Recent events involving the former NSA employee Edward Snowden thrust topics relating to the intelligence community to the national conversation’s front page. Now, with Snowden’s revealing the PRISM spying program, domestic spying and the American intelligence community are no longer subjects confined to civil libertarians. Consequently, if we wish to have an informed and rational discussion, we need to explore the history of the intelligence community. For, history informs us where this particular group is going and in what manner, among other things. Finally, we will examine what is to be done with the situation at hand.

Commentators, writers, and documentaries often fling around the term “intelligence community” without taking time to define what this “community” actually is. While general usage of the term “community” often refer to organic and naturally forming groups (i.e. the conservative community, the hacker community, the literary community, etc.), the American “intelligence community” ties directly to government. Most of this community is government, with a significant minority of private contractors. Some of the government entities that exist as part of the intelligence community are the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, all branches of the military, Homeland Security, the Treasury Department, and others.

As is obvious from the listing of the intelligence community’s members, it is a large group. We cannot examine it in its entirety, so we must confine ourselves. Out of the many members, perhaps the most prominent are the CIA and NSA, considering their roles and activities.

During World War II, the Allies created an espionage agency called the Office of Strategic Services. With the war over and the American government worrying about the perceived threat of global Communism, the government formed the CIA. It is at this point that the true narrative diverges from the CIA of popular imagination.

Legacy of Ashes, Tim Weiner’s excellent and well-researched history of the CIA, sheds much light on the CIA’s early ventures. Although most Americans would likely describe the Cold War CIA as an agency either of fascinating James Bond-like agents or ultra-secretive masters of espionage, this was hardly the case. From the beginning the CIA exhibited incompetence. The “Agency” failed in its meddling from Central America to Asia and appeared a budgetary black hole to those in government. (As an interesting side note, essentially all CIA agents dropped behind enemy lines during the Korean War were killed or defected to the enemy.) As time passed, the Agency looked more like a hive of failed paranoiacs pleading for more money. But the government didn’t shut down the CIA, as the Agency convinced enough in government of its vital need, its imminent success, and impending Soviet attacks. (Again, it is worth noting that the CIA, especially in Cold War Germany, often exaggerated how much information it possessed and the information’s relevance.)

After the American disaster in Southeast Asia, the CIA’s embarked on some of its most nefarious activities. Some of these included supposedly smuggling drugs and the infamous MKUltra project—which included giving test subjects LSD and experimenting with “mind control.” But perhaps the CIA venture with the widest effects in the post-Vietnam era was its support of an insurgent group fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This insurgent group’s name was the Taliban, and a man prominent figure in this movement was Osama bin Laden. Without support, the Taliban could not have survived. And, consequently, the Taliban’s survival changed the course of American history, along with many other nations.

The National Security Agency came about several years after the CIA. Though many areas within the Defense Department resisted the idea of further concentration of such cryptologic and intelligence duties. Through much debate and inter-departmental conflict, President Truman finalized the NSA’s birth in 1952. Soon after its creation, the NSA spread itself throughout the world, recruiting and training new members. Interestingly, from the beginning, the NSA and CIA shared a close relationship from their early days, though not always a good one—as the agencies competed for information. But, the NSA’s own history, American Cryptology during the Cold War, notes how the two agencies worked together. For example, they cooperated in jamming radio signals, though the animosity between the agencies persisted.

Compared to the CIA, far fewer broad historical accounts relating to NSA are readily available, but we see the NSA continuing through the Cold War in a similar fashion. As its primary function was cryptology, it built enormous supercomputers and dove further into ensuring lines of communication for the American government were secure.

Although, like the CIA, the NSA encountered its own controversies. Some of these involved the ECHELON program, a partnership of the American and several Commonwealth governments in intercepting satellite communications; wiretapping Americans; and creating and putting programs into practice data mining software.

So now that we have gone through the CIA and NSA’s histories, what should be done with these agencies?

