Across the world, in the troubled area known as the Middle East, in the Islamic Republic, there is a nation fighting for its God-given freedom, and you don’t seem to care. You seem more content to bask in the glowing media attention and reminisce about your intense popularity in Europe. For days you were silent on the the developing Iranian Revolution, then you issued a weak, limp-wristed, written statement claiming you didn’t want to “interfere” with internal Iranian affairs, even though the presidential election that started this recent chain of events was very visibly unfair and most definitely rigged. Oh, but I forgot, you know all about working with groups that support voter fraud, don’t you? For what it’s worth, Iran just admitted fifty cities had more votes cast than voters registered! What were you waiting for?
Then, days later, responding to pressure from lawmakers and the American public, you finally released something with just enough meat to appease your liberal supporters:
“What you’re seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting and–and seeking justice. And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. And, you know, already we’ve seen violence out there. I think I’ve said this throughout the week. I want to repeat it that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that’s a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.” (link)
Okay, well that’s all well and good, sir, but where’s the call to action? You spent the majority of your interview once again apologizing for America, the West, and our way of life, carefully side-stepping anything that might possibly resemble hard-and-fast support for a new, democratic government in Iran (these are from the same WSJ article):
“Well, first of all, let’s understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States. that’s an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically. And that’s just not gonna fly.”
And,
“And I’m very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is–and is not.”
I understand the need for a thoughtful approach, but I don’t think anyone is calling for war. All we, as the American people, want is a strongly-worded statement.
Now, perhaps you feel I’m being unfair, Mr. President. After all, you say, I didn’t vote for you, nor do I support the vast majority of your policies. In fact, I do my best to stop them, so why would I give you a fair shake on this subject? With all due respect, sir, I do my best to always treat you and your policies fairly, but at this time of crisis, that is beside the point. The point is, Mr. President, you are the leader of the free world. You set the course for all other democratic republics to follow, whether you like it or not, and your inability to release a quick, concise, and very direct message straight to the Iranian people is troubling. All it would take is two or three sentences. Here, I’ve even written them up for you:
—————–
(SUGGESTED)
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA
“We stand with the Iranian people in their fight for democracy. Every people deserves to be free. The United States will do everything in its power diplomatically to assist the people of Iran.”
—————–
See, that’s not so bad. If British PM Gordon Brown can do it, surely you can, too.
Mr. President, the world is counting on you to support those demonstrating in the hope of a Free Iran. People like Neda are dying for the cause of freedom. Isn’t a strongly worded press conference the least you could do?
Sincerely,
Caleb Hays.
P.S. In case you hadn’t heard, Mr. President, Iran already hates us and was blaming us for this revolt even before your first statement. In other words, they’ll hate us whether or not you stand in support of the people of Iran, so what’s stopping you? Even Congress has approved a joint resolution supporting the protestors.
If you were alive at the time, I will wager a bet that you can remember exactly what you were doing, wearing, and thinking at the moment you heard the United States had been attacked on September the 11, 2001. It was a horrifying and terrible moment. Rogue airliners, hijacked by Muslim extremists, had come hurtling into three of our proudest buildings and a fourth, apparently on its way to the White House, crashed into a Pennsylvania field after a group of brave Americans regained control of the jet. In the days and months that followed, one question was on every American’s mind: How do we prevent this from happening again? It was at that moment in our nation’s history we found ourselves confronted with the very human dilemma between our well being and our independence. We had a choice to make; which was more important? Then-President Bush made decisions to protect the American people and our homeland. Some would argue his safety measures destroyed our freedoms and liberties. I disagree, but the lines in the sand had been drawn: how far is too far? When does the battle for a well-defended nation become the usurpation of the liberties of the plebiscite? In the United States, we believe in a system of personal freedoms and liberties; while we must protect our homeland, it cannot be at the expense of the rights of the American citizen.
