Tag: Political Correctness

An Open Letter to Tucker Carlson

Image: RawStory

As a teenager in America, and in most people’s valid opinion, an American citizen, I do not know where to begin on the comments you have made.

I was born in Boston, Massachusetts and currently live in Erie, Pennsylvania. I have lived in the United States all my life, have a legal birth certificate, social security number, passport, and more… yet you still have the audacity to say that, because I am under the age of eighteen, I am not an “American citizen” as much as you, Donald Trump, Uncle Sam, or anybody else.

I am Jewish. I am Latino. I am American.

Being any of those things does not strip me of my American citizenship in the least, and neither does my age.

My religion is a part of who I am as an American. I love being Jewish—especially in a country that allows me to express my religion without the fear of persecution or punishment. I love getting to educate people and being the one that gets to help other people grow as individuals by teaching them about my religion and what it means.

My heritage is no less significant to me than my religion or citizenship. Being Latino is also a part of who I am. I am a product of my family who came from South America, and I love to brag about it because it makes me feel like I am a real contributor to what is the great, American “melting pot.” Nobody could ever take my culture, history, or family away from me—not even you. To me, none of this, in any way, makes me less American.

I still feel as proud to pledge allegiance to the American flag as anybody else.

I just want to know—if it isn’t my religion or ethnicity—then what is it that makes me less American than the people around me? According to you, I’m not an American—I’m just a teenager.

This is what you said a couple weeks ago:

Video: FOX News

I would like to clear the air here: We are ALL Americans.

If you genuinely think that teenagers are not Americans, then I think you are about to be pretty surprised.

Across the nation, we teens have organized school walkouts, protests, marches, and other events to exercise our First Amendment right. We are fighting together against ignorant people like you who think that, just because we are not eighteen, we cannot have an opinion, exercise our God-given right to protest or challenge arrogant people like you. We want to show that we have a say in our future and that people such as yourself do not deserve to speak for us—people who would rather let us take the fall (literally) just so you don’t have to lose your guns.

If you ever had any respect for us and stopped to listen to what we had to say, you would know by now that we never asked for anyone to lose their guns. We only asked for common sense gun laws—to put in place reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment, just as there are the same restrictions on our rights to free speech and rights to privacy. If you think we are being unreasonable just look to the Supreme Court Heller decision, and you will see as plain as day, that while it holds that the right to bear arms is not related to service in a militia, it is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.

We teens have to live in fear at our schools. We don’t exactly think that this makes a ‘conducive’ environment for learning, do you? Nor do we think that arming our teachers makes for any more of a ‘conducive’ learning environment, but we already know that you don’t care. What you do care about is assisting the gun manufacturers to increase their revenue. You would prefer that you get to keep your guns—end of story.

I keep going over it in my head, but I just cannot answer this one question. I would really love it if you could answer it for me: Who exactly would it take to be killed in a shooting for you to realize that enough is enough?

Would it be a group of innocent civilians? No—we already saw that at the Pulse Nightclub, Las Vegas… (the list is way too big to count).

Would it be a group of church-goers like yourself? No—we already saw that in Charleston, Nashville, and Sutherland Springs.

Would it be a class full of high school students like myself? No—we already saw that at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas.

Would it be a class full of kindergarteners? No—we already saw that at the tragic Sandy Hook shooting.

What would it take for you to realize that the one life person would be worth more than all the guns in America? I just struggle to understand how somebody who is adamantly “pro-life” can have such blatant disregard for all of our lives. Somebody who was really “pro-life” would care about the life of a human being after they are born. What is the point in fighting for their life before it is born if you are just going to let them be shot someday after they are born by somebody with an automatic weapon that they shouldn’t even have?

We are fighting for our rights—for our lives—and whether you like it or not, we are equal American citizens with free speech, the right to organize, the right to assemble, and the right to protest.

I would really love to learn more about what you think, and so, while I have been rather firm and harsh in this open letter, I would also like to invite you to an interview with WTP Magazine if possible to sit down and your thought process when you made the statement saying that we teens are not Americans. I am not asking this in an antagonistic way. I am only asking this because I genuinely want to learn why you believe this.

Hopefully, when we are done, you can realize that if we are old enough to be shot, then we are old enough to have an opinion on being shot.

If you are seriously interested, like I am, in taking me up on my offer for an interview, please send me an email at harrison.romero@wtpmag.com. I look forward to hearing from you.

A Problematic Religious Freedom Day

Image: Politicus USA

Freedom of religion has had roots in our history long before it was guaranteed by the constitution. We grow up with stories of William Penn dedicating Pennsylvania to people of all religions. Americans who opened their hearts and their land to welcome people of different faiths. It is utterly ingrained in our patriotic, opportunistic culture, the freedom to speak, write, express, and pray. Which may be why you either think this holiday is overkill, or you plain haven’t heard of it. To most,  it goes down as a holiday known only on the day of, fading in and out of fickle Twitter accounts like Squirrel Appreciation Day, Jan. 21National Organ Donor Day, Feb. 14, and… Panic Day, March 9. In fact, all Wikipedia has on religious freedom day is a meager 3 sentences:

National Religious Freedom Day commemorates the Virginia General Assembly‘s adoption of Thomas Jefferson‘s landmark Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on January 16, 1786. That statute became the basis for the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and led to the freedom of religion for all Americans. Religious Freedom Day is officially proclaimed on January 16 each year by an annual statement by the President of the United States.

You probably care about its principles, but I’m not going to pretend you care about the holiday itself, and for years that meant that we’ve been so attuned to the normalcy of religious freedom, that we haven’t had to worry about protecting it. We should hope to see it next year and not bat an eyelash as it passes over us. We shouldn’t have to worry about its sanctity today, but the Trump administration’s press release has more than a few concerned.

