Tweet

It’s no secret that Iran has been less than friendly with the U.S. since we uprooted their democratic government in 1953 and installed an unpopular authoritarian monarchy allowing for civil unrest, violent uprising, and an opportunity for radical clerics to take over the country and install an extremist, anti-western, anti-Semitic theocracy, vicariously creating the term “blowback.” Needless to say, from then on, the hate speech has been flowing out of Tehran, and America sits on her hands all the while fighting the urge to reach out and punch Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad square in the mouth.

Ahmadinejad is notorious for wanting the annihilation of the “Zionist Regime,” meaning Israel, or as Iranian leadership likes to call it, “the little Satan.” Aside from constantly threatening America’s only true ally in the Middle East, Iran has not held its tongue on making outrageous threats to what it refers to as “The Great Satan,” or the United States.  Inciting chants of “Death to America,” warning of retalitory attacks on Israel and American middle eastern outposts, and even Iranian military leaders boasting that they have the naval power to put submarines off of our east coast with missiles capable of hitting major cities like New York and Washington D.C. is commonplace for Iran.

And those are legitimate threats. Considering the Iranian diligence in pursuing a nuclear weapon in spite of our consistent discouraging and economic sanctions, why we haven’t taken the gloves off with this aggressor is beyond my comprehension. We are talking about a blatant sponsor of terror, a country that denies the Holocaust ever happened but eagerly awaits its opportunity to usher in another one by seeking to “[wipe] Israel and America off of the face of the Earth.”

It seems like all that we have done is attempt to negotiate.

Great job, guys.

Why we haven’t intervened after literal threats to U.S. cities and citizens?  That in itself is a serious issue that needs to be raised in the face of the Obama administration. But that is not what this piece is about.

I want to know something a little more unnerving. I want to bring to light something I see lurking in the shadows of a potential global war. I want to know if Iran is trying to rush “prophecy.”  I want to know if they are rolling out a red carpet for what they call ”The 12th Imam” or their messianic figure, ”The Mahdi.” I want to know if they are arming themselves and preparing for the Jihad to end all Jihads.

Why else would they be pursuing nuclear ambitions? Why else would they be sacrificing their people’s well being in the face of some of the world’s strongest military and economic powers? Why would they be cozying up with China and Russia, the only economic and military powers to rival the US, UK, and Israel?

If they were just trying to make a name for themselves in the global market, wouldn’t they be sending olive branches to the White House and Knesset? Wouldn’t there be Iranian diplomatic envoys working every angle of the world?  Peaceful summits in Tehran? Pictures of Mahmoud, Bibi, and Barack cheesin’ in front of the rose garden? That would only make sense.

However, that is a laughable alternate reality. Something that seems more like satire than actuality. The nationalistic propaganda the Iranian regime is spewing rivals that of Nazi Germany.  Their funding of terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Assad regime in Syria are key indicators that Ahmadinejad and the ”supreme leader” of Iran’s theocratic council, Ayatollah Khamenei, are determined to see that Islam keeps a stranglehold on the middle east.

So what is the Mahdi? Why are they wanting to rush its coming?

In Islamic eschatology, or the study of the end times, the Mahdi is the prophesied redeemer of  Islam, who is, by most accounts, set to return to Earth with Isa (Islamic version of Jesus Christ) to set up global sharia, or rid the world of wrongdoing and “break the cross” (or break the Christian church). Then, they will try to set up a messianic capitol in Jerusalem. They are setting the stage for the coming of the Mahdi.

With every military, political, and diplomatic move Iran makes, it seems as if it is preparing for and drawing closer to the Shi’a belief, the Islamic sect that governs Iran, that Mahdi and/or the 12th Imam will soon return and destroy the western heathens and crush Israel. Maybe that is why Ahmadinejad, between spewing hate against the U.S. and Israel, praises the Mahdi in his speeches and beckons the coming of the holy 12th Imam.

While the mainstream media continues its onslaught against “radical Christians” seeking to preserve traditional marriage and eliminate abortion and contraception, the battle in the Middle East rages much more intensely and poses a greater threat than these stupid social disagreements. Despite the “fatwa” issued by Ayatollah Khamenei claiming that nuclear weapons are haram or sin, this guise doesn’t seem to be the direction of the Iranian state. According to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) an Iranian opposition group, Iran has pushed full steam ahead with its nuclear ambitions in the past few days.

