The Future of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has officially announced that he plans to retire. This means that the president can now appoint another justice to the highest court in the land. 
Now, I'm not as worried as many people on the left seem to be. After all, Kennedy was a Republican and got appointed by Reagan in 1988. However, that doesn't mean you still shouldn't be worried because he's going to be replaced with another Republican. That is still worrying. Not helped by the fact that, while Kennedy would commonly toe the party line, he was at least sometimes willing to ignore what they party wanted and do something good for the people.
For instance, he was part of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Which stated that no government could place an "undue burden" on getting an abortion.
Anthony was part of the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down laws that banned sodomy. He ruled part of DOMA unconstitutional in the United States v. Windsor case. And, most importantly, he ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. All of which were great things for homosexuals. 
The justice also took the majority ruling in Texas v. Johnson which legalized flag burning. Showing that he at least cares about the first amendment.  
So why should you be worried? Well, Donald Trump has proven that he has been on the wrong side of all these issues. For instance, he appointed Mike Pence as Vice President of the United States. And his attitude on reproductive rights and gays is well, flawed to say the least. So Donnie hasn't really shown himself to have the best record with appointing people.
But what's his history with appointing people the Supreme Court? Well, that's a pretty easy question, after all, he has already appointed one. Ladies and gentlemen meet Neil Gorsuch. Republican "new right" commentators love Neil Gorsuch. That should tell you all you need to know about him, but I'll go on.
First off, he sided with Hobby Lobby in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case. If you don't remember that case, it was the one where Hobby Lobby tried to ignore an ACA regulation that said they had to provide birth control because of religious freedom. Let me rephrase that in a way that actually makes it accurate. Hobby Lobby tried to save money by not providing employees with birth control and tried to get away with it by claiming religious freedom. Neil Gorsuch either bought it because he's an idiot or went along with it because he's a shill. 
Let's also not forget his hatred for human euthanasia. Gorsuch even wrote a whole book about it. Because healthcare companies have to make money somehow. 
Basically, Gorsuch is a corporate shill. Expect whoever comes next to be the same. This is going to be painful.          

  

"Everyone Else Sucks, So Why Can't I"-The Republican Story

As many of you heard, Donald Trump's press sectary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was kicked out of a Red Hen restaurant. She then took to Twitter to say this: 

Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left. Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so

Of course, right-wing twitter imminently started complaining about the double standard surrounding this story. 
Ben Shapiro tweeted about it:

1. It's terrible if a Christian baker won't use his services for the benefit of a same-sex wedding.

2. It's awesome if a Leftist restaurant order refuses service to a Republican public official.

Pick one.

I don't think anyone called it "awesome" but okay. 
That Dylan guy from "Educating Liberals" tweeted about it:

A Red Hen restaurant can refuse service to Sarah Sanders & her family based on "moral grounds,” but the baker from Colorado had to go all the way to the Supreme Court in order to refuse service based on religious moral grounds.

The hypocrisy of the Left is unbelievable.

As if Huckabee is unable to take this place to court and repeal any discussion that doesn't go her way until it gets there. These people don't seem to think highly of their own president.
 Heck, Matt Walsh even wrote an entire article about it:

. . . the Left has largely argued that business owners don't have the right to refuse service. One of the most common arguments I have heard against Jack Phillips goes like this: "He's a baker. His job is to bake cakes. Therefore he should be legally required to bake cakes for anyone who wants one."

Well, it is not hard to see how that logic should apply to Red Hen: "They are a restaurant. People come there and eat food. Therefore they should be legally required to let anyone come there and eat food." 

It's clear that the Right is trying to paint these owners as hypocrites because of this incident. Ignoring the fact that is was their guys who Jack the case in the first place. For that matter, it seems that these people have no issue review bombing Red Hen with Yelp. But don't you dare go after the former CEO of Firefox. What? If they can treat us like a collective, it's only fair we do the same.
Fun fact, I was going to do a bit where I actually read what Kimberley Strassel has said on this, but I can't. Why? Because she hasn't said anything on this matter. It seems that the author of The Intimidation Game can't take time out of her busy schedule to say anything about this intimidation game.
But fine, let's actually compare the two situations and see why they're different. First off, Jack's famous cake shop was a small business meanwhile Red Hen is a national chain. This means that holding all of them accountable for the Sanders incident makes very little sense.
For that matter, the gay couple in Colorado and Sarah were denied for some very different reasons. The gay couple was denied because they were a homosexual couple, which is something they can't control. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was denied because she worked for Donald Trump, which is something she can control. It's not as if she was kicked out because she was the daughter of Mike Huckabee, she was kicked out for political reasons. As of right now, politicians are not a protected class.
The point is, this isn't hypocrisy. And even it was, by complaining about it you are also being a hypocrite.     



