President Obama thinks he has found the message to recruit young people back into his camp. He wants to prohibit Congress from raising the interest rates on Stafford loans, and judging by his performance last night on the Jimmy Fallon Show his message is landing. Young people like myself cannot be fooled by the smoke and mirrors trick the President is pulling on us.
This President has put America's youth in a predicament we as a country haven't seen in generations. America's college educated youth have no job market and limited opportunities. As more and more Americans are attending college and receiving degrees how can young people support a President whose policies have undoubtedly led us into a job market where our skills where be under utilized?
More young people than ever are moving back in with their parents. Half of all recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed a statistic that frightens me as a graduating senior. These statistics can be traced back to the job killing regulations and policies crafted by a man elected on the backs of the youth.
Obama managed to get the youth vote out in record numbers in 2008. He's trying to blind them now by covering up his record and only showing further disregard for a deficit already out of control. Barack Obama has no desire to pay down the deficit or create an environment suitable for economic growth.
The only way to re-stabilize America's future is to give the new college graduate the ability to succeed. Without a new generation of entrepreneurs and job creators how will America replace the jobs lost in the recession of 2008? America's finest youth are in dead end jobs because of the Obama economy. We must have a president that is pro-growth, pro-free markets, and pro-economic liberty.
The GOP will need every vote to challenge the Obama machine. We must work to pull back the curtain of Stafford loan promises and introduce America's youth to the truth. President Obama is not your ally. In three plus years all he has done is taken the most precious of things from you. He's taken away your ability to succeed and secure the American Dream. It is now harder to start a business, harder to higher employees because of ObamaCare, and even harder still to compete in a tumultuous economy.
It is up to all of us to try to turn this country around. If young people continue not to recognize the source of their frustration they will always be a rubber stamp for the American Progressives. They will continually dig themselves further into a hole without knowing it. The rich and the fictional 1% will get the blame as the elites in Washington slow the economy down so we can be one of many and not exceptional.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The Mitt Romney You Have
The following link will lead you to my Carbondale Tea Party Speech delivered on April 15, 2012 at the Scranton Federal Courthouse.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/photo.php?v=10150966058175550
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/photo.php?v=10150966058175550
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Race and the Right
Between the National Review article and the tragedy of Trayvon Martin in Florida the perpetual myth of those on the political right as racists has reared its ugly head once more.
If you have been a conservative for longer than a day you've probably faced the calls of racist from your less informed liberal friends who wish to show you the "compassionate side" of their arguments. Today there seems to be more of this on the national scale and the push being made by prominent leftists is in no way grounded to historical facts. Allow me to set the record straight.
As a brief overview of our ideology we believe in natural rights as given to us by God. These rights have to be recognized by government for that government to be recognized as legitimate. It has been the march of those carrying the call enshrined in our Declaration of Independence to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that sought to free the slaves, fight the Confederacy, and limit the government's restrictions on rights you receive because you have inherent worth as an individual.
Conservatives fight against the unhealthy growth of government. They recognize that government takes away the rights of individuals in order to expand its own power. With a government truly limited the rights of the individual are boundless. No man can keep another man as a slave and treat him as less than human.
It was the conservatives that pushed back government by defeating the Confederacy and freed the slaves by pushing back government and allowing their natural rights to take over. It was those who sought to expand the growth of government that created the Jim Crow Laws and looked to remove those rights once more.
The conservatives look to level the playing field so that the playing field is as equal as human beings can make it. Once government steps aside it is only man. Man may be flawed but he cannot in good conscience keep his fellow man down.
The media, which is spear-headed by leftists and progressives, will do anything it can to portray those on the right as being intolerant. They will attempt to showcase our policies as racist. It is up to those prominent members of the conservative movement to take this moment and showcase why racism is so inherently opposed to liberty and natural rights. Andrew Breitbart would have been salivating at the opportunity to beat back the firestorm created by prominent members of the media.
We need to come forward and nip these kinds of issues in the bud. Conservatism is directly inverse to racist policies. With a small government respectful of the rights you are born with racist policies are impossible. It was under the guise of "compassionate politics" that allowed government to restrict the rights of its citizens in the first place. In order for all men and women to be free government must be limited.
Conservative politics and racist policies clash at the most fundamental of levels. Racist policies grow the power of government and we will not stand for that. Point out this paradox to any leftist that dares to attack the right as racist. I bet it blows their minds.
If you have been a conservative for longer than a day you've probably faced the calls of racist from your less informed liberal friends who wish to show you the "compassionate side" of their arguments. Today there seems to be more of this on the national scale and the push being made by prominent leftists is in no way grounded to historical facts. Allow me to set the record straight.
As a brief overview of our ideology we believe in natural rights as given to us by God. These rights have to be recognized by government for that government to be recognized as legitimate. It has been the march of those carrying the call enshrined in our Declaration of Independence to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that sought to free the slaves, fight the Confederacy, and limit the government's restrictions on rights you receive because you have inherent worth as an individual.
Conservatives fight against the unhealthy growth of government. They recognize that government takes away the rights of individuals in order to expand its own power. With a government truly limited the rights of the individual are boundless. No man can keep another man as a slave and treat him as less than human.
It was the conservatives that pushed back government by defeating the Confederacy and freed the slaves by pushing back government and allowing their natural rights to take over. It was those who sought to expand the growth of government that created the Jim Crow Laws and looked to remove those rights once more.
The conservatives look to level the playing field so that the playing field is as equal as human beings can make it. Once government steps aside it is only man. Man may be flawed but he cannot in good conscience keep his fellow man down.
The media, which is spear-headed by leftists and progressives, will do anything it can to portray those on the right as being intolerant. They will attempt to showcase our policies as racist. It is up to those prominent members of the conservative movement to take this moment and showcase why racism is so inherently opposed to liberty and natural rights. Andrew Breitbart would have been salivating at the opportunity to beat back the firestorm created by prominent members of the media.
We need to come forward and nip these kinds of issues in the bud. Conservatism is directly inverse to racist policies. With a small government respectful of the rights you are born with racist policies are impossible. It was under the guise of "compassionate politics" that allowed government to restrict the rights of its citizens in the first place. In order for all men and women to be free government must be limited.
Conservative politics and racist policies clash at the most fundamental of levels. Racist policies grow the power of government and we will not stand for that. Point out this paradox to any leftist that dares to attack the right as racist. I bet it blows their minds.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
A Hero, A Pioneer, Goes Too Young
This morning I woke up and checked the Drudge Report like I do every morning before I head to class in an effort to be as updated on current events as possible. I was shocked to learn that conservative social media pioneer, Andrew Breitbart had passed away at the age of 43.
It is always a shock when an individual dies so young in today's society, but with Andrew it was an earthshaking bombshell. Everything Breitbart did was full of energy. He brought the fight to the liberal media every single minute of every single day. Andrew was all heart.
He grew to national prominence working with Matthew Drudge and the Drudge Report. He set up a list of "Big" sites and his breitbart.com website. He exposed the Representative Anthony Weiner sex scandal when the other members of the media ignored it. He then jumped up and spoke at Weiner's press conference for an I told you so moment. He wasn't going to be ignored the way the media ignores other prominent conservatives.
He never stepped away from a fight. He would "Retweet" all the vicious things liberals, progressives, and Democrats would send him. He was trying to expose the people who claimed to care for everyone had an evil side that never got exposed. He brought the fight to the media, the establishment, everyday folks, and anyone who has wronged the movement he loved so dearly.
Today, I lost a hero, the world lost a pioneer, the conservative movement lost a champion, and a bright fire was extinguished too soon. Andrew Breitbart represented what I always felt I was in a deep blue town. Defending conservative principles up against all odds and never shying from the fights teachers and fellow students launched against our beliefs.
We conservatives have so few prominent members with the fight that Andrew Breitbart had. We have so few members with half the fight Breitbart brought everyday. This is why this one hurts us so badly.
I will leave you with Breitbart's CPAC speech from this year.
