Latest Entries »

Obama isn’t powerless, just stubborn

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
June 2, 2012

President Obama cannot continue to take credit for every economic success and then to blame Republicans for every single one of the numerous economic catastrophes that his administration has failed to contain.

On Friday, the latest jobs report came in, and hearts sank. Unemployment ticked up as Americans reentered the labor force and employers refused to hire, producing a paltry 69,000 jobs in the entire month of May. Of course, President Obama was quick to blame the economic malaise on Republicans, who have blocked many parts of his inadequate and government-dependent jobs plan.

Today, the New York Times featured a column that could have easily been written by an Obama campaign consultant. The title was “Weak Economy Points to Obama’s Constraints,” and the article discusses, among other things, how powerless President Obama is to solve our nation’s economic problems. Check out this excerpt from the article’s introductory paragraph (emphasis mine):

The bleak jobs report on Friday predictably had heads snapping toward the White House, looking to President Obama to do something. Yet his proposed remedies only underscore how much the president, just five months before he faces voters, is at the mercy of actors in Europe, China and Congress whose political interests often conflict with his own.

I, for one, find this to be highly ironic. The President of the United States, the leader of the free world: powerless? I don’t think so, and I don’t believe the president does either. President Obama managed to pass the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislative achievement, and also was able to get his way on the stimulus programs (remember Solyndra?).

But Obama is indeed powerless, in a way. By persisting in pushing failed policies, he has turned Americans against him and has received hardy opposition from Republicans, who want to try a new approach to fix the economy. An excellent contrast to the president is Bill Clinton, who – during the latter half of his first term and the entirety of his second term – capitulated to Republicans to enact welfare reform and other immensely positive legislation that served to buoy the economy during and after his term in office. President Obama, however, has doubled down on his own failed policies instead of being open to Republican proposals such as tax cuts and entitlement reform, and has thus seriously jeopardized his ability to push through his ideas, however well-intended.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Nanny state: NYC plans to ban large sugary drinks

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
May 31, 2012

This indiscriminate ban will be costly and ineffective, and will restrict the personal freedom of all New York residents. Pictured: Even coffee will fall victim to the ban.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg plans to reverse obesity in New York City by passing a law against the sale of sugary drinks over 16oz in size. And I can assure you that the mayor’s government-centered plan will not work.

The Mayor’s plan does not address the real problem contributing to obesity in NYC. The single most compelling cause of obesity is a lack of physical activity among residents of the city, not the consumption of sugary drinks. In fact, according to the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, neighborhoods in the city that “report lower physical activity levels and less fruit and vegetable consumption have higher obesity rates.” So by banning large sugared drinks, Mayor Bloomberg isn’t even going to the source of the problem, which is the lack of exercise. Another real cause of obesity and poor health in general is the lack of consumption of fruits and vegetables. However, banning “unhealthy” beverages will not automatically encourage NYC residents to order salads or to consume apples.

Another issue entirely is the cost of this kind of oversight. The city of New York is in no way equipped to regulate every drink stand, every restaurant, every stadium, or every vendor of soft drinks and other sugary beverages, as such an effort would require tremendous manpower and surveillance to be foolproof.

But then, there is the issue of personal freedom. People in New York City will no longer be able to order a milkshake and share it with friends, to purchase a large coffee to get themselves through the day, or even to just drink something sugary because it tastes good. Thanks to Nanny Bloomberg, these people will lose these basic joys and freedoms.

Fortunately, however, this ban might not even be constitutional. Controls on interstate commerce are left to the federal government in the commerce clause, not to local governments. But in any case, this ridiculous attempt to curb obesity is a frightening glimpse at the willingness of government officials to exert control over our lives.

What do you think about this ban? Let me know in the comments, or just show your thanks and subscribe for more!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

An argument against abortion

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
May 29, 2012

Those who accept that it is morally upstanding to allow women to abort their own children for the sake of convenience must also accept that even racist and sexist motives for abortion, such as sex-selection, are also reasonable and morally just.

The prevailing argument in favor of abortion is that an unborn fetus is not truly a human being and that, therefore, it is morally acceptable and legitimate for the mother to abort the fetus and to deny it the opportunity to live his/her life. To the abortion advocate, the mother’s reasons for the abortion are unimportant. Whether for the sake of convenience or out of legitimate medical concerns, an abortion is a morally acceptable act from the pro-choice perspective.