It starts off as many Presidential Declarations have, exulting religious freedom’s virtues and vowing to protect it. It ends nicely as well,

The free exercise of religion is a source of personal and national stability, and its preservation is essential to protecting human dignity.  Religious diversity strengthens our communities and promotes tolerance, respect, understanding, and equality.  Faith breathes life and hope into our world.  We must diligently guard, preserve, and cherish this unalienable right.

What’s the problem? Many point to this quote from the president:

Our Constitution and laws guarantee Americans the right not just to believe as they see fit, but to freely exercise their religion.  Unfortunately, not all have recognized the importance of religious freedom, whether by threatening tax consequences for particular forms of religious speech or forcing people to comply with laws that violate their core religious beliefs without sufficient justification. These incursions, little by little, can destroy the fundamental freedom underlying our democracy.  Therefore, soon after taking office, I addressed these issues in an Executive Order that helps ensure Americans are able to follow their consciences without undue Government interference and the Department of Justice has issued guidance to Federal agencies regarding their compliance with laws that protect religious freedom.  No American—whether a nun, nurse, baker, or business owner—should be forced to choose between the tenets of faith or adherence to the law.

In the same speech proclaiming the ethics of respecting others, he subtly references the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The case is supported by the Trump administration and a group called Alliance Defending Freedom whom the Southern Poverty Law Center deems a hate group. The story can be summed up as a baker unwilling to create a cake for a gay couple, citing his religious beliefs as the reason why. It was brought up in the supreme court to debate a business’s right to pick and choose customers. This right isn’t immoral in itself, it’s actually exceptionally important. Afterall, who would disagree with a business owner’s decision to kick out an angry, unreasonable customer who generally causes mayhem? Whereas the customer is causing harm to the owner, in circumstances such as Newman vs. Piggie Park enterprises, it’s the other way around. In the 1960’s, a barbecue owner refused service to a man established solely on the fact he was African American. He argued it was because of his religious values too. The lawsuit was a landmark piece of litigation that established that civil rights are more important than religious views.

I want to point out something: if Trump and his followers get his way in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, it could harm the people he’s trying to protect. If he believes that business owners should be allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs, then he may unknowingly believe that the Christian bake shop proprietor can discriminate against someone of a different faith. The Buddhist refuses the Muslim, the Catholic refuses the Shintoist, and on and on and on. If he truly wants to protect “The right not just to believe as they see fit, but to freely exercise their religion,” He should understand the full repercussions of his statement.

With that, let’s hope for a more boring Religous Freedom day next year—a day that actually represents religious freedom.

#MeToo Is Having Some Trouble Reaching Italy

Image: Buzzfeed

In the United States, ever since the “Weinstein scandal” in October, women have felt empowerment to share their own stories of sexual harassment and assault. The rise of the #MeToo movement has led to countless other public figures—including actors, musicians, journalists, executives, and politicians from both sides—being forced to resign in the utmost disgrace. The movement has been so incredibly influential, it has led TIME Magazine to name “The Women of the #MeToo Movement” as the TIME’s People of the Year.

Laura Boldrini, the president of Italy’s lower House of Parliament, talked about the way that the Weinstein scandal had begun a revelation of sexual harassment and misconduct all around the world—except Italy.

More than 600 women were listening to her as she said, “In Italy, it certainly hasn’t had the same effect. In our country, there are no harassers.” Her sarcasm elicited chuckles from others in the room.

Boldrini let it be known that harassment was no stranger to their nation, but the only difference between them and the rest of the world was that their women were too afraid to speak up due to the fierce prejudice that they face.

Their fear is justified. In Florence, two young women who accused parliamentary police officers of rape were asked if they were wearing underwear by the defense attorneys. No, that’s not a joke. In Sicily, a court even found a man innocent of sexual harassment charges because his groping of his colleagues was motivated by “sophomoric humor” instead of “sexual intent.” No, that’s not a joke either.

Even worse, former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is legitimately attempting a comeback after he was forced out of power six years ago in the thick of mass protests and trials on his role in “Bunga Bunga” bacchanals with prostitutes and minors.

After being cleared of charges of soliciting underage prostitutes but continuing to fight related charges that he had bribed a witness, Berlusconi said:

For us, defending women is a priority and it always has been.

Do not think that the eighty-one-year-old man with the thirty-two-year-old girlfriend has changed his ways in any way. Just two months ago, he bragged in front of his supporters that he had introduced the bidet to the late Libyan leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi and that he “taught these lusty Africans that there’s also foreplay” by doing so. The crowd cheered.

Lorella Zanardo, a filmmaker, and a women’s rights advocate said that Berlusconi was at fault for much of the country’s perception of women as simply decorative objects.

It is not as if the United States is that respectful to women who speak out. Asia Argento, a proclaimed actress and the daughter of Italy’s most successful horror movie director, has described her life as a living nightmare ever since she came out against Harvey Weinstein. She says that she fears leaving her home and plans to leave the United States following the villainous slander from the media.

Vladimir Luxuria, a former Italian member of Parliament, transgender actress, and a self-described feminist, made a tweet that blames Argento for not “saying no to Weinstein as other actresses did.” She went as far as to say that Argentobasically should have expected it to happen after she agreed to give him a massage.

According to Lorella Zanardo, the best way forward is to begin teaching to treat women equally to children. Whatever the best course of action is so that women can be treated with respect, dignity, and equality, it is important that the people of Italy implement it as soon as possible.