RIP Andrew Breitbart (February 1, 1969 – March 1, 2012)
It is always a shock when an individual dies so young in today's society, but with Andrew it was an earthshaking bombshell. Everything Breitbart did was full of energy. He brought the fight to the liberal media every single minute of every single day. Andrew was all heart.
He grew to national prominence working with Matthew Drudge and the Drudge Report. He set up a list of "Big" sites and his breitbart.com website. He exposed the Representative Anthony Weiner sex scandal when the other members of the media ignored it. He then jumped up and spoke at Weiner's press conference for an I told you so moment. He wasn't going to be ignored the way the media ignores other prominent conservatives.
He never stepped away from a fight. He would "Retweet" all the vicious things liberals, progressives, and Democrats would send him. He was trying to expose the people who claimed to care for everyone had an evil side that never got exposed. He brought the fight to the media, the establishment, everyday folks, and anyone who has wronged the movement he loved so dearly.
Today, I lost a hero, the world lost a pioneer, the conservative movement lost a champion, and a bright fire was extinguished too soon. Andrew Breitbart represented what I always felt I was in a deep blue town. Defending conservative principles up against all odds and never shying from the fights teachers and fellow students launched against our beliefs.
We conservatives have so few prominent members with the fight that Andrew Breitbart had. We have so few members with half the fight Breitbart brought everyday. This is why this one hurts us so badly.
I will leave you with Breitbart's CPAC speech from this year.
RIP Andrew Breitbart (February 1, 1969 – March 1, 2012)
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Your Rights Are Absolute
There has been a slow erosion of the natural rights and liberties that this country was founded upon. A death from a thousand individual cuts may quickly befall the greatest experiment of individual liberty that the world has ever seen. The culprit here is not just at the government level but also at the mental level. Too many of those amongst us are far too willing to surrender the rights that are bestowed upon us by our birth.
This has been a slow death march started during the Progressive Era where the idea that we must "progress" past the Constitution and move on toward the more "forward-thinking Old World." That the "rights" of the class far outweigh the rights of the individual. At the birth of this nation the people were sovereign, we have since moved toward a republic where the needs of the many are more pressing than individual liberty.
We have allowed government and culture to dictate what rights have become acceptable and what ones should be dealt away with. We have become a society that after a small uproar has elected to live with being strip searched in the public domain. The use of body scanners and TSA searches have become the writs of assistance of our time. The government along with the supporters of security at all costs have made us "progress" past our fear of unreasonable search and seizure.
These individuals have attacked the first amendment on multiple fronts. We've seen recently that the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare for short) will force religious groups to provide healthcare insurance that provides for contraceptives. Government is attempting to coerce religion in a way that violates the conscious of the institution.
The United States of America now has "Free Speech Zones" when a prominent political figures deliver remarks. It may just be the America I thought we lived in but I thought this entire nation was a free speech zone. The First Amendment grants us this privilege. This is another natural right that is under attack by the culture as well. The growing political correctness and hypersensitivity of this country threatens what we can say and our mindset more than our government ever could.
We've been born with everything we need to exercise our natural rights and liberties. We've been given a mind of our own so we are guaranteed freedom of conscious. We've been given a mouth to speak our minds. We've been given eyes to see the truth. We've been given all the facets necessary to succeed.
The last thing we need to succeed is to reverse the tide of statist outreach. We must not be afraid to push against the tide. Speak your mind. Defend your religion. Have a free mind and conscious. We must reclaim the natural rights and liberties from our government. They are rightfully ours after all.
This has been a slow death march started during the Progressive Era where the idea that we must "progress" past the Constitution and move on toward the more "forward-thinking Old World." That the "rights" of the class far outweigh the rights of the individual. At the birth of this nation the people were sovereign, we have since moved toward a republic where the needs of the many are more pressing than individual liberty.
We have allowed government and culture to dictate what rights have become acceptable and what ones should be dealt away with. We have become a society that after a small uproar has elected to live with being strip searched in the public domain. The use of body scanners and TSA searches have become the writs of assistance of our time. The government along with the supporters of security at all costs have made us "progress" past our fear of unreasonable search and seizure.
These individuals have attacked the first amendment on multiple fronts. We've seen recently that the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare for short) will force religious groups to provide healthcare insurance that provides for contraceptives. Government is attempting to coerce religion in a way that violates the conscious of the institution.
The United States of America now has "Free Speech Zones" when a prominent political figures deliver remarks. It may just be the America I thought we lived in but I thought this entire nation was a free speech zone. The First Amendment grants us this privilege. This is another natural right that is under attack by the culture as well. The growing political correctness and hypersensitivity of this country threatens what we can say and our mindset more than our government ever could.
We've been born with everything we need to exercise our natural rights and liberties. We've been given a mind of our own so we are guaranteed freedom of conscious. We've been given a mouth to speak our minds. We've been given eyes to see the truth. We've been given all the facets necessary to succeed.
The last thing we need to succeed is to reverse the tide of statist outreach. We must not be afraid to push against the tide. Speak your mind. Defend your religion. Have a free mind and conscious. We must reclaim the natural rights and liberties from our government. They are rightfully ours after all.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
How The Base Can Have It All
Ever since the Republican field for the Presidency solidified a plurality of voters have been dissatisfied with the individuals running. The base has been teased only to be let down by the likes of Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan amongst others. The violent roller coaster of highs and lows for the candidates can be attributed to the desire for a conservative candidate to run against President Obama and the undying unpopularity of Mitt Romney.
The GOP Primary has been hectic and has provided us with three separate candidates winning primaries and a fourth is consistently putting a scare in open primaries and caucuses. With the Santorum Trifecta of the past week, Ron Paul came close to getting off the schnide in Maine, Newt Gingrich campaigning hard in Super Tuesday states, and the Mitt Romney money machine we could have a shot at something special.
For the first time since 1976 the Republican Party could have a brokered convention because not one candidate will have the necessary majority to win on the first ballot. Now states decide how many ballots have to occur before a delegate is free to vote for other candidates. This typically lasts until the third ballot. This could open up the opportunity to draft someone new into the field.
I'm going to borrow a couple of phrases here from Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. If you are unsatisfied with the current group of candidates and you don't like their odds against President Obama rage against the machine. Annoy the establishment and keep the process going all the way until Tampa.
We found out last year that Operation Chaos may have helped Obama. The longer the primary drew out the better prepared these candidates were for the general election. Why not try this strategy this time through? What can we lose by trying this? Maybe we'll have to get by with the field that hasn't inspired us. Or maybe we can draw a new face into the fray that inspires the base the way George Bush did instead of the way John McCain did.
Just remember the old adage about getting everything you want.
The GOP Primary has been hectic and has provided us with three separate candidates winning primaries and a fourth is consistently putting a scare in open primaries and caucuses. With the Santorum Trifecta of the past week, Ron Paul came close to getting off the schnide in Maine, Newt Gingrich campaigning hard in Super Tuesday states, and the Mitt Romney money machine we could have a shot at something special.
For the first time since 1976 the Republican Party could have a brokered convention because not one candidate will have the necessary majority to win on the first ballot. Now states decide how many ballots have to occur before a delegate is free to vote for other candidates. This typically lasts until the third ballot. This could open up the opportunity to draft someone new into the field.
I'm going to borrow a couple of phrases here from Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. If you are unsatisfied with the current group of candidates and you don't like their odds against President Obama rage against the machine. Annoy the establishment and keep the process going all the way until Tampa.
We found out last year that Operation Chaos may have helped Obama. The longer the primary drew out the better prepared these candidates were for the general election. Why not try this strategy this time through? What can we lose by trying this? Maybe we'll have to get by with the field that hasn't inspired us. Or maybe we can draw a new face into the fray that inspires the base the way George Bush did instead of the way John McCain did.
Just remember the old adage about getting everything you want.
Friday, January 27, 2012
National School Choice Week
We have the freedom to choose where we shop. We have the freedom to choose where we eat. We are not restricted by our residence to perform our day-to-day tasks. Since this is inherently true, why do we allow our children to be restricted by the state? Why do we choose to have a top-down education system? Are we applying the tools that made this nation an economic force?