Exploring Islamic end time prophecy allows for a whole new understanding of their handling of diplomacy and military strategy in recent months. It may seem bizarre and extreme, but we are dealing with an extremist religiously zealous regime, intent on seeing Islam engulf the world.

This is more than just middle east tensions, this is an attempt at prophetic theatre, an attempt to make prophecy, reality.

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge…” -Hosea 4:6

Tanner Salyers | Pensacola Christian College | @TannerSalyers

Tweet

Government dependency is a funny thing. It seems like it would be something that people, especially Americans, would want to avoid; and for a large part of our nation’s history, it was avoided. We decided that hard work, perseverance, and self-reliance were the keys to success and happy lives. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that this is just simply no longer the case. The amount of Americans that depend on the government for various methods of “help” is higher than it has ever been before. Although there are a number of different reasons behind this change in mindset, I believe Dinesh D’Souza indirectly pointed one of them out in his most recent book, Godforsaken.

 In this book, Dinesh writes about suffering. He explains that throughout his experiences debating leading atheists, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, he realized that a major reason for the lack of faith among these people is their unwillingness to accept that an all-powerful and benevolent God could allow suffering. This is not an atheist-only problem, however. Dinesh explains how the problem of suffering is very controversial topic among Christians.

At the very beginning of the book, Dinesh explains the difference in perception of suffering in different parts of the world. In many third world countries, suffering is seen as an inevitable part of daily life, and as a result, the sufferers become closer to God for the consolation he offers. Rather than blaming God for their suffering, they ask Him for comfort. The West is very different, however. Dinesh writes:

 “Outside the West, many people are habituated to suffering. That’s because they think it is inevitable. We don’t, and that’s a sign of progress. We have in our cultures greatly reduced suffering, and this means that we are very intolerant of what suffering still remains. In America and Europe, we have become almost pathologically averse to suffering. Unlike our ancestors, and people in the developing world, we regard suffering as having no legitimate place in the universe. Utopia, for us, is worth striving for.”

Indeed this must be a sign of progress. We have advanced so much as a society that true suffering (i.e. hunger, homelessness) is no longer seen as the only option in our lives. Rather than viewing a day without any meals as an unfortunate occurrence and turning to God for comfort and hope, we view our three daily meals as basic and understood. We have them because we have them.

There is nothing wrong with success and prosperity and no one (or nation) should ever apologize for accomplishments. However, those born into a nation of such prosperity in which true suffering is a tragedy rather than a recurring event must be careful.

Careful of what? Liberals, of course! Conservatives see this type of prosperity as positive. We see that minimal suffering was not simply granted to us at birth, but earned by our predecessors through character traits of hard work and determination that have been passed down to us. We realize that it is our responsibility and our duty to work harder than the previous generation so that the next generation will be subjected to even less suffering than us. We acknowledge that our success relies on this hard work, and without it, our success would vanish.

The liberal view is actually somewhat similar. Liberals see that we, as a society, are increasingly separating from suffering and resultantly try to find ways that will continue to lessen suffering for the next generation. However, rather than attempting to do this through our previously stated conservative ideals, liberals want to accomplish this through the perversion of the definition of suffering.

Because of the lack of exposure to it, liberals define suffering as any simple inconvenience rather than true distress. Suffering is anything negative that occurs, even if it is a result of poor choices or an unfortunate occurrence that is not any one person’s fault. So what happens when they attempt to liberate the future generations from their idea of suffering? The welfare state becomes reality in America. The distress of hard work is replaced with laziness and unemployment benefits that eliminate the incentive to work. The tyranny of self-reliance is replaced with government dependency. The torture of freedom is replaced with the helping hand of the government.

One only needs to look at the Occupy shenanigans (I refuse to call it a movement) for proof of this liberal flaw. The Occupiers would hang around in whatever city they happened to be in, holding signs that advocated for the death of capitalism and the rise of socialism. Not a surprise. These are the exact liberals that I have been describing. They have finally realized that they must work for money — that being dependent on the government is not necessarily a good thing, and that yes, other people may actually be more successful than you. Damn did that piss them off.

“I mean, come on! This is 2012, isn’t it? Shouldn’t such hardships as these been abolished by now?” the Occupiers think. Having never been exposed to any true suffering, any type of hardship or work is now a tragedy. For these people, even the slightest possibility of failure is, once again, considered to be suffering. Capitalism is then seen as the enemy, for it allows people to try and fail. The only way to abolish this remaining suffering is to implement policies that will inhibit anyone from having to deal with the suffering of honest failure. Socialism.

It’s amazing the difference in ideas between the conservative way and the liberal way as to how to prolong our minimally suffering society. Conservatives think hard work. Liberals think less work. Thank God we’re conservatives.

When we let liberals change the perception of our very own principles, bad things happen. They took religion and morality and construed it to the public as the evil Republican trying to impose his beliefs on others. They took our desire to keep our hard earned money and called it greed. They took our love of equal opportunity and hatred of equal outcome and called in unjust. They took our love of our country and called it selfish. When we let liberals mark our beliefs as something they are not, we are letting them win. We cannot let liberals label ideals like hard work and determination, the very foundation of our great country, as suffering. If we do, I can assure you that they will cease to exist, just as religion, morality, and patriotism already have under the liberal monster.

Daniel Pellegrino | Franklin and Marshall College | @DannPellegrino

Tweet

When I found out I got into Providence College, I was sitting in locker room four at Rochester Ice Arena in Rochester, New Hampshire, surrounded by my ice hockey teammates after a hard-fought victory against York High School. After the initial alarm over my ear-piercing shriek subsided, pretty much everyone was happy for me. Was anyone bitter, angry, or emotionally destroyed over my acceptance to college? Not that I can recall.

Recently, some schools in New York have banned students from discussing their college acceptances, particularly if they were admitted into Ivy League or top-tier schools. The rationale behind this was to protect the feelings of people who were denied acceptance to prestigious universities. At the Calhoun School,

 “seniors have a weekly class with the college guidance counselor, in which they discuss “the appropriate way to share news of acceptance,” said Sarah Tarrant, director of college counseling. “The weekly conversation reins in kids who might run around yelling, ‘I got in! I got in!’ ”

And to that I say: give me a freaking break.

Did I get into every school I applied to? No! Did I weep for several hours upon denial from one of my top choice schools? You bet I did! Did some of my friends get in when I didn’t? Yes! That’s life.

Not everyone is going to get into every school they apply to. They’re not going to get every job they apply for either after school. The fact that schools like Horace Mann, Packer Collegiate Institute, and the Bronx High School of Science all have policies concerning when students can reveal what college they’re going to (or, in the case of Horace Mann, what sweatshirts they can wear) is incredibly disturbing. These are some of the top high school students in the country, and the students who are doing the best, working the hardest, and gaining acceptance into Ivy League schools are essentially being told that their achievements aren’t worth sharing due to the potential bruised egos of their classmates.

What happened to celebrating achievement? If I got into an Ivy League school, I’d probably scream about it from a bullhorn on the top of a building. If my best friend in high school got into an Ivy I’d probably do the same thing. It’s a fantastic accomplishment! It should be celebrated! We shouldn’t shame top grads into silence over their accomplishments because someone else didn’t get into the same school.

I was particularly upset about the fact that teachers at the Bronx High School of Science were instructed not to congratulate students if they were accepted to top-tier schools. Is Billy really going to be that emotionally destroyed if Mr. Jones congratulates Tommy on getting into Middlebury? Has Billy not learned in his 18 years of life how to deal with disappointments? That’s the issue we should be focusing on.

When my classmates at Scarborough High School received acceptance into Ivy League or other top schools, we didn’t feel offended or have our feelings hurt by their success. Quite the contrary; we were pretty proud of them. Even when my classmates got accepted into less-prestigious schools, we were still happy for them and their achievements.

America’s self-esteem obsession will end up harming the nation. The self-esteem movement has really blossomed during my generation; everyone in youth soccer got a trophy, no matter if their team went undefeated or lost every single game. In my middle school, every student was “student of the month” at some point in the year, whether or not they actually did something spectacular. Honors courses in my high school were no longer called “honors”— they were known on our transcripts as being “level four” courses. Non-college prep coursework was “level two.” No actual labels— that might hurt feelings.

