President-elect Donald J. Trump

Republicans, Democrats, 3rd Parties, and the media all said he could never do it; now who's laughing?

On November 11th, 2016, I woke up to the site of Donald Trump leading in the election; if memory serves me correctly, Trump was ahead with 140 electoral votes.  Honestly, I was in complete and utter shock.  Without getting myself too excited by the thought of Hillary Clinton watching her hopes fade away I thought to myself, "Holy crap, Donald J. Trump is going to to be the next president."  This was definitely an overconfident belief, considering none of the 6 major states had been called.

As I watched the map of the U.S. turn blood red, as well as the faces of Cenk Uygur and Anna Kasparian, it was clear the results of the left's detrimental activities had come home to roost.  The American public is simply fed up with their [the left] oppressive and illogical policies; policies which only cater to emotion, rather than logic, fact, and reason.

Over the past 8 years this administration has made the world less safe both domestically and internationally, implemented a failed healthcare system completely counter intuitive to core American values, and catered to movements rooted in misinformation, hate, and violence which have divided the nation to the point of irrecognition.  We have a border akin to a block of Swiss cheese and war tactics which resemble those of Vietnam.  Our nationalized healthcare system was a massive glitch from inception, and now people are unable to keep their doctors and are facing up to 116% premium increases (1).   There are people marching in the streets in the name of "social justice", unjustly infringing on the rights and safety of others.  The country is broken, and the people look to Trump to fix it.  The question is, can Trump do it?

Throughout the election my primary complaint about Trump was his vagueness.  He regularly used simple sentences which described his changes as "great", "huge", "big things", etc., and was awfully repetitive.  In his defense, there were some speeches of his that impressed me, but they still didn't provide a true insight into where we were going - just that it would be "better".  ...but what does "better" mean and how do we get there?

In recent days Trump has set out a plan for the first 100 days (2), which offers some impressive points:

1. Issue notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
2. Cancel restriction on American energy
3. Reduce regulations - for every new regulation, two old regulations will eliminated
4. Protect America's infrastructure
5. Investigate abuses of visa program
6. Impose five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after leaving the administration and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government

Personally, this opens my eyes a bit to how we are getting to where we are going; especially, number 6.  In my personal opinion the majority of the blame for our nation's incorrect path is on the shoulders of lobbyists.  Rather than making choices which best suite the American people as a whole, lobbyists use billions of dollars (3) to sway politicians to do their bidding, many times hanging constituents out to dry.  If you had doubts about Trump "draining the swamp", this should be a wake up call.  Based off this list, I also believe it's safe to say he is serious about immediate job creation, security, and immigration (although we'll all be waiting on The Wall).

Unfortunately, we don't have much to work on as far as gauging Trump.  All we can do is wait and watch with the hope his somewhat ambiguous goals come to fruition to the benefit of the people.  I do believe this will happen, which is why I openly supported Trump over Hillary Clinton, but only time will tell.  He has already delivered on keeping Ford's small car production line in Kentucky (4) and is currently working to keep Carrier Corporation from moving to Mexico (5).  If president-elect Trump is also able to deliver on these 6 points within the first 100 days, I think it's safe to say we have president who is a man of his word.

The Hye-Phen's Radicalism

So, when gays are telling me The Hye-Phen Magazine and Collective is an embarrassment to their community, all I can do is ask them why they are not speaking up. Here is a magazine which claims to be there for homosexuals, yet all they do is attempt to promote ultra-liberal ideals and place blame on anyone besides the responsible party which, of course, paints the community they claim to be part of as irresponsible, foul-mouthed, immature, and directionless children.

Most recently I saw one of their articles with the hashtag "stoppatriotism".  Patriotism, specifically in the United States, is what has forwarded gays the right to live as they want. Patriotism is the reason we have the Bill of Rights. Patriotism is the reason these ill-informed gender-studies majors are able to spew ignorance from the catacombs of their self-imposed righteousness. Patriotism is the reason people put on a uniform to protect you.

Personally, as a Christian, I support gay rights. Christ told us to love all - it's simple to understand. However, this "magazine" does nothing to support gays. If anything it creates a worse environment for them, as their ideals and the articles they write are illogical, uneducated, and clearly based solely on emotion. You want to help the gay community? Write articles telling how gays have lives just as anyone else. Write articles telling how gays hold true and loving relationships with their partners. Write articles which use solid facts and statistics from reputable organizations. Basically, write about the subject matter you claim to be fighting for and do it with facts, not anecdotal information or numbers from defunct/debunked organizations. Stop drawing your false lines of "intersectionality" between subjects which are unrelated in the hopes of strengthening your clearly weak arguments through mob mentality.

The final note - Take the clear hypocrisy out of your pieces. As you attack patriotism you push your ideals such as feminism, extreme-left liberalism (self-described radicals), and anti-patriarchy rubbish, which are some of the most misguided and uneducated forms of patriotism. The whole organization is so far off in "It's-everyone-else's-fault-protest-anything-that-is-the-norm-trigger-warning-safe-space-white-straight-males-are-bad land" you are unable to see your own bullshit. However, the rest of us can, and we are going to call you out on all of it, as we are not your woman and gender studies professor who spoon fed you all of this insane and backwards rhetoric.

Standing Rock and the Armenian Genocide

"The Hye-Phen Magazine and Collective" is at it, again.  This confused group of pseudo-intellectuals, who are "artists" or have obtained challenging degrees in humanities fields such as Women and Gender Studies, has been disseminating what they refer to as "journalism" to the Armenian public for roughly 2 years.  Like most liberal outlets their "news" is riddled with words such as misogyny, "intersectionality" (which doesn't exist), Islamophobia, racism, sexism, bigotry, ...you get the picture.  These cherished epithets combined with the habitual use of profanity and deflection of responsibility create the most ignorant and embarrassing publication Armenian society has ever had the displeasure of being exposed to.

In their most recent article authored by Stefanie Kundakjian, Hye-Phen compares the current situation at Standing Rock Indian Reservation, where protests have erupted over an oil pipeline, to the the Armenian Genocide. The lines Kundakjian attempts to draw between the two events resemble a severe epileptic's connect the dots puzzle.  Here are each of her arguments and why they are ignorant:

1. "The ancient city of Samosata (in Armenian: Շամուշատ) was flooded by the Atatürk Dam"
2. "Surp Giragos Armenian Apostolic Church in Diyarbakir has been expropriated"
3. "Traces of old Yerevan are being demolished"
4. "The old mining town of Alaverdi has become extremely cancerous"

Indeed, all of the events mentioned in the article are factual.  Samosata was lost in 1989, and Surp Giragos (along with others) was expropriated by Turkish authorities in 2016.  It is also true historical buildings are regularly demolished in Yerevan, and Alaverdi is an absolute mess.  However, what is happening with the Dakota Access Pipeline is no way, shape, or form comparable to these.

The difference between these events is crystal clear for anyone with even a partially functioning frontal lobe:  

1. The path of the pipeline has been carefully selected in order to avoid harming any historic or spiritual sites, and the pipeline may be rerouted if other sites are identified
2. The land being expropriated is being bought at a fair market value from the deed holders, in Turkey no one has been compensated and it's not only land but historical buildings
3. No towns or cities are being disrupted by the pipeline
4. Alaverdi is the result of loose or nonexistent regulations and outdated technology, while the pipeline is under strict regulation and being built with the newest technology and materials

It is also important to point out the difference between the governments of Turkey and the United States of America.  The U.S.A. has recognized the atrocities committed against the Native Americans, provided the Natives self-governed land, and rights not available to other American citizens.  While in Turkey the Armenian Genocide is violently denied by the government, outside of Istanbul Armenians still live in fear and are threatened, and not one area has been designated for Armenians on land that is rightfully ours.  Also, expropriation in Turkey serves to erase evidence and invalidate Armenian land claims - something the pipeline is not attempting to do. The simple fact these protests and legal actions were even allowed to occur should provide further understanding as to why the two are so very different.

This is not he first time Hye-Phen has brought disgrace upon themselves and it won't be the last.  Their addiction to "intersectionality" and "solidarity" has driven them to marginalize the Armenian Genocide and to treat its meaning with outright levity by making unjust comparisons.  They are using the Armenian Genocide as a tool to push their agenda, something which should cause anger and offense in every Armenian.  The Armenian Genocide is not a prop to be used on their stage of absurdity in order to add gravity to their otherwise featherweight notions.  