However, there are several problems with this line of reasoning. The first is that the pro-choice argument assumes that just because a fetus is not considered to be a human being, it may be killed without any moral ramifications. In other words, because human beings should not be killed and because fetuses are not human beings, it is therefore morally justified to end the life of a fetus.

This argument is utterly indefensible. Even if we accept that a fetus is not considered to be a person, concluding that the killing of such sub-human beings is morally upstanding is, to say the least, a ridiculous rush to judgment. As an example, dogs have not been granted personhood and are certainly not considered to be human. Yet, in the state of California, abusing or killing your pets in a cruel fashion is considered to be a crime. As the California Penal Code puts it (emphasis is mine):

(b) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (a) or (c), every person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal [...], subjects any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal [...] is for every such offence, guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony or alternatively punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony and by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000).

For any pro-choice advocates reading this blog post, please consider this question: if the dog, an obviously sub-human species, is protected in such a fashion by the law, why shouldn’t the human fetus – which one could argue is indeed a human being – receive the same or more protections?

There is another problem with considering abortion to be a simple matter of sub-human or human. If we accept that it is morally upstanding to allow women to abort their own children for the sake of convenience, we must also accept that even racist and sexist motives for abortion, such as sex-selection, are also reasonable and morally just. A recent video sting operation by a pro-life organization revealed that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers here in the US are “willing to assist in the termination of baby girls for pregnant women who choose abortion because they want to have baby boys.” Therefore, women are being allowed to kill their fetuses purely on the basis of sex. Is this kind of decision morally justified? If so, then what about abortions based on race? To take it even further, if we accept that a certain race or gender is inferior to another, does that extend that particular group’s sub-human status to outside the womb, making it morally acceptable to kill people of a certain race or gender even once they have grown older? My point with these questions is that by allowing abortion on the premise of the fetus’ sub-human status, we also accept the inevitability of sub-human distinctions based on other aspects such as gender or race.

Abortions should not be simple devices of convenience for women who have sex and dislike the consequences, and neither should they be used to make distinctions between the validity of human life at any level. They should only be performed in the most extreme circumstances, where the taking of the child’s life would certainly preserve the life of the mother. These are the instances in which a mother should be allowed to make a choice, and to do so between her own life and the life of her child. Sub-human or not, the unborn child has a right to life that can only be overridden by the right of the mother to preserve her own.

What are your thoughts? Let me know in the comments, and be sure to share this article with your friends and to check out our Facebook page!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

US intervention would have prevented Syrian massacre

Filed under: Posts — 1 Comment
May 27, 2012

President Obama’s inaction on Syria has been a purely political calculation, a calculation that has left blood on his hands. Pictured: The covered bodies of many of the victims of the reported massacre.

On Friday in the town of Houla, Syria, government forces cornered and fired upon a crowd of unarmed civilians with guns, cannons, and artillery. More than 90 people died, 32 of whom were children under the age of ten.

As the UN Security Council meets this afternoon about the massacre, the Syrian government has flatly denied allegations that they were responsible, despite the fact that Syrian heavy ordinance was found at the scene of the crime. It couldn’t be more obvious that Syria is at fault in this situation, but the denials continue.

However, looking back, I believe that this entire massacre, and many of the deaths that have occurred in the Syrian rebellion, could have been prevented by the intervention of a US-led global coalition on behalf of the rebels. Syria’s small military would not stand a chance against the advanced weaponry and considerable resources of American-backed force, and victory would be a relatively simple proposition. Even without boots on the ground, the US and her allies have many options to aid the rebellion in Syria, none of which have been utilized thus far. The United States has sent the rebels neither weapons nor logistical support, and none of the past events have yet galvanized the White House, which seems content to sit on the sidelines and to just talk about how “vile” and “brutal” the Syrian government is…without ever doing anything about it.

As you can probably tell, I am extremely frustrated with President Obama on Syria. In Libya, the president justified US intervention on the grounds of humanitarian necessity and the ending of genocide. But in Syria, as genocide is occurring on an even more extraordinary scale, President Obama has refused to act. This blatant contradiction makes absolutely no sense to me, and I am very frustrated.