The First Thanksgiving… and Diplomatic Empathy

Image: Faith and History

In late September or early October 1621, the Pilgrims hosted a celebration of their first harvest. The Native American tribe, Wampanoag, that had helped them through the spring came with twice as many people, making it an overwhelmingly Native American celebration. While there was turkey, deer was the main course, it was a multi-day affair and there was not enough tables nor chairs to seat everyone. This celebration has been heralded as the first Thanksgiving, despite the fact, Puritans defined a Thanksgiving as a period of prayer and devotion to God, not a meal or celebration. Every year, Thanksgiving is held throughout America with a turkey dinner on the fourth Thursday of November commemorating that celebration. Despite the historical fallaciousness, the sentiment shines through. In modern America, Thanksgiving is a time to be thankful for what you have, the first Thanksgiving was the Pilgrims celebrating their first harvest and possibly was their way of thanking the Wampanoags. The Pilgrims owed the Wampanoags not only for single-handedly saving the Pilgrims lives that wretched first year but also for the political connection to the Native American tribes that allowed the Pilgrims to be active diplomatic players in North America and would continue to help them for years to come. The political bond formed between the Wampanoags and Pilgrims was an incredible feat given the huge cultural difference between the groups and that the Wampanoag’s past experiences with white settlers had been overwhelmingly negative. In fact, the Wampanoags and other Native American tribes had at very least discussed killing the Pilgrims when they first arrived. In the end, the Wampanoags helped them out of their own necessity. They were a small tribe, weakened by diseases and increasingly threatened by the stronger more populous tribes surrounding them. They decided to become allies of these new settlers who brought technology the Native Americans were familiar with but didn’t have a source for. For the Wampanoags, it was a risky bet that they hoped would have a high political and financial payout.

The Pilgrim-Wampanoag alliance was an extremely beneficial one. They both benefited in trade and were much safer than they would have been alone. Amazingly this alliance lasted nearly 50 years, and so did peace between the Pilgrims and Wampanoags despite the fact that everything about the culture of Native Americans and Pilgrims was different, their languages, their traditions, their religions. The alliance was an incredible feat of diplomacy between the two groups, created primarily by mutual necessity and opportunism but also an incredible amount of empathy. The Pilgrims came from Europe in the 17th century, where people were seen as less for having a different religion or race, but in this new world, the Pilgrims couldn’t afford to be intolerant. The two peoples coexisted in a way future settlers wouldn’t even be able to imagine. The Pilgrims hired Native Americans, stayed in their Wigwams during diplomatic meetings and a few Native Americans even lived with the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims treated Native Americans and their ways with respect, they were even subdued in their Puritan evangelism. Possibly the best account of how much respect the Pilgrims had for the Native Americans was a trial. In 1638 four European settlers robbed and killed a Native American. The Pilgrim’s court found the settlers guilty and executed them. The Pilgrims saw a Native American life as equal to a European’s.

Leading up to King Philip’s war in 1675, the European settlers became less and less empathetic to the Native Americans. Missionaries began converting tribes to Christianity, a religion Philip, the new leader of the Wampanoags, was increasingly wary of. More Europeans poured over from Europe and they bullied the Wampanoags into giving up more land than the tribe could survive without. The Europeans provoked the Wampanoags more and more until one event finally sparked King Philip’s war. Three of Philip’s men were accused of killing a European educated Native American. The three were found guilty despite the fact only one witness had seen the alleged events and the law required two witnesses. The Pilgrims hung the three Native Americans, the last of the three hangings failed because the rope broke and the Pilgrims forced a confession from the third Native American after already hanging the other two, securing their second witness. It was a demolition of justice and started the war Philip had already been preparing for. A war that the Europeans had forced upon the Native Americans by trying to take over and bully them. The Pilgrims had treated their neighbors as subhuman. The result was a war. One that the Europeans won, but not without paying a heavy price. One in ten soldiers on both sides was killed and 1,200 homes of colonists were destroyed. The colonists lived in terror during the war and felt its financial effects long after.

That war might have been inevitable for America due too the number of Europeans coming in who needed to take land from someone and the natural clash between government and cultures, but if the Pilgrims had been more respectful, diplomatic and empathetic with their neighbors they could have left that war for another group of colonists. As it was, they put themselves in a similar situation to the one they had been in 55 years prior, months before the first Thanksgiving when they were low on supplies and terrified. That Thanksgiving was the Pilgrims reaping the benefits of a win-win alliance they created with the Wampanoags when they had been in that dark desperate situation. In the modern world, our countries need win-win solutions. Life is better in a peaceful world. Any conflict, whether physical, economic, or political, hurts civilians. Also, bullying may have worked for America’s forefathers but the world is different today, the United States can’t force Mexico to pay for a wall, or North Korea to give up its weaponry or China to stop building islands, we need diplomatic win-win solutions and we need people who have empathy, who can look at thing from other people’s point of view, to create those win-win solutions.

This Thanksgiving let’s be thankful for the leaders around the world working in governments, nonprofits, and privately to make the world safer. Let’s be thankful the UN exists, as an organization that is dedicated to creating diplomatic solutions. Let’s be thankful the United States and any other country that signed the UN charter into law must seek diplomatic solutions before starting a war. Let’s be thankful the world has come a long way in diplomacy since 1675.

Alabama: A Man Who Allegedly Molested Eight Minors Is Probably Your Next Senator

Image: ABC News

A man who convicted a man of the murder of four children is currently losing to a man who allegedly molested/dated eight minors in a Senate race in Alabama—what a time to be alive!

It has been such a crazy month with the countless sexual assault allegations ever since #MeToo started trending. The charges of sexual assault on Roy Moore dropped a little over a week ago, but there’s no sign of them slowing down. Just last night, four more women came forward with claims against the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama.

Moore, born in 1947, was the oldest of five. Following high school, he attended the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York and graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in 1969. He subsequently served in the US Military, stationed in Vietnam, returning to his hometown of Gadsen in 1977.  That year, Moore began working for the office of the district attorney. He quit his job to run for the county’s circuit-court judge as a Democrat. He overwhelmingly lost in the primary to a fellow attorney, Donald Stewart. Shortly afterward, Moore left Gadsden to live in Australia for a year. He returned to Gadsen in 1985, the same year he got married.