It’s great to feel good about yourself and have an elevated level of self-esteem if it’s actually merited. High self-esteem won’t solve a math problem, write a coherent essay, or launch a rocket into space. These are skills needed to succeed in the workforce. American 12^th graders currently rank near the bottom of industrialized nations in math and physics, and the United States has effectively killed off NASA. Great!

American education is in a state that rewards “meeting the standards” and is more concerned with protecting feelings than celebrating accomplishments. This mentality has to change, or we’re doomed for a future similar to that in Idiocracy.

Christine Rousselle | Providence College | @CRousselle

Tweet

I don’t care what President Obama or any political candidate has to say about gay marriage. I really don’t. In fact, it’s getting annoying. I’ve heard and read more about gay marriage within the last week than I ever cared to.

Nor do I care that Mitt Romney strapped his dog atop the family van for a road trip thirty years ago, or that Obama ate a dog in Indonesia. Because at the end of the day, regardless of who ate dog and who didn’t and regardless of who was for gay marriage then was against it and is now for it again, America is still slipping towards the edge of a disturbingly steep economic cliff, and we’re losing our grip more and more every day. As Mitt Romney said in a speech back in April, this election is “still about the economy, and we’re not stupid.”

Sure, social issues matter, and we all have plenty of opinions on those. But if we continue down the path that we’re currently stumbling down under Obamanomics, social issues will be an afterthought. America cannot handle four more years of failed socialist—yes, I said it, socialist—economic policies. This country cannot afford four more years of spending much more than we take in, nor can we sustain this “tax the rich” mentality—eventually, the wealthy are going to run out of money if they’re constantly drained to pick up the tab of everyone else. We won’t be debating gay marriage, abortion, the imaginary “war on women,” or any social issue when we’re completely destitute as a nation, yet somehow moving “Forward” towards some unattainable, “socially just,” nanny-state.

We’re seeing a constant onslaught of attacks on conservatives, conservative values, and the GOP because, well, what else does the Obama campaign have to go on? A national debt that’s increased $5 trillion under his “leadership?” Unemployment still well above 8%? (And the blame game—that he “inherited” this economy from the previous administration—doesn’t really fly with me. He campaigned and fought for this economy, and he’s had it for three years. Enough with the lack of accountability.)

This is why the mainstream media and the Obama camp are pulling out all the stops when it comes to campaigning on Romney’s past. Last week, the Washington post accused Mitt Romney of bullying a classmate who was suspected to be gay in high school. But the family of that classmate, John Lauber (who passed away from cancer several years ago), says that they never heard of the instance the Washington Post describes and, understandably, they are “aggrieved that he [Lauber] would be used to further a political agenda.”

And the Obama campaign’s most recent anti-Romney ad is also a little off-base in the facts category as well. The ad shows emotional former steel workers from GS Technologies, what was formerly a steel mill in Kansas City, Missouri. The steel mill went bankrupt and closed under Bain Capital, demonizing Mitt Romney as the cause of it all. But the ad fails to mention that the plant layoffs occurred primarily in 2000 and 2001, but Romney left the “day-to-day operations” of Bain in 1999 when he went to take over management of the Salt Lake City Olympics.

We’ll be able to enjoy, I’m sure, a weekly (or daily?) dose of distraction from the real issues from the Obama camp until November. Don’t fall for it. Maybe you don’t like Romney; maybe you don’t like either candidate. But let’s cut the ridiculous distractions and stay focused on the biggest and most pressing issue our country faces right now—the economy. Let’s discuss ideas to restore prosperity instead of distractions that fuel frivolity.

At the time of this writing, according to the U.S. debt clock, each American taxpayer is over $138,500 in debt. Millions of Americans are out of work or have given up looking for work. And four more years going “Forward” down this same path are going to leave us with only a memory of economic freedom and prosperity.

It’s still about the economy.

Sarah Hinds | Webster University | @Sarah_Hinds76

Tweet

In my last piece, I shared with you the first half of the research I conducted last semester on the Occupy protests, and whether or not the protests satisfied Martin Luther King Jr.’s six principles of nonviolent resistance.  This week, I’m bringing to you my assessment of the last three principles and will tie everything together.