Since 1979, the federal Department of Education has been nothing but an abysmal failure. In 2001, President Bush brought a gas can to the inferno and exacerbated the problem with the No Child Left Behind Act. It's tentacles have nullified the Tenth Amendment and the rights of states and communities to organize their own educational structure. A federal mandate for education is just as unconstitutional and frightening as the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare for shorthand).
The federal government should not dictate what should be taught in schools in individual states and communities. It creates a culture of teaching toward a test and only the test. It forces teachers to alter lesson plans and delay the advancement of the classes. It is because of this teach toward the test culture that students do not have the appreciation for math and science as they once had. They are taught "know this for a standardized test" as opposed to "know this for personal benefit." The test culture forced upon us by the federal government has harmed a generation.
The current primary school system in use by the states does not improve matters either. The policy of "This is your zip code, this is your school." Denies the parents and the children of their fundamental right to choose. Where you reside should not dictate your future. With public schools failing in Detroit, Camden, and other urban areas can we sit here with good conscious and continue to feed the failing schools with our future? We are dooming these children from the start. The drop-out rates in these cities should not come as a surprise. The system is broken and we're choosing to ignore it.
By continuing on with the status quo we are denying the children of these areas two of the three fundamental natural rights enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The free-market solutions that have brought this country to the forefront of the world should be applied to this controlled market system.
The idea of the student voucher was brought to prominence by renowned economist and political philosopher Milton Friedman. The belief of returning the money to the "student-consumer"would give the parents and students the freedom to choose. This freedom in turn drives the school marketplace. The schools with bad reputations and bad graduation rates, with poor teachers will be shut down by the parents and students. Just like a bad business will fail (as long as you aren't in the automotive industry) a bad school will fail. In this country we seem to be immune to the idea of the "bad school." Like we couldn't possibly have them in this country. It's a shame but we do.
In the marketplace competition breeds success and innovation. The government breeds complacency and keeping in place a system regardless of merit. The system needs a shake up.
This week is more than just the voucher system. It should be for school choice, educational choice, and a free and open education system. No more controlled markets. More freedom.
Since our inception as a nation we have been terrified of the over-reaching hand of government. Where other countries dictated the rights of government in their constitutions ours began with the phrase "We the People." It's time we recognize the threat of government mandates across the board. It's time we push the federal government and state government to return the future to families. The ultimate form of the government closest to the people governs best.
Since 1979, the federal Department of Education has been nothing but an abysmal failure. In 2001, President Bush brought a gas can to the inferno and exacerbated the problem with the No Child Left Behind Act. It's tentacles have nullified the Tenth Amendment and the rights of states and communities to organize their own educational structure. A federal mandate for education is just as unconstitutional and frightening as the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare for shorthand).
The federal government should not dictate what should be taught in schools in individual states and communities. It creates a culture of teaching toward a test and only the test. It forces teachers to alter lesson plans and delay the advancement of the classes. It is because of this teach toward the test culture that students do not have the appreciation for math and science as they once had. They are taught "know this for a standardized test" as opposed to "know this for personal benefit." The test culture forced upon us by the federal government has harmed a generation.
The current primary school system in use by the states does not improve matters either. The policy of "This is your zip code, this is your school." Denies the parents and the children of their fundamental right to choose. Where you reside should not dictate your future. With public schools failing in Detroit, Camden, and other urban areas can we sit here with good conscious and continue to feed the failing schools with our future? We are dooming these children from the start. The drop-out rates in these cities should not come as a surprise. The system is broken and we're choosing to ignore it.
By continuing on with the status quo we are denying the children of these areas two of the three fundamental natural rights enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The free-market solutions that have brought this country to the forefront of the world should be applied to this controlled market system.
The idea of the student voucher was brought to prominence by renowned economist and political philosopher Milton Friedman. The belief of returning the money to the "student-consumer"would give the parents and students the freedom to choose. This freedom in turn drives the school marketplace. The schools with bad reputations and bad graduation rates, with poor teachers will be shut down by the parents and students. Just like a bad business will fail (as long as you aren't in the automotive industry) a bad school will fail. In this country we seem to be immune to the idea of the "bad school." Like we couldn't possibly have them in this country. It's a shame but we do.
In the marketplace competition breeds success and innovation. The government breeds complacency and keeping in place a system regardless of merit. The system needs a shake up.
This week is more than just the voucher system. It should be for school choice, educational choice, and a free and open education system. No more controlled markets. More freedom.
Since our inception as a nation we have been terrified of the over-reaching hand of government. Where other countries dictated the rights of government in their constitutions ours began with the phrase "We the People." It's time we recognize the threat of government mandates across the board. It's time we push the federal government and state government to return the future to families. The ultimate form of the government closest to the people governs best.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Romney Has Lost Aura of Inevitability
We were told that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had too much money. He had been running non-stop for six years. He has the organization. He appeals to the center and that this time he really did believe what he was saying. The media tried to force feed the Republicans Mitt Romney and so far the unbeatable Romney is looking more Titanic than Mayflower.
This week Governor Romney found out he didn't really win Iowa as he initially believed. He went from a historic opening round knock out to a second place finish behind former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum after all the votes were officially tallied.
He then had two debates this week that were no where near his usual polished and rehearsed self. He reverted back to 2007/2008 Mitt. Uncomfortable under attack. We've seen that in his answers regarding his tax record being released. He has the last three "anti-Romneys" going after him the way spectators expected Governor Pawlenty, and the previous "anti-Romneys" to go after him. The attacks on Romney are coming out quicker than Governor Perry shoots coyotes.
Even the highlight of Romney's week the endorsement from former ambassador and former Utah Governor John Huntsman was marred by Huntsman effectively calling Romney a "A Perfectly Lubricated Weather Vane On The Important Issues Of The Day." He certainly did not give the glowing testament to Romney the way Perry spoke of Gingrich like a shepard bringing a sheep back into the flock.
Now we sit here today, on the South Carolina Primary. The first in the south. Gingrich appears to have more last second momentum than Santorum did in the moments preceding the Iowa Caucus. He could well run away with South Carolina. We will have to see if he can translate the victory in South Carolina into momentum going into Florida. He'll have ten days to chip into a remarkable Romney lead in the Sunshine State.
Mitt Romney will very likely be heading into the January 31st primary with an unremarkable 1-2 record. The best he can hope for is a split in the first four states. Many pundits and analysts had him losing Iowa and that was it. We are looking at a long primary season my friends. Three of the four remaining candidates will have won a primary. This has all the making of a knockdown, drag out fight. This time every primary and caucus will count.
This week Governor Romney found out he didn't really win Iowa as he initially believed. He went from a historic opening round knock out to a second place finish behind former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum after all the votes were officially tallied.
He then had two debates this week that were no where near his usual polished and rehearsed self. He reverted back to 2007/2008 Mitt. Uncomfortable under attack. We've seen that in his answers regarding his tax record being released. He has the last three "anti-Romneys" going after him the way spectators expected Governor Pawlenty, and the previous "anti-Romneys" to go after him. The attacks on Romney are coming out quicker than Governor Perry shoots coyotes.
Even the highlight of Romney's week the endorsement from former ambassador and former Utah Governor John Huntsman was marred by Huntsman effectively calling Romney a "A Perfectly Lubricated Weather Vane On The Important Issues Of The Day." He certainly did not give the glowing testament to Romney the way Perry spoke of Gingrich like a shepard bringing a sheep back into the flock.
Now we sit here today, on the South Carolina Primary. The first in the south. Gingrich appears to have more last second momentum than Santorum did in the moments preceding the Iowa Caucus. He could well run away with South Carolina. We will have to see if he can translate the victory in South Carolina into momentum going into Florida. He'll have ten days to chip into a remarkable Romney lead in the Sunshine State.