In 1986, Moore decided to give it another shot and run for Etowah County’s district attorney, but he lost to fellow Democrat Jimmy Hedgspeth. Following his defeat, he decided to simply return to private practice in the city.

In 1992, the year that he had switched to the Republican Party, Etowah County’s circuit judge, Julius Swann, died in office, and the Governor of Alabama was to make a temporary appointment to fill the vacant seat. Jimmy Hedgspeth, Moore’s former political opponent who ran the D.A.’s office, recommended Moore, and Moore was installed in the position that he had failed to win in 1982. Moore ran as a Republican in the 1994 Etowah County election and was elected to the circuit judge seat.

Roy Moore was known as the “Ten Commandments Judge” for his refusal to take down a  plaque of the Ten Commandments that hung behind his bench. In 1995, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued him over the religious plaque and Moore’s tradition beginning sessions with prayers, saying such actions were unconstitutional and disregarded the separation of church and state. Moore told NPR:

Separation of church and state never meant to separate God from government. The First Amendment never meant to divide our country from an acknowledgement of God. It’s time to stand up and say, we have a right under our Constitution to acknowledge God.

The original case was dismissed, but in 1996, a Montgomery County Judge, Charles Price, initially ordered Moore to stop the prayer but he allowed the Ten Commandments plaque to be displayed. However, Price ordered the plaque removed after visiting Moore’s courtroom the following year. The case was again dismissed.

When Moore was elected to the Alabama Supreme Court in 2000, he took his fight over the Ten Commandments even further. Now, he was designing and planning a two-and-a-half ton granite obelisk inscribed with the Ten Commandments to be placed in the lobby of the Alabama Judicial Building. The Montgomery Advertiser states:

Moore had not told his fellow justices he was planning to install the monument, but brought a company into tape the installation of the monument in the Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building. Sales of the tapes later helped pay for his legal defense fund.

In 2002, a federal district judge ruled that the new statue was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. A deadline for removing the monument was instated and ignored by Moore in August 2003. A panel ruled that Moore had violated the judicial ethics code, and Moore was removed from the bench.

Just after a decade after being removed from the bench, Moore successfully won back his seat on the Alabama Supreme Court in 2012. No, he didn’t resurrect his Ten Commandments monument, but with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage, Moore ordered state judges to protest it and enforce the state’s ban on same-sex marriages instead. In response to Obergefell v. Hodges, Moore wrote:

The Court’s opinion speaks repeatedly of homosexuals being humiliated, demeaned, and being denied ‘equal dignity’ by a state’s refusal to issue them marriage licenses.

That attempt to defy yet another court order resulted in another appearance before Alabama’s Court of the Judiciary, and he was suspended for the rest of his term in 2016, however, Moore’s age has prevented him from any chance of running again in 2018.

Now, Moore has decided to run for Senate in Alabama, and many shocking and revealing allegations have been put against him. He has been accused by eight women of sexual assault, and people are not happy.

This story was broken by the Washington Post, but the saddest part of all this is that Moore will probably still win.

Nate Cohn, a writer at the Upshot and the New York Times’ political data guru, said:

I don’t see any reason to assume Moore is in serious jeopardy.

When asked how much does he think this scandal might affect Moore’s chances to be elected, Cohn said:

My honest answer is that I don’t know. Alabama is an extremely conservative state that is deeply polarized along racial lines. Hillary Clinton might not even have received 15 percent of the white vote in Alabama last year. For Doug Jones to win, he might need to double that number. So this is not an easy task at all for the Democrats.

Cohn was asked by Slate whether there is any other state in the union that would be more likely to elect Roy Moore than Alabama. To that, he responded:

No. In Mississippi, the white vote is more conservative, but black voters are a much larger share of the electorate. If you had a revolt against a Republican candidate and black turnout was high, I think you can imagine how the Democrats get over the top there in a way that is tougher to imagine in Alabama. The argument the other way is that Alabama has better-educated metropolitan areas like Birmingham or Huntsville where maybe you can imagine that a Republican revolt would be modestly more likely than it would in Mississippi. But no, I think Alabama is basically as tough as it gets for Democrats.

Seeing what the political expert has said, it’s heartbreaking to think that an alleged child molester could beat a perfectly qualified Democrat just because of the political polarization in our society.

Yes, it is possible that he could win and be kicked out of the Senate, something that hasn’t occurred in over 150 years, almost immediately, but it’s not about whether he serves or not. It’s about whether the citizens prefer a child molester and a man who has been kicked off the bench of the Alabama Supreme Court not once, but twice, over a perfectly qualified candidate, simply because they are too dedicated to their political party. I truly hope Alabama makes the right decision, but it’s their decision to make, not mine.

While the Alabama Republican Party has not taken back their endorsement of Roy Moore, many Republicans and Democrats alike have called for him to drop out of the race.

In the end, who knows whether he will win or not? This entire election is ensured to be a toss-up, even though it should just be handed on a silver platter to the one who is not a child molester.

Terror in Barcelona

Image: Gone Fishing

Fifteen people have been killed in a terror attack on Las Ramblas avenue in Barcelona on the 17th of August. Over 80 others were injured. An attacker drove a large white van down Las Ramblas Avenue, a pedestrian street packed with tourists and Barcelonians, plowing through crowds of people, killing and injuring many while causing mass chaos and a mini stampede. The attack happened before 5 pm Central European Time (11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), and the Police acted quickly, evacuating the area and closing nearby Metro and train stations while getting aid to the victims.

