By: Amy Lutz

In 1964, Ronald Reagan gave his now-famous “A Time for Choosing” speech, perfectly articulating conservatism. The platform he detailed is still powerful today. However, few are able to articulate it as well as The Great Communicator. Forty-eight years later, we are once again at “A Time for Choosing.” The economy was far from perfect in 1964, but it is in even worse shape today. We must recognize the dangers we face economically and politically and then make sure conservatism is still clear in the Gipper’s absence. President Obama as destroyed freedom right and left and our nation is more polarized than ever. It’s time for us to make a choice once again.

In May of 1964, the unemployment rate was 5.1%. In May of 2012, it stood at 8.2%. The national deficit was a mere 311,712,899,257.30 in 1964. Now the deficit is nearing 16 trillion. During his speech in 1964, Reagan mentioned that the US had not balanced 28 out of the last 34 years. Balancing a budget is now merely the pipe dream of every Constitutional Conservative. At least Congress had a budget in 1964.

Please Read More at The College Conservative

By: Amy Lutz

Today is my birthday. However, I was treated to an early birthday present in the form of a wonderfully hilarious YouTube video. Over the weekend, this campaign video from Ryan Combe of Utah was plastered all over my Facebook news feed from my left leaning friends. So, naturally, I had to see what all the fuss was about. I wanted to fill my brain with the incredible liberal logic (an oxymoron, I know) that my friends claimed this video represented. While I couldn't locate the intelligent logic, I did enjoy the video, though perhaps not for the same reasons.

This campaign video details a conversation between a college-aged boy and his "Proud Republican" parents. At the onset of the video, the boy breaks the news to his parents that he is a Democrat. In false stereotypical fashion, both parents break into hysterics. Besides the comedic value, what I enjoyed about this campaign video was its reliance upon typical Republican stereotypes and flimsy liberal arguments. It's basically a minute and a half of the liberal platform complete with easily debunked planks. Naturally, I could not resist taking this video down a peg by taking on each of the son's flimsy liberal arguments about his party-switch. Arguments like this:

"I just want to help those less fortunate than I am."

I guess the implication here is that Republicans do not care about the less fortunate? Just because you have two different approaches toward relieving poverty does not imply that one side does not care about the poor. Ideologically, the main difference between conservative and liberal approaches to poverty is the source of the assistance. Liberals tend to believe that government should have a large hand in assisting the poor while conservatives put more of our stock into private charity. The conservative argument was clearly articulated long ago by Benjamin Franklin who stated, "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Perhaps that seems harsh to many liberals. However, it's nothing more than common sense. Conservatives favor "hand-ups" not "hand-outs." The liberal solution to poverty is perhaps more harmful to those living below that poverty line than the conservative solution. How will someone ever rise above their situation if they are made comfortable with numerous welfare handouts?

"I don't want my student loan rates to go up; but not at the expense of women and children's preventative healthcare."

This argument refers to a plan suggested by Republicans a few weeks ago designed to keep student loan interest rates from rising automatically on July 1st. The plan passed in the House includes taking the necessary funds from the portion of Obamacare known as the "Prevention and Public Health Fund." Clearly, this is an attempt to take down Obamacare piecemeal should it not be overturned by the Supreme Court. Regardless, this plan has faced opposition from people on the right and left, including from the Heritage Foundation. At least it's a solution. To place the blame for failure to reach a deal solely on Republicans is naive. One could just as easily argue that the ball in in the Democrats court and they have simply been standing on the sidelines. Where is their plan to solve the student loan crisis? For that matter, where's their budget? But I digress...While a deal perhaps needs to be made now, at least on a temporary basis, I contend that the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing student loans in the first place.  Government subsidized student loans both lead to increased education costs and a greater burden on taxpayers. Thus, you can imagine my extreme "delight" when I opened my financial aid package last summer only to realize that I was not 100% a client of the US government.

"We should tax the oil companies to better fund education."