Mitt Romney will very likely be heading into the January 31st primary with an unremarkable 1-2 record. The best he can hope for is a split in the first four states. Many pundits and analysts had him losing Iowa and that was it. We are looking at a long primary season my friends. Three of the four remaining candidates will have won a primary. This has all the making of a knockdown, drag out fight. This time every primary and caucus will count.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Scranton Showcases Progressive Bias
I originally planned for this to be a letter to the editor to my local papers following my Catholic Jesuit University inviting a woman who had devoted her life to the pro-choice movement to hold a seminar on our campus. While the seminar was to get more women involved in politics (an idea anyone would support) the leader of this forum used to run a PAC devoted to running pro-choice women for Congress. I encourage you to look up her record. This move showed the University's commitment to progressivism. A microcosm of what conservative youth faces in the American education system. Especially in higher education.
The University of Scranton has caused a great uproar after refusing Bishop Joseph Bambera’s request to separate themselves from former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies who operated a Political Action Committee dedicated to running pro-choice women for Congress. Scranton has allowed her to host a forum on getting women to run for office.
Normally when a University engages in academic freedom and has a discussion about normally taboo subjects I would be thrilled. it gets youth involved in politics when you discuss hot-button issues such as abortion. Unfortunately, I am far too close to this university to be enthralled with it’s decision to invite Congresswoman Cto our campus.
You see for the past three semesters I have been blessed to be the University of Scranton College Republicans President. For the previous year and a half I have been fighting not just to spread the word of limited government, but to get young people more involved in politics regardless of political ideology. During my stint at this institution I can tell you the bias against conservatism in higher education is real and showcased by the school’s current actions.
During my tenure as College Republican President I have had several events cancelled or have been unable to host events because the school was afraid they would be seen as favoring a particular ideology. I had to fight tooth and nail and refuse to take no as answer when we wanted to host then Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta in 2010. Congressman Barletta received a 100% from the Right to Life Committee for his freshman term. The University last year informed me my request to participate in a video conference with Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a “Get Out the Vote” rally had been denied because of timing issues. The list goes on.
Today it appears as though the University no longer cares about being seen as an institution that favors a certain ideology. I could have dealt with the previous grievances as just typical of higher education toward the conservative ideology. This is so blatant I felt I needed to showcase the long standing bias I have experienced at this University so people can recognize the history.
The University of Scranton is trying to hide from Congresswoman Margolies past by billing this as a teaching event devoid of partisan politics. I for one will not fall for it. With her past affiliations and record neither should you. If Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA was holding a forum on gun rights would we believe his bias would be evident? If Ambassador John Bolton was holding a forum on diplomacy would we believe his past positions would not affect the forum?
After a year and a half struggle of me doing everything I can to promote right-wing candidates and being forced to cancel events, hold events in secret, and being denied opportunities I can say I am not shocked at our school's decision to promote leftist ideals that contradict established Church teachings and opinions.
This is just a microcosm of the factors afflicting young conservative students in higher education. If the accepted teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion and the pro-life movement are under attack at a Catholic institution where is it safe in academics to be a conservative?
The University of Scranton has caused a great uproar after refusing Bishop Joseph Bambera’s request to separate themselves from former Congresswoman Marjorie Margolies who operated a Political Action Committee dedicated to running pro-choice women for Congress. Scranton has allowed her to host a forum on getting women to run for office.
Normally when a University engages in academic freedom and has a discussion about normally taboo subjects I would be thrilled. it gets youth involved in politics when you discuss hot-button issues such as abortion. Unfortunately, I am far too close to this university to be enthralled with it’s decision to invite Congresswoman Cto our campus.
You see for the past three semesters I have been blessed to be the University of Scranton College Republicans President. For the previous year and a half I have been fighting not just to spread the word of limited government, but to get young people more involved in politics regardless of political ideology. During my stint at this institution I can tell you the bias against conservatism in higher education is real and showcased by the school’s current actions.
During my tenure as College Republican President I have had several events cancelled or have been unable to host events because the school was afraid they would be seen as favoring a particular ideology. I had to fight tooth and nail and refuse to take no as answer when we wanted to host then Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta in 2010. Congressman Barletta received a 100% from the Right to Life Committee for his freshman term. The University last year informed me my request to participate in a video conference with Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann as a “Get Out the Vote” rally had been denied because of timing issues. The list goes on.
Today it appears as though the University no longer cares about being seen as an institution that favors a certain ideology. I could have dealt with the previous grievances as just typical of higher education toward the conservative ideology. This is so blatant I felt I needed to showcase the long standing bias I have experienced at this University so people can recognize the history.
The University of Scranton is trying to hide from Congresswoman Margolies past by billing this as a teaching event devoid of partisan politics. I for one will not fall for it. With her past affiliations and record neither should you. If Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA was holding a forum on gun rights would we believe his bias would be evident? If Ambassador John Bolton was holding a forum on diplomacy would we believe his past positions would not affect the forum?
After a year and a half struggle of me doing everything I can to promote right-wing candidates and being forced to cancel events, hold events in secret, and being denied opportunities I can say I am not shocked at our school's decision to promote leftist ideals that contradict established Church teachings and opinions.
This is just a microcosm of the factors afflicting young conservative students in higher education. If the accepted teachings of the Catholic Church on abortion and the pro-life movement are under attack at a Catholic institution where is it safe in academics to be a conservative?
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Cain's Loss is Newt's Gain
Yesterday, American businessman and Republican Presidential candidate Herman Cain announced that he was suspending his campaign to seek the Republican nomination. His campaign had been mercilessly attacked by the website POLITICO (which has subsequently experienced far less traffic as they have been exposed as left-wing) and members of the media regarding his alleged sexual harassment. Ginger White also claimed to have had a thirteen year affair with the former CEO.
Herman Cain had been a Tea Party favorite known for his 9-9-9 Plan and his extraordinary ability as an orator. Having seen the damage these allegations had done to his campaign he elected to move aside. He did state that he will be endorsing a candidate soon which I expect to be Speaker Gingrich.
Out of every negative aspect of this Republican Campaign there must be a bright spot. As the businessman steps aside his support must go somewhere. Based on the actions of the candidate and current polling data we can safely assume where this support will be going.
Based on the debate performances and public statements of Herman Cain that his vocal support will go to the fellow Georgian Newt Gingrich. The two have been very complimentary of one another even while going after their rivals. There support for one another trickles down to their supporters. In a recent Quinnipiac Poll the majority of Cain supporters move to the former Speaker. The Right's ideas man seems to be the logical choice to gain the support of Cain's remaining supporters.
Should Gingrich receive the majority of Cain's support. This could put the Gingrich surge further ahead of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Nationally Newt has 26.6% of the support according to the Real Clear Politics Average of polls. The most recent poll done had Gingrich as high as 38%, 21 points over Romney, and has won the last five straight national polls. This could put him at Rick Perry levels before the Texas Governor began speaking.
This works on the state level as well. Newt has a firm hold in Iowa being the only candidate polling over 20% consistently. Cain still had about 12% left in Iowa those followers will undoubtedly move Gingrich farther away from the pack. He currently holds a 10% lead in the first in the Nation caucus.
In New Hampshire Newt has moved up quickly on Romney. During the 2008 primary Romney had a similar lead and it began to crumble away as an alternative comes around. Speaker Gingrich has already earned the endorsement of leading New Hampshire newspaper the Manchester Union Leader. The paper's editorial page has been ruthless toward the former Massachusetts Governor. While Cain was only polling in the single digits it is important to mention that Gingrich has started his run on Romney much earlier than Senator John McCain did.
Barring a Governor Perry style collapse Speaker Gingrich will more than likely become the Republican nominee.
Herman Cain had been a Tea Party favorite known for his 9-9-9 Plan and his extraordinary ability as an orator. Having seen the damage these allegations had done to his campaign he elected to move aside. He did state that he will be endorsing a candidate soon which I expect to be Speaker Gingrich.
Out of every negative aspect of this Republican Campaign there must be a bright spot. As the businessman steps aside his support must go somewhere. Based on the actions of the candidate and current polling data we can safely assume where this support will be going.