What are your thoughts on Syria? Should the US intervene or not, and if so, should we do so with outright force or simply with military aid? Please let me know in the comments section what you think.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Why the Bain attacks will backfire

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
May 25, 2012

Remember Solyndra? Just one of many of President Obama’s public equity “successes” (I sure hope you caught the sarcasm there).

President Obama has been extremely harsh on Mitt Romney regarding his tenure at Bain Capital, a private equity firm. He has attempted to portray Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist who completely disregards the lives and jobs in order to secure his own personal profit. However, it seems that the president’s strategy is backfiring, as top Democrats continue to repudiate his push against private equity, which contributes greatly to a healthy business environment. But yesterday, an intriguing editorial by Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post revealed that there could be more serious repercussions for the president than just some defections, as Obama’s comments about Romney’s career in private equity opens himself to criticism about his abysmal and corrupt use of taxpayer dollars in government-funded public equity schemes.

I certainly hope that you all remember Solyndra, President Obama’s most publicized failure in public equity. After giving a half-billion dollar loan to the Obama donor-run solar energy company, Obama made a speech to the press about the “promise” and inevitable success of green energy. Well, things didn’t turn out that way, as Solyndra filed for bankruptcy and fired its workers, leaving the American taxpayer with a massive monetary loss. In his editorial, Mr. Thiessen discusses several other failures on the part of the Obama administration in public equity, including SunPower, Raser Technologies, and several other green energy flops.

However, it is not just the president’s loans themselves that upset taxpayers across the country, but also the blatant corruption that accompanies them. According to Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer, a whopping 71% of President Obama’s green energy grants went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” If giving a massive majority of supposedly merit-based loans to campaign donors doesn’t speak of massive corruption, I don’t know what does.

Essentially, President Obama has worked himself into a difficult position. By bringing up Mitt Romney’s mixed record at Bain Capital, our president has opened his own absolutely horrific record as the chief steward of taxpayer dollars to voracious and damaging attacks by the right. I am certain that President Obama will be quick to regret his line of attack on Bain Capital if such attacks begin to occur.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Winnable? Church sues Obama on contraception mandate

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
May 21, 2012

This suit by Catholic organizations will pit President Obama’s intrusive contraception mandate against the US Constitution. Pictured: Birth control pills.

It seems that President Obama’s hotly contested contraception mandate will finally be put to the test, but in front of panels of federal judges. Forty-three Catholic organizations, ranging from charities to dioceses to schools and hospitals, filed twelve new lawsuits in a dozen separate federal jurisdictions across the United States this week, marking the first aggressive action on the part of the Catholic Church to combat President Obama’s contraception mandate.

The contraception debate has been a hot topic this year. I’m sure you all recall when Rush Limbaugh was ferociously attacked by the left for his less-than-savory comments about leftist Sandra Fluke, who notoriously testified on a committee that birth control costs for a law student like herself could exceed $1,000 per year for three years. But anyway, the left has been attempting to portray the contraception debate in the light of women’s health, arguing that insurance companies – regardless of the religious beliefs of their customers – must provide free contraception as a part of their health care plans. However, conservatives like myself disagree. Forcing insurance companies to provide a specific health care treatment, contraception or not, is a massive overreach of government authority, not to mention the fact that many religious institutions are obligated by their doctrinal values to not provide contraceptives at all!

Of course, the success of the Catholic lawsuit hinges on one crucial question: does President Obama’s mandate on insurance companies to provide contraception violate the Constitution? In my opinion, it does. The separation of church from state in our Constitution was not meant to keep the state safe from religion, but to keep religion safe from the state. Thus, I believe that forcing religious organizations to violate their beliefs in the name of “women’s health” is utterly preposterous and is an absolutely crystal-clear violation of the US Constitution. It is only a matter of time before President Obama’s contraception mandate meets its demise, either by the hands of the federal courts or by the election of Mitt Romney – who has pledged to repeal the Obamacare and its individual mandate – this coming November.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Election 2012: Vote projections

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
May 19, 2012

Even though President Obama’s reelection campaign has an uphill climb to victory in November, it is still a formidable force. Obama is desperate, and his plan to deface Romney’s character and public image will likely have a significant impact on voters this election season. However, I believe that Romney will be able to secure victory for one major reason: the economy.

If Romney can seal up economically troubled states, he will easily win the election.

