U.S. Flags Matter (For the Moment)

Since President-elect Donald Trump won the election on Tuesday thousands have gathered to protest in cities across the United States, denouncing and avidly claiming he is not their president. If that wasn’t enough to piss off Trump supporters trying to celebrate their long-shot victory over Secretary Hillary Clinton, burning the U.S. flag has certainly lit a fire on their facebook feed.

To Trumpeters and fellow conservatives, burning of the flag only serves as a further extension of the disrespect others have of their beloved nation and subsequently, although illogical, disrespect of armed forces and veterans. Beginning with the countless protests by Black Lives Matters two years ago to the more recent displays of dissent by football players starting with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, many gung-ho Americans have been up in arms (literally at times) over these acts. Now with their holy Trump taking over the White House, they believe order will be restored and the streets will be cleared of these devout First Amendment protesters.

While flag burning was deemed constitutional and protected under the First Amendment by freedom of speech in the 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, some believe that Trump will have the power to overturn this ruling once he installs new justices to the Supreme Court. At the moment, it seems the reality tv star will have an immediate opportunity to fill the bench as the Senate continues to stall with President Barack Obama’s nominee, and it will very likely return to a conservative slanted courthouse.

What remains in question is how will a flag protection act be enacted, as the Senate will need a supermajority to pass any legislation, needing at least 10 additional votes from across the aisle. While some Democrats may be hard-pressed, especially if they are vulnerable to be voted out in mid-term elections, arguably they might form a coalition that vows to not work with Republicans just as the GOP had done for the past 8 years. Maybe the Trump administration can single out certain Democrats that feel flag-burning is unpatriotic, but it will not be easy.

If and once the legislation passes, will it be automatically implemented or will it need to pass various hurdles as again the Supreme Court had already decided bans on flag burning were unconstitutional? And if it does reach the highest court in the land, how will it be decided?

If the Texas v. Johnson case is any indication, it might be not be as easy as some Trump and other Conservatives like to believe. The case was a 5-4 split, with liberal Justice William Brennan writing the opinion that “burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct.” What was perhaps most astounding about the case is two of the Justices that sided with the majority included Republican-leaning judges such as the late Antonin Scalia and current Justice Anthony Kennedy, with Kennedy providing a concurrence stating “…sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right….”

Therefore, so long as Kennedy still believes that flag burning is protected speech and the four liberal Justices side with him, any legislation banning such an act will be deemed unconstitutional. This is not all too clear either, as the original case found some liberals against flag-burning, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor has shown that she is above partisan politics when deciding Supreme Court cases.

In conclusion, burning of the U.S. flag will remain a staple in the protests against Trump and all he stands for, and an eyesore to those that champion the symbol over other issues plaguing the nation, at least for another two years. Until then, protests shouldn’t forget to bring some chestnuts to roast over that open fire while they freeze their buns in front of Trump Tower.

Chris Christie Demoted to the Doghouse

Days after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said that the Bridge-gate scandal should not affect his standing in a President-elect Trump administration, Vice President-elect Mike Pence has taken over Christie’s position as head of the transition team.

A source close to Trump has stated the replacement was necessary to utilize Pence’s connections on the Capitol in order to have smooth transition into the White House. Some believe the decision to change hands was because of Christie’s connection to the 2013 scandal involving lane closings in Fort Lee as revenge against the Mayor for not endorsing his re-election.

Christie alone openly believed his swift termination of the aides responsible for the lane closings in Fort Lee relinquished him of any responsibility to the scandal. He also pleaded innocence after a court decision last month found both aides guilty of fraud and corruption. No one else in the Governor’s administration was charged with a crime.

Christie’s name had been further tarnished during the trial when it was revealed during the 2013 governor election that he used gifts and other privileged items to garner support from Democrats, including 9/11 memorabilia. The prosecution’s star witness, assistant to Christie that was given immunity for his cooperation, detailed Christie’s first time hearing about the traffic jams during a 9/11 ceremony held at the World Trade Center memorial.

This was Christie’s last shot at maintaining a position in the Republican Party after he steps down as governor after the 2017 gubernatorial election. The former Justice Department lawyer had fallen out of the grace of the GOP after the infamous photo of him embracing President Obama during Superstorm Sandy and the 2012 election.