In the 2002 film directed by Steven Spielberg, Minority Report, a new system based on the thoughts and visions of so-called “PreCognitives” is implemented as a way to reduce crime, especially murder, in Washington, D.C. From the onset, the everyday population viewed this method of arresting would-be criminals before the crime was committed with mostly admiration and thankfulness. However, as PreCrime detained more and more individuals, it faced an unhappy contingent: the innocent civilians it had erroneously locked up. In a similar manner, the Patriot Act and related laws passed in the years that followed the attack on New York are intended “to protect and defend” our nation from the ever-growing threat of terrorist violence. Many times, they work. From its passage in October of 2001 (“Search Results”) until the debate for its renewal in 2005, the Patriot Act helped convict more than 200 terrorists (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). Former President Bush remarked in a speech that year, “For the state of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence” (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). The Patriot Act was a swift and hard response to the brutal slayings of nearly 3,000 Americans, and it has done much to keep the United States safe. As noted by Kishkunas in his 2003 opinion piece, the Patriot Act, while granting the government a few new law enforcement powers, most combined previously available tools and applied them to terrorists instead of groups such as the Mafia or drug lords. Now, the persons responsible for murdering thousands could be prosecuted in a way that fit their dastardly crime.
However, it is always a dangerous decision to cede more power to any government, especially the federal government, and a strange alliance of far left groups and civil libertarians formed shortly after the bill’s signing by the President (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). They published and continue to publish stories of alleged abuses of power by both local and federal authorities. In April of 2009, another such case came to light, with a widowed mother being awoken in the dead of night by more than a dozen FBI agents bursting through her door, brandishing guns. After grabbing her tenth grade, sixteen-year-old homeschooled son from his bedroom, they served her a search warrant and led him away in handcuffs (“USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens”). Also shown in the newscast by Raleigh, NC CBS affiliate WRAL is the mother telling of how the federal agents also took numerous electronics from his bedroom, including his personal computer, Xbox game console, the router device that connected the household to the Internet. Says the distraught mother, “I was terrified. There were guns, and I don’t allow guns around my children. I don’t believe in guns.” She says her son has done nothing wrong and is being held on charges of domestic terrorism under the USA Patriot Act. Authorities claim her son made numerous bomb threat calls, a charge Ms. Lundeby vehemently denies. After the arrest, sheclaims she has been provided extremely limited access to her son and has little to no solid information about the evidence surrounding the charges being brought against her son.
As usual, there are two sides to this chilling story. Two weeks after the WRAL broadcast, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana, near where the teenage boy, Ashton Lundeby, is being held contacted the media and claimed the sixteen-year-old is not being held under the USA Patriot Act (Lamb). “This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act,” claimed U.S. Attorney David Capp (Lamb). Of course, the mother disputes this claim (Lamb), and the case continues. But what if the mother is correct, and the federal government is holding him under the Patriot Act, a law that gives them the ability to strip away certain Constitutional provisions from alleged enemy combatants (“USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens”)? Those that subscribe to this theory believe we may be headed for a 1984-style protectionist regime, in which everyday citizens are treated as the enemy. In response to this story, “Southpaw” from the Balitmore Sun talk forums said, “Maybe it’s not “1984″ but it sure feels like it is heading there.” Truthfully, that is a disturbing prospect. The Federal Government maintains that no American citizen has been unjustly prosecuted by this far-reaching law (“Patriot Act Works, Claims Bush”), but that has done little to quell the voices on the far reaches of the political spectrum.
Most people agree we need to work to protect and preserve American lives and our way of life. Is the Patriot Act the end-all answer? In 2005, in a bi-partisan move, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and former Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Act needs to be tempered with more protections for the average American citizen (“Patriot Act Works, Claims Bush”). Providing more civil protections to citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals, is an idea, if followed through correctly, on which most Americans could agree. It only makes sense to continually improve our laws, even those that are already working, and since our government is made up of and works for the American citizen, it is their duty. How should we improve? First, provide more information to the accused person and his or her representatives. Do not hide the entire process under an apparent veil of secrecy. The Constitution provides that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant. They should not have to prove their own innocence. Secondly, admit the USA Patriot Act and related terror laws work and have on numerous occasions fulfilled their promise of preventing further terror attacks in the United States, including a major “second wave” attack that would have decimated the city of Los Angeles (Jeffery). Thirdly, educate the public to the extent it is safely possible regarding the Act’s abilities against American citizens, but not its tools to combat foreigners. While no patriotic American wants the government to show all of its cards to the enemy, if the Patriot Act is to persist, we deserve to know the extent of its powers and how they can be used against us in an arrest or a court of law, just like any other statute.
