In an attempt to simplify, I intend to single each issue out, explain it in its simplest form, and once finished will explain what this means immediately for our society.
1. The Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare
This issue as an overarching subject is not new for any American, in truth. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is Barack Obama's crown jewel to perch atop his legacy as president. The Act, referred to as "Obamacare" by the common citizen, has been a tender issue for the right-wing Republican Party.
Conservatives have been heavily opposed to the Affordable Care Act since it was passed in 2010, and have made attempts to repeal it fifty times. The primary reason that Conservatives are against Obamacare is, in simplicity, the same reason Liberals are for it. Through its expansion on Medicaid and the exchanges, Obamacare subsidizes medical insurance for people living in less modest conditions (i.e. makes it cheaper for those who can afford it) by raising taxes on those living in more modest conditions.
As the right sees it, this creates an uneven playing field. Raising taxes on the rich to provide for the poor is directly against the "Economic Law of the Jungle" that capitalism in its purest form would stand for. In essence, the philosophy is that if you desire to have health insurance, working hard and creating your own success will give you the ability to receive health insurance in the same way the upper class does. No shortcuts, no exceptions.
However, as the left sees it, social economics are not as black and white. While the average, moderate Democratic representative is not by any stretch of the imagination a Socialist (excluding Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a Constitutional Socialist and 2106 Presidential Candidate), the left exercises the belief that working hard does not universally mean you will create financial success. Therefore, unadulterated capitalism is flawed, justifying economic assisting for the lower class.
Now onto the actual court case, the Affordable Care Act created certain medical marketplaces, or exchanges, where people can shop for individual or family health insurance if they have no other source of coverage. The law instructs that the federal government would build exchanges in states that did not build their own, which consisted of around two-thirds of the country. Furthermore, the law provided subsidies (small grants of money by the federal government) to families who could not meet the income requirements.
However, a small meaning-of-language crisis occurred within the law that, according to the King challengers, only authorized these subsidies to exchanges which were set up by the state (which again only consisted of one-third of the country).
The Obama Administration argued that the argument was driven by political intentions, and it wrongly focused on a small section of the ACA. Furthermore stating that reading the law in its entirety would show that the purpose was to ensure as many Americans are granted health insurance as possible, and that the lawmakers would have no reason to withhold subsidies granted through a federal exchange.
The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that Obamacare was perfectly constitutional, and that the section focused on by the King challengers was simply a typo which should not undo the work of the Affordable Care Act.
In short, the ACA will continue on with its implementation as normal.
2. The Supreme Court Ruling On Gay Marriage
Again, the nature of this issue is one that is not new for Americans, or any first-world country, in truth. Marriage equality is a subject that has swept across the world in the past few years as homosexuality has come to be seen less and less as a religious issue, and more as a societal one. This comes particularly due to research suggesting homosexuality, despite insists from orthodox churches, is genetically caused, and in fact not a "choice".
In another 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court, it was announced that across the United States, the LGBTQ Community now had the right to marry. The fact of this issue, is that unlike the Affordable Care Act ruling, which had heavily setting in areas of factual-law, political ties, and bureaucratic process, the Marriage Equality ruling is much more emotional.
Of course, that is to be expected when dealing with the subject of whether or not someone can spend the rest of their lives in divine union with the person that they love, but I digress. The subject is heavily emotional. The primary argument against gay marriage is religious (although not the only one) and the primary argument for it is humanity. I will let it be known now, before anything further, that I am in complete, unwavering favor, without a shred of hesitation, for gay marriage. Now, whether you agree with me or not is not particularly important, but there is a heavy-set bias when dealing with any emotionally-bound sociopolitical issue that I would like to make clear before continuing.
Unlike previous rulings, or any state/local rulings, this law grants homosexuals the right to marry all over the United States despite their state. There are still certain states, judges, and legislators refusing to comply, however they are now on the wrong side of the law and will inevitably will be treated as such.
Immediately after the ruling, the right snapped back with cries of oppression and, predictably, began fear-mongering shortly after.
The first article I came across after the ruling was a Fox article titled "You've been warned, America, gay marriage is just the beginning" written by Cal Thomas containing this exert;
"That the majority threw a bone to religious people, their churches and institutions, saying they could continue to preach and teach that homosexual marriage is wrong, will almost certainly be challenged by gay activists and secularists whose goal is to drive religious people, and especially Christians, out of the public square."
This statement, which is only one of many similar ones, is completely unfounded by any legitimate fact. As a foremost point, the victimization of Christians that the writer has included is particularly questionable.
The Constitution of the United States of American guarantees the equal protection and treatment of all people in the eyes of the law. The issue here is that, although not set in law, the Christian religion has been guaranteed a particular societal pedestal. At no offense to anyone of the Christian faith, this is not a designed part of American society. People insisting that they are being religiously persecuted because other Americans are now able to marry are at fault, because they mistake no establishment as persecution. However, they are entitled to equal status, not greater status.
The now-belated argument that giving homosexuals the option of civil union but not calling it marriage is simply reinforcing the idea that homosexuals are somehow lesser than everyday heterosexual couples, however they are not.
