In Defense of Columbus Day

Every year in October, Columbus Day is celebrated in several countries in The Americas as well as in Spain and Italy. However, in more recent decades there’s been increasing opposition to Columbus Day in favor of Indigenous Peoples’ Day. According to the Left’s narrative, Christopher Columbus arrival in the New World marked the beginning of one the largest genocides in human history. But was it really? The major problem with this assertion is that the vast majority of natives, some 75 to 95 percent, were killed by Old World diseases to which they had no immunity. While no less a tragedy, it does not qualify as a genocide. A genocide requires a calculated deliberate intent to exterminate a whole group of people. The Europeans were unaware that the natives had no immunity to Old World diseases, let alone how infectious diseases even worked. Germ Theory was not fully understood until the late nineteenth century. It should also be noted that in the United States, at least, there was never a government policy for extermination. On the contrary, you don’t set up reservations and inoculate the people you are trying to exterminate.

With the call to abolish Columbus Day in favor Indigenous People’s Day, there is an implication that Native Americans are more virtuous, deserving, and noble than their European counterparts. But is that true? The Left tends to romanticize Native Americans when highlighting acts of barbarism committed by Europeans. It’s true there were atrocities done to Native Americans, but that is only one side of the story. Guess what? Nothing the Europeans did was any different from what the natives themselves did. For instance, Native Americans conquered and enslaved other native peoples. Slavery was widely practiced in pre-Columbian America, just as it was universally practiced everywhere at the time. According to the Standard Cross-Cultural Files, at least thirty-nine pre-Columbian societies in North America alone practiced slavery, and it was no different from slavery practiced elsewhere. Indian slave masters had complete control to kill their slaves if they desired. A little known fact is that in the nineteenth century Native Americas also began to acquire black slaves. In fact, the Cherokee Indians took a number of black slaves with them when they were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma “Indian” Territory. In short, Native Americans had the same sins and vices as the Europeans, and even some they didn’t have. None more highlights this than the Aztec Indians.

The Aztecs had an occultic bloodlust that was unparalleled. Some historians estimate the Aztecs ritually sacrificed 50,000 people per year in a population area of four to five million. That equates to sacrificing one percent of their total population annually. These people were usually captives taken from neighboring Indian tribes. The manner in which these human sacrifices were done were particularly barbaric. Captives were taken to the top of a temple and laid upon a stone slab. The priest would then take a knife, plunge it into their chest, and pull out their still-beating heart. The bodies would then be dismembered, the torso kicked down the temple steps, and the limbs eaten. Their heads would be placed on a pole, and their skulls kept as trophies. Bernal Díaz del Castillo, who accompanied Cortés, witnessed more than one hundred thousand skulls stacked meticulously on top of each other, to which Aztec texts, frescoes, and archeology have confirmed. Most of the victims were men, but women and children were also sacrificed. Women would also have their hearts ripped out, but more often they were slowly beheaded and then skinned. The priests would often wear the skins while the sacrifices continued. In one event, during the coronation of a new temple, an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 people were sacrificed over a four-day period.

After the arrival of the Spanish and the ensuing conflicts, the Spanish witnessed some of their own being taken captive by the Aztecs. The Spanish prisoners were stripped naked, brought to the temple, and forced to dance naked for an hour. Afterwards, the Aztec high priest sacrificed them alive, ripped out their hearts and dismembered them. Up until that point the Spanish had been fairly mercifully towards the Aztecs, but after witnessing those horrific events the gloves came off. When Cortés finally conquered the Aztecs, much of the slaughter that ensued was done by their Indian allies who hated the Aztecs. Say what you will about the conquistadors, but not even the worst among them engaged in human sacrifice and cannibalism. If there ever were a civilization that deserved to be conquered, it was the Aztecs. The Aztecs were not alone when it came to human sacrifice. The Mayans, Incas, and other tribes also practiced cannibalism and human sacrifice, including sacrificing children and infants.

When Columbus discovered The Americas he encountered good natives, but he also encountered bad natives. Upon his second trip to The Americans, he encountered the Caribs (from which the word “cannibal” is derived, as in Caribbean). According to historian Samuel Eliot Morison, in deserted huts the Spaniards found human limbs and cuts of human flesh partly consumed, as well as young boys who were being fattened to eat. The French explorer Florentine Giovanni da Verrazzano was said to have been eaten on the beaches of Guadeloupe by Caribs while his companions looked on from their ship in horror.

