By: Amy Lutz

I ate a Chick-Fil-A last night. Now, before you ask, yes I did survive the massive, oppressing atmosphere of homophobia in the restaurant and I’m here to tell my story. Considering the hyperbolic vitriol that leftists have been spewing recently about the chicken restaurant, I feared for my sanity as I opened the double doors to Chick-Fil-A. What would I find inside? I wanted to hug my friend whom I met for dinner, but what if the cashiers got the wrong idea? I didn’t want to be subject to the homophobia that apparently runs rampant Chick-Fil-A’s all around the country. Or so Roseanne Barr tells me.

Because I let myself get sucked in by the fear-tactics of Chick-Fil-A-hating liberals, I had a few, perhaps extreme, expectations when I walked in the restaurant. First, how could anyone want to eat at a restaurant so hateful that the owner has the audacity to claim he supports traditional marriage? I expected Chick-Fil-A to be a ghost town. Rather, the opposite was true. The restaurant was quite crowded even though the dinner rush had not yet started. I even had to wait in line! Oh the humanity. I couldn’t believe that so many people had yet to notice the homophobia that ran rampant throughout the room. I became even more fearful as I got closer and closer to the cashier. Considering that Chick-fil-A is apparently a restaurant run by bible-beating, intolerant extremists, I assumed that I might not fit in that well. What if my dress was too short? Or worse, would they make the wrong assumption about my sexual orientation because I was wearing rainbow nail polish? I quaked with fear as a prepared to put in my order.

Rather, I was pleasantly surprised with the cashiers at Chick-Fil-A. They were pleasant and my food came out in approximately 37 seconds. I took a second to breathe a sigh of relief before spiraling into my liberal rumor-induced panic once again. As I walked to my table, I tried to divert my eyes from the posters on the wall. I feared that the restaurant might be adorned with various protest signs from the Westboro Baptist Church and I didn’t want to risk having the intolerance rub off on me. As I looked up, I once again realized that I was wrong. In fact, there was a poster on the wall titled “Great Opportunities Served Here” which detailed the amount of money Chick-Fil-A has donated for scholarships. I shrugged my shoulders and prepared to dig into my chicken salad, but I paused. What if there was a secret ingredient in my chicken that would cause an epidemic of homophobia?? Perhaps I should have called the hospital beforehand and scheduled a round of chemotherapy, because as Roseanne Barr suggested, I’ll probably get cancer from dining at Chick-Fil-A. I soon realized that perhaps I had listened too much to the liberal media and I dove into my healthy meal (which was delicious by the way).

Alright, hold the phone.

Now, obviously that’s an exaggeration and not an accurate depiction of my thought process. However, I think it’s necessary to match the left’s hyperbolic vitriol for Chick-Fil-A with a few humorous exaggerations of my own. Seriously, with all the hatred the left has developed for the chicken restaurant in the last week, you’d think the Westboro Baptist Church had founded and operated Chick-Fil-A. It’s absurd. Dan Cathy, the owner of Chick-Fil-A, merely supports traditional marriage and the left acts like it’s the end of the world. You didn’t see conservatives getting is such a tizzy over Oreo’s rainbow-colored cookie campaign. Sure, a few people lashed out on Facebook, but that’s nothing compared to the hatred Chick-Fil-A is facing. Not only did Roseanne Barr say that I and others deserve to be stricken with a deadly disease for daring to eat chicken, but city-wide boycotts have popped up as well. The mayor of Boston has vowed that he will not allow the company for opening another franchise in his city and Chicago has taken similar steps. Thank goodness I live in St. Louis.

I keep asking myself how this is even a controversy. Since when did an opinion from a private business (based on the BIBLE, mind you) spark such disagreement and controversy? Sure, leftists have every right to boycott any restaurant they want. They have the ability to utilize the free market to the fullest extent; another institution they often vilify. However, the hypocrisy they display is downright sickening. Liberals claim to be the ideology of “tolerance” and “open-mindedness,” but they are often incapable of practicing what they preach. Standing by biblical principles in NOT intolerant. However, vilifying a restaurant because its owner is socially conservative IS intolerant. Get it through your brains: tolerance is not selective. If you’re tolerance of liberalism, you have to be tolerance of conservatism as well. If Chick-Fil-A had refused to serve homosexuals, that would be a different story. My guess is that they would be just as accommodating with gay customers as they are with straight customers.