This suggestion is indicative of most liberal arguments in a nutshell: Instill a punitive tax and then give the revenue from the tax to education. Adding education to anything, even tax hikes, makes people feel good about themselves doesn't it? However, this fallacy didn't stop President Obama from suggesting that Congress needs to end "Big Oil tax breaks." Well, give me a break. First off, according to an article in The Daily Caller last year, oil companies do not even receive tax breaks, at least not in the way that Democrats are portraying. Although oil is an industry just like any other industry, including those of "alternative" energy, they are often portrayed as enormous, corrupt monsters of death. Talk about vilifying success. Second, increasing taxes on oil companies will do more harm than good. Liberals might not want to admit this, but the oil industry is behind a lot of economic success right now. They have provided thousands of jobs to our fragile economy. What are the odds that no one in the oil industry will be laid off if the entire industry faces steep tax hikes? It's probably about the same as the odds of Barack Obama admitting he's wrong about. About anything. Also, you want energy prices to go up? Well, then by all means, tax the oil companies. "Big Oil" is less likely to drill for new sources of oil if they're being taxed to death. America is on a freeway towards economic demise. Next stop: skyrocketing energy costs.

"I believe that men and women in this country deserve equal rights and equal opportunities under the law."

I don't even know how to approach this one. However, I'm in a valuable position, being an "oppressed" woman and all, so let me take a stab at it. Sure, men and women face different treatment in the media, workplace, etc. but that's always been a fact and the street goes both ways. However, that's a social reality, not a legal reality. Based on law, men and women are equal. I'd like to enlighten my Democratic friends with the fact that it is 2012, not 1912. I can vote, run for office, and enter the workforce just like any man. The "War on Women," is just a construct created by the left in an attempt to get their socially liberal policies enacted. Just because I don't get free contraception and easy access to abortion doesn't mean I'm being oppressed or faced legal inequality.

"I don't think that if someone loses their job or gets sick that they should go bankrupt and lose their homes."

Sure, if this happens, it's unfortunate and sad. If people weren't so dependent upon the government, the maybe private charity could step in. However, this argument is not accurate. Most people who file for bankruptcy actually get to keep their homes. It's actually bankruptcy itself which gives people the option for a fresh start. However, for liberals, this is never good enough. They always want more and more government. But the more government programs we have, the more chance of there being abuse of the system. Our government already does do a lot for people who lose their jobs, and in the end it's not exactly a good thing. The number of weeks people can spend on unemployment benefits drastically increased last year. A safety net may be necessary, but 53 weeks of paid vacation is more like a safety bed.

"I believe in good, affordable healthcare for everyone."

Obviously, this statement implies that Republicans are against good and affordable healthcare because we oppose the destructive entitlement known as Obamacare. Rather, it's quite the opposite because Obamacare will provide healthcare that is neither good nor affordable. Thankfully (or perhaps, unfortunately) we have the "great" examples of socialized medicine in Canada and Europe to look forward to should Obamacare withstand legal scrutiny. You want good healthcare? Don't go to Canada or Europe. In the UK, a 3-year-old was denied a life-saving heart surgery because there were simply not enough beds available for doctors to perform the surgery. Another woman was denied treatment because she had the "audacity" to seek out a private doctor for relief to her crippling back pain after she had been on a waiting list for surgery for months. God forbid someone seek out the advice of a private doctor.

Neither is socialized medicine affordable. The health care system in Canada lost taxpayers approximately $3 billion dollars in 2011. That's just what our failing economy needs: another bloated entitlement. No wonder the UK is moving towards privatized healthcare. In addition, you know who's going to be the most injured by Obamacare? The youth (aka Obama's most powerful voting bloc). Young people typically pay much less for healthcare, but under Obamacare, we will have to pay much more to support the increased number of people on the government's dime. If Obamacare remains viable, our nation has nothing to look forward to but healthcare rationing, poor health care services, and an even further damaged economy.

At the end of this campaign video, Ryan Combe states, "Why aren't you a Democrat? It might not be as bad as you think." Well, if I have to judge the Democratic party based upon this video filled with inaccurate, insulting stereotypes and flimsy liberal arguments, then I'll pass. Unfortunately, I seem to be in the minority. This video is obviously targeted at the young and uninformed voters. Many, like my peers who seem enthralled by this video, fail to pick apart its terrible arguments. This video may be an insult to my intelligence, but I actually enjoy it. Very rarely do liberals put many of their unintelligent arguments in such a bite sized form. I'm glad I could get such a laugh from it. Now excuse me, I'm going to scout out my birthday cake and keep an eye on today's Supreme Court rulings.

