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

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

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

Where in the World is President Obama?
By: Amy Lutz

Well, depending on the time of year, he could be just about anywhere. And our Commander in Chief isn’t shy about flaunting his frequent excursions either. Last week in Colombia, President Obama said, “Part of my job is to scout out where I may want to bring Michelle back later for vacation.” I wish that was just a joke. However, considering this president’s history of global trips, I doubt he was being facetious.

As of March 1st, the Obamas have taken 16 vacations and the President himself has hit the golf course over 90 times. Supposedly, President Obama’s most expensive trip occurred last December when he took his family to Hawaii for a Christmastime celebration. It is estimated that the entire trip cost roughly $4 million. And who footed a good chunk of the bill? That’s right, us. The Obamas’ expenditures on their seemingly monthly vacations fall heavily on the average taxpayer. Thinking about how much Michelle Obama’s 2010 trip to Spain cost makes me shudder. Taking a trip halfway across the world with “40 of your closest friends” can’t be that expensive, right? Ha, I think not.

Some on the left have remarked that both President George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan spent even more time on vacation during their first terms in office. However, it is not merely the frequency of President Obama’s trips that counts, it’s the lavishness and cost that truly matter. Presidents Bush and Reagan spent most of their vacation days at their respective ranches, often hosting several cabinet members. The Obamas, primarily Michelle, have darted all around the country (and the world for that matter), enjoying the “finer things in life.” New York City, Vail, South Africa, and Martha’s Vineyard have all hosted the First Family at one time or another. Even when they stay in the White House, the lavish parties do not disappear. For example, in 2009, the Obamas hosted a Halloween party at the White House complete with a dramatic Alice in Wonderland theme. Oh, and Johnny Depp, Tim Burton, and Chewbacca all made an appearance. And in other news, the economy is worse than ever.

Perhaps what bothers me most about the First Family’s choice of vacations and expenditures is the hypocrisy of it all. I’d be naïve to think that President Obama didn’t deserve to take a trip or swing a golf club every once in a while. And yes, I’ll concede that taxpayers have a duty to pay for the Secret Service (excluding some of their activities, of course), Air Force One, etc. President Obama certainly has one of the most stressful jobs in the world. Sometimes, he just deserves a break. Can you imagine what our country would look like if the President didn’t take time for himself? However, here’s what I can’t stand. Before and after the President returns from his lavish excursions, he lectures us about how we all need to “pay our fair share” and how the “rich are not paying enough.” Our nation is on a perpetual downward spiral. Is this really the best time to rub shoulders with Jack Sparrow or traipse across the smooth sands of Hawaii? I think not. In politics, perception is everything and it’s not looking good for the President. Right now, it’s hard to see past the blatant hypocrisy. Through the goggles of collective public perception, President Obama is a man who likes to enjoy luxury and then turns around and lectures other wealthy members of society for doing the same thing. Do me a favor, Mr. President. Next time you want to talk about the rich not paying their “fair share,” take a look at the mirror. Perhaps it’s time for a reality check.