Picture
By: Amy Lutz

I guess it’s time for women to duck and cover, at least according to the mainstream media. For months now, left leaning news sources and politicians have been preaching the existence of the GOP’s “War on Women.” In actuality, it’s nothing but a blatant attempt to pander to women voters. Under the liberal version of “war,” Republicans have been busy targeting women by “denying” us free birth control, aiming to restrict abortion, and defunding Planned Parenthood. However, if that’s what war means these days, then call me a pacifist. Fighting against a socially liberal agenda isn’t exactly the textbook definition of war. However, that does not mean there isn’t another version of “war” going on in our society against women. The real “War on Women” is a horse of a different color, and it’s not coming from the GOP. 
Please read more at The College Conservative

 
 
Picture
By: Amy Lutz

The birthers are coming! The birthers are coming! And here I was thinking they had faded away like crocs and silly bands. Apparently I was wrong. Recently, claims that the President was not born in the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief have been brought to the forefront yet again. “Birtherism” was seemingly put to rest in 2011 when the President released a “Certificate of Live Birth” showing that he was in fact born in Hawaii in 1961. Unfortunately, that was not enough for the small number of people still waving the birther flag. Recent events have done nothing but refuel the movement.

The seemingly unquenchable fire of birtherism was reignited this month when Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett petitioned Hawaii to verify the certificate released by the White House in 2011. Breitbart.com released a 1991 booklet from the President’s literary agent which stated that Obama was “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” In addition, a 2004 AP story was recently discovered which referred to the “Kenyan-born Obama.” That whirlwind of birther fuel was certainly enough to rally the movement. Yet, these claims still stand upon shaky ground.Please read more at The College Conservative


 
 
Picture
By: Amy Lutz

The smooth-talking, supposed consensus-building, “thrill up your leg” inducing President Obama sure knows how to ruffle a few feathers, doesn’t he? As we approach what will likely be an historical election, political passions have, like Joe Biden’s hairline, receded slightly, at least comparatively speaking to the last few months. Americans have gotten a chance to gasp for breath as the turmoil of the gay marriage controversy falls from its fervent pinnacle. Whether it’s health care, religious freedom, or marriage, Obama’s policy decisions, speeches, and opinions are often sources of great controversy. Sure, he’s the president and he’s going to create controversy wherever he goes, but like many of his policies, his controversies go to the extreme. He has frequently made controversial decisions and statements without regard to their impact upon public opinion. The president seems to forget that his authority is not infinite nor is it based upon his charm and personality. Political authority is contingent upon the consent of the people which hinges upon our approval/disapproval of his job performance. We voted for you, Mr. President, and we can vote you right out again. 


Please read more at The College Conservative 

 
 
Picture
By: Amy Lutz

A few weeks ago, President Obama made headlines with his “flexibility” comment to President Medvedev of Russia, claiming that he would have more freedom to “get things done” after he is reelected in November. Well, that is if the election goes according to his plan. While “flexibility” is now synonymous with the arrogance shown by our Commander-in-Chief in Russia, I believe that there is a different sort of “flexibility” we should be worried about, a kind perhaps even graver than what Obama said to Medvedev.

Rather, liberals tend to be more “flexible” on their definition of “rights,” than those on the right, putting our personal liberties at stake. It’s clear that conservatives and liberals have different conceptions of “rights.” Conservatives tend to adhere to the natural law conception that rights are either given by God or inherent in all humans. Either way, they are unalienable and irrevocable. This tethers the rights to a stable foundation. How can anyone take something away that has been so deeply ingrained into humanity? This gives us a sense of security in our rights and protects against the selfish passions which prey upon people in power.

The liberal conception of rights, however, tends to be one of “flexibility.” It seems like every week, they are “creating” a new right. Congratulations America, you now have the “right” to healthcare, housing, proper food, etc. Yet, where do these rights come from? Often they are simply the product of political opportunism. Thus, they are not tethered to anything solid and can be easily revoked. Laws protect rights and should be solid. We must be able to have faith in our legal system. Without this common sense of adherence to law, the legal system is inefficient.

Please Read more at The Blaze


 
 
Christianity and the Intolerant Left
By: Amy Lutz

You know what I don’t like?  Tolerance. Ok, no I’m not opposed to the idea of accepting and respecting everyone. I’m opposed to the word “tolerance” itself, for it has become nothing but a politically correct tool in the hands of intolerant leftists. Yes, intolerant leftists.

For many liberals today, the word “tolerance” does not mean what it is intended to mean. Rather, it means being “tolerant” of everything…except things that disagree with the liberal ideology. When liberals preach “tolerance” under the guise of Christianity, it is particularly frustrating. While many liberals claim to be preaching the “words of Jesus,” they scoff at Christians who still support ideas like traditional marriage and the sanctity of life. Of course, both of these issues are core values in the Christian ideology. God forbid Christians have the “audacity” to follow the tenets of their faith. Liberals accuse conservative Christians of using their religion to revoke women’s “right to choose” or gays’ “civil rights.” They scoff at the “vast right-wing conspiracy” of conservative Christians set to enslave the world with their “outdated” values. Yeah right.

Please read more at The College Conservative
 
 
Oh Look! A Distraction!
By: Amy Lutz

The paradoxical nature of politics never ceases to amaze me. The current unemployment rate is 8.1% and 1 in 2 new college graduates are unemployed or underemployed. Gas prices are a record highs and the national debt shows no signs of shrinking any time soon. By all accounts, President Obama’s abysmal economic record should have a permanent spot on the front page. His 47.3% approval rating certainly reflects this fact. However, if you take a few seconds to look at the top stories in the United States, this is not the story that’s portrayed. Instead of talking about economic solutions, the media is currently enthralled in the seemingly tangential topics of birth control, women’s rights, hate crimes, and gay marriage. Seemingly, the nation’s top stories and its political realities simply don’t match. However, I doubt this is by accident. Rather, it’s by design. These issues merely serve as distractions from the disaster that is the Obama Administration. And having the mainstream media on your side doesn’t hurt either. With their “look-the-other-way” attitude toward Obama’s mistakes, the President and his allies have mastered the art of political distraction.

The media has covered a smorgasbord of articles ranging from birth control to women to gay marriage in 2012. Leftists have denounced the GOP’s supposed “War on Women” in recent months for their opposition to the birth control mandate and support of personhood laws in a growing number of states. Meanwhile, liberal groups throughout the county decried George Zimmerman’s “racial motives” for shooting Trayvon Martin before he got his day in court. Zimmerman might very well be guilty as sin but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Then, in a “surprise” (and by surprise I mean, no surprise at all), President Obama came out in support of gay marriage just after North Carolina banned the practice and Gallup reported that just over 50% of Americans support the practice. How convenient.

Strangely, most of the biggest news stories in the US in the months leading up to the 2012 election have been social, not economic, issues. The Obama administration’s focus on these issues is not one of genuine concern. Rather, it is nothing but a political ploy. First, social issues tend to be the most contentious. Supporters and opponents of gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc. tend to be far apart on the political spectrum and the interests groups are generally well-ensconced in their own opinions. Bringing up these issues ignites the numbed passions of Obama supporters, many of whom have resorted to lukewarm support in the face of the President’s less-than-stellar record. This is a far cry from the passionate obsession of the Obama Zombies during the 2008 election. The Administration is looking for any way to re-ignite theses passions and get their supporters to the polls.

Additionally, the focus on social issues places the spotlight back on the Obama Administration, a spotlight that has been solely focused on the GOP contenders in the last several months. Obama is unable to run on his actual record, considering his history of economic failures. Therefore, the President and his supporters have turned the spotlight on issues which can actually garner some support from his liberal allies (all while ostracizing the right of course). It’s as if Obama woke up last week, looked at his record, and said, “Hmmm rising unemployment, falling poll numbers…OH LOOK GAY MARRIAGE…I can use that.” These social issues are merely a distraction from Obama’s abysmal record. They are also a way to refocus the spotlight on the President and sooth his inflated ego.

What this political maneuver shows is the president’s complete lack of accountability. He’s unable to answer for his faults or stand up for his decisions, even when they have failed. When all else fails and Obama cannot ignore the glaring shortcomings of his administration, he simply blames his predecessor. The economy, partisanship, turbulent world situation…all Bush. (Note: Ignore the fact that the average unemployment rate under George W. Bush was about 5%) Joe Biden took this on last week, blaming Bush for our turbulent relations with Iran. There is certainly a high degree of character deficiency in the White House right now. The President and his blind supporters are unable to take responsibility for anything, evidence of political and personal weakness. It’s tough to stand by your decisions honestly and answer for your failures. Yet, for the President of the United States, it is part of his job description. The President is not supposed to “Pass the Buck.” Unfortunately for us, our current Commander-in-Chief is more than willing to “Pass the Buck…Over there.” Oh look, a political distraction!

 
 
College Conservatives Must Embrace the Importance of Action, Not Apathy
By: Amy Lutz

In recent years conservative college students have made headlines exposing the liberal indoctrination that runs rampant on college campuses. Many students have been subjected to an inaccurate, liberalized history curriculum while others have experienced the social rejection faced when “outing yourself” as a conservative. Personally, I’ve experienced the entire spectrum. From the Facebook taunts and eye rolls of my peers to a B+ I received on a theology paper for daring to quote Ronald Reagan, I’ve seen it all. By now, combating liberal indoctrination is a core concern of a majority of politically concerned conservative college students. While this may seem challenging to some, I contend that the increasingly liberalized collegiate culture is simply a manifestation of another issue: apathy. 

Please read more at The Blaze
 
 
What if our Politicians were Avengers?
By: Amy Lutz

I like superhero movies just as much as the next person. Ok, maybe more than the next person. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that I was one of the first in line for The Avengers movie last Friday night. Besides a brief cameo by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, I can say the movie exceeded my expectations. However, as I walked out of the theater, still reeling from the 3D action scenes and suspense, a question popped into my head. What if politicians were a bit more like The Avengers?  No, I’m not expecting Barney Frank to turn into a monstrous green Hulk anytime soon, or for John Boehner to walk into the House wearing red, white, and blue spandex. However, what if our Congressmen and women took a page from The Avengers book and started to mirror some of the principles exemplified by the crime-fighting superheroes? If our all of our politicians acted like Avengers, perhaps the world would be a little brighter. 

Please read more at The College Conservative
 
 
The People’s Rights Amendment v. The First Amendment
By: Amy Lutz

If I had a dollar for every time a liberal congressperson trampled on the constitution, I’d be covered by the “Buffet Rule.” The most recent attack comes under a feel-good title, but this new proposal only makes me feel sick. This month, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern introduced an amendment, known as the “People’s Rights Amendment,” designed to restrict free speech to states and “natural persons.” And here I was thinking we already had a constitutional protection of free speech. Silly me. 


Please read more at The College Conservative