I’m a senior in high school. Here’s why I think the school walkouts are stupid.

Image result for march for our lives

Those of you who know me know that I come from a royal-blue county in North Jersey that is cycling through more than its fair share of far-left mayors and councilmen. So it was no surprise to me when I found out that my high school is going to be participating in the nationwide school walkouts tomorrow afternoon, in what the left and the media tell us will, alongside the so-called “March for Our Lives” on Washington, be a moving display of the sheer power that we teenagers have assigned ourselves in the wake of the Parkland massacre.

But truth be told, I’m not buying into that. Here’s why.

First and foremost, the very basis of the teenage angst-filled protests is one which is deeply unethical and rooted more in knee-jerk emotion than reality. The message of the protestors is simple: we feel unsafe in school because of the number of school shootings that take place in America. The only way we can have our safety assured is if we pressure Congress into making radical, sweeping decisions regarding gun control. And anyone who dares question our intentions is purely evil and doesn’t care about us or the kids who were brutally murdered in Florida. For proof of this, watch this Parkland survivor say that looking Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in the eye is akin to staring down the barrel of the shooter’s gun.

This is utter stupidity and a useless bullying tactic that does nothing but polarize both sides of the gun debate. I refuse to associate myself with this degree of intellectual thuggery – even if one were to cast aside my support of the Second Amendment.

The second aspect of the protests that I disagree with is (most obviously) the cause in and of itself. I do not believe that stricter gun laws are the answer to public mass shootings – this is an argument completely ignorant of most statistics that are out there. As the number of gun laws in the United States has increased, so has the number of public mass shootings. And out of these, upward of 95% have taken place in gun-free zones. Meanwhile, violent crime in general has gone down in the US, directly coinciding with an increase in gun ownership. If anything, those concerned about public safety should be supportive of more civilian access to firearms, not less.

The final gripe I have is that of the moral authority we have given teenagers in general in the wake of the Florida shooting. Shortly after the attack took place and people like David Hogg were being paraded around mainstream news networks, I knew that the left’s focus would be on giving minors the right to dictate how we treat public policy decisions – and this is only being done because people like Hogg are saying what they want to hear. The same CNN town hall that brought us Rubio-is-just-like-the-shooter boy also brought us the revelation that the network was likely granting airtime only to opinions that they wanted to hear, and was scripting questions for students who dared express support for the right to bear arms. In a sense, the left is using young people as political props and disguising it as giving them a voice.

Of course, this isn’t to say that people my age aren’t entitled to put their opinions out there – if I believed that, I’d be out of a job. It only becomes problematic when we use their collective, rehearsed sentiments as a moral compass to decide which parts of the Constitution we abide by and which parts we ignore completely.

 

 

 

Posted in Conservative, Constitution, Guns, My Dumb Generation, Opinion, Politics, Protests | 1 Comment

The left tries to pretend “s***hole” countries don’t exist

Related image

The latest wave of manufactured outrage from the left comes in the form of President Trump being alleged to have said something slightly offensive. Again.

This time, it was a reported by the Washington Post that Trump, while at a bipartisan meeting over DACA with lawmakers in Congress, said the following:

“Why are we having all these people from [expletive]-hole countries come here… why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.”

The president also voiced his displeasure at diversity programs not welcoming more immigrants from first-world countries like Norway.

As always, the left lost its collective mind hearing about these alleged comments, and were quick to deride the president as racist, anti-immigrant, and xenophobic, among other exhausted buzzwords, in response. And of course they did this in the worst way possible – instead of making any legitimate claim against Trump, all the left has done is assert that there’s no such thing as a s***hole country. That somehow, because immigrants coming from countries Trump referred to are seen by the left as victims, this detracts from the general understanding that the countries in question are toxic harbors of undeveloped society and government corruption.

And that is an absolutely asinine line of thinking, which is a good thing for the right – leftists have painted themselves into a corner here. Their opposition to Trump’s comments put them into a position where they must assert that every country on the planet is equal. They have to pretend that the situations in third-world countries aren’t terrible, and that Norway and Haiti are both equally appealing places to live.

And of course neither of those statements are true, and even the left and the media know it – it’s glaringly obvious that this is absolute insanity for the sake of a narrative, and a very dumb one at that. There is no scandal in saying that not all cultures are created equal. That is an indisputable fact – living in Norway is not the same as living in Haiti, nor is Africa the first place anyone would elect to move to. This isn’t groundbreaking stuff at all.

So why, exactly, do we have to act like it is?

Posted in Congress, Conservative, Donald Trump, Immigration, MSM, Opinion, Politics, White House | Leave a comment

MERRY CHRISTMAS, AMERICA: My take on the GOP tax plan

Image result for trump christmas

As 2017 comes to a close, congressional Republicans have now decided to finally pull their heads out of their collective derrières and actually reform some of the past government overreach that Democrats had put in place.

Because after the healthcare debacle we saw over the summer, I legitimately had my doubts. Donald Trump is too moderate a president, I thought. There are too many RINO’s in the Senate to pass anything conservative. (Yes, I just put a link to Urban Dictionary in a political opinion piece. Please refrain from killing me.)

And then the unthinkable happened – the GOP actually fulfilled one of their 2016 campaign promises. Last Friday morning, President Trump signed into law one of the largest tax reform bills in the history of the United States. And while I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on tax codes (I’m seventeen), I am going to put some key takeaways of mine in this post.

The corporate tax rate has been drastically decreased: From 35% to 20%, to be specific. And when I was still reading the initial proposals, this is what I found to be the most significant part of either bill. We’re giving corporations more money – and leftists have already begun accusing Republicans of “trickle-down economics” for this move. Now, despite this, the money returned is already trickling down. Comcast and AT&T have announced that they will be giving $1,000 bonuses to workers across the country. And in the future, these corporations will be allowed the necessary breathing room to not only provide further benefits like these, but also to expand and create jobs.

The less money they have as a result of higher taxes that allegedly help the working class, the fewer resources they have for these same workers. Corporate tax cuts are absolutely necessary for economic growth.

So have individual tax rates (for pretty much everyone): A more detailed look at this, complete with a chart, can be found here. The top tax rate has been lowered from 39.6% to 37%. Those in the middle have been significantly rearranged and decreased as well. And anyone who tells you that these cuts are a shakedown of the middle class and a giveaway of epic proportions to the rich, is shamelessly lying to you.

The left’s argument here is that because so much more money is being returned to “da top one puhcent” as Bernie Sanders would put it, as opposed to the middle class, that the bill must inherently favor the rich. And it does. Because the top 20% of income earners in the United States pay over 80% of all federal income taxes in the United States. The only reason the bill returns so much more money to the rich, is because the rich pay at a significantly higher rate than the rest of the country thanks to the terribly thought out Progressive Income Tax – whereas there is nowhere near as much money to return to the middle class.

The individual mandate is a thing of the past: but Republicans shouldn’t get too cocky. Just because the individual mandate has been repealed, doesn’t mean that all of Obamacare has been – the preexisting condition mandate remains in place despite arguably being the most responsible for the failures of the legislation. To effectively erase the negative effects of the Obama administration on the health industry, the entire Affordable Care Act must be repealed.

Now, this isn’t to say that the GOP shouldn’t treat the repeal like a victory, because it absolutely is. However, we cannot trick ourselves into thinking that our work with Obamacare is 100 percent finished – that will cost us down the line.

And Democrats (of course) are saying all of this is going to kill peopleand needless to say, this is effectively nonsense. Income being the property of the individual as opposed to “the people” or “the middle class” (read: the state) only results in power being taken away from the public sector and consequently pumped into the private sector. This allows consumers to decide which industries grow and shrink and provide according to their own free will, as opposed to – you guessed it – the federal government.

That’s it. Nobody’s getting killed by any of this. Nobody is going to get killed by me being able to decide what I do with my own personal income. Except me, if I were to decide to spend that income on large quantities of illegal drugs – and I don’t necessarily envision myself doing that in the near future.

Posted in Congress, Conservative, Donald Trump, Economics, Jobs, Opinion, Politics, Republican, Taxes | Leave a comment

The zeroes and ones of why “Net Neutrality” is a terrible idea

Image result for macbook keyboard wallpaper

On Thursday, December 14, the FCC will hold a vote that will likely repeal the Obama-era restrictions on internet service providers (ISPs) that dictate all content must be treated and delivered to consumers equally. Upon learning of this, leftists on the internet went absolutely nuts. Clearly, this will be the end; once we let big scary corporations run the internet without regulation, disaster is right around the corner – just ask Al Franken, if he’s able to take a few seconds off from groping chicks on camera. Major sites like Google and Reddit are using their presence on the internet to shill for the policy – the former having launched a “#FreeAndOpen” petition to protect these regulations.