Every society must deal with the issue of enemies from within and without. It is the responsibility of the citizenry in a republic to demand protection from their government against these forces. However, it is also their job to defend their rights and civil liberties against a power-hungry and ever-growing government. They are the ultimate check and balance. Indeed, it is in them in which the power of government is vested from an active and engaged population cannot be usurped. While the current administration has done away with phrases such as “War on Terror” for “less offensive” substitutes such as “Man-caused Disasters,” (Kessler) the threat of a terrorism on our home soil is as real as ever, and we must not let down our guard. The battle waged between ultimate protectionism and anarchy will continue, but the balance lies somewhere in between. The sweet spot is at the point where citizens lead their own lives, taking risks and working for themselves and the borders are secure, the military strong, and the government following the will of the people.
I thought the rest of you might need a break from studying as well.
Enjoy the amazing voice of Julie Andrews coupled with some clever Belgians at Antwerpen’s Central Station in a sort of flash mob publicizing a new reality TV show.
As many of you know, I serve the Pittsburg State University Campus Republicans as the Events Coordinator. We’re a new chapter in the Kansas Federation of College Republicans; apparently my university has a problem with holding on to any on-campus Republican organizations. By any means, when we formed our group last semester, we jumped head-first into the election cycle without knowing much about organizing a political group, and since then we haven’t looked back. It’s definitely been a learning experience, but we’ve come out on top every time. This semester we reached the point where we can have actual events besides debate and election result-watching parties.
Suffice it to say, the Tax Day Tea Party in Pittsburg, KS was our coming-out party, and what a success it was! We teamed up with Virginia Crossland of Crossland Construction to put on a massive event that hosted around 500 people from the area. That’s an impressive number when you consider there were at least five other Tax Day Tea Parties in the area! We had Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS02) speak, along with my organization’s Vice President, Jason Billberry, a local city commissioner, and a local businessman. Mark Kinsely from 1310 AM KZRG was our Emcee.
I’ve included some of the best photos below, but you can check out the full gallery here.
Protest Signs
Proud American Patriots
CR VP Jason Bilberry Speaking at Tea Party
U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS02) and Me
——-
Did you host a Tax Day Tea Party today? Let me know in the comments how it went!
Today was my 19th birthday. What a threshold to cross! It’s an exciting time in my life; I’m in college, and I’m almost done being a teenager. Turning nineteen felt like a solid step in the right direction. It was one of those days where growing up wasn’t so bad.
I was worried it would be a little lackluster as birthdays go, since this is my first away from home and away from my closest friends, but, with a little prayer, it turned out great and was probably one of the best birthdays I’ve ever had.
I got to go to bed early the night before and slept in about thirty minutes this morning. My dreaded Matrix Algebra class was canceled, and I got to do some serious Tax Day Tea Party planning for the one we’re helping out with in Pittsburg, KS. We made ten posters this evening at our College Republicans meeting. Also, I had my first on-camera TV interview with Pittsburg State’s CAPS-13 and a phone interview with the Collegio, our campus newspaper, both about the Tax Day Tea Party.
Both my mom and my sister texted me this morning with some great news: my black labrador, Katie, had eight puppies this morning, six black and two yellow. I can’t wait to get home to see them!
Today was amazing, but I’m looking forward to the 25th, when I’ll really get to celebrate my birthday. I’m hoping for a nice night out at my favorite restaurant, catching a movie, and then a night of frivolity (ha) with my friends.