The CIA clearly started terribly. They immediately deviated from their original purpose—gathering intelligence—and subsequently embarked on ever-growing and costly covert adventures, toppling governments and supporting rebels. Ideally, a much smaller and more moral agency would replace a dismantled CIA. On the other hand, such a course of action encounters two major problems. First, eliminating a government program is difficult alone and doing the same for an entire intelligence agency presents a challenge equal to producing a working time machine. Second, let’s suppose that a smaller agency, focused only on gathering intelligence within the confines of America’s constitutional philosophy replaced the CIA. What prevents this agency from further manipulating information in order to grow its budget and power, as it did in the Cold War’s early stages?

The issues with the NSA present more practical problems. With the likely continuing leaks relating to domestic spying, we face the same questions relating to the CIA. Additionally, what is to be done with the information the NSA already collected? Again, as with the CIA, we must question if the NSA should exist.

So, the question then becomes what degree of supposed safety Americans desire. After all, isn’t a prison safer than a free society? But even prison reveals rife violence, strife, and corruption. Perhaps there is a greater potential danger without massive surveillance agencies, but has the CIA, with its support of Islamist militants from 1980s Afghanistan to the Arab Spring, and the NSA, with a behemoth data-mining program, made us safer? Yes, life outside of prison might carry greater statistical dangers, but at least free men may come together in a responsible and just manner to sail on freedom’s vast ocean, in their attempt to land on some fruitful shore.

Christian Lopac | Wabash College | The CIA and NSA: A Brief History of Inteptitude appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

Every Father’s Day, I remember one distinct childhood memory that has guided me for the rest of my life.

I was complaining about something trivial. My mom, stopping me, asked me one of the most memorable questions I have ever been asked. “Think about your dad,” she said. “Have you ever heard him complain about anything?”

I was stunned. I could not call to mind a single time. My dad was a self-proclaimed optimist, often wearing a hat with the phrase “half-full.” His wisdom has stayed with me for years.

We tend to complain a lot about politics. There is an incredible amount of pessimism that persists in every discussion. We perceive Congress and our government to be a constant source of pointless bickering, trickery, and sycophancy. To a point, we may be right. Sometimes, however, I think those in public service deserve more credit.

At present, we are in the midst of a dismal period of our faith in government. Americans are expressing less confidence in Congress than ever before, Gallup reports.

The problem with these sentiments is that they form an easy justification for political disinterest. After all, why bother getting involved in changing our political systems if they are inherently corrupt? When we accept this tempting mindset, we only succeed in fulfilling our fears.

Take, for example, the common statement, “politicians only care about reelection.” At first glance, it seems to imply a selfish arrogance, a vain pursuit for glory rather than the common good. While this may be true for some elected officials, it also follows that the most powerful weapon to influence their beliefs becomes us, as constituents.

My friends who work on the Hill tell me stories of how congressmen are swayed by their constituents. Every phone call is answered, every letter is opened. Why? Because, above all, politicians need to get reelected, and that means they need to accurately represent the members of their districts.

In order to hold them to this duty, it is our responsibility, as voters, to stay informed. If we do not bother to keep up with current events, inform our representatives of our beliefs, or vote them out when they do not keep their promises, how can we criticize them for not accurately representing us? Perhaps we do not give enough credit to the men and women who work long hours in a comparatively low-paying occupation to stand up for their principles and those of their constituents.

However, this does not imply we should rely on our government to be the solution of all problems. Many government programs, built upon a foundation of good intentions, have resulted in worsening the conditions they set out to remedy. We can maintain a healthy skepticism of government programs without giving in completely to distrust and apathy.

Former Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX) served in the House of Representatives for 20 years. Even today, he has not lost his hope. When asked whether Americans should still be optimistic about politics, he responds,

“There are a lot of challenges in our democracy today, but the best proof that not all is wrong is that our immigration problem isn’t that millions of Americans are trying to leave our country for good. It’s that millions of people from throughout the world would do almost anything, including risking their lives, in order to come to our country to appreciate our freedoms and opportunities.”

My father always told me the glass is “half-full.” Instead of despair and loud complaining to fire Congress, let’s work toward appreciating the men and women in public service while still holding them accountable by staying involved.