Hye-Phen really is the "Inter Semiotics"* of Armenian "journalism" - leftist, void of logic, commonsense, and reasoning.  They should be ashamed of themselves for publishing such ludicrous pieces and we, as decent individuals, should take them to task for it.  It's time for us to steamroll this monstrosity before it's allowed to spread its virus any further.
*Your disdain for the leftist millennials will increase

Being Liberal with Hypocrisy

So, the very director she used to vindicate herself is now being questioned/demeaned. And after she got on Trump's case for pointing out the timing of his accusers, she turns around and does the same thing. She's a hypocrite and liar. I hope she gets the 10 years she deserves - Martha Stewart 2.0.

The worst part about all of this is her voting base - the same people who were using FBI director, James B. Comey, to protect their candidate just last week have now taken up their torches and pitchforks against the man in light of his pursuit of material fact. The same people who were ganging up on Trump, when he made statements the system was rigged, are now cheering for Clinton as she does the same thing. This is typical of the left - it's O.K. for them, but it's not O.K. for you. This ideology has also been seen in regards to Hillary Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, who was venerated by left, even after being charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual misconduct lawsuit, and subsequent impeachment (source: 1). Bill Clinton was also disbarred for 5 years and ordered to pay a US$25,000 fine (source: 2), as well as a US$850,000 settlement to one of his accusers, Paula Jones (source: 3).

During Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment debate (video below), the comments from the Democrats were not only ignorant, but downright despicable. Representative Karen Thurman (D) of Florida states:

"President Clinton, being merely a human, gave into lust. With the shame and embarrassment of that flaw being discovered, he deceived us. Those of us who voted for this man can forgive him. We can see what he has done not only for this nation, but across the world. We can see that this president has much more to give as a president. But those on this floor who are calling for impeachment never voted for him, never supported him. They have pursued him relentlessly, and they cannot forgive or accept and imperfection in this man. Just as lust a deceit are sins, so are hate and envy. Just two years ago this house took disciplinary action against the Speaker, for intentionally misrepresenting information to the House Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee recommended and this House adopted, on a bipartisan basis, reprimand over censure - a penalty which allowed the Speaker to stand for reelection. I don't know how to reconcile the hypocrisy of the House in holding the Speaker and the President to two different standards."

If you know anything about the charges against the Speaker of the House at that time, Newt Gingrich, you would know there is no equivalency between his case and the case of Bill Clinton. Speaker Gingrich had eighty-four charges filed against him (all by Democrats), with only one violation being found - using tax-exempt funds to favor a political party. Gingrich violated House ethics rules, but he did not break the law (source: 4). Bill Clinton, on the other hand, did break the law by committing perjury and obstructing justice. The other major difference between the two is that one man used tax-exempt money to create a conservative video for a university course, while the other was forcing himself upon women and receiving oral sex from one of them in the Oval Office.

Nonetheless, this type of logic shouldn't surprise you coming from the left - liberals are always the victim. They'll turn a blind-eye to anything their party does, while calling for the public hanging of a Conservative for merely making a statement. They will also attempt to defame information based on it's source - now that their candidate is under fire from hacked e-mails released by Wikileaks, they pretend the information is not reliable as it's "from the Russians". Well, last time I checked, 2+2 = 4 regardless of who says it, and definitely regardless of whether or not it upsets someone.

"...you're a tyrant and not as open-minded as you claim to be."

Those are words I read from a close friend, yesterday. I had a long time to think about those words and came to a few realizations.

In my 32 years on this Earth I have had the time to analyze what I will support, stay neutral on, and fight against. I have traveled to many places around the world, been surrounded by various cultures, ideologies, and societal structures, and have had experiences which the greater populace has not. Point being, I have an ample amount colors on my pallet to paint my positions.

At this point, the aforementioned colors have shown me some definite things:

1.) I am a Christian; although I am not even close to being the "model Christian", I do try to be. And as I grow older, this is becoming more and more important to me. So yes, I do believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I do go to service (or as we call it in the Armenian church "badarak"). I do believe Christ's message to love all people, but that doesn't mean the world is pity party for those who choose not to contribute or help themselves if able. I do believe in charity, if it is out of the kindness of the heart and soul, not if someone if forced into it. And, of course, I believe in the morals set forth by the religion.