World President Barack Obama spoke today from Prague, Czech Republic on the need for total nuclear disarmament, calling on the citizens of Earth to create “peace in our time,” to quote another failed politician.
In his speech this morning, Obama delivered the wrist slap to North Korea we’d all been waiting on, at least after the U.N. “surprisingly” failed to act. In a passing, off-hand statement, Obama condemned the launch by North Korea of a ballistic missile, “Rules must be binding,” he said. “Violations must be punished. Words must mean something.” However, North Korea’s launch was in direct conflict with a 2006 U.N. Security Council Resolution. (See, Mr. President, these resolutions are just words). FOXNews reports, in the end, President Obama addressed the North Korea crisis at least a dozen times. Unfortunately, he said nothing stronger.
The meat of this speech dealt with the utopian fairy world I sometimes (read: everyday) feel he lives in. He spoke of a day when nuclear weapons will no longer be necessary, a day we all hope for, but the president laid out a plan in which a new nuclear non-proliferation treaty is drawn up, and all so-called “good” countries sign, agreeing to drastically pare down their nuclear weapons arsenals. While in liberal theory, this sounds good, it’s unrealistic, just like so many other liberal policies. Sure, perhaps we and Western Europe will agree and actually follow such a treaty, but how does anyone in their right mind believe al Queda or Russia will? Of course they won’t!
The president did said we would maintain large enough stockpiles to fend off any threat from rogue nations such as Iran or North Korea, but I have sneaky suspicion his idea of “large enough” and reality are two different things. If these groups want these weapons, nothing this current administration is apparently willing to do (talk them to death) or the U.N. says is going to stop them from acquiring these weapons.
Lending to his role as a “world citizen” Obama received large cheers from the Czech crowd when he told them his new treaty would provide safe, clean nuclear energy technology to the whole world, and that the U.S. had donated a very large sum of money to the IMF to provide a sort of “global stimulus package.” Mr. President, need I remind you who you serve? As much as I’m sure it pains you to admit it, you are not the President of the Czech Republic, or of the farther-right-than-us European Union. You are the American President, and we have enough problems of our own; we don’t need you galavanting across the countryside of the Old World undermining our security by blatantly telling the terrorists we’re dumping nuclear power.
Around 9:30 CDT this evening the communist North Korean government in Pyongyang launched a missile with the supposed intent of putting a satellite in orbit. The international community, including the United States, was suspicious of this intention, given North Korea’s very public nuclear aspirations. However, besides a few “slap on the wrist” press release exchanges, no one was willing to stop this dangerous act. South Korea is scared out of its mind, Japan is worried, given its proximity, and, well, the United States says this a “provocative” action.
Honestly, is that the best we could come up with? How about a, “If you dare shoot that ‘blasted’ thing into the sky, Kim Jong Il, we’ll shoot it down before you can say ‘Red Scare’.” But did our new President take the necessary steps to keep America safe? Of course not. The “Global Citizen”, South Korea, and Japan all referred the situation to the ever-so-helpful UN Security Council. Sorry to break it to you, Mr. President, but we’ve already administered the slap on the wrist… there’s not much more the Security Council will do.
Now, there is the (slight) chance that North Korea was simply looking to expand its space program. Perhaps all this missile contained was a satellite. But we cannot allow (warning: political incorrectness to follow) evil nations like North Korea to possess the knowledge or technology to launch rockets into space. It’s a small step to switch out a so-called “satellite” with a nuclear warhead, especially with the temptation such a missile provides; this rocket can reach the United States.
Mr. President, I call on you to do you Constitutional duty to protect the United States America and her citizens. Contrary to popular European belief, and those that you seemingly personally hold. your duty is not to the world, it’s to us and to our national interests, including our defense. I’m going to come right out and say it: forget about courting Europe, its leaders are beginning to think you’re an economic fool as it is, anyway. America is not an evil nation, nor are we “arrogant.” That’s you. We’re tired of you tearing us down; sure, we’ve made mistakes, but stick up for our good traits, stand up for America and protect us.