To preface, not all Native Americans were cannibals and practiced human sacrifice. There were good and bad natives just like there are good and bad people in every society. The purpose of this article is not to vilify Native Americans, but to point out the one-sided arguments made by the Left. They paint with a broad bush when vilifying Europeans of that era. Meanwhile, they ignore atrocities committed by the Native Americans themselves. Not once will you hear about the genocides committed by the Aztecs or a condemnation of the Mayans for their human sacrifices. These details do not fit their narratives. Nor will you hear about attacks upon white civilian settlers. During Pontiac’s War, for example, Indian warriors entered a schoolhouse, killed the schoolmaster then tomahawked and scalped eight children. Contrary to popular belief, Europeans did not teach scalping to the Native Americans. Archeological evidence indicates that scalping existed in pre-Columbian America.

Ultimately, the attack on Columbus Day is by association an attack on Western civilization. But rather anyone likes it or not, Columbus did discover America and it did change the course of world history. Ignoring this fact will not change events, nor does it make it any less of an historic event. But let’s suppose Columbus never discovered America. It would be naïve to believe it would remain undiscovered forever. Sooner or later it would be discovered, if not by the Europeans then by somebody else, probably the Chinese. And the outcome would have been the same. The Native Americans would still have died by the scores from diseases which they had no immunity to, there still would have been conflicts, and they still would have lost. It is an unfortunate outcome, but a predicable one. When a more technologically advanced civilization comes into contact with a primitive stone-aged civilization, it never fares well for the latter.

Who is a Nazi?

On The Morning Joe show, MSNBC commentator Donny Deutsch recently likened Trump voters to Nazis. Speaking in regards to the latest manufactured outrage of separating illegal immigrate children from their parents, Deutsch said:

    I wanna attach what you just said to the question that Carter asked John about; politicizing; I could put an exclamation mark about everything you said. It was particularly reprehensible when Ivanka said, “It looks a certain way.”

    What has to happen now is this can no longer be about who Trump is. It has to be about who we are, if we are working towards November. We can no longer say Trump’s the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you’re the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents’ arms. The mistake that we’ve made in the past, is “Look at that bad guy over there. Look at that bad guy.”

    What the Democrats have to do is make the next election a referendum on not who Trump is, but who you are. That’s the big difference. You can no longer now as a voter — because it’s not about taxes, it’s not even about some abstract term of immigration or nationalism; if you vote for Trump then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis, going “You here, you here.”

    And I think we now have to flip it and it’s a given, the evilness of Donald Trump. But if you vote, you can no longer separate yourself. You can’t say, well he’s okay, but — and I think that gymnastics and I think that jiu-jitsu has to happen.

This is just one example of many of how the Nazi label has been thrown around so casually these days, that it's necessary to define exactly what a Nazi is, and what they believe. For this we look to the National Socialist Program. This was a 25-point plan of the National Socialists German Workers' Party presented by Adolf Hitler in 1920. I wont be going over the whole 25 points verbatim, you can read those for yourself. These, however, are the main points of what it means to be a Nazi:

-You had to be a member of the Nazi Party. This seems like a no-brainer, but the Nazis were a political party.

-You have to be ethnically German.

-You had to be ethnocentric. The Nazis believed only a member of the "race" (someone of German blood) could be citizen.

-You had to be a nationalist. Nationalism is defined as loyalty and devotion to a nation. It should be stressed here that nationalism is not the same as patriotism. In the words of George Orwell, "Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."

-You had to be an isolationist. Non-citizens were prevented from immigrating, and all non-Germans already living in Germany were forced to leave the Reich.

-You have to be a socialist. The Nazi party called for the nationalization of all public companies, and a division of profits of all heavy industries. That they were socialists should be obvious, but this fact has often been overlooked by many. It also indicates that contrary to what some have asserted, the Nazis were not right-wing. Socialism and Communism are two sides of the same coin, and it should be remembered that the Nazis had a pact with the Russians until they broke it.

-You have to support national healthcare and nationalized education.

-You have to support control of the press. All writers and employees had to be German. Non-Germans were forbidden by law to exert any influence, or publish material that the government deemed counter to the "general good".