To quote Jon Stewart on the matter;
“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”\
Although designed to be condescending, there is truth in this, because that is what the Constitution guarantees with "religious freedom". Not the idea that you may openly force others to follow your practice, but that you may practice it without fear of persecution.
The suggestion that "gay activists" will be out to destroy your right to preach your religion and practice what you desire to practice is, in itself, lamely supported. And if such actions were to somehow be reached, they would not fall within the boundaries of the Constitution and would thus be redundant and unsuccessful. However, to assume that because homosexuals can now marry your religion will be infinitely attacked is childish.
However, to assume that the mass population of Christians are at fault here would be incorrect as well, or that they are the lone suspects for discrimination against homosexuals. For while there have been loud voices in the Christian community throwing hate speech around, the majority have taken the verdict exceedingly well and practiced love to everyone equally, regardless of sexual-orientation. To these people, I would extend the most sincere gratitude and thankfulness, for these people are the future of understanding and coexistence, while the bigots and hate-preachers will inevitably be muted in history. And furthermore, I would beg you preach your love from sea to shining sea, because only these voices will outweigh the voices those who cal for hatred and discrimination against homosexuals.
However, to assume that the mass population of Christians are at fault here would be incorrect as well, or that they are the lone suspects for discrimination against homosexuals. For while there have been loud voices in the Christian community throwing hate speech around, the majority have taken the verdict exceedingly well and practiced love to everyone equally, regardless of sexual-orientation. To these people, I would extend the most sincere gratitude and thankfulness, for these people are the future of understanding and coexistence, while the bigots and hate-preachers will inevitably be muted in history. And furthermore, I would beg you preach your love from sea to shining sea, because only these voices will outweigh the voices those who cal for hatred and discrimination against homosexuals.
3. The Confederate Flag
Lastly, undoubtedly most Americans were aware of the tragedy that took place in Charleston, South Carolina in June. Dylann Roof sat in a bible study at the extremely historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, an all-black church in Charleston, and prayed with the group through their hour-long class. A Snapchat video showed Dylann in class with the group, but showed no suggestion of the violence to ensue. At the end of the class, Roof shot and killed nine people (eight died at the scene, the ninth in the hospital).
Dylann's reasoning would not be identified until he was later captured, and interrogated. However, as one boy pleaded for his life (as accounted by the boy's mother, who pretended to be dead throughout the conflict) Roof said, "No, you've raped our women, and you are taking over the country ... I have to do what I have to do." He then shot the boy and killed him.
Days later, the boy was arrested, and the story began to piece itself together. On his twenty first birthday, Dylann was given birthday money, which his family had no knowledge of what he had done with it. Using the money, Dylann went and bought a .45-caliber hand gun.
The tax-exempt *cough cough* white nationalist group which inspired Dylann to commit the atrocities mentioned above was the Council of Conservative Citizens, Inc. To summarize their ideologies, on their website they boast; "that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character…. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind."
This event inspired an extremely important question for the coming months. Why was there a Confederate battle flag flying atop the capitol of South Carolina?
Predisposed racism has long been an issue in America, and one major symbol for white nationalists has been the famed Confederate Flag. There are many arguments for keeping the flag, which I will address further on. However, regardless of any reasoning, can any person truly justify the representation of the entire state of South Carolina by the flag by waving it above their capitol building?
Let's take a look back at history in order to further understand the truth behind the flag, and why people are so heavily for/against it. In 1860, the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina was published, and fully completed the process of South Carolina's secession from the Union. The declaration did mention the issue of states' rights, however very briefly, and did not address the tariff in any way. Instead, the vast majority of the work was in reference to "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery".
It was in Charleston that the first shots of the Civil War were shot by one fiery-spirited Edmund Ruffin. The flag, now known as the Confederate Flag, was a flag which represented South Carolina during battle throughout the war. Exactly 150 years before the massacre in Charleston this June, Ruffin learned of the South's surrender. He then wrapped himself in a Confederate Flag, and took his life, so to not accept defeat.
Following the war, all the flags were folded up, and stored away. They were rarely seen outside memorials or cemeteries. It wasn't until 1948 that the flag came back as a political symbol once more. The Dixiecrats of the late 40's used the flag symbolically when northern Democrats began to make the push to end systemic racism in the south (via desegregation of the armed forces and anti-lynching laws). It was during this time that sales of the flag exploded, stores were no longer able to keep them in stock, and the symbol of segregation was chosen.
Over the next two decades, the flag was flown at rallies of the Ku Klux Klan, White Councils' meetings, Black Legion, and other hate groups. Meanwhile, the famed Daughters of the Confederacy were torn on the subject. Some called the usage of the symbol recognition of heritage, and others called it desecration of a historical symbol.
In 1956, George inserted the Confederate Flag into its own, and in 1958 South Carolina made it a crime to desecrate the flag.
So, now we can flash to modern day, where southerners cry that the flag is a symbol of "heritage". They fail to realize their own ignorance on the subject, as this flag does not represent the mid-1800's Confederacy fighting for "states' rights", as some of them say. Instead, this flag is representative of the out-right and/or systemic racism during the mid-1900's by hate groups such as the KKK or the Black Legion.