Mr. President, words won’t do it this time, teleprompter or not. It’s time for strong action against North Korea. I’m not calling for war by any means, but we must send a strong message to Pyongyang that launches such as this will NOT be tolerated.
Most Americans are flabbergasted over the thought of AIG employees receiving 1.6 million dollars in bonuses after the company received billions in taxpayer-funded aid from the federal government. Disregarding the (in my opinion, correct) argument that the speculative arm of AIG should never have received bailout money in the first place (the insurance divisions are still profitable), any government action that moves to force the return of any of the bonus dollars is entering into dangerous territory.
Perhaps the slightly smarter thing to do would have been to ask to renegotiate the bonus contracts, given that the company is on the edge, but that’s up to Edward M. Liddy, not Congress, and it appears he’s trying to do the right thing.
I think it’s important we step back from this issue for a moment and consider the bigger picture. More government intervention is only going to create more dangerous precedents. As we expected with President Obama’s Big Government liberal agenda, the size of our government is about to increase yet again.
There are a few things we must consider here. First of all, private companies should always be able to set their own compensation plans. This is not the responsibility of the government, nor should it be. The idea here is that, if said compensation is unreasonable, the company will suffer, and changes will be made. This, of course, hasn’t happened, since our beloved federal government keeps doling out the dough. Second, Government should never have the ability to interfere with private contracts, at least in this sense. When did it become reasonable for Senators to legislate the compensation of workers of a private (read: non-governmental) corporation, regardless of whether said company (AIG) has received federal assistance? If we allow Congress to determine executive pay and limit the amount employees may be paid in bonuses, we have become that which we most feared, perhaps moving even farther left than the “socialist” moniker. Thirdly, this idea of “punitive taxing” must die. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has publicly stated that Congress will work to tax 100% of these AIG bonuses if the employees refuse to return the money. Why is it all the sudden right or fair for Congress to single out one group of Americans to tax? If we continue down this path of selective taxing, who knows where we’ll end up. How about a tax on 67-year-old grandmothers of three who drive Ford Grand Victorias just because we can? That, in my opinion, equates to a Bill of Attainder, something prohibited under the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.
This power grab by the federal government is scary, folks. Perhaps the idea of “sticking it to ‘em” in regard to the returning of the bonus dollars sounds good on paper, but this is a matter that needs to be handled without the reckless hand of the federal government. It does seem tasteless to dole out huge bonuses when everyone is suffering, I agree, but isn’t that just like saying, “I’m mad at the world, so the world should be mad, too!” It’s the same as that friend everyone has who gets upset but feels vindicated by shooting daggers at anyone who even appears to be happy. “Misery loves company.” As a society, we seem to feel at the moment, that if things aren’t going our way, they shouldn’t be going anyone else’s way, either.
As a warning, I must stress that we do not know the whole story. It is true that at least a great percentage of all bonus-receiving employees worked in the hard-hit “speculative” division at AIG, how do we know those same employees aren’t the ones keeping it limping along as it is?
Now, of course I’m all for protecting taxpayer dollars being protected, that’s why I’m a Conservative Republican, but this is not the way to protect those dollars. We gave AIG money to stay in business, since it was “too big to fail.” It was not the original intent of the first AIG bailout to take control of the insurance giant, but to get it back on its feet. These bonus contracts were signed between AIG and its employees in 2007, and the company was legally and contractually obligated to honor them. In other words, had AIG not awarded said bonuses, their actions would have constituted a breach of contract. Being a good bailout recipient, AIG disclosed this information to the Federal Government before the money was awarded. (Obama + Geithner = hypocrites much!) It’s AIG’s job to pay their employees the previously agreed wage and we shouldn’t be trying to interfere. The short term results seem a bit smelly, but the long term effects reek of a week-old fish market. Hold your nose, and let the bonuses pass; they’re not the real problem. Most of these people are not the ones that caused the problem; they earned this money. The Federal Government’s usurpation of power is our real fight.
UpdateMarch 25, 2009 at 12:27 p.m.