-You have to be a fascist. Execution of the 25-point plan was to be executed with a strong central power, with unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich.

In summary, in order to be a Nazi you had to meet ALL these qualifications. Cherry picking one or two things, misconstruing them, and then using them to mischaracterize someone because you don't like their political beliefs does NOT make them a Nazi. Just Remember this the next time someone calls you a Nazi.

A Brief History of Islam: Part 2 Christendom Strikes Back

In less than 80 years, Islam expanded from the Arabian Peninsula to encompass nearly all the Middle and Near East and all of North Africa. On the 30th of April 711, Muslim troops under the command of Tariq ibn Ziyad crossed the Straights of Gibraltar and landed on mainland Europe for the first time. The invasion took everyone in Spain completely by surprise. Within 8 short years the Muslims had occupied most of Spain. As part of their subjugation, the Spanish were forced to hand over 100 white virgins a year to the Muslims be used in their harems.

The first Muslim invasion of Sicily took place in 652 but failed, as did repeated attempts in 667 and 720. Between failed attempts and a civil war among the Muslims, it took them 70 years to finally succeed. After the fall of Sicily, they crossed into Southern Italy. Rome was pillaged twice, and the Pope was forced to pay a huge tribute. Several major Mediterranean islands were also conquered, including Cyprus, Rhodes, Sardinia, Majorca, Crete, and Malta. These islands became a strategic importance to Muslim fleets.

Pushing the Muslims out of Europe was no easy task. The Reconquista, which means Reconquest, was a slow and long process lasting 750 years. The Reconquista began with the first Christian victory at the Battle of Covadonga in 722, and lasted until 1492 with the fall of the last Muslim stronghold during the Grenada War. The Reconquista would prove to be a source of encouragement for another Christian reconquest, the Crusades.

By 700, Muslim invaders had conquered nearly half the territory in the Near East that comprised the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire. Twice they had attempted to siege Constantinople, the capital city of the Byzantine Empire, but failed due to the great city walls that protected the city. This second failure would save Constantinople for another 700 years from Islamic conquest.

The pendulum of power swung back several times between the Byzantines and the Muslims. The Battle of Manziker in 1071 would prove to be a major turning point. The Byzantine Empire had suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the newest Islamic power, the Seljuq Turks, and for the first time a Byzantine Emperor had become captured by a Muslim commander. This defeat allowed the Turks to advance into central Anatolia. From there the Sunni Turks set their sights against a rival Shiite caliphate in Cairo. In doing so, they gained possession of the Holy Land.

When the Islamic Turks were within one hundred miles of Constantinople, the emperor of Byzantine, Emperor Alexius Comnenus of Constantinople, wrote a letter to Robert Flanders asking for help. In his letter he details many atrocities committed by the Turks including, abduction of girls, sodomizing of bishops, gruesome tortures of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, and desecration of churches, altars, and baptismal fonts. He talks of the wealth and holy relics the Turks would pillage should Constantinople fall. It was this letter that was read by Pope Urban II that inspired the crusades.

"From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople, a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage, and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion." -Pope Urban II

There were many reasons why Emperor's plea and the Pope's speech could have fell on deaf ears. The Western Europeans didn't always get along with the Byzantines, as evident by the Fourth Crusade. For one, they had different heritages. The Western Europeans were Roman while the Byzantines were Greek. The Romans viewed the Greeks as decadent, while the Orthodox Greeks held Rome's Latin Catholicism in contempt. This brings us to the motivation for the crusades. It wasn't about the idea of acquiring great wealth from the Holy Land, many spent their entire fortunes to get there, and the trek was long and arduous. Nor was it about acquiring new converts to Christianity, although the motivation was a religious one. The primary motivation was to make a pilgrimage to the Holy land as penance for personal sins and to liberate it from the Muslims. They were also aware of the Muslim invasions into South Western Europe several centuries earlier. A brief summary of the crusades follows: 

The First Crusade:

The First Crusade was began in 1095, after Urban II gave a rousing speech in response to Alexius Comnenus' letter. The first siege by the crusaders against the Muslim-held city of Antioch lasted from October 21, 1097, and fell to the crusaders in June 2, 1098. Next they marched to Jerusalem. After an exhaustive siege and heavy losses on both sides, the crusaders took the city and killed the remaining Muslims and Jews inside. This laid the foundations for several crusader states, including the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Two important points should be made here. First, the rule of war of that day was if a city forced a siege instead of surrendering, which resulted in many causalities, then everyone inside was usually slaughtered. Secondly, the Jews chose to fight alongside the Muslims against the crusaders, and frequently they did side with the Muslims. 