By: Amy Lutz

Dear Ron Paul Supporters,

            It’s not easy to see your team lose. Trust me, I know. I grew up cheering for the Kansas City Royals. However, it’s time to concede defeat. Despite the fact that “Dr. Paul” has not officially dropped out of the presidential race, he himself has stopped actively campaigning. Unless Romney, Santorum and Gingrich mysteriously disappear, it’s borderline impossible for him to secure the nomination. In politics, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. This time your candidate unfortunately came short. Hey, I feel your pain; Romney wasn’t my guy to begin with either. Up until a couple months ago, I was still pulling for a Paul Ryan presidency. However, it’s time for all of us to look past our differences and unite for Mitt Romney and against Barack Obama in November.

            You may not agree with Mitt Romney’s policies, but would you rather have another 4 years of a Barack Obama presidency? If you believe our current president outshines his likely GOP opponent, then be my guest, vote against Governor Romeny. However, my guess is that most of you align more with Romney rather than Obama. Be aware that a vote for Ron Paul is now a vote against Mitt Romney. Some of you may claim that you plan on writing in Ron Paul because you vote on principle, not politics. Once again, I understand. I too am more of a principled, rather than a political voter. However, it is my principles that will be casting a vote for Mitt Romney in November. My values mostly align with our likely GOP candidate. On the other hand, my values strongly prevent me from casting a vote for Barack Obama. I believe that what we are fighting to protect, our republic and America values, is much more important than any political squabbles any of us have with Mitt Romney.

            In the words of our current Commander in Chief: let me be clear. There are many Ron Paul fans in the United States who have thrust their support behind Mitt Romney to preserve the conservative cause in November. Rand Paul is one of these people. However, I would like to address the subset of Ron Paul fans who are so completely devoted to “Dr. Paul” that they are unable to see the irrationality in their own behavior. For example, please, please lay off Senator Rand Paul. Yes, the guy endorsed Mitt Romney. Yes, he has obviously given up on his father’s candidacy. Perhaps it’s time for many of you to do the same. Instead, many of you in the Ron Paul fringe have taken to attacking the younger Paul with the same fervor you scream “End the Fed!” at every turn. Message boards, articles, and blogs are blowing up all around the internet calling Rand Paul “Benedict Arnold” and predicting that he will “burn in hell” because of his endorsement of Mitt Romney. And here I was thinking the only people who have taken to cannibalizing their own kind came from Florida. Excuse me, but knock it off. The Occupy-esque “If you’re not for Ron Paul, you’re conspiring against him,” mentality has to stop. It damages not only conservative and libertarian causes. It also makes your message less effective.

            Radical Ron Paul supporters, how do you expect to get your message across when you are a laughingstock? Your behavior is discrediting Ron Paul’s message, most of which I actually support (except for the whole foreign policy thing of course). There comes a time when passion needs to be offset by professionalism. This is that time. Interrupting other politicians’ speeches, flooding message boards with nasty comments and other irrational ploys will not help anyone. If you want Ron Paul’s message to endure, make sure you are respected by your audience. Right now, a subset of you is encouraging disrespect for your candidate’s entire fan base.

            The battle are fighting in this election cycle is bigger than Ron Paul. Heck, it’s even bigger than Mitt Romney. If we are going to preserve a world where Ron Paul’s libertarian platform has the potential to make a difference, we need to ensure that Barack Obama is a one term president. Ron Paul fans, you constantly preach the importance of liberty and freedom. I agree. If we are going to preserve liberty and freedom in the future, let’s make sure that we evict the president who has done the most damage to liberty and freedom in American history.

            Respectfully Yours,            

            Amy Lutz


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 

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

Barack Obama: Maturity Stops Here

By: Amy Lutz

On his desk, Harry Truman placed an engraving which stated “The Buck Stops Here” referring to his refusal to “pass the buck” to someone else and avoid accountability. I’ve always admired this mantra and any politician who abides by it and takes the responsibility of leading by example and standing by his or her decisions. This is one reason I was initially drawn to Rick Perry. I could certainly go on for days about the Governor’s statistics of job creation and social conservatism, but what I truly admire about Perry is his character and leadership. There is a good reason why he’s the nation’s longest continuously serving Governor. Unlike our current president, Rick Perry has been in an executive position long enough to develop a certain degree of political maturity. I feel confident standing behind his rock solid patriotism and courage. Sure, he’s had a couple gaffes like every politician, but overall he conducts himself with strength and professionalism. The attitude of our current president; however, is quite different than Perry’s., perhaps due to his lack of political experience he garnered prior to ascending to the presidency. With the help of his handy teleprompter and arrogant smirk, Barack Obama, at least on the surface, can come across as intelligent and authoritative. Although, when you actually pay close attention to his words, it’s clear that his professional veneer is paper thin. President Obama frankly shows a lack of maturity through incessant name calling and finger pointing. Although I’ll admit our President is a very intelligent man and at times (i.e. the Tucson shooting memorial service) has shown a degree of maturity and professionalism, his example is not one I feel comfortable standing behind.