4) Nonviolence Accepts Suffering

A fourth point that characterizes nonviolent resistance is a willingness to accept suffering without retaliation, to accept blows from the opponent without striking back. … The nonviolent resister is willing to accept violence if necessary, but never to inflict it. He does not seek to dodge jail. If going to jail is necessary, he enters it [quoting Gandhi] “as a bridegroom enters the bedchamber.” …unearned suffering is redemptive. Suffering, the nonviolent resister realizes, has tremendous educational and transforming possibilities.

-Stride Toward Freedom, P. 91

Nonviolent resistance is a method designed to demonstrate just how unjust a situation actually is. The protesters, believing in the righteousness of their cause, engage in protest to draw attention to the injustice of their situation. When protesters are arrested, beaten, or jailed unjustly, the watching public is moved by their plight. This is what King means by saying that unearned suffering is redemptive and transformative: when someone else suffers needlessly, our humanity urges us to feel sympathy for their plight and to respond to them.

We have indeed seen a great deal of suffering coming from the Occupy protests, as graphic images of clashes with police and mass arrests seem to regularly dance across our television screens. The protesters certainly did fulfill their promise to use civil disobedience to achieve their goals, as Doug Schoen’s poll reported. Especially in the first few months of the protests, it was very easy to perceive that the protesters were indeed willing to suffer in defense of their claims of systemic injustice.

However, there were a couple of problems that I encountered when probing this claim. The first was fairly significant: were the reported injustices honest? After all, the basic claim underlying this whole protest movement was that the situations we saw on TV were true. As I investigated, I found a few situations that suggested such dishonesty. The first was the case of Robert Stephens, the impassioned Georgetown Law student who bravely blocked traffic while detailing to the cameras how his parents’ home was being taken cruelly by the banks. In fact, his story was found to be entirely fabricated.

Another was the case of a protester who was famously run over by an NYPD scooter. However, video footage of the incident taken from a different angle by reporters from The Local East Village, a division of the New York Times, shows that the protester’s foot was actually completely free from the scooter (around 0:19). It appears that he tries to put his foot back under the scooter, producing the now-infamous image.

These instances alone weren’t enough to meet the rules I set for my research standards to fail the protesters on this measure. But these issues were compounded by the second problem I encountered: were the protesters truly arrested innocently?

This needs a bit of clarification. Civil disobedience does entail doing something that is legally a crime to demonstrate the moral problem with that unjust law. This is what makes the suffering King refers to as transformative and redemptive: the protester is arrested for doing the morally correct thing, and outside observers who see the injustice of the situation are moved to respond.  It is to this end that King stated above that the nonviolent protesters “does not seek to dodge jail.” However, King never said that the protester should seek jail, either. There’s a big difference between going into a situation knowing that an outcome is possible and intentionally trying to bring about that outcome for some other purpose.

And as I was researching, I found that there were several situations at Occupy protests where protesters were actually planning to be arrested. In the same Local East Village video I linked to above, at around 2:40 one protester can clearly be heard organizing others into being mass-arrested. “We have to regroup. If you don’t have a camera, let’s get arrested later. Regroup.” In another video released by Michigan’s Education Action Group, they describe the practice of selecting “arrestables” – people chosen for specific reasons to be arrested and garner media attention – from teacher’s union representatives protesting at Occupy Chicago. This practice of choosing arrestables was caught on tape at Occupy St. Louis.

These patterns of dishonesty led me to believe that the Occupy protesters were not fulfilling King’s principle. They were not accepting unwarranted suffering as redemptive and transformative, but were rather manipulating the situation at many of the protests in order portray the appearance of suffering. This undermines King’s vision entirely.

Result: FAIL

5) Nonviolence is Loving

A fifth point concerning nonviolent resistance is that it avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of the spirit. … At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love. The nonviolent resister would contend that in the struggle for human dignity, the oppressed people of the world must not succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter or indulging in hate campaigns. To retaliate in kind would do nothing but intensify the existence of hate in the universe. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can only be done by projecting the ethic of love to the center of our lives.

-P. 92

This principle expresses the idea that nonviolent resistance movements must project love as their primary motivation. Specifically, the love that King refers to is agape love, which in ancient Greek philosophy is commonly accepted to be the highest form of love because it is self-sacrificing and puts others before the self.  Christians tend to refer to agape love as the love that God has for His people.  If the Occupy movement embodies this love, then it is able to care for all other people both inside and outside the movement in a meaningful and selfless way.