Don’t forget that Chick-Fil-A has donated millions in scholarships. THAT is who is really losing if a massive boycott is successful (which it won’t be). All liberals seem to care about is the difference of opinion and their backbones apparently seem to be too weak to allow this difference to exist. Grow up. Unfortunately, no matter how much they preach it, “tolerance” is not something liberals understand. Liberals didn’t invent intolerance, they just perfected it.

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

There was a time when most bloggers were just guys who lived in their parents’ basements harping about the latest conspiracy theories. Not surprisingly, they were often not taken seriously. However, times have changed. With the dominance of new media forms and the exponential increase in online communication over the last decade, bloggers have become quite powerful. Countless scandals have been exposed and politicians removed from office because of the work of online opinion writers. Perhaps someone should tell that to Juan Williams. Earlier this week, during a debate with conservative columnist Michelle Malkin on Fox News, Williams remarked that his opponent was “just a blogger.” Williams, in his own opinion, is a “real reporter,” and should therefore be taken more seriously. I’ll try to get past the condescension in Juan William’s statement in order to make sense of his point. Ok I tried, I can’t do it. To discount bloggers and put them in the proverbial corner is both disrespectful and naïve.

Maybe Juan Williams just has a bad case of sour grapes. His livelihood is threatened by bloggers every day. As “real reporters” face a shrinking job market, bloggers are popping up all around cyberspace. They’ve filled the journalistic void caused by the lack of fair reporting in the media today. Hundreds of thousands of bloggers, old and young, male and female, have taken to doing the job that mainstream journalists and reporters often neglect: searching for the facts and revealing the truth. Many are not even paid for it. Such bloggers write because they want to, not because they’re being paid by a large news outlet. When bloggers do the job that journalists like Williams fail to do, they hold these “real reporters” accountable.

Please read more at The College Conservative

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

You know, sometimes I am just completely baffled by liberal logic. And by sometimes I mean all the time. Case in point: the contradictory “hands off” and “hands on” policies regarding abortion/contraception and diet nannyism, respectively. Leftists are often big supporters of bloated government programs and federal intervention. However, on the abortion issue many claim to be downright libertarian. “Out of my uterus” has long been a rallying cry for liberal women. When it comes to abortion and contraceptive services, these women try to keep government at an arm’s length. However, when this “hands off” policy is juxtaposed with other liberal policies, the logic is contradictory.

Here’s where the contradiction occurs. While pro-choice advocates criticize Republicans for “interfering with the reproductive rights,” they are more than happy to allow the government to regulate everything they eat and put in their bodies. Take New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s recent ban on fountain sodas exceeding 16 ounces. In regards to the ban, Bloomberg said that he is simply “forcing” people to understand what’s good for them. This comes from a pro-choice guy who has had a positive relationship with pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood. Bloomberg is fully in support of women having the right to choose to end the life of their child, but when it comes to soda consumption, he is far from “pro-choice.” This is an ideology that is not limited to just Michael Bloomberg. Just take a look at Michelle Obama’s “War on Obesity.” She is fully in support of the government regulating what we eat, but taking a life should be your “choice.”

Please Read More at The College Conservative

By: Amy Lutz

“It is a simple fact of science that nothing correlates more with ignorance and stupidity more than youth. We’re all born idiots, and we only get over that condition as we get less young.” Jonah Goldberg, May 2012

            Goldberg continued, claiming that young people are “so frickin’ stupid about some things.” Many people in my generation (I’m currently 21 days shy of my 21st birthday) were immediately offended by that statement. I can certainly see their point. Being called “frickin’ stupid” isn’t really the highlight of one’s day. However, I can’t help but agree with Mr. Goldberg. Yet, I’m more inclined to use “ignorant” rather than “stupid.” Twenty-somethings are far too often motivated by feelings, not fact. We’re caught up in a state of blissful ignorance, a state few proactively try to escape. A large majority of my generation, therefore, remains ignorant and easily swept up by our pleasure-seeking, morally corrupt, liberalized culture.