The resignations of many AIG employees has begun in response to the Congressional madness occurring in Washington. This article, a resignation letter written by Jake DeSantis, a soon-to-be-former AIG-FP employee, to AIG CEO Edward M. Liddy, provides a good perspective on the whole mess.
Besides the popular CatholicVote video, this is probably the most powerful anti-abortion short film I have watched in recent months. Please share this with your friends. As always, we can only win this fight for the unborn if we stick together and work as one, with God as our leader.
I believe after the economy settles down, even if that means it bottoms out at 3,000 and stays there, President Obama & team will go in full force after every protection we have against abortion. We must stand and fight with a solidarity as never seen before, boldly proclaiming the truth, that abortion is murder and that life is sacred and precious, for the unborn and for the elderly.
I’ll be writing in the coming days about Obama’s fight for FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act, an anti-life bill that is so important to him, he promised Planned Parenthood he would work to pass it, saying “Well, the first thing I’d do as President is pass the Freedom of Choice Act”, meaning the veryfirst thing he would do to protect “choice” would be to pass that bill. Of course, this was all before the economy blew up in our faces…
[This is an essay I wrote earlier this week. I've republished it here.]
Stereotypes are cop-outs. Each of them is just a way for us to pre-judge someone before we actually become acquainted with them on a personal level.They are tools we use to lock each other into specific, predetermined groups and behavior patterns. We use these mind tricks to exert control over other people, to gain traction in a difficult situation. Instead of facing the challenge of exposing ourselves to another individual, we take the easy way out and brush them aside with the passing thought, I’ve seen their kind before. What if, however, we took the time to give the benefit of the doubt, even to only one person? A few more minutes out of our busy schedules would not be missed. We spend that much time daily dialing the telephone or ordering coffee in the Drive-thru. Why not put those minutes to better use? If we did, we would discover that a person is more than the sum total of his or her parts, labels, and appearance. Appearances are deceiving, for we are each more than our stereotypes or labels alone allow for us to be.
As an eighteen-year-old sophomore at a small state university, my life is full of interesting topics and paradoxes, puzzles and quirks. My life is based on suggestion, on stereotype, on societal expectations, but my habits are geared against the grain. I do what is thought impossible and am seen for whom I am not. People expect me to be a certain way, but I surprise them by being even better.I believe in forging my own path and setting my own agenda, but rebellion is not what I seek: I fight apathy, and work to make my positive mark on the world. It is what this time of my life is supposed to be about. As a college student I have some of the biggest and hardest-to-shake stereotypes placed upon me, that I believe in an “anything goes” world, or that I fought to see Barack Obama elected.But after busting through these grandiose façades, I drop the biggest bombshell of all: I am a young conservative.I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, and the rule of law. I work for lower taxes and less government intervention and involvement. I want to live my life the way I see fit, by taking responsibility for the consequences, and not by following a ten-step plan developed by a bureaucrat. I believe in making money, in capitalism, in success for the individual, and in freedom for us all. Of course, being politically conservative and educationally an undergraduate leads to some interesting encounters. Many of my peers do not understand why I believe what I do, and many older adults approach me in disbelief as well. It seems most think youth should be a time of frivolity and a more carefree lifestyle; I do not necessarily disagree, but I look to my future as well. I am not a boring old codger while still a teenager, but I dream of one day being a successful, financially secure professional, and that dream cannot be fulfilled by following the plans and ideas of the other side of the political spectrum.