2.) I am a conservative. No, not the evangelical Christian conservative that tells everyone they're damned to hell if they have a belief counter to mine. I am the type of conservative that believes in civil liberties, the right of choice (within certain limits), and minimal government interference is one's life. I believe in family values, hard work, and commonsense. I believe in the free market, capitalism, and am completely against socialism in any form.

3.) Unless you are family or a close friend, I don't care about your feelings. Feelings do not take precedence over fact - ever. The more we entertain emotion over truth, the more we travel away from fact-based common sense and logic. As an example, the Armenian Genocide is factual historic event, with evidence as far as the eye can see; however, in the current state, is it the best move for the United States to recognize it? On the political stage, probably not so much; morally there is no question - the answer is yes.

4.) Not sharing certain opinions doesn't automatically make someone a "bad" person. Outside of views on extremes such as pedophilia, rape, non-justifiable homicide, abuse of people/animals, and a few others which automatically make people complete scum if they are party to them - differentiating views do not generate an automatic negative epithet. Let's take the very words which spurred this, "tyrant" and "closed-minded" (condensed from "not as open-minded as you claim to be"). Would those labels have been given if views were in-line, regardless of the approach? My gut feeling is they wouldn't have been. Not aligning with your beliefs doesn't make me any more closed-minded than you telling me I am "closed-minded" for not believing what you do.

5.) It's important not to label people until they have actually committed an action which warrants the label, especially, when with epithets such as "racist", "sexist", any "-phobic", "bigot", etc. If you label someone without evidence, you’re actually the one worthy of the label.  If you come across someone like this, it’s most likely not worth your time to engage them in discussion, as they are void of reason.  Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of choice for the left. They will use them regardless of politeness or substantiated evidence. There is simply no détente.


6.) Again, there is no détente. Knowing this truth, speak bluntly and to the point. Do not concede simply out of fear of being labeled, disliked, or even of losing a friend. No matter what, you are going to deal with this is one way, shape, or form, so just say what you mean and mean what you say. Beating around the bush will only prolong the discussion and open the door to “so what you’re saying is”, and your words will quickly be twisted into an abridged version of “Mein Kampf”. (Disclaimer: I am not evoking Godwin’s Law.  I am, however, using Hitler as he is the only person the left seems to be aware of.)


7.) Religious views follow everyone to the voting booth, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s when the government starts directing religious establishments or vis-à-vis that we have a problem. No one should be forced by the government to go against their religious views if no one is in danger, period.

I could add more, but I am simply short on time. 

While writing this I came to the understanding I have been pushed into to many of these realizations by my personal debate experiences or dealings with leftists, because of how they are quick to judge based solely on emotion.  Till this day I have never ended a friendship with someone who was a leftist, and I have never labeled someone without evidence. On the other hand, I can name at least a dozen times this has happened to me.  Whatever you do, don’t fall into these types of traps or display the same behavior.  Stay calm, provide evidence, and don’t let emotion take over. Let them degrade their own argument and character through your composure.

P.S. To my friend who was the catalyst for this piece – don’t take everything I have written on your shoulders, as much of it doesn’t apply to you.

An extreme lack of historic understanding

An extreme lack of historic understanding

The U.S. wasn't a "country", when settlers came. There were no borders, there was only tribal governance. Now, I am not saying that was either good or bad, but to make it seem as though there was a functioning nation state is preposterous.

Every nation in this world, for the most part, is based on the settling of lands. There are exceptions to the rule in terms of nations of ancient peoples, but it's a rarity. Most of Europe came out of Anatolia in the beginning, so is the man going to tell the reporter to go back to Anatolia instead of Germany, for example? Also, that would mean he'd need to take himself back to where he came from. On the same (unfortunate) note, slavery was standard practice during those times. Africans were enslaving Africans, Caucasians enslaving Caucasians, Arabs enslaving Africans, Indians, and Caucasians (search: Barbary Slave Trade), Chinese enslaved the Chinese, etc. Europeans didn't start slavery - they ended it.

