By: Amy Lutz
I think I just passed out from shock. The President of Chick-fil-A
actually came out in FAVOR of traditional marriage and AGAINST gay marriage. Time to break out the rainbow flags and claim that civil rights are being infringed upon somehow somewhere. Or something. But no, really, does this move actually surprise anyone? Chik-fil-A is closed on Sunday for crying out loud. In the past, President Dan Cathy has urged his staff to treat customers with honor and respect while applying Biblical principles. Chick-fil-A is about as Christian an organization as they come, and you know what? I think that's great. There's no problem with a private
business making the decision to proclaim their religious views openly.
Too bad Hollywood disagrees. Again. In response to Chick-fil-A's announcement, Actor Ed Helms (who I love, by the way) and gay rights organization NOH8 has suggested that a boycott
is in order for the "intolerance" of Dan Cathy and his restaurant. Give me a break. Sure, the Hollywood crazies have every right to boycott and protest so long as they don't descend into Occupy territory. However, I find myself asking, "What's the point?" I doubt that their efforts will produce any sort of financial strain on the restaurant. Hollywood-driven liberal boycotts are rarely successful. What's more, conservatives will probably flock (no pun intended) to gobble up chicken in "solidarity" with Cathy's freedom of religion. Dan Cathy's statements have brought his restaurant into the spotlight and in this case any publicity is good publicity.
Perhaps those behind this boycott believe that they are making some massively brave statement by selecting from one of the other 10 billion fast food restaurants in the US instead of Chick-fil-A, but I tend to believe otherwise. It's not brave to cling to an ideology (i.e. pro-gay marriage) supported by almost all of the media, academic elite and Hollywood. Rather, it's cowardly. Hey Ed Helms, don't be a chicken. What is really brave is making a statement you KNOW could possibly hurt your business. If you want a look at fearlessness, divert your eyes toward Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A. He had to know that his platform would illicit such a response. However, he stuck by his guns and proclaimed his Christian beliefs. For that, I commend him.
Christians are not "intolerant" for hating the sin, but not the person. Just last week, my church pastor made the following statement: "You can be outside God's will but not outside God's grace" in regards to homosexuality. Liberals like to claim that hating gays and opposing gay marriage go hand in hand. Not so. We are all people, regardless of sexual orientation. Christians, like Dan Cathy or me, tend to believe that all people are covered by God's grace; even when their actions go against His will. Intolerant? I think not.
Just like I'm not surprised that the Sabbath-honoring owners of Chick-fil-A support the Biblical principle of traditional marriage, I'm not surprised that liberals went insane in response. It's just another case of intolerant "tolerance" from the left. They scream and cry that that social conservatives are "intolerant" for not backing their pet issue of gay marriage, but act differently when their backs are against the wall. You want to know what intolerance looks like? This is what intolerance looks like: boycotting a restaurant because the President dares admit that he is a Christian. Liberals preach tolerance but are often incapable of espousing it themselves. Opposing gay marriage does not make you intolerant. Now if Dan Cathy refused to serve homosexuals, that would be an entirely different story. However, that's not the case. Chick-fil-A is a private business based upon Biblical principles. Dan Cathy is not exactly the poster child for intolerance. However, panicking because someone disagrees with you and refusing to buy their products because of it is
intolerant. So, can we all just take a chill pill and disagree without being disagreeable? I'm all for talking about our political disagreements over a nice chicken sandwich and waffle fries.
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
I agree with Michelle Obama. Kindof. I agree that the rising levels of obesity, heart disease and diabetes in this nation are troubling. Physical health is important to preserving a nation’s vitality. However, the progressive concept of government-led health programs (espoused by people like the First Lady and Michael Bloomberg) is not the most logical solution. If anything, it is dangerous to both our health and our freedom. Yet, it is not enough to simply criticize the liberal war on obesity. It’s important to provide an alternative. What if conservatives were in charge of combating this nation’s obesity epidemic? Then, what would our policies look like?
For liberals and progressives concerned with this nation’s health (and rightfully so), government is always the answer. Shoveling money into programs like “Let’s Move,” banning unhealthy foods, and nudging Americans into eating healthy with subtle menu changes all fit into this plan. At its core, this plan is not even about health. It’s about control and as evidenced in a 2011 study
from the British Medical Journal, the liberal war against obesity does not have a drastic impact on national health. People who respond to these nanny state policies by avoiding unhealthy food (whether it’s their choice or not) are not necessarily doing so because they are concerned with health. For example, I doubt many people in New York are going to avoid buying a 64 ounce Dr. Pepper because they’re concerned with calories. They will buy a smaller size simply because the 64 ounc-er isn’t available. It’s likely that when this regulation is inevitably eliminated, New Yorkers will run towards Big Gulps once again.
You want to know the secret weapon against obesity? Well here it is: Personal responsibility. When did we become a nation where eating well and exercising was too difficult? If eating a cheeseburger a day will make you fat, then don’t eat a cheeseburger a day. If you are unable to maintain a degree of self-control and a healthy lifestyle without the government’s help, then you’ve got a bigger problem on your hands. It’s not that I’m saying losing weight is easy. It is simply too complex to be universally covered by a one-size-fits-all government program. Some people struggle with health problems because of mental health issues. Others have hormonal imbalances. Some just simply haven’t developed a sense of self-control. Whatever the reason, the deeper issues that lead to an individual’s weight issues need to be addressed by a health professional. They cannot be alleviated by calorie counts on a menu or smaller soda sizes.
While liberals are apt to claim that big businesses and capitalistic food supplies looking for a quick profit are the cause of the nation’s obesity epidemic, I tend to disagree. Most of the health problems in this nation are driven by a cultural decline. One hundred years ago, America was not the “pleasure-seeking” nation that we are today. We have become a nation where immediate gratification is praised and people just want the “easy way out.” Many run towards a quick fix; an option our government is more than willing to provide. Well, I hate to break it to you, but there is no “easy way out” when it comes to weight loss and health. It takes hard work and personal responsibility, characteristics that are less praised in our culture today. Don’t hand your freedom over to the government if you want to lose a couple pounds. It’s not worth it. It is naïve to turn to the government in search of an answer to our nation’s health crisis. Instead, look to yourself. Healthy lifestyles are propelled by internal, individual decisions. They cannot be artificially constructed by an external government program. Individual choices and personal responsibility succeed in propelling long term success. Government band-aids do not.
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.
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.
By: Amy Lutz
Congratulations, young America, you’ve reached the threshold of academic perfection. Recent studies have shown
that an “A” is now the most common grade for college students in the United States. It’s nice to know that my generation is so well educated. Or perhaps not. Based upon a mountain of contradictory evidence and the environment I see all around me as an American college student, I hesitate to declare victory too soon. When you dig deeper the facts show that grade inflation is what really fuels our college students’ higher GPAs, and A today might be equivalent to a C forty years ago.
Despite the outward appearances of academic perfection, today’s students are not on an upward trajectory toward academic success. Last year, a USA Today report
showed that college students make little academic progress in their first two years of college. In fact, 45 percent of students showed no significant gains, a figure which contradicts academia’s goal of educating students. College Students are more likely to focus on their social lives rather than their academic record. Professors caught up with their own research are less likely to pay attention to such habits. Additionally, students spend 50 percent less time studying now than they have in past decades. Fifty percent of students also said that they had never taken a class in which they wrote more than 20 pages in a semester. Good study habits must be developed early through hard work and challenging courses for academic success to be achievable. Even though grades may superficially be rising, good academic habits which produce long term success are lacking among today’s college students.
Please read more at The Blaze
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
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
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