The attackers reportedly had fled on foot. Four men were arrested for their alleged involvement in the attack. Also, police found another van they believe was going to be used as a getaway vehicle and found Moroccan passports. Driss Oukabir, one of the arrested suspects, claims his documents were stolen to rent the vans. Adding to the confusion, a hostage situation was reported by the media, but it is unclear whether it actually happened. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack, but this does not mean that the attackers have any direct ties with ISIS. Furthermore, an explosion the day before that killed one person and injured 6 has been linked to the attack. Our hearts are with Barcelona, the victims of this callous and unwarranted attack, and the law enforcement and medical staff dealing with its fallout.

Many politicians and famous people tweeted their support. President Macron of France, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada, President Vladimir Putin of Russia and many other world leaders also issued statements or tweets expressing their solidarity with Barcelona, including our own President, Trump. Trump originally told Barcelona to “be tough & strong, we love you” in a kind, heartfelt tweet of solidarity, but then proceeded to tweet a bizarre statement mentioning a claim he made on the campaign trail about an American General in the Philippines during the early 1900’s dipping bullets in Pig’s blood before shooting 49 captured terrorists and sending the 50th back to report what had happened. Trump said it stopped terrorism for 35 years in his tweet. First of all, this piece of made up “history” has been debunked, and second of all, let me recount a bit of history to explain how truly atrocious and dehumanizing this urban legend is. When America invaded the Philippines, there were protests against it in America with supporters saying the invasion was cruel and unfair and supporters saying that we had to bring order and civilization to a “barbaric race,” in the words of a United States Senator at the time. The Muslims we were fighting against were the native Filipinos who were trying to protect their country. We were the terrorists. We put people into “reconcentration camps” and killed somewhere between 200,000 and a million civilians in a war that only killed 16000 Filipino soldiers. It is possible Trump’s story is true, except we weren’t killing terrorists, we were committing an atrocity against a country and race based on racist stereotypes. The answer to Islamic extremism is not to make the West seem barbaric or aggressive towards Islamism or people in general. Trump has been inadvertently helping ISIS recruit with his aggression and insulting speeches towards all Islam (and humanity) instead of violent Islam, even having been featured in ISIS recruitment video.

Refocusing on the attack, this is the ninth vehicle attack in Europe. Seven previous vehicle attacks were committed by ISIS affiliated attackers and one was committed by an extremist who drove into a group of people outside of mosque saying “I want to kill all Muslims.” There was also a vehicle attack on the home front in Charlottesville just this Saturday. White Supremacists had gathered for a rally protesting the taking down of a Robert E. Lee statue, their chants and messages couldn’t possibly be misconstrued as not hateful, with chants like “Jews will not replace us” as they held Hitler signs. Counter-protesters formed a line in front of them, refusing to let them pass. The protesters violently charged through them, and the two groups broke out into fighting. Luckily, police were there to disperse the two groups. While the governor of Charlottesville called it a state of emergency. Nobody had yet gotten killed or seriously injured and both groups were leaving. Then, a white nationalist drove a car into a group of counter-demonstrators, killing one and injuring nineteen. When the attack happened, the groups of protesters and counter-protesters had already split up, there was no violence or skirmishes going on between those groups at the time of the attack. In a statement after the attacks, our President refused to condemn the White Supremacists, even when asked direct questions about his view of them, instead, he blamed violence on “many sides.” Two days later, Trump claimed that he didn’t support the KKK or White Supremacist groups in a scripted speach, however, on Tuesday, he had undone the comments that he had made on Monday by going as far as defending the white supremacists. By any account, his statement of condemnation came too late and was too ambiguous. White Supremacists took his failure to condemn them as support, and it seemed a lot like support to everyone else as well.

As a nation, and as a world we are left with these facts; vehicles are easy to get and large groups of innocent people are easy to find. Having one group of crazy extremists inspired by ISIS to attack people was scary enough, but now because of the amount of xenophobia, fear and hate that has been caused by ISIS and how our countries have handled ISIS, anti-Muslim extremists and white supremacists are also attacking innocent people in their twisted war on people who are different.

There is no sign this is going to get any better. The leader of the KKK said of the attack in Charlottesville “we’re going to see more stuff like this happening at white-nationalist events.” He could absolutely be right. As more terrorist attacks happen, charged by different groups all of whom are growing and possibly becoming more violent, we need a leader who’s going to condemn all people who kill innocent civilians or attempt to whether they are White Supremacists, Muslim extremists or anti-Muslim extremists, without insulting any groups who did not kill innocent civilians. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has demonstrated how he is completely incapable of confronting many of his base supporters.

If It Isn’t a Third World Country, What Is It?

Image: Nations Online

In modern times, the term, ‘third world country’ is becoming less, and less acceptable. This is coming from the progression of racial and economic awareness. To understand this debate, it is necessary to know the history of the topic.

At the beginning of the Cold War, the terms, ‘first, second, and third world’ (The Three Worlds Theory) were invented by the French demographer, Alfred Sauvy. The Cold War was fought between Capitalism and Communism. He declared the ‘first world’ to be countries fighting for Capitalism. The ‘second world’ was considered countries related to Communism (Soviet Union). The ‘third world’ was given to any country abstaining from fighting for either side. In 1952, Sauvy stated, “Three worlds, one planet”, saying that these three separate worlds could exist in one world in his article published in L’Observateur.

Now, the Cold War has ended leaving these words supposedly meaningless as Communism was conquered more than half of a century ago. Without the Cold War, what do these terms mean? Now, these terms have new meanings. These are terms no longer related to Communism or Capitalism, but economic development.

An example of a first world country is America. America has a stable economy, a democratic society, and primarily happy citizens. America has allies and enemies, like any other superpower.

An example of a modern-day second world country is India. India has a stable, but smaller economy than America’s. India is not a very ‘influential’ nation, but it is definitely a recognized nation.

A third world country is a country with little power and a small economy. One example of a third world country is The Democratic Republic of Congo. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DROC) has an unstable economy and a large amount of poverty. The DROC has little or no name recognition, a factor of a third world country.

