Connect with us

Opinion

Mass Shootings: The Roots pt. 1

Published

on

What are the causes of mass shootings? What are the solutions to prevent these horrific crimes?  What steps do we need to take as a society in order to prevent them? How can someone commit such a horrible crime?

These are some of the basic questions I believe everyone asks whenever these shootings occur, but one question always remains stuck in my head when these tragedies strike the heart of America.

Why do mass shootings happen?

Worldview

All people everywhere will answer the question in different ways depending on what your worldview is.

Your worldview is the way in which you view the world and everything in it. Your worldview answers basic questions such as this:

1. Why am I here?

2. What is my purpose?

3. What is wrong with the world?

4. How can what is wrong be made right?

When it comes to mass shootings, your worldview has the potential to answer the question as to why these tragedies occur, and why murderers commit these atrocities. Your worldview has the potential to objectively call every person who commits these murderous acts evil. This is why your worldview is important, because without a correct worldview, you won’t be able to answer these questions.

Now that I’ve gone over a basic overview as to why your worldview is important, I’m going to go back to the original question and answer that original question through my personal worldview.

Sin

Why do mass shootings happen? Sin. Sin exists, and sin is everywhere. Sin is the reason why we live in such a fallen and broken world. Sin is the reason why so many kids go to school without hope and go home to destroyed homes. Sin is the reason why kids are finding their identity in everything that the world is offering rather than finding their identity in things that could satisfy their hungry soul. Sin is the reason why rampant leftism has spread everywhere, especially within the education system in America. Sin is the reason why parents think they know their kids, but will turn on the news to find that their child was the next school shooter.

Here are a few Bible verses that speak about the sinfulness of man and the destructive nature of sin:

The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. – Genesis 6:5 (ESV)

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. – Psalm 51:5 (ESV)

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? – Jeremiah 17:9 (ESV)

 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. – Mark 7:21-22 (ESV)

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil.  For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. – John 3:19-20 (ESV)

Surface Level Symptoms

I’m not here to argue about what you might or might not believe, rather I’m here to simply provide you with the truth.  Without the truth, you cannot come up with a rational explanation as to why mass shootings happen.

You say mental health?  I say the sinfulness of man.

You say broken homes?  I say the depravity of mankind.

Broken homes and mental health issues are all surface level symptoms of the root problems mankind deals with on a daily basis, which is the sinful nature he was born with.

Why do these mass shootings keep happening?  Sin.

How do we prevent these mass shootings from happening?  I will provide the answers to that question in the upcoming articles.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Opinion

Mr. President, nominate Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

Published

on

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is expected to tender her resignation from the Supreme Court tomorrow, according to my sources.

There was a moment, in the early afternoon on July 9. 2017, when conservatives contemplated the delightful possibility that they might witness the best possible version of President Trump — the man with the will (and flair for the dramatic) that would allow him to be bolder than the average Republican president. The best version of Trump would have nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Would another Republican have the guts to put forward a nominee who would so clearly inflame the culture wars? Would another Republican president shatter the GOP nominee mold by selecting a mother of seven kids, an outspoken Christian and a graduate from a “normal” non-Ivy League law school? The base-motivating, electrifying pick was right there, in the palm of his hand.

Then, he went establishment. He chose a man that any Republican president would have nominated. He made the best safe choice he could: Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Make no mistake, there is a lot for conservatives to like about Kavanaugh. He dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s opinion upholding the District’s ban on semiautomatic rifles. He has written powerfully in opposition to the excesses of the administrative state and in favor of the proper separation of powers. He has been solid on free speech and religious liberty. He pushed through bogus allegations of sexual misconduct by a lying deranged woman: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford — and Trump stood by him in a moment of crisis.

In many ways, Kavanaugh is the elitists’ elitist. He is a double Yale graduate — from both Yale University and Yale Law School — he clerked for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and he’s well known as a “feeder judge” for Supreme Court clerks. Before he was nominated to the federal bench, he worked for solicitor general Kenneth W. Starr during the George H.W. Bush administration, worked for Starr during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations, and worked for President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006.

There is arguably no better-credentialed nominee in all of conservative America, and a small army of his former law clerks have been busy writing — publicly and privately — in defense of their former boss, assuring conservatives that he will be the court’s next intellectual giant.

Kavanaugh is the Ben Shapiro of conservative pundits.

Yet the Kavanaugh pick has been greeted with an ever-so-slight sigh of disappointment. Yes, there are the critiques of his record. In Seven-Sky v. Holder, he dissented from the majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, but he did so by holding that the suit was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, in a ruling that bolstered the Obama administration’s ultimately successful claim that the Obamacare penalty was truly a tax.

