still have every right to go to your local CVS and obtain whatever contraception you want. Except for the fact, of course, that you’ll have to be an adult and pay for your own medical decisions. This concept applies to reproductive health, in general: if you want to be sexually active (protected or unprotected) then you must be responsible for your own actions and their potential consequences. In other words, don’t make other people pay for your sexual de-

cisions or, should the need arise, your “need” to kill your child in utero. The most interesting aspect of the left’s absolute adoration for Planned Parenthood is its worship of Margaret Sanger, the organization’s founder. Do you remember how Donald Trump had to for weeks repeatedly denounce and distance himself from the KKK wizard David Duke? How the media would paint Trump has a pseudo-Nazi for not automatically dismissing him? Well, that’s certainly not the case here. Margaret Sanger, in case you didn’t know, was an unashamed eugenicist. I know this gets tossed around a lot, but the Nazis were also fond of eugenics. It’s the incredibly malevolent idea that we should control the population by altering, or

“Now, this advocacy for population control alone would make Margaret quite evil, but it gets even worse: not only did she want certain “lesser” people to prevented from breeding, but those “lesser” people in question were in many cases African Americans.” eliminating, the reproduction of other “lesser” peoples. It is consciously depriving the world of human life for “the greater good.” Now, this advocacy for population control alone would make Margaret quite evil, but it gets even worse: not only did she want certain “lesser” people to prevented from breeding, but those “lesser” people in question were in many cases African Americans. Why else would she emphasize placing clinics in inner-city, predominantly black neighborhoods. Don’t believe me? Let’s see what the woman said herself:

“[Immigrants and the poor] are human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning... human beings who never should have been born.” “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan.” “Birth control is nothing more or less than…weeding out the unfit.” “We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” But no, it’s Trump who’s the Nazi, not the woman who openly called the poor human refuse undeserving of being born. It is here that we truly see the double standard of the liberal left; after all, if progressives didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all. Those of us who don’t want to pay for people’s sex nor for their children? Horrible neo-Nazis who hate women and the poor? A woman who unashamedly wants immigrants and poor black Americans to have less children for the purposes of racial cleansing? A misunderstood woman of her times, but still a heroine who young girls should aspire to. Fortunately for common moral decency, Planned Parenthood will have to rely on private funding to run their abortion and birth control mills. No longer will they take your hard-earned wages and use them to prevent “human weeds” from being born, or for the “mercy” that is killing an infant. A little introspection wouldn’t hurt the left either. Maybe before calling literally everyone who doesn’t agree with you a “Nazi” or “white supremacist” or “misogynist,” maybe take a good long look at the organizations and people you support. Oh, and a little personal financial responsibility wouldn’t hurt either.



Feb 8 2017 (Vol. XXIX Is. VI) - Binghamton Review  

Trump: America's goalkeeper?

Feb 8 2017 (Vol. XXIX Is. VI) - Binghamton Review  

Trump: America's goalkeeper?