**Side note: Native Americans were the last people in the United States to free their African slaves. They fought tooth and nail to keep them, with some Native tribes joining the Confederate Army. I wonder if Mr. Go-back-to-where-you-came-from knows that.**

The whole notion of not standing for the flag due to an embellished and, sometimes, downright false accusations is asinine, but it is a Right granted to all U.S. citizens and nationals by the First Amendment, which I strongly support; however, just because you have the right to not stand, doesn't make you any less of an asshole for not doing it. People like Colin Kaepernick, who is half Caucasian, makes US$19 million a year, and who was adopted by white parents, speaks about "oppression", and protests it by not standing for the anthem and flag of the very nation that forwarded him the opportunity to become so successful, even as a 2nd rate QB. Now, due to his status and fame as a NFL player, people are blindly following suit.  And "Quanell X", another ill-informed and self-victimizing "community activist" (read: everything is whitey's fault), is there to herd the sheep under the same false flag.

BLM and the Armenian Genocide

BLM and the Armenian Genocide

I was going to bite my tongue on this issue, but the absurdity behind this movement and the ignorance of bringing the march to Tsitsernakaberd must be addressed.

 The story can be found here: http://hetq.am/eng/news/69272/black-lives-matter-solidarity-at-the-armenian-genocide-memorial-in-yerevan.html

Black Lives Matter, also known as BLM, is an organization founded on the idea African-Americans are treated unfairly by police in the United States, including being over-represented when it comes to brutality and death by police. This couldn't be more false. Overall in the United States, Caucasians are killed more by police than any other race. In 2015, 581 whites were killed by police, compared to 306 blacks. So far in 2016, 297 whites have been killed compared to 148 blacks. With the numbers adjusted (per capita) more blacks are killed than whites per 1,000,000 people - 2015: 7.27 (black) to 2.93 (white); 2016 3.52 (black) to 1.5 (white). One only needs to look at the crime rate and have an elementary understanding of basic mathematics to understand why these numbers fall right in line with what's happening on the streets, and the fact no one is being "unfairly treated".

*Statistics from 2012-2013*

Overall, whites commit more crimes than blacks - 4,091,971 (does not include Hispanic crimes) to 955,800, respectively; these numbers cover violent crimes only. The numbers of all crime is - 6,502,919 (includes Hispanic crimes) to 2,640,067, respectively. The total number of crimes committed by all races in 2012 was 9,390,473. Based on the 2nd set of numbers this would mean whites (which includes Hispanic crimes) committed 69% and blacks committed 28% of the total crimes in the U.S. Now, let's bring in population size. Whites make up 72.41% (includes Latino/Hispanic population, 12.5%) of the U.S. population and blacks 12.61%. So, 72% of the population is committing 69% of the crime (whites) while 12.61% of the population is committing 28% (blacks). Now, let's look at the per capita numbers pertaining to violent crimes, per 100,000 people: White: 265,754 = 107 per 100,000; Black: 179,636 = 473 per 100,000. Blacks are committing 440% more violent crimes than whites. In 2012, the FBI reported the following on black crime:

49.4% of all murders

32.5% of all forcible rapes

54.9% of all robberies

34.1% of all aggravated assaults

This is not an issue of race, it is an issue of crimes being committed. Blacks are not being treated unfairly, they are committing an overabundance of crime. To add to this, the movement was started due to bona fide criminals dying at the hands of police - only in the case of Walter Scott was the police officer clearly wrong in his actions and he is paying for it. Castile is another case under investigation.

"Institutional" or "systematic" racism is nothing more than a ghost in the machine term. Since before the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s there has not been one piece of inherently racist legislation enacted. However, since that time the rate of black single-motherhood jumped from 20% to 70%, black teens are killing each other at staggeringly higher rates than whites, while graduation rates are substantially lower. This has everything to do with culture and nothing to do with racism. For this to be true it would mean the U.S. has become more racist since the 1960s; I invite anyone to attempt to prove that theory.

The idea one is able to relate this ridiculous and unsubstantiated movement to the innocent slaughter of millions of people is disgusting at best. The Armenian Genocide memorial is here to commemorate those lost in a genocide which is substantiated and accepted by an overwhelming majority of historians and scholars. The people that organized and participated in this should be ashamed of themselves. What a foolish thing to have done. You have made a mockery of the Armenian Genocide and the memorial, and done nothing more than dilute the events and their memory.

It's the ill-informed millennial social justice warriors like you that are tearing people and nations apart and who make a mockery out of the true struggles of the past.



https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_01.pdf
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5366
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/1-the-american-family-today/