The internet is treating this as a significantly bigger deal than it is– as said before, like the internet as we know it will be turned on its head and utterly destroyed without net neutrality.

And that, of course, is stupid.

What is fundamentally wrong about the left’s assertion that ISPs will charge insane rates for internet connection, split it into packages, or use their power to purposefully block information, is that a free-market system gives them the incentive to not do that. Internet service is a marketable good, therefore, it is of no convenience to ISPs to make it less accessible – that obviously drives consumers away. The only ISPs given the incentive to not provided the absolute fastest service are the smaller ones that don’t have the resources to do otherwise – and even saying that enables the practices that the left claims exist is a bit of a stretch.

And because the internet is to be treated as a good, and not a public utility, it is to be expected that there must exist a profit motive to keep it running. Charging websites or individuals more for services that are more expensive to produce, isn’t greedy – it’s a law of basic economics.

So, once you strip them of the “greedy corporations coming for your internet” argument, on what basis can net neutrality supporters say their positions are valid? What is their true intent, if the basest of their convictions is untrue?

Simply put, what net neutrality supporters ultimately want is not to have the internet free of control by powerful entities. What they and the left want is to be able to dictate what entity controls it – that entity, of course, being the state. In fact, the left’s entire basis for supporting regulations like these is that they see it morally just to run major industries how they see fit. The equal treatment of everything on the internet is a staple of their moral code – therefore, it must be enforced through government action because they see it as imperative that public policy controls what they themselves are incapable of controlling.

 

Posted in Conservative, Opinion, Politics, The Internet | Leave a comment

Kate Steinle’s killer didn’t kill anyone, liberal activist jury decides

Related image

On Thursday, Jose Zarate, a five-times-deported illegal immigrant, was acquitted of the 2015 murder of Kate Steinle. Per (very fake news) CNN:

“Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, was acquitted of murder and involuntary manslaughter charges, as well as assault with a deadly weapon. Jurors convicted the Mexican citizen of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which could bring a three-year sentence.

Prosecutors had argued Garcia Zarate intentionally shot Steinle, 32, with a Sig Sauer .40-caliber handgun as she and her father walked on San Francisco’s Pier 14. But Garcia Zarate’s defense attorney said the shooting was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.”

This verdict is the result of unprecedented judicial activism on the part of the case’s jurors.

Even when taking into account the defense’s largely improbable claim – that Zarate is a victim of circumstance, who just happened to find a gun on the ground that wasn’t his, accidentally shoot Steinle from a range of eighty feet, and throw the gun into the bay – one would assume that this would at least warrant a charge for involuntary manslaughter. Heck, Zarate even initially admitted to the crime when it happened, and his defense was so weak that it was actually making the case for his arrest for a homicide, just on a lesser charge.

And the best case scenario for Zarate is that he picked up a random gun off the ground, and just happened to have his finger on the trigger in public, in front of a bunch of people. And that, right there, is straight-up criminal negligence. Add on Steinle’s death and it’s involuntary manslaughter according to California state law.

So that begs the question – how did we come to the conclusion that Zarate is not to be held accountable for Steinle’s death at all?

The only reasonable explanation is that of political bias calling for the necessary mental gymnastics to be done to justify the acquittal of an obviously dangerous felon who was, once again, removed from the country five times. The left made it clear from the beginning that this was a matter of identity politics – an “undocumented” immigrant committed the crime, and killed a white woman. Naturally, us horrible, racist conservatives would side with Kate Steinle’s family because she was white. We would also be quick to condemn the sanctuary city policies that allowed the incident to happen because we hate Mexicans – and we perceived Steinle’s murder to be an attack on white people as opposed to, you know, a tragedy that could have prevented without the existence of stupid leftist policies that violate federal immigration law.

Conservatives have every right to be outraged. The left’s idea that the law is malleable based on their personal perceptions of it is asinine and has been used to make decisions like these many a time before. And the Steinle verdict is just the most recent of the many injustices we have been dealt by this bogus philosophy.