Danny Huizinga | Baylor University | @HuizingaDanny

The post Father’s Day Optimism in Politics appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

By now, we’re all familiar with the NSA PRISM leaks, Edward Snowden, and the rest of the scenario: the government has been accessing phone records for the past several years. If you’re not aware, you live under a rock, and I have no idea why (or how) you’re reading this, but let me help you out.

The whole point of this article isn’t to take sides, as I (and most of the rest of us) don’t know the whole story and probably can’t, for a myriad of reasons. Many people believe Snowden is a hero, many believe he is a traitor, and many (like myself) have no idea what to think. On the one hand, he released information that he was sworn to keep secret and protected. On another he believes that his Constitutional oath overrides that, and on another he could have endangered lots of people, and critical operations that are being done to keep America safe.

What has irked me in this entire scenario is how people in my generation, many of them college students, have cried out about how this violates our privacy.  This is coming from the generation who checks into every place we go on Foursquare, posts pictures of ourselves by the millions on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms, SnapChats all kinds of photos to our significant others and our friends that aren’t as “gone” as we think, and will sign up for every sweepstakes for a free iPad or anything else at the drop of a hat while using our phones that can easily be accessed over unsecured networks by the right people.

Are we really that concerned about our privacy?

Granted, there is the polarity there of us granting these social media sites access and limiting who can see what and where we are, but the hypocrisy of this whole situation is staring us in the face. Our generation is all about sharing information, and we’re crying out in protest when the government uses a little of it to protect the country?

I urge everyone who reads this to do a Google search of their own name and other public screen names they use to see what is really out there about them, and if it’s all what they want the government seeing. If you can find it on Google, they can find it and a lot more without much work.

Also, I don’t know about you, but I don’t really have anything to hide from the government. If some NSA agent is more worried about the few Facebook posts I made this morning, or who I called, then our national security is really in danger. Sure, their access to it is scary, but is anyone actually surprised they are doing this?

I’m not saying any of this is right or wrong, good or bad. I’m just saying that sometimes we need to look at ourselves and what we want seen before we actually complain about anyone else actually seeing it. Let’s clean up our acts and expect the government to live by our example.

Edward Peichel | St. John’s University | @EdwardPeichel

The post The NSA, Privacy, and College Students appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

Republicans are acting like the immigration bill is a discussion on what to have for dinner, like the president is on board because he shares their taste for border security and immigration reform.

No. He approves of the bill because it’s a sure way to doom Republican success.

It would be like Republicans coming up with a Senate bill on guns and having Obama’s support. Wow! We must have done a really great job on this gun control bill – even the President supports it!

Sen. Rubio’s bill is a way to politically drown Republicans (who will be just as successful in national elections as they are in California – not being able to compete in a constituency that is increasingly Hispanic and dependent on government assistance).

President Obama supports it because, by definition, the bill is amnesty. It makes those ineligible for citizenship, eligible for citizenship. More than that: it basically brings their green card to their front door.

The bill doesn’t require that they “get to the back of the line,” wait a few years before they are admissible, or anything of that sort. It requires only that they pay a considerably small $500 fee to get their green card. After this, they can get citizenship in two years, compared to five years for every other immigrant who didn’t break into the country.

If it isn’t amnesty, why does it forgive and forget the illegal status of these immigrants (mind you, amnesty and amnesia have the same root)? Why does it only apply to illegals? Why does it favor them to other immigrants?

The fact that the border will be left just as porous as it is now is also a major selling point for the president. The bill’s phony “triggers” for border security were discussed in one of my earlier columns. At most, what we have to deal with is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) securing the border, and then another agency to be created if it fails.

No word yet on what happens when the second agency fails. And why wouldn’t it? Let’s ask Arizona when was it last that Obama gave the impression that he cared about border security.

Rubio isn’t even trying to hide this anymore. “First comes the legalization,” he said to Univision, “Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

So what we have is a legalization-first plan that leaves it up to the Obama administration and DHS to secure the border. President Obama’s support for the bill should’ve tipped you off before I told you any of this.

We have a real problem here:

– 11 to 20 million illegal immigrants could be given amnesty. Many of them will end up receiving state welfare, and their American-born children can collect federal benefits on their behalf.