Christie’s name had also been floated around as a contender for a cabinet position as are most Trump surrogates as a reward for their good faith during the election. It’s still unclear whether Christie will still be offered a position or have to return to New Jersey after the newly elected president takes over the White House.

Trump's Crusade Against Globalism

Throughout the 2016 presidential election, Republican nominee Donald Trump has shown that he is not a candidate that can be pigeonholed. In a public speech that focused on the economy, the business tycoon went after controversial trade agreements and took to task "a leadership class that worships globalism." It is the most recent attempt to separate himself from the business elite, including those in the GOP.

The rhetoric against globalism and elitism is not entirely new for Trump, nor his disdain towards a polemic topic like international trade agreements with the United States.  He's been stumping across the country against the establishment who have supported these policies. It's especially appealing to the growing libertarian base, most supporting Republicans for the past several decades, before more recent attempts to branch out. It has also been a source of ridicule for the Bernie Sanders campaign, blaming America's faltering middle class on the loss of jobs overseas as a result from trade agreements like NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.

What is perhaps most confounding about his statements against globalism, or neoliberalism for the matter, is that his business ventures have partaken in many of the benefits the New World Order has to offer the elite. Outsourcing jobs to China and Bangladesh in order to manufacture his products, owning stock of companies that rely on tax havens and offshore accounts to protect their enormous profits. Hell he didn’t have to leave the country to exploit tax loopholes, similar to measures other corporate global elitists have pursued by lobbying their friends in Congress.

Trump’s new stance against globalism doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t agree with some of it’s most basic tenets. He is still pushing for tax cut for both the wealthy and large corporations, including a reparation of offshore-investments at a discounted rate of 10%. There is also very little doubt that the self-made millionaire favors the private-sector over public and would encourage the privatization of any service including water or the fire department.

The only thing that comes out of Trump’s mouth besides lies and blatant ignorance is hot air, and he has a lot of it. He is only feeding off a populist anger against trade deals and immigration, somehow believing being anti-globalist separates him from Clinton because she’s an elitist. Trump being Trump doesn’t realize that a majority of the Republican party were more than friendly with the worshippers of globalism, hell, being devout followers themselves. He can continue thinking he’s scoring points with the hardhats of America, just as he continues to destroy the GOP from the outside in.

Trump's Done, Lets Win the Senate

As the upcoming election dates draws near, who will come out on top is becoming all too clear with the latest update on Republican nominee Donald Trump’s flailing campaign. After an abysmal donation filing last month, Trump is left with a paltry $1.3 million on hand compared to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at $41 million. Paired with a nationwide campaign outreach of 70 employees to Clinton's 700, and Trump's campaign appears to be in terrible disarray.

If anything, this should be a breathe of relief to not only Muslims and Latinos but also intrepid Democrats fearing a Trump presidency. Yet their sights seem to remain on the White House, perhaps not giving enough thought to the Senate, necessary in part to passing any legislation the Clinton administration will come to support. Why not spread Clinton's war-chest to other races that could change the face of the Senate?
 
While Republicans currently hold the majority in the Senate by four, they are separated by only several seats from the Democrats for that title. Larry J. Sabato predicts Republicans may lose up to six seats in toss-up elections. According to Politico, there are 15 seats that can be viable openings for Democrats to reclaim the majority and even push them past a supermajority. Some Republican-held seats have become slightly more vulnerable under a Trump ballot, such as John McCain in Latino-heavy Arizona and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. To increase their shot of declaring victory the candidates will need some help (funds) along the way to last until the election.

One of the Democratic Senate candidates include Deborah Ross of North Carolina, taking on incumbent GOP Senator Richard Burr. Seen as a vulnerable seat because of the state's demographics, matched with a growing grassroots effort in response to numerous state laws including voting rights and the recent anti-trans bathroom bill. Still, Ross is not seen as a sure-shot because of her history as the former chair of the state's ACLU and "may need all the help she can get."

Other races seem long-shots such as unseating Ohio Senator Rob Portman or Rand Paul of Kentucky, but any of the races are worth a shot when Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Clinton, has $52 million on hand. The Koch brothers have reportedly chosen to focus their efforts on Senate elections instead of Trump, Democratic strategists must suggest donors and others to do the same. There are enough voters ready and willing to make sure Trump doesn’t become president, Clinton has amassed a highly professional and well-supported campaign. Let’s share the wealth rather than waste it on a shoe-in candidate.

Gun Control is the Issue, Not Terrorists

While House Democrats united to protest the lack of effort to bring about gun rights reform, the rest of Washington has decided to stick with the terrorist angle of the mass-shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando. Not surprising that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump has resorted to blaming the entire violent act on ISIL and Islam, but for his Democratic opponent Secretary Hillary Clinton to take the bait is a bit astounding.

Sure it's basic politics to respond to your opponent during a presidential election campaign, but it is time for the Clinton camp to learn that not everything Trump says needs to be refuted publicly. Leave that for Jake Tapper and the Washington Post. If Clinton wants to appeal to more voters, keeping the focus on gun control laws is the better route to take. Most on the left rightfully blame this attack as a gun control problem, not a terrorist threat.

Clinton has given necessary attention to the issue of lax gun regulations and needing to reinstate a ban on assault rifles, but still her campaign statement primarily focused on the terrorist element of the attack. She has since become embroiled in the issue of how culpable ISIL is for this lone-wolf attack, and what type of punishment should be given. She has even declared support for increase in Patriot Act style surveillance to monitor online activity of potential radicalized extremists. These tactics have not worked before, what makes the Clinton campaign believe it’ll be any different this time around?

President Obama is also worried about the conversation veering away from gun control, fearing an “either/or” dichotomy while preferring a “both/and” discourse. Unfortunately, this perspective conflates the two issues while simultaneously stressing the importance of keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists. That has been the major point Clinton has been hitting at recently, being questioned or labeled as a terrorist must immediately lead to a complete ban on buying firearms. How will this stop the next Adam Lanza or Dylann Roof attack, when their white faces will hardly ever cross the NSA or FBI’s surveillance?

There is no doubt that Clinton and Obama are serious when proposing new restrictions and laws overseeing the sale of firearms, including strengthening background checks or restricting domestic violence offenders from obtaining weapons. But if we allow Trump and other conservatives to control the discussion of the attack to focus solely on terrorists thousands of miles away from Orlando and the rest of America, there will be no meaningful change to gun laws.

How do you stop a bad guy with a gun? Don't give him one.

As new details still emerge about the mass shooting in Orlando and the shooter, Omar Mateen, the nation has become enraptured with their thoughts and opinions about the atrocious event. This isolated yet carnage event has managed to encapsulate a myriad of political issues and polemic controversies like no other mass shooting has in the past.

The targeted location, Pulse, a gay night club, chosen apparently because the shooter was set-off by witnessing two men kissing weeks ago, reported by his father. The shooter, an American born to Afghan parents, was the center of two FBI investigations for apparent sympathies to terrorist organizations, and still able to legally purchase an assault rifle and semi-automatic pistol, later confessing his allegiance to ISIS and offering praise to the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon Bombers. Mateen’s ex-wife also detailed her short and violent marriage to the shooter, commenting on his mental instability during their time together.

While these factors are immensely important in trying to understand this incomprehensible tragedy – homophobia in America, homegrown terrorism, and mental illness – they should not cloud the most crucial aspect of this story, the lax availability of guns. None of those other aspects played as much of a crucial role in the mass killing as the legally purchased firearm.

 No one needs to understand this more than Donald Trump and the rest of the Republicans, who have chosen to focus on the shooter’s tenuous connection to the Islamic State. Despite pleading an alliance to the terrorist group in the last hours of his life, the Right seems overly convinced that this attack is far deeper than that, and believe the only suitable response is an all-out military effort in a war against ISIS. Yet there is currently very little evidence that this was an attack coordinated with the terrorist group, and more importantly, Mateen legally acquired his firearms because of lax gun regulations, again having nothing to do with ISIS.

The larger point is the public’s attention must remain on the violent and the increasingly fatal consequences of allowing a gun culture to exist. No matter the amount of love, acceptance and tolerance preached, the only real preventive measure that could have been taken to prevent this tragedy from happening is tougher gun laws. A mentally unstable person with a history of domestic violence and terrorist sympathies should not have been able to purchase a gun, an assault rifle no less. Until these measures are put into place, the next senseless tragedy is just around the corner.