    

3 Simple Ways To Pay For Universal Healthcare

This is something that we've heard over and over again. Whenever anyone announces they support Medicare for all, no matter who they are, the question that is imminently asked for is "how are you going to pay for it?". Mind you, these people often ignore how single payer would save most people money, but that's beside the point. 
Mind you, I'm not saying it shouldn't be asked. Of course it should. Have you seen our debt? However, the vast majority of the time it's not by someone who is curious or unfamiliar with the concept, it's by someone who already knows the answer and is asking so they can look like they came out on top. 
So, if they can have a copy paste response I think it's fair that we have one back. So here are 3 ways to pay for a universal healthcare system. 
#1-The Good Old Fashion Way
Yeah, it's the most obvious one, that's why it's the first. Figured we should get "raise taxes" out of the way early. 
Of course, this scares people who own Don't Tread On Me bumper stickers, but here are the facts. First off, these people typically don't understand how taxes work. Taxes are a fee that you pay for to the government. It's only fair that you, the person who pays the taxes, get something in return.
However, how high are the taxes? After all, taxes being too high can cause negative economic effects (which these people seem to think never happens the other way around, but that's beside the point). I mean Bernie Sanders, the man who made the idea popular, said he wanted a top tax rate of over 90%. Wait, no that Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bernie just pointed it out. 
Here's the tax plan he actually proposed while running for president: 
 
Now, here's how many percentage points your taxes would increase:
$1-250,000: 0% (Your taxes stay the same)
$250,001- 411,500: 4%
$411,501-464,850: 2%
$464,851-499,999: -2.6%
$500,000-2,000,000: 3.4%
$2,000,001-10,000,000: 8.4%
More than $10,000,0001: 12.4%
So you would need to make over $10,000,000 to have your taxes raised over 10%, over $2,000,000 to have them raised more than 5%, and more than $250,000 to have them raised at all. 
#2-Enforce The Tax Laws We Already Have/Make Taxes The Same For Everyone 
We have lost AT LEAST $70 billion to tax havens in one year. How is that not illegal? We all know they do it, and if you did it you'd be convicted of tax avoidance. How is this not a crime?
How about for the fact that (except for a brief point in the '80's) the capital gains rate is smaller than the individual rate. So someone making $80,000 a year through work could be paying more in taxes than someone making $500,000 a year through investments.
How about ban those non-sense "economic development" programs that actively don't work. Remember Amazon, the company that paid no taxes last year. Meanwhile, Jeff is still one of the richest men in the world.
And don't think I'm not going to mention the inequality in payroll taxes. Social Security taxes, for instance, only taxes up to $128,400. And people wonder why it's going bankrupt. 
#3-Cut The Military
It previously seemed to be impossible make it more clear how cartoonish our military spending can be. Then Trump tried to create a space force.
As pointed out before, by the end of the Obama administration the United States had a military budget larger than the next 7 nations combined. We have over 800 military bases, including around Iran which the White House calls a giant threat. Bet John Bolton will never tell you that. 
Then, without any debate, we increased the military budget by enough to pay for public college. Because if we don't the communists will take over or something, seriously this is ridiculous. Yet, no one ever asks how we're going to pay for the billions we spend with the Pentagon.
And these are just 3 of the millions of way progressives have given over the years to pay for a program that every other country in the modern world has.    
              
     

The Right-Wing War On Mental Health

If you've been watching The Ephrom Josine Show, or even reading the blog, you've more than likely heard of Matt Walsh. After all, I have covered him quite a bit. You may also be aware of what I've called "the war on mental health". Again I've covered that pretty often. 
However, it was only recently those two things combined, leading to the topic of today's article. Jumping on the bandwagon of people like (committer of treason) Oliver North and Candace Owens, and now believes ADD and ADHD aren't real. Maybe he's bitter that Thom Hartmann, someone who has written a lot of books about ADHD (and who came up with the hunter vs. farmer hypothesis), was a Bernie supporter.
Mind you, this isn't the first time Matt has expressed skepticism. In an article called The Four Terrible Things That Are Destroying Boys In Our Culture Mr. Walsh makes it clear that he thinks "The education system is designed for girls". 

boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. By high school, 20% of boys - 20% - are diagnosed

20%, a whole 20%. In case you don't see what Matt is saying, it's 20%. 
Yet, I still have a few questions. Mostly, if this is a plot to turn men into women (at least, that's what I think Matt is saying), why isn't it a majority? Are only 20% of boys what Matt would consider "real boys"? If so, what about the other 80%. I get it's easy to look at the 1 in 5 and assume something big is going on, but the other side of the coin is 4 in 5.
Second, he says "boys are twice as likely to be diagnosed", well if this is a plot against boys, how can you even calculate it? Shouldn't it be closer to 100 to 1 instead of 2 to 1? To give you an idea of how much that really is, that means 1/3 of people diagnosed with ADD or ADHD are girls. Yet Matt doesn't focus on those numbers. 

Yet . . . we never stop to consider that perhaps we are not . . . diagnosing boys as we are diagnosing boyhood

And girlhood in 1 out of every 3 cases. In case you're wondering, Matt also doesn't believe in transgenderism.

If the school system were not predicated on sitting still and memorizing things . . . there would be no ADHD

And if everyone had (insert illness that no one is debating exists here) no one would. That's really all Matt had to say in this article, luckily, he expanded on it. 
Now, before we actually read the article, I think we should actually look at some of the reactions to it. I know, it seems kind of odd to not start at the start, but I have a reason. You see, even Matt's own fans didn't think what Walsh said in this article wasn't completely accurate. So, he spent a few days trying to defend himself on Twitter. Here are some of my favorite defensive. At one point, someone mentioned the idea that Mr.Walsh had no medical experience. Matt responded:

This may be shocking, but I have discovered a thing called a “book.” I can use it to learn information on many topics. Try it sometime!

Well, Matt, I would like to recommend you read some books as well. Just head to Amazon, and type ADHD in the books section and you should find some good work. In fact, I'll do it for you. 
On a side note, can I address something I'm sick of? I've seen all these older people talk about how books are the only place where truth is held my entire life and it has always confused me. Karl Marx wrote books, I'm sure Matt Walsh disagrees with those. What about books that are responding to other books and authors? Going back to Karl Marx, there are tons of books about him, some like him, some don't. Are they both equally true? Sorry, just needed to vent for a second.
Mind you, it seems Matt himself doesn't believe what he just said considering he said this:  

The fact that you cite the DSM as a legitimate medical text is pretty hilarious.

But Matt, it's a book. I thought those were always right. 

I never claimed that people with an “ADHD”-type personality don’t exist. I claimed that it is not a DISORDER.

Replace ADHD with something like bipolar disorder and you'll really see how strong this argument is. A bipolar like personality does exist, but does that make it a disorder. The answer is yes?
Or what about depression. Is depression real or is it just a bunch of people being Debby downers? 

What is a regular person? Who decided that he is regular? How do we know the regular person isn’t actually the irregular person? Or is it possible that there is no such thing as a regular person?  

Matt Walsh the philosopher. 
But to answer Matt's question, regular in this case, means they are part of the majority who can function in society. 
I have a theory. I think Matt may have been diagnosed with ADHD when he was younger and his certain it's just everyone else who is wrong. You know, my father once told me Republicans think like they're 10 years old, and the more I read people like Matt, the more I know he was right.
But fine, let's look at Matt's article We Have Turned Childhood Into A Mental Disorder. And It's Ruining Our Kids.

According to a report, there has been a dramatic rise in children misusing and overdosing on ADHD medication. I happen to see that report a day after I read another study revealing an increased risk for obesity and diabetes in kids who take ADHD meds. This is not to be confused with the recent research showing that ADHD drugs could be linked to brittle bones. These must all be added . . . to the . . . already known side effects, including insomnia, irritability, decreased appetite, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

I'd actually like to point out a hypocrisy I noticed, that this paragraph helps to highlight. When I first read this article, I also checked the comments. Out of all of them, this is one I find the most interesting:

Apparently I had ADHD when I was a kid. Every time the symptoms appeared I got a dose of leather. Oddly, leather seems to be a known cure for ADHD but doctors can't prescribe it.

I like this comment because it shows a double standard. Notice, how in the column Walsh wrote, he blames ADHD medication for all of these and acts like none of these symptoms can be overcome. Compare that to the commenters' view that all symptoms of ADHD can be overcome with punishment. Try as I might, I couldn't find a comment that went like this:

Apparently I took ADHD medication when I was a kid. Every time a side effect appeared I got a dose of leather. Oddly, leather seems to be a known cure for side effects of ADHD medication but doctors can't prescribe it.

 But let's see more of what Matt has to say:

Maybe this is why a majority of kids diagnosed with ADHD wind up developing other mental illness as they grow older

Or because some things take longer to develop than others. 

Drug companies and the psychiatric industry have so far gotten almost 20 percent of the country onto psychiatric drugs

Or, maybe that's because 20% of the country have ADHD. Why does the amount of people who are diagnosed with it matter anyway? If 100% of people had HIV, would that make HIV fine?

Many of these drugs cause suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and depression. Meanwhile, a lot of Americans are having suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and depression. One need not be a detective to notice a potential causal relationship here.

And we have no way to deal with depression. It's not like there's a form of medicine known as anti-depressants. Oh wait, are those a conspiracy too? 

The psychiatric industry has set out to catalog and medicalize virtually every human behavior, emotion, inclination, temptation, and personality trait.

Blogspot doesn't recognize the word "medicalize" by the way. But okay, so if psychiatrists (or "the psychiatric industry, whatever that means) are just making up illnesses, why does it matter if people on ADHD medication develop depression?
Matt goes on to this for a while. Basically pointing to a symptom of ADHD and responding with "well, kids have it".

So, how can we know when normal childhood behaviors may be a manifestation of mental illness?

Well, most people can't. That's why we have these people called psychologists. But, Matt hates those people. 

With ADHD . . . pediatricians and psychiatrists claim to have identified a malfunction of the whole human person.

Google (or read a book about, if you prefer) neuroscience.
Matt is also outraged at this quote from The Mayo Clinic. Any emphasis is his by the way:

In general, a child shouldn't receive a diagnosis of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder unless the core symptoms of ADHD . . . create significant problems at home and at school on an ongoing basis.

Now listen to how Matt summarizes it:

According to the medical community, a child's personality becomes diseased at the precise moment that his personality interferes with his schooling.

So, Matt can't read. Because if he could he would have known the statement he just quotes said ADHD "create[s] significant problems at home and at school". Of course, the other option is that Matt is directly lying, but why would he do that? 
Now Matt tries to argue that psychiatrists actually just don't understand god. 

Of course, if you take an entirely materialistic view of the human person . . . then you must believe that everything he fells, everything he thinks, all of his traits . . . are all just material phenomena. The mind is an illusion in that case. You are just your brain and nothing more. If . . . you factor in the soul, and free will, and the uniqueness of each person who is created by a Divine Force, it becomes clear that the mind exist, and it drives the brain much more than the brain drives it.

For the record, Matt believes "the uniqueness . . . [that] is created by a Divine Force" will send most of us to hell, just saying. And I have no idea where he got the "The mind is an illusion in that case" point from. As for the soul point, of course no doctor takes it seriously, they only deal with the psychical world. Even if you believe in a soul, you can't interact with it on a psychical level. 

But even if we put all of that aside . . . and even if you accept . . . that brain chemistry determines everything about a person, that still wouldn't prove . . . the ADHD personality, is disordered. It doesn't prove . . . that a person isn't supposed to be that way.

Reminder: Matt Walsh is the man who believes people aren't born gay. Even though they are supposed to have ADHD. But Matt, I have a question for you. And for that, we must look a little earlier in your article. 

If you go to the doctor because you think you have diabetes, he won't ask: "Well, is the diabetes causing problems at home or school?" Diabetes is diabetes no matter how convenient or inconvenient it may be to you or inconvenient it may be to you or those around you.

His mention of diabetes struck me at first. Because, what Matt doesn't seem to know is, type one diabetes is 100% genetic. Were those kids supposed to have diabetes? And that's not going into the many birth defects that I could go into. 
That's every point he made in the article. He goes on to talk about how a child should act like a child and how ADHD drugs are stopping kids from being kids, and none of it makes any sense. So in conclusion, take your meds.    

  

  

  

      

  

  

       

   

    

   



  

No Sympathy For Illegals

So imagine this. You read a story about a criminal, the crime is irrelevant in this case, getting separated from their family. Your first reaction is more than likely "good" assuming you care at all. Now tell me this, why should that change when the crime is entering a country illegally? 
Over the past week story after story after story has come out related to kids being separated from parents at the border of the United States and Mexico. Part of me wonders why, if these parents care so much, they would try to cross the border in the first place. I mean if ICE is "the American Gestapo" (seriously, I've heard some people call it such), then why are you the Jew entering NAZI Germany? That doesn't seem like a better life to me. But I digress.
But, either way, these stories have gotten a lot of coverage. Even though, post-DACA, we have had some of the laxest immigration laws since the Reagan administration. Plus the net 0 illegal immigration from the country where the wall is supposed to be built for a decade, meaning this is a non-story. Let's not forget the media being silent about both the fact that Clinton created tough on illegal immigration policies and George W. Bush trying to build a fence (with support from both Obama and Hillary Clinton). Now George and Bill seem to have got the wives together to explain how wrong they are. You think they could have said something when they were actually in power.          
Speaking of which, Laura Bush seems to have taken the time to come out of retirement after her husband's pocket stuffing of a presidency, to talk about how bad it is that criminals get punished. It should be noted that The Washington Post is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos. AKA one of the millionaires the Bush's love fighting for. Ivory tower or something more? 

In the six weeks between April 19 and May 31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care.

What kind of monster would create such a thing? Well, her husband. 
This is what I have dubbed an example of Krang's law, named after the Vice writer who goes under the name Krang T. Nelson (you can also call it pulling a Holder). Named after the time former Attorney General Eric Holder came out in favor of making cannabis legal, Krang (in a tweet I couldn't find directly) responded with:

it’s extremely cool how every single one of these dorkass politicians pull a total 180 on pot the very instant they no longer have the power to ruin people’s lives over it

Here's another example of this from Laura:

These images are eerily reminiscent of the internment camps for . . . [the] Japanese . . . during World War II

Really, because they kind of remind me of the torture (I mean enhanced interrogation that just happens to be oddly similar to torture) at Guantanamo Bay. 
Look, I could go on. However, there seems to be one big lie that's being spread about illegal immigrates. A lie that is currently being spread by both the left and the right, that ruins the entire conversation. 
That lie is typically in the form of the question, "what if they haven't done anything wrong?". Typically, these people will also use the phrase "undocumented immigrants" instead of "illegal immigrants". Even Secular Talk, someone who I have a massive amount of respect for, seems to have engaged in this game once or twice:

Before Bush we existed without this US version of the gestapo

IT'S BAD BECAUSE IT'S NEW. Hey Kyle, didn't we exist without the Iran Deal until 2014? You know, the same deal you were against Donald Trump pulling out of. 

Searching for undocumented immigrates. Who are criminals or not by the way.

Yeah, we'll come back to this. Heck, even right-wing commentators like Steven Crowder seem to have fallen for this game to some extent:

We are talking about deporting illegal immigrants, who are only caught exclusively because they were caught committing crimes.

Did you guys notice something? Maybe the fact that catching any "illegal immigrant" is catching a criminal. Don't believe me. Well, tell me, what's the first word in the term "illegal immigrant"? Illegal. What does illegal mean? It means:

not according to or authorized by law

All ICE has ever done is act like a police force. If you're against that, just admit you're an anarchist. 
Or you can keep focusing on the fact that Ann Coulter said something insane, as if she hasn't been doing that non-stop since the 90's (citation NOT needed), so you can stay in your burning building reminding yourself that "this is fine".
Update: I honestly can't stop laughing right now

  

  

Reminder: Peace Is A Good Thing

Before we begin I would like to make one thing clear, I'm not a fan of Trump, at all. Heck, any article I've written involving him on this site can tell you that. Yet, I feel like I'm forced to defend him in this case from the people who claim to be on the left, but have turned into the left's Dick Cheney in order to oppose him.
Mind you, I'm not saying the President is a saint here. After all, he's the one who made John Bolton the national security adviser. This is the same John Bolton who has made it clear he STILL supports the Iraq War. He also tried to sabotage the peace talk with North Korea, so again, it's not like the White House is perfect. Donald can't get my full support on foreign policy until he fires Bolton, stops bombing at least some of the 8 countries, at least somewhat downsizes the military industrial complex, and restores the Iran Deal. And that's ignoring the well over 100 ways I oppose in on other issues.
Maybe Kim Kardashian can get him to do this. (2018 politics are weird) 
For that matter, I'm not ignoring the hypocrisy of many on the right supporting this. When Obama talked about meeting with the exact same country during his campaign, Fox News was angry. Now Fox got former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to explain why doing this is great.   
However, as the old phrase goes, just because everyone else is bad, doesn't mean it's okay for you to be. And honestly, I'm having trouble telling the difference between a lot of the "left-wing" political commentators who are against this, and old speeches from Donald Rumsfeld during the War in Iraq. Just look at this comic, published in a left-wing news outlet, as an example: 

Mr.President, why aren't you fighting the axis of evil?-What this comic is saying

Seriously, this looks like something National Review would have ran back in '04. Just replace Trump with John Kerry and Un with Saddam. 
But it only gets worse. Top cable "news" host Rachel Maddow decided to steal Glenn Beck's old bit of being completely insane and tried to find alternative reasons as to why Trump is doing this. I'll sum up for segment in a few short sentences for you:

Donald Trump is trying to make peace with North Korea. North Korea has a boarder with Russia. Therefore, the president is working for Russia when he did this.

 Yeah, Maddow talks about Russia quite a bit. Also, her theory doesn't make any sense, at all. By that logic, Trump already made peace with North Korea because we're still allies with South Korea. 
Also, did Rachel ignore the fact that the two countries that broader ours, Canada and Mexico, are ones Donald has been a huge critic of. 
Also, that segment went on for about three minutes and I was able to sum it up in three sentences. But here are a few more things that are brought up, but aren't the focus:
-Rachel puts odd focus on how the only way you can get from North Korea to Russia is a train. I don't know why this bothers me so much. Although, it's probably for the same reason Maddow focused on it for so long.
-Maddow is angry Trump is talking to a dictator. That is literally a right-wing talking point from when Obama met with Iran. 
-At one point she says the summit was in North Korea. It was actually in Singapore.
-She goes on and on about how we're "normalizing dictators" by meeting with North Korea. When I thought we did that when we started backing 73% of the world's dictators. Hey Rachel, how many segments have you made on that? After all, you seem to be worried about us supporting these two, imagine how angry you should be hearing we support many more. 
-Maddow is also FURIOUS that we didn't make any demands for North Korea to follow. You know, besides not starting a war.  
But even then, let's say Maddow is right and this is all a plot by Russia to do, something. I don't know what, but something. How does that make what Trump is doing bad? If Putin really wants peace between not only the 60 year long enemies of North Korea and the United States, but also the even longer discontent between North and South Korea that has gone on since the Cold War, than Putin sounds like an awesome guy. 
But sad MSNBC hosts aren't the only ones who are angry at peace. Senate Democrats have wrote a letter making it clear that they will not support an Iran style deal unless they have these following 5 points:

1.The deal must include the dismantlement and removal of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North Korea

Okay, that's perfectly fair. 

2.The U.S. must ensure a "complete and verifiable denuclearize of North Korea" removing all items related to nuclear-weapons productions to prevent the country from reversing course.

Again, I guess that's fine. After all, you can't have a deal unless both sides are following it.

3.North Korea must end its ballistic-missile programs as well.

Wait, why? All the weapons listed before are considered WMD's and banned under the Geneva Convention (with the US never singed onto, but still). But Ballistic missiles seem to be a little far.
Doing that would just make them sitting ducks in case South Korea ever wants to topple them. They understand MAP, that's how they survived for so long. 

4.North Korea must comply with "anywhere, anything" inspections to ensure it is not cheating on the deal, and sanctions must be immediately restored if it does cheat.

Again, I guess that's fine.

5.The deal must be permanent.  

 So, wait a minute. What if they're actually being attacked by someone? Then can they get there missiles back or are they just forced to fight with less?
This is what I mean, the "left" wants to sabotage peace in order to harm Donald Trump, and it's honestly disgusting to me. I hear, and have even used, the phrase "wrong side of history" before. Tell me, how often are you on that side when you support war? 

  

  

     

Tariffs and Trade Wars

At this point, I think saying that our president is insane may be the nicest way of putting it. The latest way of proving this seems to be by giving a voice to people who watched Roger And Me 30 years and have never shut up about it, or the man who directed Roger And Me 30 years ago and never shut up about it, by attempting to implement protectionists in the United States. So I figured we should actually look at some of his cases and talk about why he's obviously wrong.
One of the most common cases Donnie and his supporters have made is that Canada, the country Washington D.C. is currently targeting the hardest, has incredibly high tariffs on some products. What Donald seems to ignore is that many economists consider Canada's policy to be a bad thing. For instance, when IGM asked economists from many different schools of economics if "Adding new or higher import duties on products . . . to encourage producers to make them in the US - would be a good idea" 0% of them said yes. And before anyone mentions it, this includes David Autor, who wrote The China Shock.
Caroline Hoxby, an economist from Stanford, commented that "tariffs would make the average American worse off". This is a  statement that is so obvious that it shouldn't take a Stanford economist to explain that. Why do I say that? Well just look at the definition of tariffs. 
Tariffs, as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary are "a schedule of duties imposed . . . on imported or . . . exported goods". Basically, a tax that increases the cost of goods from a certain country. Now here's the question no tariff supporter is willing to answer, who pays that tax? The answer is, obviously the consumer. And while the average virtuous middle-class liberal may go on about how "I wouldn't mind paying more", he never thinks that some people can't pay more. Those are the people who are hurt the most. 
So the President is right when he says Canada has a high tariff rate. But as the old saying goes, if your friend (or in this case, someone you're trying to make an enemy) jumped off a bridge, would you? 
So it's been established that protectionism hurts people, that's obvious. However, does free trade help people? The answer is also as obvious, but in this case, it's a yes.
While it's very easy to imagine that free trade only helps the big companies that ship jobs over to China, that's far from the case. What the people who support protectionism never tell you is that said "outsourcing" lowers the price of products and, as such, gives us greater purchasing power. 
YouTuber Shane Killian (who I don't agree with on most issues, but has made informative and entertaining content on free trade) calculated that in 1993, one year before the implementation of NAFTA, it would have cost someone over $17,000 to have all of the features present in your average iPhone. And that's ignoring the features that he couldn't calculate because they didn't even exist in any form back in the 1990's. Don't believe me, how many times did you video call someone over the course of that entire decade? Post NAFTA, the iPhone X is so easy to get people can line up around the block, regardless of income, to buy the newest model. This is only because they use so much oversea labor. 
Now, some may respond that this will cost the country a large number of jobs. This is true, but putting the economy in a vacuum like this is never a good idea. The fact is, the elimination of these jobs from the United States economy has been nothing but a positive for the average worker for all the reasons listed above. The fact is, the economy will adjust. In fact, it already has adjusted. At least, that's what the Trumpers keep telling me. After all, more jobs left this country in Trump's first year than Obama's last. So the prices of products only go up but that doesn't matter because it will create jobs the economy doesn't need.
So now there's only one thing that the president and his supporters have left to rely on, the old idea of the trade deficit. This is one his supporters, including many this blog has already covered, have left to rely on. For this, all you really need to do is understand what the "trade deficit" is to understand why this doesn't make any sense.       
A trade deficit, as defined by Investopedia, is "an economic measure of international trade in which a country's imports exceeds its exports". Basically, a trade deficit is when a country buys more from another country than it gives out. However, what the anti-free trade crowd never tell you is that this number is 100% meaningless.
Let me show you what I mean. Did you know you have a trade deficit with any store you go to? You give them money, but they never give you any money. Do you care? Of course not, they gave you what you bought. 
What I'm getting at is, the trade deficit is also a pretty silly argument. 
All of this makes one thing perfectly clear, the United States needs free trade to survive and continue to be prosperous.