– Once legalized, most of those who vote will become loyal Democrats (and so will their children. For the importance of that see here.).

– Big Business will have an abundance of cheap labor and workers to exploit with low wages. Plus, since these immigrants will be barred from receiving Obamacare, they will be more competitive than you or I who require those benefits.

– If we’re not willing to pay attention to who is let into the country, are we not increasing the chances of admitting immigrants like those who attacked us at the Boston marathon, Virginia Tech and Fort Hood?

The Republican reaction to all this has been a headache. Plenty senators have signed on to the bill. Rubio supporters have been incapable of handling criticism of the bill, treating him like sainted Obama and denouncing his challengers as activists. I think America should just change its motto to Don’t chide the brown guy.

It’s understandable that the corporate worshippers in the party support the bill, but why the rest? Someone needs to ask them: why would Obama sign his name to a plan that wasn’t amnesty or had a significant chance of securing the border?

If it were a bill good for Republicans and the country, why would he support it?

Keith Fierro | California State University at Fullerton | @kjfierro

The post If Rubio’s Bill is so Great, Why Does Obama Support It? appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

While the mainstream media continues to concern itself with frivolous news stories and party politics, an issue graver and more important looms over the United States. After two years and thousands of deaths, the conflict between the Syrian government and rebels rages on. The United States and the Western governments watch, considering intervention. Any intervention in Syria is unwise, but it would be absurd and dangerous for the United States to charge into the Syrian mire.

The Syrian conflict continues into its second year, but length is not the reason for Western governments’ desire for intervention. The United Nations estimates the Syrian conflict has killed “at least 80,000,” noting that many deaths are civilians. (Some sources estimate much higher death tolls.) Taking into consideration the United Nations’ ideology and reputation, leading us to conclude they eagerly await intervention—this number might be wrong. Regardless, the Syrian conflict bears a high body count. Any innocent death is a tragedy, but even on a mass scale, this does not justify war.

But mass deaths cannot be the only reason so many in the American government wish to go to war in Syria. If purely humanitarian grounds were satisfactory, the American military would have swarmed over Africa long ago. The Syrian rebels are not innocents, but combatants in a war. According to what we are supposed to think, their war is fought for that system with an elusive meaning and idealistic aims: democracy, in light of the Arab Spring. As in Libya and Egypt, this reason is why many in the American government wish to intervene in Syria.

The reality too many ignore or are ignorant of is that both democracy and the Arab Spring are dangerous shams. Democracy, in its legitimizing the majority’s despotism, inevitably leads to tyranny and stifling of liberty. The Arab Spring cloaked itself in democracy and democratic ideals, but further investigation showed these too as fraudulent assertions. In Egypt, the Arab Spring led to an Islamist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, rising to prominence. In Libya, Al Qaeda cements itself, possible only with the American-aided toppling of Gaddafi. (It should also be noted that the Libyan rebels had jihadists in their ranks.) If Syria is too part of this “glorious” Arab Spring, why should we expect anything different than the things seen in Egypt and Libya?

Though, these claims are not merely inferred from the rise other new governments originating from the Arab Spring. No, facts abound showing the Syrian rebels as Islamists and jihadists. And the maddening element to this aspect is that the facts are by no means new or recent. They have been available shortly since the conflict started.

In December, the New York Times reported that Al Qaeda-linked rebels gained an important place among the rebel forces. TheBlaze, in April, shed further light on Al Qaeda’s role in fighting the Syrian government, with the aims of establishing an Islamic state. And this week, Reuters reported that United Nations investigators further cemented the picture painted. These investigators observed, “‘It was said the rebels were angels, but there is only a minority of fighters with a democratic history who believe in the Syrian mosaic and want a state for all…. The majority of rebels are very far from having democratic thoughts and have other aspirations.’”

Intervention and aid’s results should be clear, but let us look into history for greater clarity and perspective.