As I demonstrated in the second and third principles, however (refer to Part 1), there are some serious problems with Occupy’s relationship and care for outsiders and opponents, particularly the police. But what became glaringly apparent in my research on this principle was the problematic way in which Occupy treated its own members. It was famously reported by the UK Daily Mail that the main Occupy encampment in Zuccotti Park had become “increasingly debauched” with drug use, sex, and drinking as commonplace occurrences. Other Occupy sites around the country were reported as having similar problems: NPR reported on problems with drugs and the homeless at Occupy LA, a local Fox affiliate in Boston reported on drug problems at their Occupy encampment, and KSL in Salt Lake City reported that drug problems at their Occupy camp resulted in at least one death. Other camps reported comparable problems at an increasing rate.

Public safety was another problem. The situation at the camps increasingly became unsafe for women and men due to increasing rates of molestation and rape. Philadelphia, Cleveland, New York, and several other camps reported rapes. A woman reportedly attempted to pimp a teenager at the Occupy New Hampshire rally, and a 14-year-old girl was reportedly raped at an Occupy camp in Dallas. It became so bad that the Zuccotti Park camp actually erected a rape shelter in order to protect female protesters.

And that doesn’t include any of the hundreds of other crimes that were committed either directly or indirectly as a result of Occupy protests.

Even if you accept the premise that in a protest this large there will be mistakes, a possibility that I took into account when I set the rules for my research, the scale here is still astounding. The protesters attempted to create an open and inclusive community where all of the 99% could take refuge. That’s a noble goal, and if they had succeeded it would have gone a long way toward meeting King’s principle. But they did not succeed, and in actuality their community actually did more harm than good. By failing to set up adequate internal policing and security measures – apart from interventions, denial of communal resources, and other measures that could only really take effect after harm had already been done – the camps became a haven for negative elements who saw the protests as a means for self-gain rather than solidarity. The protesters created an unsafe and unloving environment for everyone, and in doing so allowed themselves to be taken advantage of. I can’t imagine a scenario where King would approve of that.

Result: FAIL

6) Nonviolence is Faithful

A sixth basic fact about nonviolent resistance is that it is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. Consequently, the believer in nonviolence has deep faith in the future. … For he knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship.

-P. 95

Whether you actually believe in God or not, everyone has some basic beliefs about reality – an idea or conception of how the universe works, and how life should progress in reflection of those principles or concepts in which we believe. For King, these universal truths were the binding point that held a nonviolent resistance movement together. A protester should truly believe that his cause is just and that the universe is on his side in the struggle for justice. Otherwise, the whole operation would be an exercise in futility and have no meaning or permanence.

The last thing you could argue about the Occupiers is that they have no conviction of the rightness of their cause. While there have been instances of paid protesters, the core of the movement has appeared to remain consistent and are ideologically loyal. If the speedy growth of the original camps wasn’t enough to convince people of their loyalty to the movement, the protesters’ sheer stubbornness and permanence should do more to convince skeptics. Even half a year later, the May Day protests have attempted to breathe life back into an otherwise faltering movement, and renewed protests have sprung up at sites around the country. Though the movement may have died down for some time, the true Occupy believers have demonstrated their continued faith in the cause.

Result: PASS

So in the final tally, I gave Occupy only two out of King’s six principles.  It is clear that the Occupiers are in fact resisting what they believe to be injustice, and they truly have faith in the rightness of their cause.

The two passing principles, however, largely represent the external descriptors of the movement or those things that can be most easily judged by an uncritical media or by the average bystander.  The internal descriptors that speak more to the protesters’ attitudes, beliefs, and mindset were all failed. The protesters aren’t making an effort to reconcile with their opponents. They aren’t differentiating the “evils” they seek to oppose from the people who happen to be representing them. They aren’t accepting suffering honestly, and they most certainly aren’t embodying love in their protests.

While the wrappings may seem shiny at first glance, what the Occupy package contains is far from the gift one might initially suspect.