The Second Crusade:

Slowly the Muslims regained their strength, and by 1144, they had retaken the city of Edessa. The fall of Edessa led Pope Eugene III to call for a second crusade, which ultimately ended in failure. The two European armies led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany were defeated by the Suljuk Turks. This failure would set the stage for the Third Crusade. Some blamed the Byzantine Emperor for secretly hindering the crusader army. Often the Byzantine and crusaders would compete for control of territory for prestige and power. The animosity between the two camps would eventually boil over during the Fourth Crusade. 

The Third Crusade:

In 1187, Saladin, sultan of Egypt, recaptured Jerusalem. Saladin’s victories shocked Europe. Pope Gregory VIII called for a new crusade, which was led by several of Europe’s most important leaders: Philip II of France, Richard the Lionheart of England, and Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I. The Third Crusade was semi-successful in capturing the important cities of Acre and Jaffa, but they were unable to capture the main prize, Jerusalem. This would ultimately lead to the Fourth Crusade. The Third Crusade ended with a treaty between Saladin and King Richard I which allowed unarmed Christian pilgrims and merchants to visit Jerusalem. 

Fourth Crusade:

The Fourth Crusade was initiated in 1202 by Pope Innocent III, with the intention of capturing the Holy Land from Saladin. However, it went completely off course due to internal politics. On the way to Jerusalem, the majority of the crusader leadership entered into an agreement with with Byzantine prince Alexios Angelos to divert to Constantinople to help him restore his disposed father as emperor. In return the crusaders would be given financial and military support to take Jerusalem. Alexios Angels was crowned as co-emperor with the support of the crusaders, but he was quickly ousted from power during an uprising within Constantinople and murdered a short time later. This left the crusaders without their promised payment. In frustration, the crusaders ended up sacking Constantinople. 

Fifth Crusade:

The Fifth Crusade was launched by Pope Innocent III and his successor, Pope Honorius III with the goal of capturing Jerusalem by first conquering the Ayyubid state in Egypt. The crusaders captured Damietta in Egypt in 1219 but were defeated at Cairo and failed to capture Jerusalem. It ended with Sultan Al-Kamil agreeing to an eight-year peace agreement with Europe. 

Sixth Crusade:
The German emperor, Frederick II, launched a crusade in 1228, and through diplomacy achieved unexpected success: Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem were delivered to the crusaders for a period of ten years. The treaty allowed Christians to rule over most of Jerusalem, while the Muslims were given control of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aksa mosque. 

Seventh Crusade:

A lesser known fact of history is the Mongol invasion of the Muslim world. The grandsons of Genghis Kahn, Mongke and his brother Hulagu, set out to completely destroy Islam, and they nearly succeeded. In 1244 the Khwarezmians, who were recently displaced by the Mongols, took control of Jerusalem. Support for the crusades in Europe begin to wane,  and despite calls from Pope Innocent IV there was no great enthusiasm for another crusade. The only one interested was Louis IX of France. King Louis organized a crusade against Egypt from 1248 to 1254, but it ended in complete failure. King Louis and his army were captured and held for ransom. Louis spent much of the crusade living at the court of the Crusader kingdom in Acre. 

Eighth Crusade:

The second to last crusade was also organized by France’s Louis IX in 1270, with the idea of coming to the aid of what was left of the Crusader states in Syria. However, the crusade was diverted to Tunis, where Louis spent only two months before dying. His disease-ridden army dispersed back to Europe shortly afterwards. 

Ninth Crusade:

Edward I of England undertook another expedition against Baibars in 1271. The The Ninth Crusade saw several impressive victories for Edward over Baibars. However Edward had to withdraw, due to pressing concerns at home and didn't feel he could resolve the internal conflicts within the Crusader states. By now enthusiasm for the crusades had dried up. Many Europeans began to resent the taxes imposed on them to support the crusader kingdom. After nearly two centuries, the crusader kingdoms in the Holy Land were abandoned. Antioch fell in 1268; Tripoli fell in 1289; and Acre was seized in 1291. Those Christians unable to leave these cities were massacred or enslaved and the last traces of Christian rule disappeared. Eventually, Constantinople itself would fall to the Muslims in 1453.