If we know where to separate these countries, what is the problem to call them a ‘first, second or third world country’? Is it a derogatory term? What is an appropriate name for these groups of countries? Some say terms dividing these countries into separate worlds is discriminatory, but others say that these are only terms used to understand a country’s economy and representation. If it was proven that these terms are derogatory, then we must use a different name to understand this. The ones who claim that the Three World Theory is offensive to say that we should be saying something along the lines of a ‘developing nation’ instead of a ‘third world country’.

Some people in the impoverished countries claim that using the Three World Theory is offensive; people like Vaibhav Bojh who says, “Being called a developing country gives me a chance to improve.” He hopes that one day India will go “a few steps beyond what developed countries have achieved.”

This shows that the term, ‘developing nation’ is a better phrase. ‘Developing nations’ seems a more agreeable phrase, until you hear the other side.

As Shose Kessi, a social psychologist at the University of Cape Town puts it, “I dislike the term ‘developing world’ because it assumes a hierarchy between countries. It paints a picture of Western societies as ideal, but there are many social problems in these societies as well. It also perpetuates stereotypes about people who come from the so-called developing world as backward, lazy, ignorant, irresponsible.”She does make a good point, showing how this term is separating two countries that both have problems. This term, in a sense, could give an idea of the citizens in these ‘developing nations’ as too lazy to fully develop their economy. In short, she strongly dislikes the term.

Everybody knows that the First World isn’t better in every way. There are pockets of rural poverty and unemployment. They can have crime, sick citizens, and problems that could fall under the category of a Third World Country, but the difference still has to do with the country’s name recognition, exports, and imports.

If you look at developing nations more carefully, they are fully developed in some aspects. Many of the countries that we could refer to as ‘developing nation’ do not even have government safety nets because it is unnecessary. In those nations, people step forward to help each other when they need it. Mead Over, who studies the economics of health interventions at the Center for Global Development says, “People donate money at a funeral to help the bereaved family or people receive gifts from a neighbor to pay the doctor in a time of family emergency.” In First World Countries, we often neglect this kind of hospitality. If so, how can we say that we have no faults and no problems? We must accept the fact that we have problems with hospitality and our sacrifice for others.

What could we call these countries? There will always be a name to classify these nations.

In Kenya, the Masai tribesmen say that the term, ‘developing country’ is a lovely phrase, but in their language, it would translate to, ‘countries that are growing’, which they said, apologetically, that it was a bit long.

It is possible to form a term based on data. The World Health Organization categorizes countries as ‘low- and lower-middle-income countries’, though at a first glance, numbers is an objective way to group countries, though it should not be offensive because it is based solely on data. This way to categorize countries is abbreviated as ‘LMIC’. They are sometimes split into two forms, ‘LICs and MICs’, pronounced, ‘licks and micks’.

Politically incorrect, some use the term, ‘majority world’. This term is proven invalid because 80% of the world lives on a salary of $10/day or less according to World Bank statistics.

Days Olopade, a Nigerian-American reporter likes the terms ‘fat’ and ‘lean’. The term ‘lean’ is referring to the little resources a start-up business has. She mentions that thinking of America’s economy as ‘fat’ is not too difficult. She calls it her way to be provocative. An op-ed in the New York Times written by Olopade read “lean economies have a distinct advantage.”

Everybody mentioned agrees that each term has problems. Luckily, everybody agrees on one thing: it is best to be as specific as possible.

Why I have Recently Decided to Disavow the Black Lives Matters Movement

Image: Charisma News

Everybody has heard of Trayvon Martin walking home from the corner store when George Zimmerman began following him and shot and killed Trayvon only seventy yards from his home. We all remember the trial where he was found not guilty, claiming “self-defense.”

In 2013, after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin, #BlackLivesMatter began trending on Twitter. The official international activist movement was founded that same day.

In 2014 and beyond, there was a myriad of innocent, young, black citizens killed, frequently by police officers, resulting in media coverage, public outrage, and growing protests. The killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York City, and Tamir Rice in Cleveland are only a few examples of the victims of the violence and culture of prejudice and profiling. With each death, the public outrage grew—as did the protests. We frequently saw visions of the protests in cities across America on the evening news, and still, the number of deaths grew as did the protests, often becoming more violent or militaristic in nature. The Black Lives Matter movement grew and gained national recognition. The movement became more active over time, regularly holding protests against police violence, killing of black people, and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system.

Since its inception, the movement has expanded their mission to include issues unrelated to their primary goals, such as the 2016 United States Presidential Election and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

For as long as I can remember, I have been a steadfast supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, but learning of the issues placed in the Black Lives Matter platform has led me to the conclusion that, in good conscience, I could no longer fully endorse them.

Before delving into my concerns, I want to state, once again, that I firmly believe in the movement to reduce police violence against the Black community, reduce racial profiling, and promote the transparency necessary in our police and government agencies. With the abolishment of slavery, the long and hard fight of the Civil Rights Movement, and the election of our first African-American president, we like to think that we have moved beyond the prejudice and discrimination of our past. Sadly, hate, prejudice, and fear of others different from ourselves are very much alive today. The need to reduce discrimination and excessive violence against the African American community today has prompted the need for the Black Lives Matter movement.

However, leaders of the movement made a decision to include in the platform, issues beyond its original goal, resulting in discrimination against those who have time-and-again been an ally and a great supporter of their cause: the Jewish community.