There exist many parallels between the Syrian conflict and the American government’s action during the Cold War, but one example stands out. In 1979, after a series of internal events, Soviet troops entered Afghanistan. The next ten years destroyed a fascinating and beautiful corner of Asia—a land that captivated countless travelers and adventurers. During this war, the American government, along with the British and Pakistanis, supported a rebel group in their struggle against the Soviets. This group’s name was the Taliban and was composed largely of foreign Islamists. Some of the Taliban members from this war included a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Omar.

Viewing the Soviet’s war in Afghanistan with a few decades’ perspective, we see a clear and grave danger in intervening in Syria. At a basic level, intervention is fundamentally opposed to the United States’ founding principles, as Syria has not attacked the United States. But there stand consequences apart from philosophical implications.

Some think that it is possible to aid and arm the “right” rebels in Syria (i.e. non-Islamists). But with the Islamists’ significance to the rebel movement, this appears impossible. Additionally, how is the American government to ensure no aid reaches Islamists? Even if aid didn’t reach Islamists rebels, one may reason that merely aiding non-Islamists would still help the Islamists, as they still associate themselves with the rebel movement. From this, then, we establish that any form of aid or intervention will help Islamist rebels.

Reason and a full perspective reveal that any form of aid or intervention in Syria is absurd. It is contrary to liberty’s principles and dangerous. We live in a world influenced by intervening in a conflict between Soviets and militants roughly thirty years ago, we can only imagine the results in the Syria, a country with significant oil production.

We cannot know with certainty what course the government will take. Some see the situation with clarity. Rand Paul, one the few voices of reason left in government, his fellow Committee on Foreign Relations members as support of aid as “‘…funding the allies of Al Qaeda.’” Parallel to Paul, is John McCain, who visited rebels in Syria. We may be certain of one thing, though: our intelligent and staunch opposition to any involvement in the Syrian mire.

Christian Lopac | Wabash College | @CLopac

The post The Syrian Mire appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

Here’s to all you football fans out there who think the name “Redskins” is a team name and not a racist slur. That’s right, according to Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) you’re all a bunch of haters if you don’t agree that the NFL team should change their name to something a little more friendly towards Native Americans. Norton heads up a group of ten House Representatives compiled of both Republicans and Democrats (all co-chairs in the Native American Caucus) who sent Redskins owner Dan Snider a letter urging him to change the “racist” name to something a little more politically correct.

One can’t help but wonder if the Republicans who are for the name change aren’t secretly bitter towards the game because they couldn’t make it onto an actual team, but that’s beside the point.

Norton claims the 80 year old football team name is like using the “N”-word for African Americans or the “W”-word for Latinos/Hispanics and that the NFL profits from this every season. At this rate, it won’t be long until making fun of Mark Sanchez for his now infamous butt fumble is deemed racist and thanking the heavens for Tony Romo’s extended contract with the Dallas Cowboys while laughing hysterically is considered bullying.

In all seriousness, the fact that these U.S. House Representatives actually have the time to go after Snider while our national debt is out of control and with such scandals as the IRS/Benghazi currently being reviewed by Congress. You have to wonder what in the world these people are being paid for. The time being spent on promoting “equal opportunity” when all Americans should be the focus of this administration at this time is pathetic.

Let’s stop politicizing the few things left out of government reach and just enjoy this great American sport. Don’t like it? Don’t watch. It’s that simple so suck it up, cupcake. There are more important things to worry about when it comes to discrimination in America today, and if going after a football team name is your major concern then it’s time to get your priorities straight.

Elissa Roberson | College of the Desert | @ElissaRoberson

The post Racism and the Redskins appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

Tol-er-ance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular, the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.

Tolerance is the act of tolerating something when you know you don’t approve of it. Tolerance is what you do when the three year old won’t stop crying on the plane, you tolerate it. Why? Because the three year old doesn’t know any better.

That’s tolerance, but then, there’s forced conformity under the skew of tolerance. When it’s sponsored by the state, it’s usually called fascism.

What has happened in modern day America, especially on the issue of religious freedom, is that you are forced to tolerate a certain issue. When it’s forcing someone to tolerate an issue, there’s actually no tolerating at all. You either agree with it, or if you don’t, you’ll be forced to endure it. That’s how modern day progressivism defines tolerance: forced moral, social and verbal conformity, but hey, it’s with a smile. So perk up you intolerant jerk.

