By: Amy Lutz
Have I ever told you how much I despise the website Jezebel
? It's simply the microcosm of the contemptible movement that is modern-day radical feminism. It's all about sex, birth control, and more sex. Seriously ladies, when did class go out of style? You don't have to dress up as a vagina in protest or travel across the country talking about birth control to get yourself noticed.
As women, we are more than just our reproductive organs. Just because our bodies function differently than men's doesn't mean we have to limit ourselves to speaking only about "reproductive rights." I'm going to steal a phrase from the feminists and just say "get out of my uterus." Seriously, we have a $16 trillion debt and we're talking about the pill? Massive #headdesk. Women, we are better than this! Can't we just step back for a second and be thankful that we live in a society where we can go outside without a man and where we can walk through the streets with more than just our eyes showing? We are NOT victims. However, if you believe feminists, you'd think the US was the most "oppressive" nation in the world.
So while liberal feminists spend their energy blathering on about "reproductive rights," I'll be busy working on more important matters like the economy, jobs, and individual liberty and keep social issues to myself. So you're on the pill? Good for you. I don't care. That's between you and your doctor. Start getting into abortion, and I will take notice, however. The unborn need a voice as well. But, seriously, ladies, I'll repeat myself: we're better than this. Leave a little mystery in your life. I can't respect any woman who thinks her vagina should be front page news. If you want to be respected, don't play the victim card. Don't buy into the myth that women are sexual beings alone. I am NOT a victim and I certainly will not act like one. I am more than just my reproductive organs. I have a brain, thank you very much, and I intend to use it.
Via The Wall Street Journal: NEW YORK—For the first time in its history, the U.S. doesn't have a Protestant majority, according to a new study. One reason: The number of Americans with no religious affiliation is on the rise.
The percentage of Protestant adults in the U.S. has reached a low of 48%, the first time that the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has reported with certainty that the number has fallen to less than 50%. The drop has long been anticipated and comes at a time when no Protestants are on the U.S. Supreme Court and Republicans have their first presidential ticket with no Protestant nominees.
Among the reasons for the change are the growth in nondenominational Christians and a spike in the number of American adults who say they have no religion. The Pew study, released Tuesday, found that about 20% of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15% in the last five years.
I always consider reports like this misleading. While it's true that people in this nation have veered away from faith over the last several decades, that's not necessarily the content of this article. Twenty percent of people now don't consider themselves part of any organized religion, but that does not necessarily imply that that segment is without faith. As a non-denominational Christian, I am the 20%. I consider myself a devout Christian and a weekly churchgoer, but because I no longer belong to any specific religion, I have fallen into that segment.
The issue this article raises is not the rise in the faithless. That's another issue entirely. What I found interesting is the likely increase in non-denominational Christians myself. I have nothing against organized religion whatsoever. I was raised Catholic myself. However, there is a civil war going on in seemingly all religions right now. There is a constant push and pull between traditionalism and the rise of the "social justice" sect which espouses social liberalism and collectivism. This battle is particularly evident in Catholicism. This is part of the reason why I left the Catholic church. Perhaps the core issue this WSJ article raises is not the number of people leaving churches. Rather, it's the question of why organized religions have been so deeply infiltrated by power struggles, strife, and moral relativism that they have strayed away from their original intent of spreading the faith.
By: Amy Lutz
In 2008, then-candidate Obama no doubt won the battle for social media
. It’s hard to believe that a mere 4 years ago, social media was still a fledgling enterprise. However, Facebook was launched in 2004 and Twitter in 2006. Both sites were still gaining traction, but had not blossomed into the powerhouses they are today. People were still using MySpace for crying out loud. I begrudgingly admit that the Obama campaign wisely tapped into this new form of media and were able to grasp swaths of new voters and shift online debate in their favor.