            I don’t mean to say that I have escaped the youthful curse of ignorance. I’ll admit, I’m just as ignorant as many of my peers. However, there’s a difference between acknowledging your own ignorance and accepting it as reality. I accept the fact that 20 years is not enough to learn everything the world has to teach me. Heck, 70 years isn’t even enough. I accept the fact that I’m still naïve and time is the only cure. However, I try to educate myself as much as possible to counteract my own shortcomings. Yet, I can’t say that many people my age have gotten past the “I’m invincible and know everything” stage. I only know that because I’m guilty of such a mindset from time to time. This is exactly what Jonah Goldberg was talking about. For example, too many young people today are inclined to support socialism or Marxism over capitalism because it “feels good.” They’re wrapped up in the meaningless fluff words like “social justice” and “inclusion.” Few people in my generation move beyond superficial emotions. We’re inclined to believe the liberal capitalism-hating culture around us and rarely take a second look at ourselves.

            Similarly, we are very capable of being swept up by the culture all around us. Far too many students are liberalized and good morals are all but forgotten For example, last night I was flipping through the channels and stumbled across the MTV Movie Awards. After being bombarded with raunchy humor, several bleeped expletives and drug-promoting, women-bashing rap music, I had to turn the channel. And yes, to answer your question, I am twenty going on thirty-five. However, a large segment of my age group is swept up by this dangerous culture and our morals are going down the tubes. It’s no wonder that “YOLO” (For those of you who have been living under a rock, that stands for “You Only Live Once”) has become a common phrase in recent days. I know it’s natural for young people to be reckless and stupid; sometimes we have to learn lessons the hard way. Yet, it’s important to realize that this country’s future stands on our shoulders. If we’re going to save the republic, my generation needs a large heaping of character and common sense.

            It’s no surprise that politicians scramble for the youth vote. Far too many people my age are swept up by the liberal, emotional culture all around us. We’re enthralled by the countless celebrities who support liberal policies instead of agreeing with the educated opinions of those who have been in the “real world” for years. We’re a big voting bloc because we can be easily swayed by something shiny and new. Stick a celebrity in a political ad and we’re sold. We’re more inclined to follow what we feel rather than what we know. Now when I say “we,” I mean the majority of young people. There are a few of us in the trenches fighting for our nation and accepting the reality around us. However, we are currently in the minority.

            Perhaps I’m coming across as cynical. That’s probably because I am cynical about my generation. I’m frustrated because I see the seemingly insatiable stupidity that rages all around me. How many college students plan on voting for Obama just because Carrie Bradshaw told them to do so? How many actually fell for the feel-good “hope and change?” I too am young. Reagan was out of office before I was even born. I was actually feeling old because I remember using floppy discs and cassette tapes (*shudder*). However, I may be young but it doesn’t take years to acknowledge the turmoil our nation is in right now. My generation will be hit the hardest. We can kiss the idea of receive Social Security checks goodbye. We’ll be the ones who have to pay for President Obama’s reckless spending. We should be the generation that cares the most. Too bad many of us don’t take time to exercise our common sense and foresight. Our nation is in a tough spot. The generation that needs to be the most active is mostly too ignorant to remain proactively vigilant. Sure, it’s a fact of life that young people are usually blissfully ignorant. It has been like that for generations. However, we simply can’t afford to wait for this generation to mature. I urge my fellow young people to snap out of it. Follow reality, not Rhianna. Get your act together. America needs us now more than ever.


I Was Conservative Before it was Cool
By: Amy Lutz

A recent NPR blog titled “The Hipsterification of America” detailed the growing dominance of the “hipster” movement in modern America. Hipster culture, a movement contingent upon anti-trends and passive nonchalance, has always intrinsically been described as a “counter-culture,” and a liberal one at that. Anti-mainstream thought and behavior is inherent in the subculture and can be described as the heart of the movement. However, no matter how aggressively modern-day hipsters deny it, their movement no longer exists on the fringes of society. Hipster attire and media have become popular, which is ironically the opposite of the movement’s claimed status of a “counter-culture.” Hipsters are anti-establishment, anti-mainstream by nature, but their influence can now be seen everywhere, from popular television shows like New Girl to fashion trends such as thick glasses and skinny jeans. Hipsters are especially dominant on college campuses where liberal professors and left-leaning students alike embrace the subculture’s aims, attitudes, and attire. The increasing influence of hipster culture in academia and university life; however, begs the question: Who’s the counter-culture?  Now that the politically liberal attitudes of the hipster movement have become engrained into college life, who is left in the minority? Well, that’s easy: we are. Conservative college students have now been relegated to “counter-culture” status as the liberal aspects of hipster culture rise to the majority. 
Read more at The College Conservative