Based on the debate performances and public statements of Herman Cain that his vocal support will go to the fellow Georgian Newt Gingrich. The two have been very complimentary of one another even while going after their rivals. There support for one another trickles down to their supporters. In a recent Quinnipiac Poll the majority of Cain supporters move to the former Speaker. The Right's ideas man seems to be the logical choice to gain the support of Cain's remaining supporters.
Should Gingrich receive the majority of Cain's support. This could put the Gingrich surge further ahead of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Nationally Newt has 26.6% of the support according to the Real Clear Politics Average of polls. The most recent poll done had Gingrich as high as 38%, 21 points over Romney, and has won the last five straight national polls. This could put him at Rick Perry levels before the Texas Governor began speaking.
This works on the state level as well. Newt has a firm hold in Iowa being the only candidate polling over 20% consistently. Cain still had about 12% left in Iowa those followers will undoubtedly move Gingrich farther away from the pack. He currently holds a 10% lead in the first in the Nation caucus.
In New Hampshire Newt has moved up quickly on Romney. During the 2008 primary Romney had a similar lead and it began to crumble away as an alternative comes around. Speaker Gingrich has already earned the endorsement of leading New Hampshire newspaper the Manchester Union Leader. The paper's editorial page has been ruthless toward the former Massachusetts Governor. While Cain was only polling in the single digits it is important to mention that Gingrich has started his run on Romney much earlier than Senator John McCain did.
Barring a Governor Perry style collapse Speaker Gingrich will more than likely become the Republican nominee.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Newt Gingrich Surging To Front Likely to Stay
The steady methodical march of Newt Gingrich has placed him squarely in third place according to the Real Clear Politics average of national polls. Speaker Gingrich has climbed from the single digits into contention following the burnouts of flavors of the month, Representative Michele Bachmann, Governor Rick Perry, and now potentially businessman Herman Cain.
Newt has managed all this without going negative. Strictly adhering to President Reagan's 11th Commandment. He has gone after the media and the moderators for setting up the GOP candidates for in-fighting in an effort to expose weaknesses and allow for easier attack ads to be made by President Obama and the left-wing media machine.
The rise of Newt Gingrich can be attributed to his strong repeat debate performances. Myself and others have consistently viewed Speaker Gingrich as the most intelligent and solutions-oriented candidate on the stage. His climb has been steady and has not exploded to the front of the race only to fade into the darkness as Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry have done. He has not been brought to front-runner status by the falling of another individual to be the "anti-Romney" candidate as Herman Cain ascended.
Newt is not the "anti-Romney" candidate he is the Newt Gingrich candidate. He has built a campaign on being himself not from being a different human being than Mitt Romney. That is where other candidates have gone wrong. They have wanted to be seen as someone who is not Mitt Romney rather than themselves. This is the reason why other candidates have faded and Speaker Gingrich will not. There are three fields of people in this race for the GOP Nomination: Mitt Romney, the "anti-Romneys," and Newt Gingrich.
Newt appears to be holding the best hand coming down the stretch. There used to be three men at the high-rollers table: Governor Romney, Herman Cain, and Newt. I understand many conservatives and Republicans are standing behind Cain through these troubles as they view him being "Thomas'd" (If someone can invent being Bork'd I can invent Thomasing). Cain may be looking at a slight readjustment in his poll numbers leaving more voters for Newt to gain.
The final thing working in Newt's favor is that he has demanded the President meet him for Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Having seen "The Professor" Newt Gingrich debate at every single televised debate there is no way that President Obama can hang with Speaker Gingrich for three hours. The Republican primary voters are coming around to Speaker Gingrich where they may have found a permanent home.
Newt has managed all this without going negative. Strictly adhering to President Reagan's 11th Commandment. He has gone after the media and the moderators for setting up the GOP candidates for in-fighting in an effort to expose weaknesses and allow for easier attack ads to be made by President Obama and the left-wing media machine.
The rise of Newt Gingrich can be attributed to his strong repeat debate performances. Myself and others have consistently viewed Speaker Gingrich as the most intelligent and solutions-oriented candidate on the stage. His climb has been steady and has not exploded to the front of the race only to fade into the darkness as Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry have done. He has not been brought to front-runner status by the falling of another individual to be the "anti-Romney" candidate as Herman Cain ascended.
Newt is not the "anti-Romney" candidate he is the Newt Gingrich candidate. He has built a campaign on being himself not from being a different human being than Mitt Romney. That is where other candidates have gone wrong. They have wanted to be seen as someone who is not Mitt Romney rather than themselves. This is the reason why other candidates have faded and Speaker Gingrich will not. There are three fields of people in this race for the GOP Nomination: Mitt Romney, the "anti-Romneys," and Newt Gingrich.
Newt appears to be holding the best hand coming down the stretch. There used to be three men at the high-rollers table: Governor Romney, Herman Cain, and Newt. I understand many conservatives and Republicans are standing behind Cain through these troubles as they view him being "Thomas'd" (If someone can invent being Bork'd I can invent Thomasing). Cain may be looking at a slight readjustment in his poll numbers leaving more voters for Newt to gain.
The final thing working in Newt's favor is that he has demanded the President meet him for Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Having seen "The Professor" Newt Gingrich debate at every single televised debate there is no way that President Obama can hang with Speaker Gingrich for three hours. The Republican primary voters are coming around to Speaker Gingrich where they may have found a permanent home.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
On the Origin of Rights
There is a common misconception plaguing America. This misconception is so radically dangerous to a free society that the very liberty that we hold dear is in danger. The belief I am speaking of is the belief that we get our rights from government and not from being human beings.
Each and every human being is entitled to natural rights. These rights are enshrined in our nation’s oldest document, the Declaration of Independence. That human beings are created with certain inalienable rights endowed to them by their creator, and that these rights are self-evident. If government elects not to prescribe to these guidelines than it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government. It is important that the United States continue to follow the idea of natural rights.
When you state that you get your rights from government the government then has the authority to take those rights away. Would you feel comfortable with the government dictating what you can say, feel, and think? To deny human beings these rights is to degrade them to the level of animals. Humans are cognitive beings and deserve to be treated as such. To allow government to have the authority to take away rights is akin to leaving the barn door open and wondering why your hay isn’t there anymore. As a dear friend of mine used to say, "God gave you a brain so you can think, a mouth so you can speak, and eyes so you can see. Government cannot take these things from you and they must recognize them."
Liberty and freedom are not passed down from generation to generation but must be constantly secured by the vigilance of a well informed populous. I refuse to grant the government that kind of power and authority into my life. For the moment you believe you get your rights from the state and not from being an individual you no longer are an individual, a citizen, or a person. You are merely a subject and I would sooner die than degrade myself to the level of a subject.
Each and every human being is entitled to natural rights. These rights are enshrined in our nation’s oldest document, the Declaration of Independence. That human beings are created with certain inalienable rights endowed to them by their creator, and that these rights are self-evident. If government elects not to prescribe to these guidelines than it is the right of the people to alter or abolish said government. It is important that the United States continue to follow the idea of natural rights.
When you state that you get your rights from government the government then has the authority to take those rights away. Would you feel comfortable with the government dictating what you can say, feel, and think? To deny human beings these rights is to degrade them to the level of animals. Humans are cognitive beings and deserve to be treated as such. To allow government to have the authority to take away rights is akin to leaving the barn door open and wondering why your hay isn’t there anymore. As a dear friend of mine used to say, "God gave you a brain so you can think, a mouth so you can speak, and eyes so you can see. Government cannot take these things from you and they must recognize them."
Liberty and freedom are not passed down from generation to generation but must be constantly secured by the vigilance of a well informed populous. I refuse to grant the government that kind of power and authority into my life. For the moment you believe you get your rights from the state and not from being an individual you no longer are an individual, a citizen, or a person. You are merely a subject and I would sooner die than degrade myself to the level of a subject.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
A Real Economic Stimulus
A lot has been said about President Obama’s proposed legislation on how to get the United States economy moving again. The President and I do not see eye-to-eye on his plan for economic recovery. While the President plans further government spending and tax revenue increases I propose a shift to hand Americans back their hard-earned money. The solution is simple and it’s called the Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax would remove the entire tax structure as we know it. Nothing has brought more government interference into our lives than the progressive income tax (twice ruled unconstitutional) and the Internal Revenue Service. I say remove the taxes that take money away from our paychecks before we even see it, remove capital gains taxes, and taxes on repatriated profits along with most other taxes and replace them with a consumption or sales tax.
