Below is the full video of Toure's full speech at SLU. In it, he discussed the "racism" of the GOP and his perspective on gun control. During the last 15 minutes, you will see him argue directly with a woman in the audience about the latter topic.
During his presentation, Toure repeatedly referenced the "racist" tactic of the Republican party. Sure, I can understand disagreeing with our policies, but to imply that they are racist? That goes a bit far. What I noticed is that Toure repeatedly labeled the GOP's opposition to over-bloated welfare programs as "racist." That was the basis for his label. So, wanting a small government and less government dependency is racist? That's news to me. Furthermore, his implication is that attacking welfare is synonymous with attacking minorities. Isn't that a bit biased in and of itself?

Yes, I am aware that black Americans and other minority groups are disproportionally impoverished, but that's not a result of modern day racism. It's a result of New Deal and Great Society programs which destroyed the black family and solidified poverty for many black Americans. Thus, by attacking welfare programs, Republicans are suggesting a vision in which impoverished Americans will have more opportunity for success. Ending government dependency is not racist. It's simply rational.
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

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

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