In Priests for Life v. Department of Health and Human Services, Kavanaugh wrongly held that the government had a “compelling interest” in “facilitating access to contraceptives” for employees of the specific religious plaintiffs in the case. That conclusion wasn’t required by Supreme Court precedent, and it cheapened the very concept of a “compelling governmental interest.” After all, religious employers have broad latitude to limit their employees’ conduct, and the government has little legal authority to meddle in the organization’s religious mission.

But, truth be told, Kavanaugh’s record isn’t the main reason for the flash of conservative regret. Give a judge a paper trail long enough, and he’ll decide cases that ignite controversy. No, the reason for the regret runs a bit deeper. Especially for America’s Christian conservatives, a potential Barrett nomination represented a chance for an important cultural moment — an opportunity for the best of young professional Christians to face the worst of progressive antireligion bias and prevail on the largest possible stage.

If “the dogma” could “live loudly” within her, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) famously told Barrett, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, at her confirmation hearing two years ago, and she could ascend to the Supreme Court, then she would quite possibly become the conservative folk-hero equivalent of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It’s not just that Barrett is qualified; she is. It’s that conservative Christians see her as qualified and a person they felt like they know. In many ways, her life story was their life story. They, too, belonged to communities of believers like People of Praise. They, too, went to schools like the University of Notre Dame.

Trump had — right in front of him — the judge who could be populist and principled; the person who could galvanize the base and be an originalist judicial bedrock for the next 30 years.

Now, in what is bound to be another crucial moment in American history, Trump has another chance: Mr. President, nominate Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Hi.

Continue Reading

Immigration

Virtue Signaling: Mollie Tibbetts Mother Adopting ‘Immigrant’ With Connections To Daughter’s Murderer “Sick Stunt”

Published

on

It was announced that Mollie Tibbett’s Mother, the girl who was missing from Iowa which ensued nationwide coverage and rewards and was apparently found dead at the hand of an illegal immigrant, has adopted an immigrant with connections to her daughters murderer.

The mainstream media swooned her actions, many commentators generally said it showed compassion, that it showed she’s better than the ‘political rhetoric’ and to some this is totally normal and a benefit.

However to others this is nothing but a show of virtue signaling political rhetoric, masked as a good-will action and is a sick stunt to gain political attention and simply make a political point, especially morally correct point.

Many are shocked and thinking that when someone’s daughter was killed by somebody whose physical self was illegal in this Country by existing laws that aren’t being enforced and goes ahead and houses someone whose connected within the 2nd degree, almost directly, to the illegal immigration that was causation for the direct cause of harm on a close family member, a direct blood relative, her offspring.

This should be no surprise however as the father also made surprisingly derogatory remarks bashing the people of Iowa by comparing them to Mexicans as people who have “better food”.

Continue Reading

Opinion

I’m a Feminist and I Have a Problem with the #MeToo Movement

Published

on

I know what you’re thinking. How can a feminist not unconditionally support #MeToo, arguably one of the most significant manifestations of the late 18th, early 19th-century feminist movement? Before you jump to numerous conclusions about how privileged I am or what direction my moral compass is pointing in, consider that there are many women, even victims of rape, who have qualms about #MeToo. And with good reason.

The first time I heard about the #MeToo movement was when actress Alyssa Milano came out with allegations of sexual assault against Harvey Weinstein. My timeline exploded with one key phrase common to all posts: “#MeToo…” CBS News reported that the hashtag was tweeted nearly one million times in only 48 hours. About 4.7 million Facebook users globally posted over 12 million posts, comments, and reactions in less than 24 hours. At first glance, I thought, “Brilliant! Women are banding together to call out the toxic and perverted degenerates who have hurt them.” This was inspiring.

In what seemed like a matter of just minutes, more and more women began speaking out. Behind every woman who publicly made an accusation of sexual assault, an accusation that should never be taken lightly, there was an accused man. A filmmaker here. A Congressman there. Producers, coaches, actors, athletes, network analysts, chefs, political figures, businessmen, conductors, journalists, average Joes, you name it. All of these men…sexual predators? While it’s certainly true that there are disgusting and abhorrent men like Harvey Weinstein who have assaulted multiple women, there must be many more than just a small handful of men accused of sexual assault by the millions of women who came out as victims. Behind every single #MeToo post in the world, there is supposedly a morally corrupt, perverted, and sick sexual predator who caused immense pain and trauma.