Historically, the American Jewish community has been active in the Civil Rights Movement. Cooperation between the two communities peaked after World War II. The Jewish community, through their newspapers and other media, started to draw parallels between the experience of African Americans in the South and the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. They focused on how both groups would benefit from a society free of religious, racial, and ethnic restrictions. The American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, and Anti-Defamation League all played significant roles in the movement against racial prejudice. They made substantial financial contributions to several organizations like the NAACP, made up approximately fifty percent of the civil rights lawyers in the south, and half of all the white protesters who went to Mississippi to challenge the Jim Crowe laws in 1964. In the landmark ruling of the infamous Brown v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court accepted the research of two married, black sociologists named Kenneth Clark and Mamie Clark that found segregation gave black children the impression that they would always be inadequate. The Clarks’ study had been commissioned by the American Jewish Committee.

As a conservative (religiously, not politically) Jew in America, agreeing with the Black Lives Matter movement’s stance on education, criminal sentencing, policing, and many other issues, I am personally devastated by their beliefs about Israel. I don’t know How they could completely disregard the history of the country that has lived with constant threat and been under attack literally since the day it became a nation.

I don’t understand how it is even possible to pass judgment on the State of Israel without a full evaluation of the facts and understanding of the history. They still judge Israel even though it is exactly like how it is impossible to judge their own movement without understanding the prejudice and the challenges for the African-American community in America.

[Israel is] a state that practices systematic discrimination and has maintained a military occupation of Palestine for decades.

Why should this even be a part of their platform?

With such beliefs about Israel, a lack of understanding of the history, and the constant threat, violence, and attacks launched upon Israel and its people, I can no longer, in good conscience, put my full support behind the Black Lives Matter Movement because of my firm support of Israel.

Both sides of the argument at hand between Israel and Palestine are strongly influenced by religion. According to the Talmud and Eretz Yisrael, Israel was promised by God to the Children of Israel. In his 1896 manifesto, The Jewish State, Theodor Herzl who has commonly been referred to as “the founder of the Zionist movement,” repeatedly referred to the Biblical Promised Land concept.

Muslims also claim rights to the same land in accordance with the Quran. Contrary to the Jewish claim that this land was promised only to the descendants of Abraham’s younger son Isaac, they argue that the Land of Canaan was promised to whom they consider the elder son, Ishmael, from whom Arabs claim descent. Additionally, Muslims also revere many sites holy for Biblical Israelites, such as the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount. In the past 1,400 years, Muslims have erected Islamic landmarks on these ancient Israeli Jewish sites, such as the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. The site was where according to the Bible Abraham took his son Isaac, offering him as a sacrifice as ordered by God.

Christian Zionists often support the State of Israel because of the ancestral right of the Jews to the Holy Land, as suggested, for instance, by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans in the Bible. Christian Zionism teaches that the return of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ, also suggested from the Letter of Paul to the Romans, specifically chapter eleven, saying, “The Deliverer will come from Zion.”

The roots of the modern Arab–Israeli conflict lies in the rise of Zionism and the reactionary Arab nationalism that arose in response towards the end of the 19th century. Territory regarded by the Jewish people as their historical homeland is also regarded by the Pan-Arab movement as historically and presently belonging to the Palestinian Arabs. Before World War I, the Middle East, including Palestine (later Mandatory Palestine), had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years. During the closing years of their empire, the Ottomans began to espouse their Turkish ethnic identity, asserting the primacy of Turks within the empire, leading to discrimination against the Arabs. The promise of liberation from the Ottomans led many Jews and Arabs to support the allied powers during World War I, leading to the emergence of widespread Arab nationalism. Both Arab nationalism and Zionism had their derivative beginning in Europe. The Zionist Congress was established in Switzerland in 1897, while the “Arab Club” was established in Paris in 1906.

In the late 19th century, European and Middle Eastern Jewish communities began to increasingly immigrate to Palestine and purchase land from the local Ottoman landlords. At that time, Jerusalem did not extend beyond the walled area and had a population of only a few tens of thousands. Collective farms, known as kibbutzim, were established, as was the first entirely Jewish city in modern times, Tel Aviv, when the Jews had been kicked out of Jaffa Port.

Eventually, the British Foreign Secretary proposed the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which addressed the link between the Jewish people to the land and the development of a homeland for the Jewish people in Mandate Palestine. After World War I, the British were given a Mandate for Palestine, and in 1937, the Peel Commission suggested partitioning British Mandate Palestine into two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state. This idea was rejected at that time as “unworkable” and is blamed for the renewal of the Arab Revolt. After World War II, in 1947, the British turned the issue over to the newly formed United Nations. The result was the passing of Resolution 181, the partition of British Mandate Palestine into two separate nations, an official Arab state and an official Jewish state with a different internal regime for the city of Jerusalem, on 29 November 1947. The vote result was thirty-three to thirteen with ten abstentions. This plan of partition passed but was rejected by the Arab nations. Despite the fact that there was a formation of two separate nations, with the Arab state slightly larger than the proposed Jewish state, the Arab Nations found it more important to deny the formation of Jewish State than to have a new Arab State.

On May 14, 1948, Israel, accepting the United Nations resolution of partition, declared its independence, forming the State of Israel. Within hours, the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, with some troops from Iraq, entered the newly formed nation and began an attack on Israeli forces and settlements with the declared intent to destroy the new country and, once again, kill or exile all Jews. The war went on for approximately ten months with periods of cease-fire. As a result of the attack on Israel, Israel retained the original land from Resolution 181 in addition to increasing their land area by almost 50%. Egypt, specifically the Gaza Strip, and Jordan, specifically the West Bank, took the rest of the Arab territories. On December 1, 1948, there was a Jericho Conference that called for the unification of Palestine and Transjordan as a step toward full Arab unity, but no Palestinian Arab state was ever formed. As a result, there was a dramatic change in the region. Approximately, 700,000 Palestinians fled from their homes in the area that became Israel, and are now called “Palestinian refugees,” because their Arab neighbors refused to take them in. Additionally, approximately 700,000 Jews were expelled from their countries of residence in the Middle East. They immigrated and became citizens of Israel. The people of Israel had no intention of attacking of removing anyone from their home. They were happy to exist as two separate nations, yet the Arab countries were the ones who could not live with this solution. The Palestinian people are the unfortunate victims of the war and conflict started by their ancestors and Arab neighbors, not Israel or being expelled from the land.