Mitt Romney stands to benefit from the current economic downturn. Growth has slowed to a crawl across the country, and President Obama’s policies have seemingly done little to relieve the suffering of millions of Americans. This lack of relief, consequently, has fueled a rise in the anti-incumbent mentality among potential voters, as these voters see little improvement in their lives and view new leaders as the only solutions to their problems. Thus, President Obama will face some significant difficulties in November if the economy continues to be stagnate.

For example, take a look at the electoral map above, which I created with a useful tool on the New York Times website. (If you want to play around with this tool yourself, click here). In my electoral map, Romney barely defeats President Obama, gaining 279 electoral votes to clinch the presidency. However, take a look at the tossup states, shown in yellow, that Mitt Romney wins: Florida, Colorado, Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa, and Virginia. In Florida, the economic downturn has been extremely damaging, causing record numbers of foreclosures and declining quality of life. Romney’s economy-centered message will resonate well there and will probably give him a victory, especially if he chooses well-liked Florida Sen. Marco Rubio to be his running mate. Colorado and Virginia have been reliably Republican in the past, and given the current economic position of the US, they will probably go to Romney in November. However, Nevada and Wisconsin are particularly intriguing. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 11.7%. The economy in Nevada has been hammered by the recession, and because of this, voters there find President Obama’s economic record to be awful at best. Contrary to popular belief, I think Nevada will be an easy victory for Romney, or at least a Romney-leaning state, due to the severity of the recession there. And then, there is Wisconsin, a state where Republican Gov. Scott Walker has taken significant steps to reduce the bargaining rights of public employee unions to balance his state’s budget. As a result of Walker’s policies, Wisconsin’s economy has righted itself and is on the fast track to lasting success. However, Walker is hated by the Democrats in Wisconsin, who have put up a candidate to run against Walker in a recall election this June. A comfortable victory for Walker would reveal that Wisconsin voters believe that the policies of their governor, which run contrary to those of the president, are the best for their state. Consequently, such a result would show that Mitt Romney will likely scoop up Wisconsin as yet another easy victory.

This electoral map is by no means a concrete prediction, but it is what I think might happen in November from what is happening now. If my prediction changes dramatically, I will be sure to update all of you.

So, how do you think the election will turn out? Leave your thoughts below or on our Facebook page!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

New evidence backs Zimmerman, refutes the media

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
May 17, 2012

I’m certain that you all remember the massive firestorm that developed after the death of teenager Trayvon Martin. As I documented in a recent article, the case was totally taken out of context by the mainstream media giants, namely CNN and ABC, which both were quick to accuse Mr. Zimmerman – the man who shot Trayvon – of doing so with racist intentions. Democratic leaders were quick to call the shooting a hate crime, a travesty, a poignant example of racism. Turns out, nothing could be further from the truth. New, indisputable evidence has finally emerged to clear George Zimmerman’s name, and finally, the mainstream media and others on the left will have to be content with eating their own words.

A smiling George Zimmerman in a recent photo.

According to an autopsy of Trayvon Martin’s body, the teenager was shot directly in the chest from point-blank or near point-blank range. Also, trace amounts of marijuana were found in the young man’s urine. Beyond the autopsy, however, new witnesses have come forward. One, a man who observed most of the incident, noted that Trayvon was “throwing punches MMA-style” while on top of Zimmerman. Moments later, the witness heard a gunshot, and Trayvon was on the ground next to Zimmerman, dead.

This new evidence is groundbreaking, as it will certainly help keep Zimmerman out of prison and out of the public eye. Now that we know that Zimmerman was certainly attacked and was in an extremely perilous situation with Trayvon, it is almost a certainty that Zimmerman killing Martin was an act of self-defense. Now, of course, the main issue for Zimmerman is his motive for leaving his vehicle to supposedly follow Trayvon. I’ve watched enough Law and Order to know that there is far too much reasonable doubt regarding his intentions to convict him of anything substantial. In the worst case scenario, Mr. Zimmerman gets a few years in prison for manslaughter. However, I think that Zimmerman will find far better luck in light of this evidence, and he may not even be charged.