While the crusades proved to be a mixed bag of successes and failures, it did however halt the Muslim advance into Europe. As the historian Viscount John Julius Norwich noted: “Had they captured Constantinople in the seventh century rather than the fifteenth, all Europe—and America—might be Muslim today.” It should also be noted that the Crusader kingdoms along the coast survived nearly as long as the United States has been a nation. In the final part 3, we will explore the rise of Islam in modern times.

Thoughts on the Declaration of Independence and Slavery

It may seem odd at first that the Declaration of Independence doesn't address the issue of slavery. The left, of course, uses this as an opportunity to attack it. How could all men be created equal while slavery still existed? However, the issue was not so cut and dry. Slavery was ingrained into every culture on earth, and ending slavery wasn't something that could be changed in one night, the Civil War proved that.

First, a little background. We inherited our slavery from the British, and King George III opposed anti-slavery laws. In 1774 he vetoed every anti-slave law in America. This caused Thomas Jefferson to condemn slavery directly in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither … And he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

This may seem odd at first for someone who himself owned slaves, which he inherited at the age of 14. But what is lesser known is that Virginia laws prohibited Jefferson from freeing his own slaves due to the fact that he was in debt. In any case, three southern states objected, and it was removed. At this point it was more important to get all the colonies on board first, otherwise the American Revolution would end before it even began.
 
The idea was that the issue of slavery would be addressed at a later time. It was a declaration of independence after all, and not a declaration of emancipation. Besides, at that moment they had more pressing matters. They were about to go to war with the superpower of their day for their very existence. However, when the founders added "all men are created equal", it was an indirect assault on slavery, the first shot across the bow. Without the Declaration of Independence there would be no United States. Without the United States the Civil War would have never happened, and slavery may have continued on even longer.

The slave trade was abolished in 1808, 32 years after our founding. Slavery was ended in 1865, 89 years after our founding. Slavery was ended within a single generation. That the United States ended slavery less than a century after conception should be applauded. Other nations held slaves for far longer before ending the practice. In fact, many nations have fought wars to acquire slaves, but the United States is unique in that it fought a war to end slavery.

A Brief History of Islam: Part 1 The Rise of Islam

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.” “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.” “Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities– but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” –Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248– 50).

Muhammad was born in 570 AD in the Arabian city of Mecca (present day Saudi Arabia). He was orphaned at an early age and raised by his Uncle. He worked primarily as a merchant until age 40, when he claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel and received his first revelation from God. Three years later he began to preach these revelations publicly. Initially he didn't gain many followers and was generally treated with hostility. Eventually he and his small band of followers were forced to leave Mecca for their own safety and relocated to Medina. There he gained many Jewish followers who converted to Islam. Soon he would seek revenge on Mecca for expelling him.

The Battle of Badr in 624 marks the first major battle between the Muslims and the Meccans, which ended in a decisive victory for Muhammad. The two forces would engage in several more battles over the years, which eventually culminated in a 10 year peace treaty, only to be broken in two years by Muhammad and Mecca was conquered without a fight. The fall of one the richest and most powerful cities in Arabia marked a shift in power and the rise of Islam. Meanwhile the alliance with the Jewish tribes began to break down as many Jews would not accept Muhammad as a prophet. After the Battle of the Trench in 627, Muhammad accused the Jews of treachery so the men were beheaded and the women and children were sold as slaves. Muhammad discovered it was far easier to spread his religion through violence than through peace. Soon after his conquest of Mecca, he conquered the majority of Arabia in just two years. It is of interest to note that the same black flag that Muhammad flew in his time, is the same black flag that Jihadists use today, including ISIS.

In the last ten years of his life he ordered 65 military campaigns alone. Before his death in 632, his final words were said to have been "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no God but Allah'". His followers were quick to continue where he had left off. Starting with what is present day Iraq, Islam began to systematically conquer the entire middle-east. By 700 AD they had conquered half the territory that had previously belonged to Christendom. From there Islam set it's sights on North Africa. In Alexandra, Egypt philosopher John Philoponus tried to save the famous Alexandrian library from the Muslim conquerors, but Caliph ‘Umar had had it destroyed, saying the Qur’an was sufficient, because those books agreeing with it are useless and those disagreeing are pernicious. After three forays into North Africa, it was finally conquered and remains a Muslim stronghold to this day.

