Donald Trump made headlines when he proposed that the United States begin to place Muslims in a federal database without due process. A furious wave of criticism crashed down on the Trump campaign. Unabated by the critique, Trump upped the ante, saying that Muslims should be temporarily banned from entering the United States for security purposes.

The primary system suppresses the democratic process and it’s important that we take a look at fixing this. Despite what we get from the media coverage, we must remember that the primary election functions as more than a selector for each party’s candidate for president. We qualify candidates for both chambers of the U.S. Congress, state Assembly, state Senate, and most city and state offices to the general election through our primary system. Our current system:

Donald Trump has been taking a lot of heat over his comments about banning Muslim immigrants but turns out he is right about the legal authority to do so. On the other hand, are other presidential candidates actually hypocritical on the issue? Reality Check!

There’s been so much debate over Donald Trump’s statement that the U.S. should ban all Muslims attempting to enter the country. We are going to look at one major question: is it lawful?

This is a Reality Check you won’t see anywhere else.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry signed on to the 29-page negotiation framework at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) on December 9, with little reporting in U.S. news sources.

In typical UN politics, this 29-page agreement is a framework of agreeing on how to negotiate the final agreement--and while that may sound confusing, the legalese of the 29-page agreement is far worse.

Democratic presidential debate. When questioned about a previous assertion that climate change is the greatest threat to our national security, Sanders doubled down on those comments and asserted that climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.

Whenever there is mass shooting in the U.S., whether committed by a deranged lunatic with questionable motives or radical Islamic jihadists, the debate about gun violence inevitably ramps up. Gun control advocates demand more restrictions on gun sales and use while Second Amendment proponents argue that bearing arms is a constitutional right and regardless, more restrictions won't help because they don't affect criminals.

A new era of voting in California is fast approaching. Why, you might ask, in a world where information and services are accessible at the tips of our fingers almost any time of day, is voting so ”old fashioned”?

As comedian Chris Rock famously observed, “They don’t want you to vote. If they did, we wouldn’t vote on a Tuesday. In November. You ever throw a party on a Tuesday? No. Because nobody would come.”

With more than 10 nations actively bombing Syria, a country roughly the size of Oklahoma, one of the primary concerns is the possibility of spill-over wars--with entangled treaties creating a WWI-style political catastrophe.

This type of catastrophe is not out of the question, as all participants in the fight seem to have different objectives, conditions of victory, and exit strategies (if any).

American beer, wine, and spirit enthusiasts recently celebrated Repeal Day on December 5. It was on this day in 1933 that the United States officially passed the 21st Amendment, effectively ending the failed “noble experiment” known as Prohibition.

This was not only a good day for liberty and libations; it also marked the end of a violent era in American history.

Supreme Court justices heard oral argument Tuesday in a case that may change the way we look at voting rights and elections in the United States. In the case Evenwel v. Abbott, which centers around the constitutional principle of "one person, one vote," the high court will decide if the right to representation applies to every citizen or just eligible voters.