So why would I bring this forward now? Because Occupy is not done. The May Day protests are a reminder that the Occupiers will continue to raise their banner for months – throughout the summer, into the fall and up until the election in November. They will be marching through the streets of dozens of American towns and cities. They will be claiming to represent the next wave of peaceful revolution or the  next manifestation of King, and a lot of unwitting bystanders will be sucked in by that message.

To be sure, some Occupy protests have been better than others.  Occupy Atlanta is one that has largely been better, simply because of its direct proximity to King’s legacy.  They even set up camp one night at the King Historic Site in Atlanta.  But proximity alone isn’t enough to establish that firm connection either.  

It is important to think through what it was King actually wanted to accomplish. He wasn’t a pure conservative  or a pure liberal, but was a visionary who wanted to try and impact the world in the way that he believed God led him: to make the world a place where people were judged based on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. His methods weren’t a simple set of rules to implement or exploit, but were instead a set of spiritual guidelines that were meant to revolutionize both the protester and the opponent, all for the goal of making the world more like the Kingdom of God.

If you have friends or neighbors that want to flock to Occupy when it comes to a town near you, ask them to think critically before they make a decision. Occupy may not be all that it’s cracked up to be.

And ultimately, remind them that King was a dreamer, not an Occupier.

David Giffin | Emory University | @D_Giffin

Tweet

This Saturday, I’ll be graduating from Georgetown University. I’m just a few days over twenty-one years old, and I’m graduating a year earlier than expected. I know that I am blessed beyond measure– that my story is not the typical one. But exactly how unlikely is my story? Where I grew up, in Georgia:

57.1% of children go to preschool. 77.8% of teenagers graduate from high school. Of those high school graduates, 65% enroll in college and of those college students, less than 60% graduate within six years.

Being a college graduate puts me in the most fortunate 30% of Georgia students. I could name a long list of people – my family members, my teachers, neighbors, and friends – without whom I wouldn’t be in the position I’m in now. But if I had to pinpoint one thing that put me on this track, it would be my early childhood education. Early childhood education is a good predictor of what the rest of a child’s educational and career path will look like: “the children who received [preschooling] had higher average test scores and were twice as likely to still be in school or to ever have attended a four-year college [than their non-preschooled peers].”

A common saying among educators hits the nail on the head: ‘From K through 3 you learn to read, and from 4 through 12 you read to learn.’ If a child enters the fourth grade not knowing how to read, that inability cuts off that child from learning opportunities for the next eight years (unless he drops out sooner, which is likely). If we want to make the American Dream accessible to all of this country’s children, we must first teach them to read.

Much to the dismay of the left, with their endless list of programs designed with the intention of helping kids, there is just no big government program that gets kids to read. You learned to read because someone stood over your shoulder and helped you pronounce words, syllable by syllable. You were told to “sound it out” until your choppy reading got smoother, and you were made to practice your reading skills until phonetics and vocabulary came easy to you. My mother read me “Big Bird’s Big Book of Red” so many times that she could probably still recite it from memory. Thanks, Mom!

Not all children in this country are as fortunate as I was. Children living below the poverty level are much less likely to be sung to, or to have stories read or told to them. This equates to poor children hearing fewer words on a daily basis than children of middle or upper class families. This means that children living in poverty have less of an opportunity to develop vocabulary and reading skills. This disadvantage will follow them for the rest of their educational career. In fact, children without early childhood education are more likely to grow up into adult criminals.

This is simply unacceptable in a society that says, “All men are created equal.” We need to start living by this belief, and make sure that every child in this country has equal opportunity to learn and grow and succeed. Notice that there is a huge difference between equity of opportunity and equality of outcome. If you’d like to see what equality of outcome looks like, take a look at North Korea – oh wait, you can’t, because the government of the DPRK is too humiliated to show the rest of the world how bad those “equal conditions” really are.

In an ideal world, all kids would have two loving parents in the home to teach them about the basics of the world during their first years of life. These kids would hear language and learn it. But not all American parents are able to be at home with their children, and some parents do not even share a home with their children in the first place. For many, family time is a luxury. No matter who the parents are, the children deserve a fair shot at the American Dream.

So yes, here I am, conservative as can be, arguing in favor of government programs for educating the youngest members of our society. This is an endeavor best taken on at the local level, since every community has different needs that a nationwide program simply cannot account for. Ultimately, I believe that investing in early childhood education will save this country millions: Not only is preschool the most cost-effective way to educate children, but the more people with basic educations there are, the less money we will have to spend on unemployment benefits, welfare, and the penitentiary system.