Under the Fair Tax there would be no more gross and net pay; just net pay. Instead of looking to see how much the government has taken out of your paycheck you would just get your paycheck. You would, for the first time in your life, be getting paid for literally every minute you worked. What a novel idea!
The price of everything you purchase is about 23% more expensive because of the current government tax structure. In order to keep the government at its current revenue intake the national consumption or sales tax would be 23%. This would replace the entire burdensome IRS and tax structure and replace it with a single sales tax. No more loopholes, no more favoritism in the tax code, and no more pain every April 15th.
With an end to outright corporate taxes our business environment would grow by leaps and bounds as the United States government would have one of the most fair business climates in the world. With fair business climates brings more jobs. With a lower tax burden a company can afford to give more jobs and charge less for their products. Sounds like a recovery to me.
The Fair Tax provides monthly rebate checks for all essential purchases like food so the money you spend that will be taxed will be on other expenditures. The whole idea of the Fair Tax is to no longer punish individuals for achieving and getting gainful employment. It will instead tax expenditures of that income. It’s a tax based on what you purchase not what you’ve made. If you would like more information about the Fair tax visit www.fairtax.org.
The Fair Tax would remove the entire tax structure as we know it. Nothing has brought more government interference into our lives than the progressive income tax (twice ruled unconstitutional) and the Internal Revenue Service. I say remove the taxes that take money away from our paychecks before we even see it, remove capital gains taxes, and taxes on repatriated profits along with most other taxes and replace them with a consumption or sales tax.
Under the Fair Tax there would be no more gross and net pay; just net pay. Instead of looking to see how much the government has taken out of your paycheck you would just get your paycheck. You would, for the first time in your life, be getting paid for literally every minute you worked. What a novel idea!
The price of everything you purchase is about 23% more expensive because of the current government tax structure. In order to keep the government at its current revenue intake the national consumption or sales tax would be 23%. This would replace the entire burdensome IRS and tax structure and replace it with a single sales tax. No more loopholes, no more favoritism in the tax code, and no more pain every April 15th.
With an end to outright corporate taxes our business environment would grow by leaps and bounds as the United States government would have one of the most fair business climates in the world. With fair business climates brings more jobs. With a lower tax burden a company can afford to give more jobs and charge less for their products. Sounds like a recovery to me.
The Fair Tax provides monthly rebate checks for all essential purchases like food so the money you spend that will be taxed will be on other expenditures. The whole idea of the Fair Tax is to no longer punish individuals for achieving and getting gainful employment. It will instead tax expenditures of that income. It’s a tax based on what you purchase not what you’ve made. If you would like more information about the Fair tax visit www.fairtax.org.
Monday, July 25, 2011
America's Mayor Within Striking Distance
According to a recently released CNN Poll former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney still has the lead in the GOP Primary. Unfortunately for Governor Romney his once insurmountable lead has vanished and has four big time contenders to deal with all within the margin of error.
The first three are all candidates or potential candidates that you would expect: Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. All part of the conservative anti-Romney group. Congresswoman Bachmann is already in the race and posing a real threat to Romney in Iowa, it is almost official that Governor Perry is in according to Real Clear Politics, and Governor Palin whom I believe will not attempt to seek the Republican nomination this time through.
The shock comes from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It appears as though now moderates now have a secondary option to Romney. Mayor Giuliani has been seen in New Hampshire and has stated that he has interest in getting back into national politics if the field doesn't feel right to him. Giuliani's strong performance shocked me in two ways.
1) Romney does not have as strong support in the moderate class as people originally thought.
2) Giuliani's supporters have mostly stuck around after his disappointing campaign strategy of 2008.
Rudy appears to be garnering support from independents (53%) and Republicans (55%) along with moderates (61%) and conservatives (50%). The one area where Giuliani falters a little is in Tea Party support where only 46% support the idea of him running. Still a number much higher than would have been expected.
Rudy is going to have to prove he's serious in New Hampshire before I feel comfortable with him again. As a former supporter in 2008 I don't want to be fooled with a lazy campaign strategy again. If Giuliani can pull off a win in New Hampshire America's Mayor may be in far better shape than he was in 2008 when he was the favorite every one was chasing.
The first three are all candidates or potential candidates that you would expect: Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. All part of the conservative anti-Romney group. Congresswoman Bachmann is already in the race and posing a real threat to Romney in Iowa, it is almost official that Governor Perry is in according to Real Clear Politics, and Governor Palin whom I believe will not attempt to seek the Republican nomination this time through.
The shock comes from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It appears as though now moderates now have a secondary option to Romney. Mayor Giuliani has been seen in New Hampshire and has stated that he has interest in getting back into national politics if the field doesn't feel right to him. Giuliani's strong performance shocked me in two ways.
1) Romney does not have as strong support in the moderate class as people originally thought.
2) Giuliani's supporters have mostly stuck around after his disappointing campaign strategy of 2008.
Rudy appears to be garnering support from independents (53%) and Republicans (55%) along with moderates (61%) and conservatives (50%). The one area where Giuliani falters a little is in Tea Party support where only 46% support the idea of him running. Still a number much higher than would have been expected.
Rudy is going to have to prove he's serious in New Hampshire before I feel comfortable with him again. As a former supporter in 2008 I don't want to be fooled with a lazy campaign strategy again. If Giuliani can pull off a win in New Hampshire America's Mayor may be in far better shape than he was in 2008 when he was the favorite every one was chasing.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Fox News Double Standard With Governor Palin
In early March the now embattled News Corp, which owns Fox News, suspended the contracts of contributors Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich as they considered runs for the Presidency. This move was largely received as good move for the journalistic integrity of the network. This way the network would not appear to be favoring some candidates and not others.
So why has News Corp not suspended the contract of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin?
Governor Palin has made it clear that she does not know whether or not she will seek the Republican nomination in the upcoming Presidential primaries. Governor Huckabee made it clear he would not and was able to continue working for the network. Either the network knows and will not tell us or is continuing to give Governor Palin free press as a sign of contributing to her campaign.
Fox included Palin in it's newest round of Republican polling for the nomination. The governor tied with current member of the House of Representatives Ron Paul with 9%. Either Fox knows Governor Palin will run and has allowed her to maintain her role in a clear case of favoritism and bias, she has not informed them (which should still result in suspension), or they are skewing polling data by including a candidate who they know is not running.
Governor Palin should be expected to follow the same guidelines as other contributors. Either Governor Palin should let her plans be known or she should be suspended by News Corp.
So why has News Corp not suspended the contract of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin?
Governor Palin has made it clear that she does not know whether or not she will seek the Republican nomination in the upcoming Presidential primaries. Governor Huckabee made it clear he would not and was able to continue working for the network. Either the network knows and will not tell us or is continuing to give Governor Palin free press as a sign of contributing to her campaign.
Fox included Palin in it's newest round of Republican polling for the nomination. The governor tied with current member of the House of Representatives Ron Paul with 9%. Either Fox knows Governor Palin will run and has allowed her to maintain her role in a clear case of favoritism and bias, she has not informed them (which should still result in suspension), or they are skewing polling data by including a candidate who they know is not running.
Governor Palin should be expected to follow the same guidelines as other contributors. Either Governor Palin should let her plans be known or she should be suspended by News Corp.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Where Herman Cain Lost Me
American businessman and Republican candidate for the Presidency Herman Cain has officially lost me as a potential supporter in the 2012 race. I left the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) having loved the candidate. I came in not knowing who Herman Cain was and left with him in my top three choices for the Presidency.