The Zimmerman case is a rare example of how, in spite of an angry wave of public sentiment driven by a biased media, a man can win his freedom and at least begin to move on with his life. However, it is crucial that in the future, cases like this are not muddled by uninformed accusations, especially those of racism and of discrimination. It is the job of the prosecution, not the mainstream media, to levy such charges, and in the future, I expect far more from ABC and CNN in the reporting of such cases.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

The problem with the European Union

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
May 14, 2012

To prevent a massive regional economic collapse, the European Union must either break apart or allow the EU’s leadership to have more jurisdiction over the Union’s economies. Pictured: the EU headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

The European Union is experiencing some serious difficulties managing its finances. While some member countries like Germany have managed to keep their finances and their economies in decent shape, others like Greece have abused the financial support of their fellow members and have run their economies into near or total bankruptcy. Now, amid the election of anti-austerity leaders in the recent Greek and French elections, the European Union is faced with a precipice. Should Greece’s new leaders refuse to pay their debts to their fellow EU members, Greece may be removed from the Union entirely. What can be done?

To solve the debt crisis, the European Union has only two options. The first is to decentralize power, but this move would be extremely problematic as it would allow countries like Greece and Italy to continue to spend massively beyond their means. This would place even more pressure upon the better economies of the Union (namely Germany and France) to cough up the money needed to support their ailing neighbors. The interconnected nature of the European Union ensures that countries like Greece cannot be allowed to fail, as such an action would seriously damage the economies of the other states using the euro currency. Kicking out countries like Greece and Italy for failing to comply with austerity measures would be similarly damaging, as an entire sector of the interconnected European economy would completely disappear with the introduction of a new currency in Greece and/or Italy.

The second option is extremely unpalatable to many Europeans, but it seems to be the only option remaining to keep the benefits of the European Union from diminishing entirely and turning into drawbacks. Allowing the central leadership of the EU to retain more control over the fiscal matters of each EU country would allow economically productive countries such as Germany to force Greece and other delinquent nations to balance their budgets in exchange for debt payments from the rest of the EU’s members. However, as a consequence of this, the power of the individual nations of the EU would be severely limited, and this could cause some serious friction between members. Additionally, it is entirely possible that the push against fiscal austerity could be magnified on a regional scale, meaning that fiscally irresponsible leaders allow the EU to be driven into a ditch by out-of-control spending and massive debts.

The bottom line is that the European Union must begin to manage its fiscal problems the right way. Since the Union is so interconnected, it is an absolute necessity for the responsible members of the EU to enforce austerity measures on their fiscally wasteful companion states. Otherwise, the entirety of the Union will slip into a lasting and deeply damaging economic malaise.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment

Acceptable? Obama paints targets on Romney donors

Filed under: Posts — Leave a comment
May 12, 2012

Frank Vandersloot, pictured above, is just one of several private citizens that have been crucified by the Obama administration for their financial support of Mitt Romney.

Three weeks ago, the Obama campaign dove headlong into the very depths of dirty politics by publicly naming and libeling eight of Romney’s most prominent donors. The campaign even called these donors “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records,” with the campaign’s only real reasoning for this statement being that this assortment of people supported Mitt Romney.

This attack by the Obama administration was intended to discourage people from donating to Romney and to keep those on this short list of donors from speaking out. However, one of the donors on the list, Mr. Frank Vandersloot, has spoken out about the impact that President Obama’s defamation has had on his life. According to the Obama campaign, Mr. Vandersloot is “litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.” According to Frank, however, this could not be further from the truth.

Mr. Vandersloot, the CEO of a health and wellness company called Melaleuca, said in an interview with the Weekly Standard that his company has lost “a couple hundred [memberships]” from customers. Frank bitterly resents the Obama campaign’s vicious portrayal of his character, and he is considering filing a lawsuit.

This entire story is deeply concerning to me. President Obama may be desperate to win reelection, but if he is willing to stoop so low as to directly target Mitt Romney’s donors to scare them out of giving money, that is a new (and quite frightening) level of desperation. If he is willing to target private citizens for public defamation, what else might he be willing to do to suppress Romney’s reelection chances?

Desperation can drive people to do extraordinary things. If President Obama becomes desperate enough, is it possible that he would take advantage of the powers of his office to suppress those that support Mr. Romney? This would be a frightening occurrence, and one that I hope will not present itself during this election cycle.

I have faith in America’s democracy, and I believe that President Obama will not abuse his power to further his reelection. However, I hope that the Obama campaign issues an apology for defaming these eight donors, because it is not democratic to threaten your opponent’s donors.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers