Who's Mourning For Fidel Castro?

By most historical accounts, Fidel Castro is cited as being a cruel and violent dictator who slaughtered Cuban citizens who disagreed with him, abused homosexual and Cuban citizens of various religions by forcing them to work in camps (which most would call slavery), and sold his own people to repay debts to other countries, but his legacy stands out as a revolutionary. In the wake of his death, we see Cuban Americans, descendants of Cuban refugees who fled Cuba for fear of Castro, celebrating his death in Miami, Florida. While most media outlets reported this for what it was, which was the overdue death of a cruel dictator, many who’s political views sway far to the left mourned, with the general consensus being that he was a revolutionary who made Cuba great again, and many Cuban citizens still viewed Castro as being a good leader despite their overwhelming lack of freedoms and basic human rights that Castro himself never denied denying. How is it that on any level the work of Fidel Castro can be seen as positive.

To start with, Fidel Castro was well educated. Fidel’s father, after becoming wealthy selling sugar cane, sent young Fidel to live with his teacher where he would be baptized Roman Catholic, thus allowing him to attend Jesuit boarding school. After doing well here, he would go on to a more prestigious Jesuit school where he began to slack until he entered college at the University of Havana. At this time, Castro found himself “politically illiterate” and quickly became a young activist, going as far as traveling to the Dominican Republic to overthrow they’re then dictator Rafael Trujillo and then traveled to Columbia to participate in anti-government rioting. At this point, Castro is hardly any different from the social justice warriors holding up traffic. It’s also noteworthy and surprising that around this time, Fidel joined an anti-communist group.

Years later Castro married a woman from a wealthy family with strong political connections that helped push Castro’s political dreams to reality. Shortly after this, Castro began to dive deep into the communist manifesto of Karl Marx, changing is political ideology for the worst and inspiring him to run for a seat in congress in 1952 where a coup led by the soon to be dictator General Fulgencio Batista stopped the election. While imprisoned for trying to stop Batista, Castro was still in contact with the rest of his resistance, then called the “26^th of July Movement”. Even after being freed under an amnesty deal, Castro left Cuba to plot against Batista and his government. It was during this he met with other exiles from Cuba and reached the conclusion violence was the only answer. At the 32 years old, Castro had become the dominant force of Cuba, and would go on to become a full on communist, growing close with Russia regarding oil, as well as a nationalist, implementing laws making it illegal for foreign property ownership, leading to conflict with the U.S and Castro’s actions becoming increasingly radical.

Castro wanted to emphasize that he didn’t need America, and that him and his communist allies were capable of taking care of themselves and able to fend of imperialists which resulted in catastrophical failure. To flex his power, Castro would send military force, that he was unable to afford, to other countries to help them in their efforts resulting in thousands of deaths. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuban citizens faced great hardships forcing many to leave Cuba. Castro was not fond of this as being unable to care for his people hurt his ego as a prideful leader. A notable incident involved a vessel with 72 Cuban citizens attempting to leave Cuba, where Castro ordered the boat be destroyed resulting in the deaths of 41 people, 10 of which were children. All surviving men were picked up and immediately jailed. During Castro’s reign, there were 3,615 firing squad related deaths for “Criminals”. The difference between most criminals getting the death penalty and these criminals was the fact that the results were predetermined and evidence was a luxury and as Castro himself said was “unnecessary”. While these are documented, there is evidence to suggest that were more than a thousand more firing squad related murders permitted by Fidel Castro. Fidel also strongly supported labor camps for those who resisted him, or for those he just didn’t like. Homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Protestants, and even fellow Catholics made up the 30,000 Cuban citizens Fidel Castro wanted removed from his Cuba. Today Cuba’s lightened up a little on their human rights violations but keep just enough control to keep Cuban citizens in the dark restricting all media on every level, and yet people find Fidel’s Cuba to be good on it’s citizens.

A common pro-Fidel argument is the literacy rate, which is very high. This argument shows two things. One, American culture is dangerously dependent on social media, and two, due to the control of communist countries people have literally nothing to do other than improve on education. Russia and China also have literacy rates in the same range as Cuba and play the same media manipulation games as Cuba, banning things like Facebook for fearing users may find out new cars were made after the 50’s. Another argument pro-Fidel is Cuban healthcare. To be clear, Cuba does have good doctors as to be expected with high literacy rates. However, the laws regarding agreements between doctors and patients are extremely limited if nonexistent. Privacy, informed consent, refusal of treatment, and suing for malpractice are all forbidden. This goes very well with the Cuban government’s quota to make the government healthcare seem better than it is. For instance, as Katherine Hirschfeld, an anthropology professor noted, if a baby in an ultrasound appeared to have any defects the doctor would perform an abortion and the patient would have, as the laws are made, no right to refuse. It’s also worth noting that basic, non-prescription drugs common in the states may only be found in the “black market” of Cuba.

There are two kinds of people who can review the history and actions of Fidel Castro and honestly believe he did good for Cuba: The ignorant and the un-American. Fidel Castro hated America and everything it stood for, which falls in line with the ever more normal far left ideology where celebrating Thanksgiving is immoral and America has always been a terrible place full of racists and bigots who have done nothing but impose their will on innocent countries. It’s this philosophy that opened the flood gates for socialists like Bernie Sanders who, if not for tampering by the party he aligned with, could become president of the United States and make things like “#resistcapitalism” trend on Twitter. For the ignorant, it’s more understandable. As stated, Cuba, prior to Castro, had an equally bad dictator leading them dethroned by Castro, and since then have shown, according to information given, very good statistics in literacy rates and health related issues. But, as this Caribbean iron curtain lifts and Cuban Americans rejoice, it’s very clear that Fidel Castro was a cruel dictator who has hurt Cuba for years to come.

Social Justice Warriors: Champions of Stupidity

Most people send their children off to college assuming their son or daughter will be influenced positively, by making new friends and learning necessary skills to benefit them in the work force. What they don't expect is for their sons and daughters to be bullied for their political beliefs, and ,even worse, they don't expect their kids to become radical leftists out of touch with reality. However in recent years many universities have taken it upon themselves to "educate" students on the various discriminations found world wide. They do this by immediately putting down any white heterosexual students suggesting they're are beneficiaries of the notorious "White Privilege". Unfortunately, the students who take these far left lies to heart become what is commonly referred to as a "Social Justice Warrior"(SJWs), and attempt the shame and belittle anyone who disagrees with their opinion.

When speaking about SJWs, nothing strikes me more than feminism. If you buy into the SJW's ideas of feminism, you more than likely believe in the "wage gap", the abstract body known as the "patriarchy", and the systematic oppression of women, and if you disagree you're a misogynist pig and part of the problem. Firstly, there is no "wage gap", as it's illegal for anything of that nature to exist, and any women experiencing it could take their employer to court and walk away with heavy pockets. Why aren't women taking their oppressive, sexist employers to court? Because there is no legal ground to stand on what doesn't exist. What many have been mislead to believe is wage gap, is actually an earning gap. The difference being a wage is what one is paid hourly, and an earning is getting paid for the amount of time one works. In an article for Slate, Hanna Rosin explains how statistics have been twisted to purpose this pay gap, stating the Bureau of Labor's statistics show women making 77% of the median income for full time employed men, not 77 cents per dollar. When looking at the incomes between young men and women, that 77% gap drops to a 93% gap. Why the gap at all? Eileen Patten of Pew Research, using data from their survey, suggests the gap occurs due to the fact women in the survey showed they were more likely to take career interruptions to do things, such as caring for family members, more than men were, and had the potential to do long term damage in terms of their careers. Besides the pay gap, feminists insist the Western world has been consumed by a culture supporting rape. This idea holds no credibility, due to the fact it's illegal and is in no way condoned by mainstream America. Feminists argue that men aren't being taught about consent enough, which has led to culture supporting rape. Murder, theft and rape have been illegal for a while now, with hundreds, if not thousands, groups and organizations condemning such actions, and yet they still happen. The portrayal of rapists by feminism obscures the fact that rapists are regular criminals who knowingly broke the law, hence the reason rapists are punished when found guilty. This then brings up the notion that society blames the victim and places all fault on them, when in reality society looks at every victim who puts themselves in the position to become a victim at fault. Rape is never justified, but if you're in a bad neighborhood waving cash around, your odds of being robbed are more than likely higher than someone who keeps their cash out of sight, point being that criminals are everywhere, and while it would be amazing if all rapists disappeared, criminals will forever exist so it's unfortunately necessary to take extra precautions, like not getting black out drunk around complete strangers or hanging out with the wrong crowd. Be triggered.  

In an attempt to save students from hurt feelings, many universities have stamped "trigger warnings" on books that might contain offensive material to insure students are safe from emotional distress with some claiming to be suffering from symptoms as severe as PTSD(yes, like military veterans). Instances where students have asked professors to refrain from using the word "rape", when the teacher is teaching laws concerning rape are not unheard of. The idea of trigger warnings actually stems from feminist websites suggesting that the trauma caused by rape requires everything and anything mentioning rape should be censored to protect the victim's feelings. While I agree, making rape jokes or excessively talking about rape around a victim is not a good idea, many of those who study PTSD have stated that creating "safe spaces" does more harm than good to PTSD victims than good as denying small exposure to what harmed them reinforces and magnifies the fear. While rape is one thing, SJWs have applied safe spaces and trigger warnings to anyone with any variation from the standard heterosexual white male, who gets no safe space or trigger warnings despite constantly being shunned in debate for having "white privilege". Conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos are constantly being banned or interrupted and shut down by SJWs who protect the ideas of those who they agree with, but are immediately "triggered" by even the presence anyone who disagrees with their ideas on on things like gender and racial equality. 

SJWs are so adamantly against heterosexual white males due to the core SJW belief of systematic racism. It's said that white men are privileged due to various reasons including income disparity, incarceration disparity, and, the greatest of all these lies, the disparity in the rate of men killed by police due to racism. What SJWs can't grasp is that disparity in no way equates to racism, but does that even matter when their claims are blatantly wrong? A Harvard study showed no bias in shootings, completely destroying Black Lives Matter's claim of police hunting African Americans, but did show bias in police use of force against African Americans, so it must be racism? Another statistic done in NYC shows cops much more likely charge African Americans with resisting arrest than white people. Clearly more evidence of systematic racism? The FBI statistics from 2013 show African Americans in the U.S commit 52% of murder, 31% of rape, 56% of robbery, and at least in the 30% range for almost every crime with the exception of intoxication/alcohol laws, prostitution, and unspecified sex crimes.This is alarming due to the fact that African Americans only make up 13% of the U.S population. Does this mean if you're African American you're inherently a criminal? No, and the fact the rate of crime from those under 18 and older than 18 stays almost the same suggests a very real problem affecting the youth in predominantly African American communities that needs to be addressed as soon as possible to prevent African American youth from becoming another statistic in a continuous cycle. However SJWs would rather blindly argue police and the "system" are against African Americans, while Black on Black crime is the leading killer among African American males. Black Lives Matter, a group supported by SJW's, leads the front in ignoring these facts and accuses white people of causing every problem for African Americans while simultaneously doing nothing but damage minority communities, as seen in Baltimore and Ferguson, .  While the disparity between African American and Caucasian American crime is startling, there are plenty of other disparities nobody mentions, like Asian Americans having the highest median income of anyone, but nobody screams about Asian Privilege. 

Outside of racial privilege, there is one more privilege many of us forgot, and that is the privilege of being cisgender. Crazy enough, having a penis between your legs and knowing you're a male is privilege full numerous benefits you never knew about, such as being able to use the appropriate bathroom that corresponds with our genders. SJWs argue the transgender community is wrongfully oppressed by not being able to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with, and if you agree with these bathroom rules, you're a transphobic bigot, and if you think it's a mental disorder to be transgender, heaven help you. Dr. Paul McHugh, former Psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins hospital says being transgender is a "mental disorder", and that a legitimate sex change is "biologically impossible" while citing suicide rates being 20 times higher among those who receive the sex change surgery than those who didn't get the surgery and citing the statistic that up to 80% of minors with transgender like feelings completely lose their feelings of misidentification over time. But even to those who point out the opinions of professionals without personal bias against the trans community are bigots by the SJWs who openly welcome everyone's feelings except white people.

When it comes to racism SJWs have a crazy belief that no one can be racist against white people because minorities apparently hold no power, portraying the average white person as somewhat of a slave master to minorities. MTV even made videos to explain to us silly white people, that no one can actually be racist against us. Franchesca Ramsey, who serves as the lecturer, says(while wearing a wig and speaking in a way portraying a white women) the dictionary definition of "racism" is "simple" and that to truly understand racism, we need to understand sociologies definition of the term as it boils down to prejudice and power. She then goes on to claim, because it's her opinion and she's oppressed black woman tired of our racial ignorance, we should take sociologists definition. Coincidentally,Cambridge's dictionary has a different definition  more congruent with the dictionary's. Unfortunately, SJWs continue to perpetuate the idea that due to one's skin color, if they're white, they lose all sense of empathy for minorities unless you agree with them. Due to the obvious hypocrisy in one man telling another man of the same race he can't understand something that he can understand because of his skin color, this reveals itself as a tactic to do nothing more than cut down opposition to the SJW's opinion and to eliminate free thought. In a discussion, how would one person's race affect the topic of debate? It doesn't.

Ultimately SJW's are really just products of radical progressivism invading school systems from grade school to college filling kid's heads with ideas of feelings, safe spaces, and a fictional pay gap, rather than factual information and reality. The millennial progressives insist the narrative that women are being oppressed in the U.S despite the fact there is not one law oppressing women and the fact women have full control over having an abortion, regardless of the father's feelings, which seems pretty sexist against men to me. Because of this, older generations of feminists view current feminism as a shell of the movement it once was. Much like how feminism became null and void, SJWs rally behind Black Lives Matter, who have incited the deaths of multiple police officers, like a new Civil Rights Movement, except for the fact it lacks peace and credibility entirely. While pretending to be for civil rights, they target white males for their ethnicity so their ideas have less resistance, regardless of the means, but if you dare bring up statistical facts, you're racist and lying. SJWs demand you agree with their opinion and life choices, regardless of the facts surrounding your opinions or you're a bigot, efficiently creating more stupid people who exercise feelings rather than thought. But you can't even entirely blame the school systems. Media of every type from Twitter to the new Ghostbusters film are constantly forcing their philosophy on the youth, and shunning any differing opinion under the guise of hate speech. SJWs are merely a new manifestation of fascism spreading like a plague in college universities that have prohibited free speech and free thought in favor of "safe spaces" that are used to cultivate mindless drones who scream and yell whatever they're told to in the name of equality.

If You "Felt the Burn", I'm Sorry

 To the Bernie Sanders supporters, I'm sorry. The DNC leak makes it very clear the Democratic Party did everything they could to undermine the Sander's campaign, leaving his supporters up in arms. Outside of the DNC rose protests, with many Sander's supporters saying they would be voting for Trump instead of Hillary, citing her untrustworthy nature and due to the leaks specifically. The leak was so bad the Democratic National Committee apologized to Bernie for how malicious the emails were, one suggesting an attack on his Jewish faith. Despite the fact that DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schult, who in emails belittled Bernie to help Hillary's campaign while claiming to be unbiased in her job , resigned, the damage was far from over, at least for Sander's supporters

At the DNC, Bernie Sanders took being thrown away by the Democratic party like a champ, as he again preached to his devoted supporters that Trump was not a viable option and that Hillary, who he once said was unfit for the job, was the only option for POTUS.. Some supporters embraced the idea of the first women president, while most of his supporters wept as their hero essentially gave up on the "revolution". Despite efforts of the Cameramen to avoid the emotional Sander's supporters, it was evident that the DNC was divided, even more so than the RNC. As Sanders hit his key points including the distribution of wealth, harmony among races and those with varying sexual preferences, and raising the minimum wage, his supporters stood firm and were arguably the loudest and most genuine in showing their support. Though Bernie left the stage vowing to do everything he could to make America greater, the disdain from other speakers towards the strong Bernie supporters was apparent.

The most disgusting moment towards the Bernie supporters came before Bernie had even spoken, when Sarah Silverman and Al Franken took stage. Sarah Silverman claimed to have been a supporter of Sanders but then suggested she would happily take up voting for Clinton. The moment of disgust came moments later where Silverman said "Can I just say, to the 'Bernie or bust' people, you’re being ridiculous." The crowds didn't take the comedian's words well, and the once quiet chant of "Bernie" rose, leaving Silverman and Franken looking a bit worried and confused, but it got worse. After the noise calmed down came the final blow, where Franken said him and Silverman were a "bridge". Silverman chimed in and said "How do you figure that, Al? How do you figure that we’re a bridge?”, "Well, you were for Bernie, I’m for Hillary, so we are like a bridge" in a very scripted attempt, more than likely suggested by someone else(Hillary reps), to bring Bernie and Hillary supporters together. But understand, the unification was only attempted with the purpose of Hillary winning the election.

As someone who would never vote for Hillary or Bernie, I was in shock at how poorly the Sander's supporters had been treated at the convention and during the campaigning process by their own party. Silverman and Franken's commentary turned into an overwhelming smack in the face to anyone who wouldn't convert to support Clinton, when it shouldn't have shocked anyone that Bernie supporters were straying from the Democratic party. Why would such a dedicated following switch to the side of a woman who had the party eating from her hand encouraging the failure of the Sander's campaign? Bernie never had a chance and his supporters were completely cheated due to the Democratic parties agenda to promote the Clinton dynasty. While I strongly disagree with the "Feel the Bern" movement,  their choice to abandon their party's candidate on the grounds they won't compromise their values is missing in all parties, and admirable. 

Jack Dorsey Frequently Associates with Those Who "Incite Violence"

Recently Breitbart Tech editor and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter under the claim he broke Twitter's rule of "inciting violence" against Leslie Jones after he released a review of the new Ghostbusters film she stars in. Upon releasing the review, some followers of Milo said obnoxious and racist things about Leslie Jones causing her to report those individual Twitter users and Milo himself, despite Milo only essentially saying she was illiterate and a man after Leslie Jones attacked him with hateful comments. But according to many articles on the matter, Milo is a racist that rallied other racists with hate speech to attack her and even hacked into Leslie Jones's twitter account to send fake tweets to tarnish her reputation. Of course that narrative was completely fabricated and was crafted for the sole purpose of dispatching one of the most prominent homosexual conservatives on social media, but more interestingly one of the few times Twitter has actually permanently banned someone for "inciting violence".

Jack Dorsey(my fellow Bishop Dubourg High School Alum) typically sees associating with those who "incite violence" as the right thing to do as he attended a Q&A with Deray Mckesson of Black Lives Matter, a group notorious for "inciting violence". While never directly killing anyone(Deray Mckesson),The anti-police message associated with Black Lives Matter has caused(incited) their followers to attack and murder innocent officers on numerous occasions within the last month. On July 7th, in Dallas, TX,  Micah Johnson killed five officers and injured another nine claiming he "wanted to kill white people" after hearing the message of Black Lives Matter following the deaths of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. Of course Black Lives Matter claims to condemn these actions, but does nothing to stop their followers from taking to Twitter to applaud police murders or  stop them from encouraging more. Surely Jack Dorsey would step in and ban Black Lives Matter and their members for "inciting violence", right? Nope, they got an emoji.

Jack Dorsey and Deray Mckesson of BLM say they want Twitter to represent,
"every voice", ironically.

Since a B-list actress was protected from mean words, surely a presidential candidate would be protected as well, right? Nope. If you search "Kill Trump" on Twitter, you can find dozens, probably hundreds, of post with people begging for Trump to be killed and for people to step up and assassinate him. These posts have been around for months with new ones coming up everyday, and the shear amount makes the odds that Twitter's staff isn't seeing them very slim. However, if you search Twitter for "Kill Hillary" or "Kill Bernie" you will find nothing, so either Trump's supporters are that much more tame than Hillary's and Bernie's or Twitter is more or less targeting and allowing the targeting of prominent conservative figures. But this comes as no surprise from a company that denies any threat in Islam and is extremely slow to react to radical Islamic posts, such as those promoting ISIS or those simply promoting the most recent terror attacks.

Since Twitter is all about eliminating hate speech and those "inciting violence" it's rather alarming to see the vast amount of ISIS sympathizers and ISIS members themselves posting so frequently on Twitter. What's even more alarming is that critiquing Islam will get your tweet deleted or get your account suspended faster than actually being in ISIS and posting the "violence inciting" material being critiqued. How is it that Twitter's employees miss the accounts of ISIS members sharing details of their acts and displaying warnings for future attacks but immediately know to rush to the aid of Leslie Jones? How does Twitter allow Farrakhan, who's called for the murder of innocent people, to get a platform of speech, but not a gay man who said a movie sucked? Again, it seems there's a clash of priorities.

Despite permanently suspending an account for "inciting violence" by sharing an opinion, Jack Dorsey has made a personal effort to surround himself with those guilty of the same crime but to a much higher degree. Milo Yianoppoulos made a film review critiquing a movie, while Black Lives Matter calls for actions against cops. Milo's supporters wrongly hurt feelings(as Milo agreed) while Black Lives Matter's supporters killed almost a dozen officers in a month's time and wounded many more(which other supporters applauded). Taking Milo down has been one of Twitter's main priorities for a while now, but, for some reason, they've done the bare minimum at stopping ISIS and their supporters from tweeting of their disgusting acts including killing Americans and slaughtering native homosexuals . Twitter has done nothing to stop death threats and and death wishes aimed at Trump, but coincidentally there are no death wishes towards Hillary or Bernie you can find that haven't been removed, suggesting that at the end of the day this is politics. Twitter is a very left platform, with fittingly left views in that they want everyone treated equally unless you disagree with their ideology. Milo's permanent suspension was coming with or without the Leslie Jones conflict. Why? Milo's conservative comments and opinions have made him targeted by Twitter for a while now, because things like disagreeing with Transgender people's choices is "problematic", and saying "feminism is cancer" is "inciting violence" and dangerous. While Twitter is a private company that has the right to do what they please, the reasoning behind Milo's ban is clearly a lie based on the table of people Jack Dorsey associates with and who he allows to remain on Twitter despite having a proven record, with a body count to show, of "inciting violence".

Thanks for reading, if you like what you've read subscribe and follow me on twitter @Robash97

Update: Twitter executives and employees squirmed when Milo asked if they supported free speech at the RNC, and Wikileaks has threatened to start a rival company due to Milo's ban.

Why the 3%er Movement is Relevant

 The term 3%'ers (III%'ers or 3 Percenters) refers to the claimed 3% of colonists who fought in the American Revolutionary War against the British to achieve American independence. Today, another group has taken the statistic as a title with what they see as the same mission. Resisting authoritarianism, tyranny, and upholding the constitution. To the radical liberal plague enveloping the college scene of America, some of the 3% might appear as a bunch of redneck vigilantes fringing on the grounds of racism. Presumptuous feelings aside, to understand the movement you must review ancient history; the 90's.

The flag of the 3%ers. 

 The birth of the 3%'er movement was not an anomaly. In the wake of the Columbine shootings, people were gravitating heavily towards the idea of gun control. Every person had their opinion on the issue, and some were even in favor of the U.S implementing the same policies,ironically, as Britain. To one who follows the constitution strictly, this is was a nightmare, especially after 1994 which introduced the Federal Assault Weapon Ban which, whether you like the amendment or not, infringed on the right to bear arms. The main focus being that weapons with such stomping power should not be of easy access to those with the intent to cause harm to innocent people. However, the 3%ers and many other Americans, as well as many outside of the U.S, recognize this is not a weapons issue but a people issue.



The Obama administration, mostly Obama himself, consistently persuades(with major success)the public that he's not trying to deny citizens their right to bear arms, but trying to stop criminals from attaining high power or even military grade firearms. This is bullshit. Obama has openly declared assault weapons being available to the public is immoral, and has attempted many times to eliminate guns held by legal carriers off the streets despite the new 'Wild Wild West' created by him in Chicago. Basically, Obama, and the rest of the left are saying "You can have guns, just none that can really do anything", and that's how the 3%ers perceive this. If the government ever began to enforce laws the citizens disapproved of, we would not be able to defend ourselves due to the fact our equipment could not combat the military's in a fight to protect our freedom, which denies the purpose of the second amendment that's already being infringed on, and the idea that a democratic country could turn on it's own people isn't abstract to the history books.


Last year in Colorado as many know, Freedom of religion was denied to a Christian bakery for stating it was against their religion to provide cake for a gay couple's wedding. Now if it was me in that situation, I would say "fuck you" and leave because there's other bakeries and I wouldn't want to fund a place of such discrimination. The couple took another approach and brought it to court, and won denying a religious belief that is fundamental in every major monotheistic religion in the world(against homosexuality), and while I have nothing but support for the LBGTQ community, it seems that religious freedom is very dim flame in the Left's agenda. Across America, cases like this are increasingly common, where religion is open to persecution(unless it's Islam) and never defended(unless it's Islam).


 Islam, as some are aware, and many unwilling to accept, commits more theological based crime than any other religion world wide, due to it's inherently aggressive nature found within the Quran and the dedication of its many followers. This is made especially apparent by the rapid increase of crime in Europe due to the E.U allowing both innocent and dangerous people to flood in from predominantly Muslim countries with absolutely no information as to who any of these people were. The statistics are shocking, as within less than a year of the refugee invasion, the Dailymail reported migrant crime went up 79%. The statistics in Sweden make it clear that since the migration, the rate of rapes has increased. The 3%ers recognize that Islam is a massive potential threat to Western civilization that is both proven and somewhat hidden. The 3%ers have been seen protesting outside of Mosques in the U.S with guns, discouraging Muslims from coming to America and in general being here. And while I don't support these actions, there is clear evidence to support the notion that the values of Americans, both conservative and especially liberal, heavily conflict with those of the Middle Eastern Islamic community, seeing as how we don't make it a habit to throw gay people off of buildings or decapitate those with different beliefs. Actions like those mentioned are the inherit threat of allowing undocumented refugees into the U.S, which is why the 3%ers are so concerned with Islam in general.

"Syrian" Refugees stopped at European borders respond with love. (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/624648/Chilling-message-menacing-migrants-demand-open-borders-die)

 The rise of 3%ers should not be a shock to anyone as some of us have allowed the government to convince us that we can't responsibly carry weapons, but should trust said weapons in the hands of those who serve under our government who deny the enemy at home and abroad. Denying legal gun owners the right to military grade weapons makes it easy for tyrannical power to come, take control via military force, and push citizens around in the same way the British did to the early colonists(which is why the 2nd Amendment exists), and in the same way Hitler did to the Jewish.It's also rather terrifying to see our president consistently deny the inherit threat of Islam on American soil and equally as terrifying when a presidential candidate can openly break the law that others have been punished for and be charged with nothing. While I don't think the U.S army is about to march down the street to impose the will of Obama Christ, are we the people truly to be disarmed of our ability to combat possible government tyranny by a president with the potential to be succeeded by a woman who, despite clear evidence of guilt, walked away from a crime that could put you or I behind bars?


If you've enjoyed reading this, please subscribe for weekly content, and follow me on twitter @RobAsh97, Thank you.