Don’t believe me? Let’s take a little trip to Colorado. See, Colorado is facing the exact problem that the rest of the country is debating, which side does the state side on? Does it side with those advocating for religious freedom, or marriage ‘equality?’

That question is being put to the test. In Colorado, a local bakery owned by Jack Phillips, is being sued for discrimination from a gay couple who got married in Massachusetts. So far, it seems as if the state will side against religious freedom.

The gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, is outraged that a bakery owner would not sell them cake for their gay wedding; therefore, they are victimizing themselves as sufferers of discrimination. On the contrary, Jack Phillip’s Lawyer sees the issue as an issue of religious freedom.

Which it is. What we see here is yet another case of tolerance run amok. Tolerance with no real guidelines, but a very real agenda, would rather side with those who paint themselves as the victims. Tolerance would rather side with the perceived David over Goliath, even if David is bigger, meaner and with poor intentions. Believe me, Jack Phillips is the real David of this case, even though many would gladly make him the Goliath.

What we have here is a one-sided tolerance with an agenda. This is not your run of the mill tolerance; it has a target. In this case, those pushing that agenda would force the bakery owner to violate his religious beliefs in order to seem tolerant. We are about to learn whether or not being intolerant is illegal in the state of Colorado.

Why should you pay attention to this case? Because it will be a forefront to the rest of the cases across the nation that are similar to this one.

The judge, I expect, will rule in favor of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. This ruling, should it happen, would violate, in my opinion, the right to freely exercise one’s faith. This situation, should it unfold would deem it perfectly legal to force one to go against his or her religious obligations in order to appease someone else.

This case is about appeasement, not about tolerance, or equality. This case is about acceptance and appeasement of the couple and ultimately: winning. This homosexual couple could have utilized the free market and taken their business to another bakery in town. But, this is the bakery they want, therefore, the owner must comply.

This is what happens when tolerance becomes conformity and non-conformity is in-tolerance and bigotry. Ultimately, if we are attacking Phillips for his decision not to sell the cake, isn’t this case an example of reverse bigotry? Yes, we are forcing a private individual to violate his religious beliefs in order to appease someone’s desires.

See, this man, Jack Phillips, would be labeled a bigot if he tried to make others conform to his own religious belief by forcing the state to define marriage by one man and woman. But it is not bigotry if we force him to conform against his own religious beliefs?

That’s exactly what we are dealing with, but don’t tell LGBT advocates that. The side of David Mullins and Charlie Craig will come back and cry that Jack Phillips is violating their right to pursue happiness. But in the name of tolerance, the private contract that would normally be confined to private citizens will be disrupted by the state of Colorado under the name of tolerance and equality, wearing the clothes of appeasement.

Tanner Brumbarger | @brumbarger

The post When Tolerance Becomes Reverse Bigotry appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

The country of Kenya has endured many hardships. The current president, Uhuru Kenyatta, is facing charges by the International Criminal Court for his alleged role in the mass violence following the 2007 election. Additionally, poverty is rampant in Kenya, with more than half of citizens living on less than one dollar a day.

However, Daniel Sindiyo, a former government official and director of the Department of Wildlife Management and Conservation for seven years, is hopeful about the future. “I believe changes are going to come. Whether it is dishonesty, whether it is accountability, everything. … The time to change is now.”

One way some believe Kenya can get back on its feet is through foreign aid. In 2012, the United States government gave $406 million dollars in foreign aid to Kenya. This is only a small fraction of the total amount of government-based aid that flows from developed countries to developing countries.

However, as Nicolas Eberstadt and Carol C. Adelman at the American Enterprise Institute note, a vast majority of foreign aid comes instead in the form of private investment or philanthropy.

Both types of foreign aid, government-based and private, face considerable problems in achieving their objective, says Sindiyo. “It is negotiated at a certain level where [by] the final implementation all the way down, a lot of resources are lost in between. … What probably may trickle all the way down to the target group is probably a quarter. That obviously doesn’t amount to real value.”