It occurred to me that, if this is true, previous generations must have done something fundamentally wrong in raising the men of today. All of these men have somehow been conditioned to sexually assault as a product of upbringing, culture, and/or education. #MeToo’s contention is that close to 18 million women have been sexually assaulted since 1998. This then must mean that slightly fewer, considering some men assault multiple women, than nearly 18 million men are criminals. This just doesn’t make sense! That number is too high to be plausible. When I think about the 1 in 5 statistic that I heard so often before starting college three years ago, I also think about all the men I’ve encountered on Duke’s campus. How many of them are sexual predators? I believe that very, very few actually are. #MeToo, and the modern-day feminist movement in general, has turned into a man-hating frenzy, instilling fear in men lest they exhibit any behavior towards a woman that can potentially be called “sexual assault.”

Image result for metoo movement

 

I recently read a New York Times article reporting that Mia Merrill, a feminist and former art history student, began an online petition to take down a 1938 painting by the artist Balthus from New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art because it depicted a young girl in a “sexually suggestive pose,” which apparently constituted sexual assault. The petition had thousands of signatures. This ridiculous story reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend over dinner during winter break last year. We were talking about the image of modern-day feminism and she recounted her experience of what she directly called “sexual assault,” which went something like this:

“Last week, I was assaulted. I was sitting in a cafe and a man I had never seen before came up to me and told me I had really beautiful eyes. He continued to stare at me for about a minute before he left, and I felt very uncomfortable.”

What these two stories have in common is that they are heavily misleading. The Department of Justice defines sexual assault as “sexual activities that occur without the explicit consent of the recipient, such as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling and attempted rape.” To say that experiences like that of Ms. Merill or my friend constitute sexual assault and have just as much gravitas as any other experience of sexual assault is offensive to real victims. The #MeToo movement’s conflation of someone being catcalled on the street and Annabella Sciorra being violently raped by Harvey Weinstein is highly problematic. In failing to make an essential distinction between nuanced sexual experiences, the movement is undermining itself by giving so much attention to radicals who claim that sexual assault can mean anything from a nonconsensual touch on the arm (or bad sex) to forced penetration.

While it may seem as if such outrageous stories are rare, they’re actually more prevalent than we think. Their ubiquity makes sense. Why? Because it is highly, highly improbable that so many men, all the men who #MeToo blames, are sick enough to actually commit an atrocity like sexual assault. It makes no sense for all of these men to bear even the slightest resemblance to a monster like Larry Nassar, a former USA Gymnastics physician and child molester who sexually abused more than 150 women and was recently sentenced to 40-175 years. My contention is that women are prescribing a very loose definition to sexual assault and this “anything goes” mentality is hurting legitimate victims. Just like the story about the boy who cried wolf, there are only so many times women can cry assault before people stop listening. They not only stop listening, but they also begin to question the legitimacy of certain complaints that are, in fact, very valid.

As a traditional feminist, I believe women should be strong. They should certainly fight for their rights, but not demand special privileges to compensate for the years of oppression women endured when they didn’t have the right to vote or when marital rape was legal. As a feminist, I want feminism to be taken seriously. But assigning victimhood to an entire gender is not feminism; it’s a bad idea. It’s a reason to not be taken seriously. Calling millions of men sexual predators and condemning masculinity as a propeller of sexual assault is not feminism; it’s just making women look weak. Marching around calling people names and wearing pussy hats is not feminism; it’s failing to realize that we are undermining the struggles of actual victims.

 

No one is arguing that sexual assault shouldn’t be talked about. It has been and to this day remains an extremely important issue, objectively. But let’s not forget how blessed we are to be women living in America. We live in a country where today, everyone is equal before the law. Our ancestors have fought tirelessly so that women can have access to countless opportunities and enjoy the same privileges as men. Our ancestors have fought courageously so that a young girl growing up in society today knows that she can do anything she sets her mind to. Women comprise 60% of students on college campuses nationwide and win more than 80% of custody battles. Meanwhile, in Africa, Asia, and South America, over 30 million girls will never have the opportunity to attend even a single day of school. It is objectively true that American women as a collective are of the most privileged in the world.

The only way the #MeToo movement can become a better movement is if feminists are more-open minded to criticism. Yes, the stories are personal and incredibly important, but that’s exactly why we should be striving to create a movement that serves those stories justice and doesn’t blow everything out of proportion. We need to take off our rose-colored glasses and recognize that #MeToo is not flawless just because it deals with an important cause. It needs to be better. Much better.

Does that mean trying to work with our President, despite disagreeing with him, instead of constantly labeling him as a misogynist and refusing to even consider anything he says or does? Does that mean listening to conservative women and realizing that they, too, believe it or not, have very important things to say? Does that mean taking a step back from being so self-absorbed in our “daily struggles as women in the United States” and paying more attention to women in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe, recognizing that our privilege puts us in a position to make their lives better? Does that mean hesitating before making an incredibly strong accusation like sexual assault? Does that mean being loud, strong, and resolute, but also open-minded, grounded, and rational? I think yes.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.