In 1948, an Egyptian activist told reporters, “We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome, the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they’d like. In areas where they predominate, they will have complete autonomy,” but the Arab League later contradicted this statement by saying that some Jews would have to be expelled from a Palestinian Arab State. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, possibly the most influential leader that ever rose from British Mandate Palestine said in that same year that the Palestinians “would continue to fight until the Zionists were Annihilated.” The entire conflict is sad and horrific, but blame cannot be placed wholly on the State of Israel. I don’t get how blame can be placed solely upon a group of people constantly under the threat of annihilation, and only act in self-defense?

If one looks closely at the history and the decisions that have been made concerning security, borders, and access in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they will see that the actions taken by Israel have all been tied to safety and are in response to terrorist attacks. I can’t wrap my head around how the leaders of the Black Lives Matter Movement can realistically expect anyone, especially an American ally, to live every single day with such threat of terror and take no action to protect themselves. How can they expect Israel to not defend themselves when, under less risk of attack, we are willing to take greater steps right here in our country?

The recent rise in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) puts pressure to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel and Israeli companies. The movement’s goal frames Israel as an “apartheid state,” discriminating and oppressing the Palestinians, and wants these sanctions in place until Israel no longer exists. This, unfortunately, misconstrues history and makes the Palestinians look like victims of the Israelis, when really, they are the victims of the unfortunate conflict started so many years ago by the Arab nations because they would not accept the creation of a Jewish state. They, in reality, are anti-Semitic Arab protesters who chose not to create their own state because they would not accept the United Nation’s resolution due to the inclusion of the creation of a Jewish state. If they had accepted the resolution in 1947, today, there would be two nations, an Arab state and a Jewish state, and hopefully, there would be more peace in that region of the world.

Today, more than eleven organizers of the Black Lives Matter movement have signed the Black Solidarity with Palestine Statement—one of many statements from the African American community confirming their support that for the Palestinians—which states they support the Palestinians because:

Israel’s widespread use of detention and imprisonment against Palestinians evokes the mass incarceration of Black people in the US.

I find this statement to be incorrect, misguided, and offensive in so many different ways. The utter lack of correlation and logic of this premise escapes me. Taking this view is turning a blind eye to the long-standing terrorism perpetrated against the citizens of Israel, the constant attacks against civilians, specifically children, restaurants, buses, and ambulances. The constant rejection of peace offerings makes clear that the only acceptable resolution is the destruction of the State of Israel in the eyes of the Arab nations, leaving the government no other option but to act to protect its citizens. It negates the role the Jewish community has played in the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, shows a lack of respect and understanding of the history of Israel, and the devastation, torture, and genocide of the Jewish people over the years. To view the Palestinian people solely as victims when the Arab nations were, in fact, the aggressors is a “slap in the face” to history and facts. To blame everything Israel is simply ignorant. The Arab nations exiled the Jews from their countries and then would not accept the Palestinian people into their land.

This is all just a sad consequence of the fact that so many years have passed and most people have forgotten how the whole situation and conflict began.

I will admit that Israel is not perfect. I, personally, do not care for the Likkud, Benjamin Netanyahu, or many of the actions Israel has done to further themselves from any chance of finding peace. Personally, I believe some of the policies implemented by Netanyahu are hurting Israel. For instance, the party’s increase of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, an area where the Jews who have agreed are Palestinian territory, thereby violating an agreement made between Palestine and Israel, is helping movements such as BDS or BLM paint a picture of Israel making them as the aggressors in this conflict.

No nation is perfect. Look at America’s history: slavery was legal and integrated into our culture. Even after it was abolished we have a long history of segregation, discrimination, and inequality (a fight that continues today). The American government placed Japanese in internment camps across the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and then, there was the St. Louis, a ship carrying 935 Jews escaping the Nazis and heading towards Cuba which was, controlled by the United States at the time, and how only 26 of the 935 passengers were allowed to disembark. Many of the passengers had already filed for visas and made arrangements, granting permission to stay in Cuba until they received their United States visas. When US-based Jewish organizations tried to negotiate with the Cuban government to let the rest of the passengers in, the United States, felt it was a “specific and internal matter of Cuba,” and didn’t feel any need to intercede on the refugees’ behalf, sending them back to Europe facing a certain death. Months before the incident with the St. Louis, the 76th United States Congress rejected legislation that, would have allowed 20,000 Jewish German children to come to the United States to seek refuge. After all of this, how can Americans hold Israel to a higher standard than themselves?

To this very day, African Americans, Muslims, Jews, Latinos, and countless other ethnicities, races, religions, and nationalities are targeted in America, however, these same Americans fight Israel’s right to exist.

To blame Israel for protecting itself from the constant attacks seems hypocritical, even worse it is unacceptable. The BLM knows they would not accept it for themselves, and therefore, why should they expect Israel to live under such conditions?

To sum it all up, I still question why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is included in the Black Lives Matters movement’s platform, especially when this is a movement based on issues that need attention and with the right impact could do tremendous good here in the United States—to free a country from racism, prejudice, and racial profiling. I support the ending of all of these things and will do all that is in my power to help end prejudice and racism, to educate and bring equality for all, but if their purpose is to end all discrimination and racism, this cannot be achieved through the furtherance of discrimination and prejudice of others.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said in response to one student’s question:

When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking antisemitism.

As long as the Black Lives Matters Movement has included these misguided and offensive issues in their platform, I sadly can no longer endorse such a movement.

[A New Journey: The Free and Open Exchange of Ideas]