Corrupt governments are one of the largest hindrances to successful foreign aid. Foreign bureaucrats often lobby for aid money only to spend it on their own fortunes rather than their country’s true needs.

James Bovard of the Cato Institute cites many examples in which foreign governments abandoned their citizens, despite the large amounts of money they were given by the United States. According to Bovard, the ideal type of aid bypasses foreign political structures entirely, avoiding the chance for these governments to squander the money. A recent report by the Economist also celebrates a steady decline in the global poverty rate, while recognizing that aid played a “marginal” role at best.

This is not to say that foreign aid is completely ineffective. Bill Gates, one of the most vocal proponents of increased spending on aid, argues it is the “best way” to address poverty and suffering in poor countries.

Still, we should not blindly give money without recognizing some necessary conditions. Aid organizations often make the mistake of imposing their solutions upon a country without considering the local culture. Firsthand knowledge that citizens have from daily living through their country’s challenges is absolutely vital to ensuring the success of aid projects.

Eberstadt and Adelman believe collaboration with local authorities is vital for the success of foreign aid. They say, “Collaboration seems virtually essential for a sustained engagement that brings benefits valued by all.” Sindiyo echoes their sentiments, saying, “Local expertise is absolutely necessary.”

In Kenya, Sindiyo believes that if the government learns from its past mistakes and structures foreign aid correctly, the country can become stable in as soon as 20 or 30 years.

Danny Huizinga | Baylor University | @HuizingaDanny

The post Foreign Aid in Kenya – Does it Work? appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

One of the most harmful features of the last couple waves of feminism has been the message oft repeated in women’s magazines and film: “You can do it by yourself.” It’s left women and children unhappy, many unhappy and poor. And it’s encouraged men to be uncivilized.

A new Pew Research survey revealed that 40% of households with children have a woman as the primary or sole income earner. Much of the hype is misleading.

The story here isn’t that married women are out-earning their husbands (though some are: 28% as of 2011). The real story is that 63% of those surveyed are the only income earner.

There is more than just a difference in style between the two groups. Women who out-earn their husbands make a hefty $80,000 annually on average. Households led by a single mother have a median income of just $23,000.

The number of single women with children under 18 has increased from 3.4 million in 1970 to 10 million in 2012. That’s nearly twice the number of women who out-earn their husbands.

Remind me why this is worth celebrating?

The research documenting the dreadful effects of single motherhood is extensive and depressing, but just in case you want some reading material: here you are. This too.

Everything from homelessness to violent crime to teen promiscuity, suicide, and incarceration rates has its roots in fatherless homes.

We have several things to blame: the devaluing of marriage (and yes, I mean telling adults they can marry someone with the same genitalia because marriage is only about coupling and has absolutely nothing to do with raising children … as well as divorce); a system of public assistance that pays women to raise children alone; excusing men who bow out on their fatherly duties; and lauding single mothers like they’re pioneers of women’s liberation.

According to The New York Times, the main oppressor of women and children “is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be.’”

Women now know they don’t need a man. And men now know they don’t need a woman, or they don’t need them for longer than one night.

I find the debate over whether a woman should earn more than her husband draining and a little ridiculous. I cast just as much speculation upon men who are deeply bothered by their wives earning more than them as I do upon women who feel they have to.

There’s an easy solution, men: be able to provide adequately and most women would gladly take the traditional role in the relationship (though you may have to wait until the Obama economy fossilizes).

But the breakdown of the family is incredibly important, and the enduring message to women that they can do it on their own is incredibly important to expunge.

Ladies, you do need a man. At least, if you plan on raising children.

Keith Fierro | California State University at Fullerton | @kjfierro

The post Yes You Do Need A Man appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.

On Monday, the College Republican National Committee released a 95-page report which ostensibly serves as the organization’s own 2012 postmortem.

In other news, the College Republican National Committee came under scrutiny Monday for spending months and untold sums conducting focus groups and other studies to produce a 95-page report telling us what we already know: the Republican Party has a serious messaging problem. I’ll take “Unsurprising Things” for $1000, Alex. I could have told you that eight months ago when the president overcame some of the worst economic conditions in history to handily win reelection.

Much ado has been made concerning the report’s “scathing” assessment of youth/establishment relations within the party, with particular focus on the divergence of the GOP position on gay marriage and the opinions of younger voters. The CRNC report on that topic should be concerning to many social conservatives. It did not offer any real solutions for bridging the gap between voters’ opinions and the party’s position in that category, and it pointed out that half of those who thought gay marriage should be legal (44% of those surveyed) considered the issue a deal breaker when casting their vote. The committee’s three unappetizing suggestions for what to do on the issue represent what amounts to a tactical surrender: simply cave, point out the “diversity of opinion” within the party on the issue, or win in every other category (read: cave).

And while those on the Left will use this report as further evidence to support their “out of touch” characterization of the GOP, there were actually many elements within the report which should encourage young conservatives. The report’s data demonstrated the support conservative positions command amongst younger voters. There was significant support for fiscal responsibility and cutting government spending. Also, contrary to popular perception, studies cited in the report showed a slight majority of support for more pro-life positions than pro-choice ones.

Ultimately, the report vindicated the messaging content of conservatives. It seems that the problem with messaging seemed to be the manner and medium. One of the report’s strongest elements was its awareness of the impact of social media. Facebook was identified as potentially the most important medium in terms of content sharing and political news amongst our generation. And the report encouraged the production of content which is positive and connects with younger voters in a way that promotes sharing since that seemed to be the most influential in terms of how political content spread:

But where these services hold the most power for Republicans wishing to reach young voters is in providing content that people want to share. Having a large number of Facebook fans is good; producing a post that is interesting and compelling enough that your Facebook fans will share it on their own timeline is great.

The report was likewise strong in its recognition of the technological deficit faced by the Republican Party. In 2012, the Obama campaign expanded its technological advantage from 2008 in terms of reaching younger voters through technological means like smartphone apps, e-mails, YouTube ads, Facebook, Twitter. The report also notes just how far Republicans lagged behind in terms of data gathering and polling. If conservative candidates in that party want to make improvements in their youth vote outreach in the next election cycle, the technology arena would undoubtedly be the best place to start.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the report was its failure to elaborate on the difficulties faced by conservatives and Republicans in the media and pop culture. While the report identified the popularity of faux “news” programs like Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report,” it failed to point out their admittedly left-leaning agenda. The report compounded that error in its failure to identify the importance of fighting a liberal mainstream media and its continuous stream of smears of those on the right side of the political spectrum. The failure of the Right to combat common falsehoods perpetuated by the media was evident in many of the responses to subjects covered in the CRNC focus groups. The report cites one respondent who, when asked to provide an example of Republican policies which were not helping him, mentioned Arizona immigration enforcement law: “Arizona comes to mind, all the laws that they’ve passed there regarding immigration and being allowed to pull somebody over just based on how they look.” Of course, this assertion is blatantly false, but it represents the belief of the many ill-informed voters who have bought into a particular mainstream media narrative.

On his show Tuesday night, Bill O’Reilly perfectly summarized the ultimate problem neglected by the CRNC report. In 2012, Republicans underestimated the Barackstar. The president is cool, hip, and charismatic, and that is all that matters. In his interview with the two co-authors of the report, O’Reilly called out the millennial generation for its naiveté in giving the president high marks for “trying” and supporting the president because he is “flashy.” O’Reilly was spot on. A year ago, I wrote an article highlighting the alarming power of the president’s celebrity above substance and warned it would play a significant role in the upcoming election. While a host of factors contributed to the disastrous 2012 loss for the GOP, the kicker was the president’s star power and appeal to younger voters. Bill was absolutely right when he ended the interview: “You know what it comes down to? A charismatic candidate who can reach younger people and use words they understand. It comes down to personality.” The day Marco Rubio “slow jams the news” with Jimmy Fallon will be the day the GOP and conservatism win the White House.

Kevin Reagan | The George Washington University | @O_JoseCanYouSee

The post CRNC Report: What Else Is New? appeared first on TheCollegeConservative.