While banning a flag is directly against the Constitution, and thus cannot be completed legally, there is no shame in retailers realizing rather suddenly they wish not to be represented by a product like the Confederate Flag. And although "banning" a flag is directly against moral and legal precedent, there is one thing that society can do and that's treat the people flying it as they desire us to.
You cannot ban a flag, but there is no Constitutional precedent against treating the people who fly this flag as they are by the symbol they are choosing to represent themselves with; racists. The people flying it are not breaking the law, nor should we treat them as thus, however they should and will be treated exactly as they are choosing to be treated and that is someone taking a stand in favor of racism; much like the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups.
So that is my message to such people; you have no friend in me.
That's all I have to say today, but I'll be back soon.
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." -Malcolm X
Lastly, undoubtedly most Americans were aware of the tragedy that took place in Charleston, South Carolina in June. Dylann Roof sat in a bible study at the extremely historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, an all-black church in Charleston, and prayed with the group through their hour-long class. A Snapchat video showed Dylann in class with the group, but showed no suggestion of the violence to ensue. At the end of the class, Roof shot and killed nine people (eight died at the scene, the ninth in the hospital).
Dylann's reasoning would not be identified until he was later captured, and interrogated. However, as one boy pleaded for his life (as accounted by the boy's mother, who pretended to be dead throughout the conflict) Roof said, "No, you've raped our women, and you are taking over the country ... I have to do what I have to do." He then shot the boy and killed him.
Days later, the boy was arrested, and the story began to piece itself together. On his twenty first birthday, Dylann was given birthday money, which his family had no knowledge of what he had done with it. Using the money, Dylann went and bought a .45-caliber hand gun.
The tax-exempt *cough cough* white nationalist group which inspired Dylann to commit the atrocities mentioned above was the Council of Conservative Citizens, Inc. To summarize their ideologies, on their website they boast; "that the American people and government should remain European in their composition and character…. We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind."
This event inspired an extremely important question for the coming months. Why was there a Confederate battle flag flying atop the capitol of South Carolina?
Predisposed racism has long been an issue in America, and one major symbol for white nationalists has been the famed Confederate Flag. There are many arguments for keeping the flag, which I will address further on. However, regardless of any reasoning, can any person truly justify the representation of the entire state of South Carolina by the flag by waving it above their capitol building?
Let's take a look back at history in order to further understand the truth behind the flag, and why people are so heavily for/against it. In 1860, the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina was published, and fully completed the process of South Carolina's secession from the Union. The declaration did mention the issue of states' rights, however very briefly, and did not address the tariff in any way. Instead, the vast majority of the work was in reference to "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery".
It was in Charleston that the first shots of the Civil War were shot by one fiery-spirited Edmund Ruffin. The flag, now known as the Confederate Flag, was a flag which represented South Carolina during battle throughout the war. Exactly 150 years before the massacre in Charleston this June, Ruffin learned of the South's surrender. He then wrapped himself in a Confederate Flag, and took his life, so to not accept defeat.
Following the war, all the flags were folded up, and stored away. They were rarely seen outside memorials or cemeteries. It wasn't until 1948 that the flag came back as a political symbol once more. The Dixiecrats of the late 40's used the flag symbolically when northern Democrats began to make the push to end systemic racism in the south (via desegregation of the armed forces and anti-lynching laws). It was during this time that sales of the flag exploded, stores were no longer able to keep them in stock, and the symbol of segregation was chosen.
Over the next two decades, the flag was flown at rallies of the Ku Klux Klan, White Councils' meetings, Black Legion, and other hate groups. Meanwhile, the famed Daughters of the Confederacy were torn on the subject. Some called the usage of the symbol recognition of heritage, and others called it desecration of a historical symbol.
In 1956, George inserted the Confederate Flag into its own, and in 1958 South Carolina made it a crime to desecrate the flag.
So, now we can flash to modern day, where southerners cry that the flag is a symbol of "heritage". They fail to realize their own ignorance on the subject, as this flag does not represent the mid-1800's Confederacy fighting for "states' rights", as some of them say. Instead, this flag is representative of the out-right and/or systemic racism during the mid-1900's by hate groups such as the KKK or the Black Legion.
While banning a flag is directly against the Constitution, and thus cannot be completed legally, there is no shame in retailers realizing rather suddenly they wish not to be represented by a product like the Confederate Flag. And although "banning" a flag is directly against moral and legal precedent, there is one thing that society can do and that's treat the people flying it as they desire us to.
You cannot ban a flag, but there is no Constitutional precedent against treating the people who fly this flag as they are by the symbol they are choosing to represent themselves with; racists. The people flying it are not breaking the law, nor should we treat them as thus, however they should and will be treated exactly as they are choosing to be treated and that is someone taking a stand in favor of racism; much like the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups.
So that is my message to such people; you have no friend in me.
That's all I have to say today, but I'll be back soon.
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." -Malcolm X