Unsurprisingly, the first segment of Americans to jump on the social media bandwagon were young people. Twenty-somethings, who are often easily enthralled by the next piece of shiny technology, flooded online by the millions. Facebook and Twitter provided a place for young people to inject their opinions, fact-based or not, into the vast area of public debate. Social media also provided a place for people to be way too descriptive about what they ate for breakfast and a place to post pictures of themselves in front of the mirror with fish lips. Nothing is perfect I suppose. However, the Obama campaign launched a social media campaign that was almost perfect and they created a stronghold on the youth vote. It’s no wonder that 66% of people under 30
cast their vote for the little-known senator and community organizer from Illinois.Please Read More at The College Conservative
By: Amy Lutz
I think I’m having an identity crisis. When the news that Mitt Romney had selected Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running-mate broke late Friday night, I was ecstatic. However, according to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell
, I reacted inappropriately because Ryan is “not a pick for women.” Now I’m confused. I’m a woman, yet still borderline giddy with excitement about the pick. I mean, have you seen Paul Ryan? But I digress… In all seriousness, I believe Mitt Romney made a strong, wise pick in Representative Ryan and his selection will bring the discussion back to the appropriate focal point: the economy. However, according to Andrea Mitchell and all the liberals who claim that the so-called ”War on Women” comes from the Right, I must be doing something wrong.
Not wanting to betray my gender, I decided to look a bit further into why exactly Paul Ryan is not a good pick for women. Mitchell claimed that Ryan’s opposition to both abortion and Obamacare place him in opposition to my gender. Think Progress
continued along the same line of reasoning when they posted “5 Reasons Why Paul Ryan is Bad for Women’s Health” on Monday. The reasons included:
1. Ryan’s support of a “Personhood Amendment” which would give a fetus legal rights.
2. His opposition to all forms of abortion.
3. His desire to ban abortion coverage from state Obamacare exchanges.
4. Ryan’s comment comparing Roe v. Wade to the Dred Scott Decision.
5. His support of defunding Planned Parenthood.
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
“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
The smooth-talking, supposed consensus-building, “thrill up your leg” inducing President Obama sure knows how to ruffle a few feathers, doesn’t he? As we approach what will likely be an historical election, political passions have, like Joe Biden’s hairline, receded slightly, at least comparatively speaking to the last few months. Americans have gotten a chance to gasp for breath as the turmoil of the gay marriage controversy falls from its fervent pinnacle. Whether it’s health care, religious freedom, or marriage, Obama’s policy decisions, speeches, and opinions are often sources of great controversy. Sure, he’s the president and he’s going to create controversy wherever he goes, but like many of his policies, his controversies go to the extreme. He has frequently made controversial decisions and statements without regard to their impact upon public opinion. The president seems to forget that his authority is not infinite nor is it based upon his charm and personality. Political authority is contingent upon the consent of the people which hinges upon our approval/disapproval of his job performance. We voted for you, Mr. President, and we can vote you right out again. Please read more at The College Conservative
By: Amy Lutz
A few weeks ago, President Obama made headlines with his “flexibility” comment to President Medvedev of Russia, claiming that he would have more freedom to “get things done” after he is reelected in November. Well, that is if the election goes according to his plan. While “flexibility” is now synonymous with the arrogance shown by our Commander-in-Chief in Russia, I believe that there is a different sort of “flexibility” we should be worried about, a kind perhaps even graver than what Obama said to Medvedev.
Rather, liberals tend to be more “flexible” on their definition of “rights,” than those on the right, putting our personal liberties at stake. It’s clear that conservatives and liberals have different conceptions of “rights.” Conservatives tend to adhere to the natural law conception that rights are either given by God or inherent in all humans. Either way, they are unalienable and irrevocable. This tethers the rights to a stable foundation. How can anyone take something away that has been so deeply ingrained into humanity? This gives us a sense of security in our rights and protects against the selfish passions which prey upon people in power.
The liberal conception of rights, however, tends to be one of “flexibility.” It seems like every week, they are “creating” a new right. Congratulations America, you now have the “right” to healthcare, housing, proper food, etc. Yet, where do these rights come from? Often they are simply the product of political opportunism. Thus, they are not tethered to anything solid and can be easily revoked. Laws protect rights and should be solid. We must be able to have faith in our legal system. Without this common sense of adherence to law, the legal system is inefficient.Please Read more at The Blaze
Christianity and the Intolerant Left
By: Amy Lutz
You know what I don’t like? Tolerance. Ok, no I’m not opposed to the idea of accepting and respecting everyone. I’m opposed to the word “tolerance” itself, for it has become nothing but a politically correct tool in the hands of intolerant leftists. Yes, intolerant
For many liberals today, the word “tolerance” does not mean what it is intended to mean. Rather, it means being “tolerant” of everything…except things that disagree with the liberal ideology. When liberals preach “tolerance” under the guise of Christianity, it is particularly frustrating. While many liberals claim to be preaching the “words of Jesus,” they scoff at Christians who still support ideas like traditional marriage and the sanctity of life. Of course, both of these issues are core values in the Christian ideology. God forbid Christians have the “audacity” to follow the tenets of their faith. Liberals accuse conservative Christians of using their religion to revoke women’s “right to choose” or gays’ “civil rights.” They scoff at the “vast right-wing conspiracy” of conservative Christians set to enslave the world with their “outdated” values. Yeah right.