Posted in Conservative, Crime, Immigration, Legal Speak, Opinion, Politics | Leave a comment

Happy Thanksgiving from the Schmidbauer Blog

Image result for thanksgiving

Since there hasn’t been much opportunity to cover news (aside from the same points on sexual misconduct in Hollywood that I have stressed way too much to write about again), I figured I’d stop by and wish everyone who’s checked me out here on WP a happy Thanksgiving and Thanksgiving weekend. I’m also probably not going to be writing again until Monday, unless some major news story breaks and I feel like I have enough material to do something half decent.

Until then, enjoy the holiday and using Thursday evening to drive your crazy leftist relatives up the wall.

Because that’s what Thanksgiving is truly for.

 

-KS

 

Posted in Blog Updates | Leave a comment

Democrats are now being tested on their “Moore-al” conscience

Untitled-2

The latest big name to be hit with allegations of sexual assault is none other that ultra-leftist Senator and (alleged) comedian Al Franken.

On Thursday morning, model and sports commentator Leeann Tweeden came forward and published an article detailing how, in 2006, then-media personality Franken forcibly kissed her while “rehearsing” for a skit he planned while headlining a USO tour in the Middle East. She also posted photo evidence of Franken groping her while asleep.

Clearly, this carries a bit more weight than a yearbook inscription from a District Attorney.

So, in this regard, should we expect a Democratic pushback to Al Franken (and Bill Clinton as well, but he’s another story for another day) on the same level of Republican response to Roy Moore? Of course – but only because it’s politically convenient to Democrats. If they don’t disown people like Clinton and Franken at a time where they are making absolutely certain that Roy Moore is stonewalled out of Congress for sexual offenses, then they will be billed, universally, as hypocrites.

So it didn’t necessarily surprise me when Chuck Schumer (and Franken himself) called for the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Franken’s supposed misconduct. Which is weird, because not much can be done in investigating something that was literally photographed and proven to have happened.

This, as said before, means that Democrats are only treating Franken’s activity like they are to save face. And even with this taken into account, he has his defenders. Bernie Sanders told CNN:

“I think that’s a decision for Al Franken and the people of the state of Minnesota. My understanding is that Al is a very popular senator. People in Minnesota think that he is doing a good job, and his political future will rest with the people of Minnesota.”

In a similar vein, feminist and self-proclaimed “Nasty Woman” Kate Harding wrote in a piece for the Washington Post:

“As a feminist and the author of a book on rape culture, I could reasonably be expected to lead the calls for Al Franken to step down, following allegations that he forced his tongue down a woman’s throat, accompanied by a photo of him grinning as he moves in to grope her breasts while she sleeps… I firmly believe he should suffer social and professional consequences for it.

But I don’t believe resigning from his position is the only possible consequence, or the one that’s best for American women.

Cynics on both the right and left will presume I am passing by this particular steam tray on 2017’s smorgasbord of feminist outrage because Franken is a Democrat, and so am I… In the most superficial sense, this is true. But it’s meaningless to say it’s because I am a Democrat without asking why I am a Democrat. If you understand what it means to be a Democrat today… you can understand why it might not make the most sense to demand Franken’s resignation, effective immediately.”

Statements like these are ludicrous, and demonstrate the true moral character of Democrats when taken into account. While they are calling for an ethics committee investigation and making noise on the surface, they also know that it is still important to back Franken because he represents an element of their agenda that they are unwilling to let go. Bill Clinton wasn’t awarded this luxury – Democrats have moved on from him.

Leftists are standing behind Franken for political reasons, and have no qualms in admitting to it. And when there is evidence of misconduct at the level there is, that’s totally reprehensible.

I almost feel like the pot calling the kettle black – my last post here was literally about how I would continue to endorse Roy Moore in Alabama until solid evidence of wrongdoing surfaces. I am sticking by that – I ultimately would rather have a leftist in a Senate seat than a known pedophile, and will rescind my endorsement when I have reason to believe that Moore, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is one.

However, Democrats have, once again, an actual picture of Al Franken groping a sleeping woman right in front of them, yet they continue to support him as a politician as they chastise the right for not immediately reacting after unproven accusations surface against one of their candidates.

So, clearly, both sides have been (terrible pun alert) “Moore-ally” evaluated for better and for worse. But mostly worse.

 

Posted in Alabama, Congress, Conservative, Democrats, Opinion, Politics, Republican, Sexual Assault | Leave a comment