A mere 80 years after Muhammad's death, Islam had spread as far East as China and the Indian Ocean, and as far West as Morocco. It then spread into Europe through the Iberian Peninsula and into Spain and southern Italy, as well as many major Mediterranean islands including Sicily, Corsica, Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete, Malta, and Sardinia. These events set the stage for the next chapter. In part 2, Christendom strikes back.

Thoughts on #NeverTrump

I've always tended to believe that when faced with two undesirable candidates, it's always better to vote for the lesser of two evils. In fact I have done this on a number of occasions. But for the first time since I began voting (circa 2000), I'm inclined to sit this one out. This decision wasn't made lightly. In the beginning I sat on the fence regarding Trump, not sure what I was going to do. But the more he talked the less I liked, and his comments on abortion and tranny bathrooms was the final straw that broke the camels back. As a conservative and a Christian, there are a number of issues I have with Trump, which I have previously stated. The biggest issue for me is I'm tired, I'm tired of voting for candidates that no longer represent my values and principles. I've done it for Romney and McCain, and I just don't think I can do it again. I know what your saying, a no vote is the same as voting for Hillary. Well not quite, but perhaps not voting does, in a round about way, help the opposition. Granted, although in this case I predict Hillary will wipe the floor with him anyways. Why vote for a democrat-lite when you can have the real thing? My position is this, I'm willing to vote for the lesser of two evils two an extent, but I have my limits. When a candidate strays so far from my values and principles, it comes to a point that I cannot in good conscious vote for him. This is the reason I'm officially #NeverTrump.

Thoughts on veganism\vegetarians

You know, I don't really care what other people eat. I have a crazy idea that people should be free to eat what they want. If someone wants to eat meat or not that's up to them. I'm not interested in debating which is healthier. What I'm here to talk about is the vegans and vegetarians who want to shame anyone who eats meat.  I'm aware not all vegans/vegetarians are this way, and this is not directed toward them.What I'm talking about are the radical vegans & vegetarians who display an unearned morally superiority against anyone who doesn't eat like them. This extreme form of veganism\vegetarianism is more than a diet, it's an ideology.

The main selling point of the radically veggies is that they are more ethical by eating only vegetables. Okay, let's think about this. Ethics is defined as a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.  When you ascribe something as ethical, you are essentially turning it into quasi-religion. This explains the fervent attitude of treating people like heretics who don't eat like them. Second, what makes it so ethical? What holy writ are they ascribing it to besides their own opinions? By saying it's unethical to eat animals they are elevating animal life on par, and often above, human life. This is akin to pantheism.

I do believe environmentalism has led to an increase the veganism\vegetarianism, but beyond that I think people have become overly sensitive and sheltered from the realities of life. We live in a world where food is prepared behind closed doors. It's a far cry from our ancestors who had to hunt and kill their own food to survive. Nature is a violent and harsh world. It's not the rose colored view they we have today as we go home to our air conditioned houses. As a result we have become squeamish at the thought of killing our own food. If our ancestors thought that way, many of us wouldn't be here today.

As I said before, people should be free to eat what they want. Eating vegetables are fine, But there is no way vegetables alone is going to support a population of 7 billion, there is just not enough good farming land to go around.

Questions\thoughts to ponder:

If its unethical to eat animals why is it okay for animals to eat other animals?
Even if you eat only vegetables are you still not consuming something that is alive to live?
Why is it that so many who refuse to eat meat for ethical reasons have no problems with abortion?
By saying that it is unethical to eat meat they have elevated animals with humans. If animals are elevated with humans then human life is not special. If human life is not special then it is devalued.
If humans are nothing more than animals, the results is people will start treating each other like animals.
There is not enough farming land in the world to feed everyone with vegetables. In fact in order to clear land for farming it results in deforestation in some instances.
Killing in order to eat is the cycle of life. Even animals and bugs do it.
If it is unethical to eat meat then why are we not only physically capable of eating meat, but our bodies need protein to survive? Nothing beats animal protein.