If liberalism on campus is such an accepted belief and lifestyle, why I am so different? Why does my belief system differ from the supposed norm? To fully investigate this issue, it is necessary to investigate my past, my experiences, and my goals for the future. Understanding one’s lifestyle choices is not an easy task. My political affinities come from several different places. To begin, since both of my parents are Republicans and very conservative, it would be easy to discount my ideals as something handed down and accepted without challenge. It is true that as far back as I can remember knowing what a political party was, I have identified myself with the GOP. However, neither of my parents has ever forced their political belief system on me. They’ve presented their views, but always left my choices in the matter up to me. Saying that my party affiliation and governmental philosophy stem solely from my mother and father is a vast misstatement. Perhaps my parents led me in the right direction, but it was by my own free will I came to believe we should as strictly as possible follow the plans laid out for us by the Founding Fathers in our nation’s seminal documents. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Even as young as I am, I have had enough life experiences to realize how important it is to keep and follow those democratic ideals. Right now, as a young adult, I am watching as the grand era of prosperity of my early teenage years dries up and our nation sinks into a deep recession. The most treacherous example is of the recent government bailouts. Instead of allowing companies who made bad business decisions and granted sub-prime mortgages to go bankrupt and restructure themselves, our government is using billions upon billions of our money and money borrowed from unfriendly foreign lands to artificially prolong the lives of those failed ventures. To me, that idea is unfair and, at the least, not in line with the spirit of our Constitution. Why are we who made good decisions being forced to help those who did not? I believe in helping others in need, but it must be my choice, not the government’s. Life experiences such as these catalyze my beliefs. They make me look toward the future and realize that as this spending continues, my dreams become a little farther off, a little less attainable. If success is punished and failure is rewarded, why will any company try to succeed? Where is the motivation to hire the best and brightest talent and sell the best products if the federal government is only going to tax their profits into losses and save them if they fail? How will I, or my children, for that matter, ever ascend to the peak of our abilities?
That hope for the future and worry that my dreams will not come to pass is what most strongly motivates me. America is a great nation, and I cannot bear to see her flounder. I want America to achieve her epitome of greatness with the restoration of our Constitutional values. As for myself, I want to someday work for a multinational computer electronics company. I want to be able to provide for my family, and I want my future children to have even better opportunities than I had. Neither one of these dreams is easily possible with the current onward march of liberal policies and socialism, at least not according to some of the greatest political minds. Many have equated our recent lapse to that of Western Europe after World War II. It is a commonly held belief in the United States that Europe is very similar to our country, but in truth, it has many problems we have never had to deal with, including strangled access to healthcare. Here, generally speaking, if one is insured he or she can schedule an appointment with a doctor and have met with him or her within a week or so. In other nations where socialized medicine exists, everyone has access to healthcare, but many people’s health suffers because of long lead times for life-saving surgeries and routine checkups. Also, the citizenry is taxed beyond belief, to the point where the tax rate reaches atrocious and unbelievable amounts. At what point do we say enough is enough? The idea of healthcare for all is valiant, but the execution is wrong. Providing healthcare is not government’s job. Many argue that private companies cannot and should not be in charge of providing medical assistance, that they wield too much power of people’s lives. However, the evidence points to the contrary. Even with their problems, private companies tend to provide a much better service, due to competition in the market. All the government needs to do is encourage that competition by lowering taxes, and thereby fostering growth, and repealing senseless regulations. Look how much government has regulated education in America. Does it sound exciting to be required to take a standardized test to verify your lifestyle choices before doing a urine analysis? Do you want to have to write your Senator just to have an emergency appendectomy? I have experienced such a surgery, and I can assure you that sitting up is murder, let alone handling a keyboard.
My conservative beliefs do detach me from my peer group of young college students, at least from the majority.This aspect of my being cannot be separated from me as a whole; it makes up an integral part of my being, of who I am as a person. They do not fit the expected mold, but I accept that and embrace it. I will not change who I am simply to force myself into such an idea. We can never fully escape stereotypes, because generalization is part of who we are as human beings. However, we can rewrite them to include more facets of other individuals. Once we have broadened those horizons, we must do all we can to transform stereotypes from the crystalline stones they are today to the malleable clay they must be tomorrow, changing and updating them with each new person we meet, as we learn to connect more deeply.
Just finished eating breakfast with rebecca wails, tom ziglar, and dr. paul hunter. Off to mountain home, ark for a july 4 tea party. twitter.com3 hours ago
@EconDog just looking for a consensus... i've been way out of the loop today. twitter.com11 hours ago