I loved Herman Cain so much I started my first ever Tea Party speech with the same quote he started his CPAC speech with. The appeal of a businessman as the Chief Executive is always very great for me. Which is why it is so difficult for me to withdraw my support of Mr. Cain because of his comments toward Islam, Muslims, and the idea of Mosques in the United States.
Mr. Cain consistently brings up his upbringing in the Jim Crow South and how the idea of racial discrimination caused him great difficulty in life. Then why would Cain then place the same intolerance toward Muslims and Islam?
As much as Herman Cain preaches about his love of the United States Constitution he hasn't seemed to have read a lot of it. For instance Herman Cain has spoken about his reluctance to appoint a Muslim into his cabinet and has stated that a test would have to be administered to prove loyalty to the United States and not Islam which violates United States Constitution Article VI: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Now when discussing the new mosque to be built in Tennessee Cain stated that people should have the right to ban mosques from there town. This of course is in violation of the very religious freedom that led the settlers to come to America in the first place, and in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Mr. Cain's statements are hurtful and ignorant of Islam. Putting an entire religion into a category because of a few radicals is the very stereotyping Cain was against in the Jim Crow South.
It's a shame a man with such great problem-solving skills and such an adamant supporter of the FairTax has had to say these things. We are at war with Islamic Extremists not all Muslims. The dialogue of hate must be removed from his platform.
I loved Herman Cain so much I started my first ever Tea Party speech with the same quote he started his CPAC speech with. The appeal of a businessman as the Chief Executive is always very great for me. Which is why it is so difficult for me to withdraw my support of Mr. Cain because of his comments toward Islam, Muslims, and the idea of Mosques in the United States.
Mr. Cain consistently brings up his upbringing in the Jim Crow South and how the idea of racial discrimination caused him great difficulty in life. Then why would Cain then place the same intolerance toward Muslims and Islam?
As much as Herman Cain preaches about his love of the United States Constitution he hasn't seemed to have read a lot of it. For instance Herman Cain has spoken about his reluctance to appoint a Muslim into his cabinet and has stated that a test would have to be administered to prove loyalty to the United States and not Islam which violates United States Constitution Article VI: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Now when discussing the new mosque to be built in Tennessee Cain stated that people should have the right to ban mosques from there town. This of course is in violation of the very religious freedom that led the settlers to come to America in the first place, and in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Mr. Cain's statements are hurtful and ignorant of Islam. Putting an entire religion into a category because of a few radicals is the very stereotyping Cain was against in the Jim Crow South.
It's a shame a man with such great problem-solving skills and such an adamant supporter of the FairTax has had to say these things. We are at war with Islamic Extremists not all Muslims. The dialogue of hate must be removed from his platform.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
North Korea to Lead UN Talks on Disarmament
The rogue nation of North Korea has been chosen to lead the United Nations Conference on Disarmament. Yes it is that time of the year again when people only recognize the United Nations as existing because of an outlandish decision to have a dictator lead a council which contradicts everything it stands for.
The United Nations have justified the appointment by stating that it was an "automatic rotation." The defense of "Well, it's their turn" should no longer be accepted by the international body. The Conference will report to the United Nations General Assembly which passes non-binding optional resolutions.
A peace-keeping body such as the United Nations should have skipped over North Korea in light of several military actions taken against South Korea over the past two years (minimum), it's continued attempts to create and grow a nuclear arsenal (contradictory?), and it's well documented ties to helping others grow theirs (see Syria, 2007).
If the United Nations wants to regain legitimacy in the American public and in places around the world where it's practices are being called into question, they must begin removing countries under sanction from chairing these important committees. There is a clear conflict of interest in letting the ambassador from North Korea chair a committee on nuclear weapons. The proper thing to do as an added diplomatic measure would have been to penalize the North Koreans by selecting the nation after them to chair the committee.
In order to keep the peace-keeping body around and to maintain a level of legitimacy by reforming the chair selection committee. When the UN allows for these kind of events it adds fuel to the fire for its growing number of critics calling for an end to the body. With principled reforms such as the one listed above and a few others we could have a legitimate place for diplomats to discuss peace, and make recommendations as to how this peace can be brought about.
Follow @mullrainee
Tweet
The United Nations have justified the appointment by stating that it was an "automatic rotation." The defense of "Well, it's their turn" should no longer be accepted by the international body. The Conference will report to the United Nations General Assembly which passes non-binding optional resolutions.
A peace-keeping body such as the United Nations should have skipped over North Korea in light of several military actions taken against South Korea over the past two years (minimum), it's continued attempts to create and grow a nuclear arsenal (contradictory?), and it's well documented ties to helping others grow theirs (see Syria, 2007).
If the United Nations wants to regain legitimacy in the American public and in places around the world where it's practices are being called into question, they must begin removing countries under sanction from chairing these important committees. There is a clear conflict of interest in letting the ambassador from North Korea chair a committee on nuclear weapons. The proper thing to do as an added diplomatic measure would have been to penalize the North Koreans by selecting the nation after them to chair the committee.
In order to keep the peace-keeping body around and to maintain a level of legitimacy by reforming the chair selection committee. When the UN allows for these kind of events it adds fuel to the fire for its growing number of critics calling for an end to the body. With principled reforms such as the one listed above and a few others we could have a legitimate place for diplomats to discuss peace, and make recommendations as to how this peace can be brought about.
Follow @mullrainee
Tweet
Sunday, June 26, 2011
We May Have Missed Our Eisenhower
Roughly a half-century ago the former commander of the most important mission in World War II ran for and won the Office of the Presidency. Dwight Eisenhower was a center-right President whom history has been very kind too. The man was a tremendous leader of men and held personal responsibility in the highest regard. There was an immense ground swell to make Eisenhower president after the Truman ended his presidency.
The same movement was around General David Petraeus. Petraeus has been entrusted with both of the War on Terrorism missions. He oversaw both "surges" which have been viewed as key and impressive victories toward ending our stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked with Presidents Obama and Bush in order to secure lasting peace in the region.
Much like Eisenhower, Petraeus has been universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike. They are both center-right and are well spoken and intelligent individuals. Petraeus has a PhD in International Relations from Princeton and had graduated in the top 5% of his military class. He has hands-on learning one of the most, if not the most, critical region to United States security. This experience will no doubt serve him well.
I figured General Petraeus should he have decided to run would have done so in October, November, or December of this year after his service to the President had expired. I would not expect him to leave his post as Ambassador Huntsman did with China. I feel that it shows a level of disloyalty to begin to plan against an employer and attempt to undercut your former employers credibility. Petraeus, a man committed to fulfilling his oath to the President would not have gone the Huntsman route.
I had been hoping for a potential run from Petraeus despite his constant statements to the contrary. It appears now as though we missed on one of the crucial leaders of our time. Petraeus will become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and will have put the nail in the coffin for a President Petraeus. If President Obama is elected for a second term the earliest Petraeus would be able to run in 2016 when he will be in his early sixties and still viable as a candidate. He will be a tad on the older side of the field but the GOP loves running solid military men as much as it loves running governors or businessmen. Giving him a fair chance.
However, if the coin goes the other way and a Republican is elected in 2012 Petraeus may not be able to run again until 2020 putting him as one of the oldest presidents in American history. An obstacle that may not be easy to overcome. It appears as though we have missed out on an opportunity for history to repeat itself and America is losing out by not having a veteran leader of men at the helm of the nation.
The same movement was around General David Petraeus. Petraeus has been entrusted with both of the War on Terrorism missions. He oversaw both "surges" which have been viewed as key and impressive victories toward ending our stay in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked with Presidents Obama and Bush in order to secure lasting peace in the region.
Much like Eisenhower, Petraeus has been universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike. They are both center-right and are well spoken and intelligent individuals. Petraeus has a PhD in International Relations from Princeton and had graduated in the top 5% of his military class. He has hands-on learning one of the most, if not the most, critical region to United States security. This experience will no doubt serve him well.