Please read more at The College Conservative
Oh Look! A Distraction!
By: Amy Lutz
The paradoxical nature of politics never ceases to amaze me. The current unemployment rate is 8.1%
and 1 in 2 new college graduates are unemployed or underemployed
. Gas prices are a record highs and the national debt shows no signs of shrinking any time soon. By all accounts, President Obama’s abysmal economic record should have a permanent spot on the front page. His 47.3% approval rating certainly reflects this fact. However, if you take a few seconds to look at the top stories in the United States, this is not the story that’s portrayed. Instead of talking about economic solutions, the media is currently enthralled in the seemingly tangential topics of birth control, women’s rights, hate crimes, and gay marriage. Seemingly, the nation’s top stories and its political realities simply don’t match. However, I doubt this is by accident. Rather, it’s by design. These issues merely serve as distractions from the disaster that is the Obama Administration. And having the mainstream media on your side doesn’t hurt either. With their “look-the-other-way” attitude toward Obama’s mistakes, the President and his allies have mastered the art of political distraction.
The media has covered a smorgasbord of articles ranging from birth control to women to gay marriage in 2012. Leftists have denounced the GOP’s supposed “War on Women” in recent months for their opposition to the birth control mandate and support of personhood laws in a growing number of states. Meanwhile, liberal groups throughout the county decried George Zimmerman’s “racial motives” for shooting Trayvon Martin before he got his day in court. Zimmerman might very well be guilty as sin but what happened to innocent until proven guilty? Then, in a “surprise” (and by surprise I mean, no surprise at all), President Obama came out in support of gay marriage just after North Carolina banned the practice and Gallup reported
that just over 50% of Americans support the practice. How convenient.
Strangely, most of the biggest news stories in the US in the months leading up to the 2012 election have been social, not economic, issues. The Obama administration’s focus on these issues is not one of genuine concern. Rather, it is nothing but a political ploy. First, social issues tend to be the most contentious. Supporters and opponents of gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc. tend to be far apart on the political spectrum and the interests groups are generally well-ensconced in their own opinions. Bringing up these issues ignites the numbed passions of Obama supporters, many of whom have resorted to lukewarm support in the face of the President’s less-than-stellar record. This is a far cry from the passionate obsession of the Obama Zombies during the 2008 election. The Administration is looking for any way to re-ignite theses passions and get their supporters to the polls.
Additionally, the focus on social issues places the spotlight back on the Obama Administration, a spotlight that has been solely focused on the GOP contenders in the last several months. Obama is unable to run on his actual record, considering his history of economic failures. Therefore, the President and his supporters have turned the spotlight on issues which can actually garner some support from his liberal allies (all while ostracizing the right of course). It’s as if Obama woke up last week, looked at his record, and said, “Hmmm rising unemployment, falling poll numbers…OH LOOK GAY MARRIAGE…I can use that.” These social issues are merely a distraction from Obama’s abysmal record. They are also a way to refocus the spotlight on the President and sooth his inflated ego.
What this political maneuver shows is the president’s complete lack of accountability. He’s unable to answer for his faults or stand up for his decisions, even when they have failed. When all else fails and Obama cannot ignore the glaring shortcomings of his administration, he simply blames his predecessor. The economy, partisanship, turbulent world situation…all Bush. (Note: Ignore the fact that the average unemployment rate
under George W. Bush was about 5%) Joe Biden took this on last week, blaming Bush
for our turbulent relations with Iran. There is certainly a high degree of character deficiency in the White House right now. The President and his blind supporters are unable to take responsibility for anything, evidence of political and personal weakness. It’s tough to stand by your decisions honestly and answer for your failures. Yet, for the President of the United States, it is part of his job description. The President is not supposed to “Pass the Buck.” Unfortunately for us, our current Commander-in-Chief is more than willing to “Pass the Buck…Over there.” Oh look, a political distraction!