A certain degree of contention is expected between opposing political parties, but President Obama’s occasional name calling has brought that tension to the next level. While giving a radio interview before the midterm elections, the President stated: “If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder, and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.” While I agree that standing by those you agree with is an important consideration in voting, since when are elections designed to “punish” one’s enemies? And better yet, since when is it appropriate for a President to label the opposing political party an “enemy” to a minority group? This type of name calling serves to demonize President Obama’s opposition or “enemies” as he calls them, and does not provide a proper avenue for appropriate public discourse. Politics is certainly can be a vicious game, but the leader of our nation is meant to retain a degree of professionalism and serve as an example of someone who rises above the turbulent political arena of debate.

Although President Obama is known for throwing a few rhetorical punches at his ideological opponents, he certainly tries to appear blameless and above the political fray. Unfortunately, his tactics display an even greater lack of maturity. Instead of saying the “buck stops here,” Barack Obama consistently takes credit for good decisions (even when they are not his own) and directs the blame for every single crisis towards George W. Bush and the Republicans. “The last 8 years” has become an overused catch phrase. I’ll admit that George W. Bush does share a portion of the blame for our economy’s downward turn, but how could we forget who was in charge of Congress during the crash in 2008 (*cough* Democrats *cough*)? The highest unemployment rate under Bush was 7.7%, and that was in early 2009. His monthly average was 5.3%. As Barack Obama pushed through TARP and his Stimulus plan, he promised that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8% as long as we went along with his crazy schemes. Well we did, and he was wrong. The current rate is approaching 10%, and is probably even greater because it does not take into account those who have stopped looking for work. And yet, President Obama is still blaming his predecessor as he grows closer to the end of his first term (let’s hope it’s his last). I feel as if he wants us to pity him and hold him to a lower standard because of how “horrible” he claims George W. Bush acted during his time in office. Well, President Obama, it’s time to take accountability for your own actions and stop passing the buck. Stop saying you “inherited” the Bush economy and can therefore do nothing to improve our nation’s dire situation. You know who else inherited the Bush economy? Rick Perry. Governor Perry took the reins in Texas after Bush ascended to the Presidency and he must be doing something right because he is nearing 11 years in office. Texas has created more jobs in the last decade than any other state and is the only state among the largest 40 states that had more jobs in 2010 than when the recession began in 2008. What does President Obama have to show for his time in office? A worse unemployment rate and plummeting approval rating?

More recently, President Obama has moved his accusatory finger away from the Republicans (at least briefly) and towards wealthier Americans, specifically those who own private jets. Over the past couple weeks, the President has cited a corporate jet tax break as unfair and has complained that the group of Americans who can afford this luxury are not paying enough in taxes. In his mind, the wealthy do not deserve any sort of tax break. Obama has continually blamed the Republicans for the existence of the break, but here’s the kicker: It was passed in his Stimulus package. The tax break for corporate jets did not even exist before the President’s “recovery” plan which was supposed to keep unemployment under 8%. And yet, the finger pointing continues. What makes this example even more nauseating is that it is not based even loosely on actual fact. I respect the presidency and hate to even mention the word “liar” in the same sentence as the President of the United States. Though, I will admit, President Obama, as is evidenced here, has gotten away with a fair few of “untruths” during his tenure.

Barack Obama may appear to be the type of superior “Messiah-like” politician who gives Chris Matthews a “thrill up his leg” and can do no wrong, but simply looking at his record tells a different story. Politically, the President is simply immature. He is an inexperienced politician who reverts to childish name-calling, finger-pointing, and occasionally truth-blurring when cut off from his handy teleprompter. Conversely, Rick Perry displays and example that is far more professional than our current President. He not only has proven himself extraordinarily successful as a Governor, but he also understands the phrase “the buck stops here.” Certainly, almost any of the GOP 2012 contenders would prove more successful in office than President Obama, but Rick Perry rises above the pack. He has the experience, proven fiscal conservatism, and leadership that this current administration lack and for which America hungers.