I figured General Petraeus should he have decided to run would have done so in October, November, or December of this year after his service to the President had expired. I would not expect him to leave his post as Ambassador Huntsman did with China. I feel that it shows a level of disloyalty to begin to plan against an employer and attempt to undercut your former employers credibility. Petraeus, a man committed to fulfilling his oath to the President would not have gone the Huntsman route.
I had been hoping for a potential run from Petraeus despite his constant statements to the contrary. It appears now as though we missed on one of the crucial leaders of our time. Petraeus will become the next Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and will have put the nail in the coffin for a President Petraeus. If President Obama is elected for a second term the earliest Petraeus would be able to run in 2016 when he will be in his early sixties and still viable as a candidate. He will be a tad on the older side of the field but the GOP loves running solid military men as much as it loves running governors or businessmen. Giving him a fair chance.
However, if the coin goes the other way and a Republican is elected in 2012 Petraeus may not be able to run again until 2020 putting him as one of the oldest presidents in American history. An obstacle that may not be easy to overcome. It appears as though we have missed out on an opportunity for history to repeat itself and America is losing out by not having a veteran leader of men at the helm of the nation.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Eric Cantor Leaves Deficit Talks
Today it was announced that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has pulled out of the bipartisan deficit panel being headed by Vice President Joe Biden. The reason being an absolute lack of leadership and discussion with President Obama.
Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have called for President Obama to finally get fully involved in these discussions to help move the discussion about taxes in any deficit reduction plan. Cantor is absolutely opposed to any new tax increases especially now in the current economic status of our country. This is the kind of Republican leadership we have been waiting for.
By walking away from the deficit talks Cantor is forcing President Obama to come to the table to come and discuss the fundamental issue of his Presidency. Obama has been able to skate on this issue by creating a panel and putting Joe Biden in charge. The president has shown a lack of leadership by trying to push this onto the Vice President, speaking on the topic generically, and hiding behind his press secretary.
Republicans had been giving the president a free-pass on the debt until recently when Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and asked where was the president on the tax issue. Eric Cantor is showing the signs of leadership and ability to confront the executive branch that was prominent during the 1990s under Newt Gingrich. This is the leadership I had hoped for at the beginning of the new Congressional term under Speaker John Boehner.
This is a brilliant move on several levels. First being the country stands to benefit in the short and long term by agreeing to a deficit and spending reduction plan. The country has spent itself into a dangerous position and it is in need of some tough medicine. The next level is the Republicans will look much more serious on the deficit issues than the Democrats and President Obama. The debt and economy are two central issues to the upcoming 2012 election cycle. The third level being it highlights President Obama's inefficiencies as a leader and it forces him into a position where he will have to continue to rattle cages. The Republican Party has continuously hammered Obama for following the world in foreign affairs and now he appears to be following even in domestic policy. The decision will also force him into a position where he will put forth his own agenda which will not go far enough for the liberal-progressive base or he will pander to the base too well and disenfranchise an American people who will not take kindly to tax increases.
This will turn into an ideological staring contest in which we will all have a side we will lean on because of our ideological differences. We can only hope that someone's eyes dry out before the United States has successfully followed Greece into democracy and bankruptcy.
Edit: Representative Cantor has also announced today that the House will consider the Balanced Budget Amendment the week of the 25th. Cantor and the Republican Party appear to be done playing games with deficit reduction.
Cantor and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell have called for President Obama to finally get fully involved in these discussions to help move the discussion about taxes in any deficit reduction plan. Cantor is absolutely opposed to any new tax increases especially now in the current economic status of our country. This is the kind of Republican leadership we have been waiting for.
By walking away from the deficit talks Cantor is forcing President Obama to come to the table to come and discuss the fundamental issue of his Presidency. Obama has been able to skate on this issue by creating a panel and putting Joe Biden in charge. The president has shown a lack of leadership by trying to push this onto the Vice President, speaking on the topic generically, and hiding behind his press secretary.
Republicans had been giving the president a free-pass on the debt until recently when Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor and asked where was the president on the tax issue. Eric Cantor is showing the signs of leadership and ability to confront the executive branch that was prominent during the 1990s under Newt Gingrich. This is the leadership I had hoped for at the beginning of the new Congressional term under Speaker John Boehner.
This is a brilliant move on several levels. First being the country stands to benefit in the short and long term by agreeing to a deficit and spending reduction plan. The country has spent itself into a dangerous position and it is in need of some tough medicine. The next level is the Republicans will look much more serious on the deficit issues than the Democrats and President Obama. The debt and economy are two central issues to the upcoming 2012 election cycle. The third level being it highlights President Obama's inefficiencies as a leader and it forces him into a position where he will have to continue to rattle cages. The Republican Party has continuously hammered Obama for following the world in foreign affairs and now he appears to be following even in domestic policy. The decision will also force him into a position where he will put forth his own agenda which will not go far enough for the liberal-progressive base or he will pander to the base too well and disenfranchise an American people who will not take kindly to tax increases.
This will turn into an ideological staring contest in which we will all have a side we will lean on because of our ideological differences. We can only hope that someone's eyes dry out before the United States has successfully followed Greece into democracy and bankruptcy.
Edit: Representative Cantor has also announced today that the House will consider the Balanced Budget Amendment the week of the 25th. Cantor and the Republican Party appear to be done playing games with deficit reduction.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Anti-TSA Bill May Bring Perry Into Contention
Governor Rick Perry of Texas has added an anti-TSA search bill to the Texas state legislature's calendar. This move will play very well to a Republican base Perry may be trying to court as he prepares to test the waters for the Republican Primaries.
A few weeks ago while Perry was still flat out denying any interest in the Oval Office he removed the bill from the agenda of the Texas Legislature's Special Session. Perry cited a lack of votes to get the bill passed in his decision. Added pressure was applied by the federal government when a letter was sent to the Texas legislature claiming air traffic to Texas would be limited if the law was passed.
Now the buzz around Perry has becoming a deafening roar for the Texas Republican to enter the Presidential fray. He has advisers sprinting away from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich including two more today from Newt's fundraising office. He has an appeal to the Christian Right in his upcoming day of prayer for the United States and his strong pro-life stance and policies. Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the United States combined and has people coming in droves to the Lone Star State. Hell he's even authored a book entitled Fed Up! about recent government overreach into state's matters.
The big name Republican backers are waiting to see if Perry or former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin jump into the race. My money says Palin will not run and wait for an opening in the White House in 2016. So the big money is out there for Perry to take advantage. People are waiting to establish a conservative candidate to oppose front-runner former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
When the Republican Party needs a candidate that can win elections and needs to unify the party they go to their oil-well. The Lone Star State. This anti-TSA bill will be more than enough to draw Governor Perry into the race and may even put him ahead of Governor Romney.
This bill will give Perry more than enough momentum to carry the field and headlines if he so chooses.
A few weeks ago while Perry was still flat out denying any interest in the Oval Office he removed the bill from the agenda of the Texas Legislature's Special Session. Perry cited a lack of votes to get the bill passed in his decision. Added pressure was applied by the federal government when a letter was sent to the Texas legislature claiming air traffic to Texas would be limited if the law was passed.
Now the buzz around Perry has becoming a deafening roar for the Texas Republican to enter the Presidential fray. He has advisers sprinting away from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich including two more today from Newt's fundraising office. He has an appeal to the Christian Right in his upcoming day of prayer for the United States and his strong pro-life stance and policies. Texas has created more jobs than the rest of the United States combined and has people coming in droves to the Lone Star State. Hell he's even authored a book entitled Fed Up! about recent government overreach into state's matters.
The big name Republican backers are waiting to see if Perry or former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin jump into the race. My money says Palin will not run and wait for an opening in the White House in 2016. So the big money is out there for Perry to take advantage. People are waiting to establish a conservative candidate to oppose front-runner former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
When the Republican Party needs a candidate that can win elections and needs to unify the party they go to their oil-well. The Lone Star State. This anti-TSA bill will be more than enough to draw Governor Perry into the race and may even put him ahead of Governor Romney.
This bill will give Perry more than enough momentum to carry the field and headlines if he so chooses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)