None of this is new or revolutionary. Since preschool has existed, we have known that its students are more likely to go on to success. Breaking the poverty cycle starts in early childhood. If we really want to invest in America’s future – we will invest in making sure every child has the opportunity to get a quality education from the start. If that education takes place in the home, great! “Family is the most basic unit of government,” as Charles Caleb Colton once said. A parent knows their child better than anyone else on earth. This makes parents the most effective teachers.  I am where I am today because my parents have been engaged in my education since I was a little crying goo ball with a pink bow on my head.  And then, when I was a slightly older crying goo ball, they put me in preschool.  For all the families who don’t have the means to invest in their child’s learning, their children are no less worthy and no less deserving of the best education this country has to offer.  It is for this reason that I support locally-based universal preschool initiatives.

Angela Morabito | Georgetown University | @_AngelaMorabito

Tweet

Our sweet Republic can’t handle much more of this debt bloating socialism and new age progressivism. Four more years of bailouts, stimuli, tax increases, intervention, and war on [insert vague topic] amounts to grim prospects for America. Our country is awesome, but it is not immortal.

President Obama played the perfect political fiddle. He came out and ran rampant for his first two years, and got everyone nice and ticked off. Two years ago, I would’ve said “that guy is toast.” But after the tea boiled over the pot of complacency and he lost his liberal domination of Congress, along with his Keynesian surrogate governors around the country, Barack figured out he was going to have to take it easy for a couple of years. Let the serfs forgive and forget – that whole chestnut.

The sad part is, it worked. People forgot about the disaster that was Barack’s first two years and have instead been taking their frustrations out on the conservative warriors who are fighting back.

Now, in 2012, as we rally around one of the most vanilla candidates we could’ve possibly picked (Santorum and Pawlenty get honorable mentions), I can’t help but taste a loss coming. Is Romney the best alternative? Probably not. Will he be able to politically outshine Obama’s star power? Doubt it. Will that result in a second term for Barack Obama?

I can’t bring myself to think about it.

But hark! For I bring tidings of comfort and mediocre joy to my fellow, less enthusiastic conservatives. We may have a hard time knocking Prince Obama off of his throne, but we can leave his ship of liberal tyranny dead in the water by focusing on and winning the Senate. If we can’t beat Barack, we can neuter him.

There are five seats in the Senate that need our undivided attention.

*Races marked with an asterisk are still currently in primary stages.

No.1: Sherrod Brown vs. Josh Mandel, Ohio.

There are one too many Brown’s in the Senate. Sherrod Brown is a long-time big-spending liberal who, after wrestling a seat away from former Ohio Senator and current Attorney General Mike DeWine in the great shellacking of 2006, has done his fair share of big spending on a national level. Aside from being a porkster, he has been a consistent rank and file foot soldier for Obama’s progressive agenda.

His Republican challenger is Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel. One might ask, how does Josh find the time to do all of this while he is still in high school?…because the guy honestly looks like he is about 16 years old. But don’t let that youthful face fool you, Mandel has served in the Marine Corps and the Ohio House of Representatives before being elected to the position of Treasurer of the State of Ohio. Under Mandel’s watch, spending has been restrained and, as the federal credit rating was downgraded, Ohio’s credit rating saw an upgrade.

A lot of money and political strategy will be thrown into this race. Ohio is the bellwether of bellwether states; each side wants to be able to claim it. We are about to see a battle for the heart and soul of Ohio. I urge you, help Josh oust the Senate’s most liberal member by visiting: http://jobs.joshmandel.com/

No.2: Scott Brown vs. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts.

Elizabeth Warren: she’s sassy, she’s a Massachusetts liberal after Teddy Kennedy’s own heart, she’s a college professor, and she has the cheekbones of a Cherokee, or so she says. Warren is challenging incumbent Senator, Scott Brown, the only Republican in the state of Massachusetts.

This race is really interesting simply because it is somewhat of a social experiment as well as a opportunity for the Dems to pick off a Republican and keep conservatives from gaining a majority.

Whenever the GOP gets a Senate seat in the Northeast (or what I like to call “Baby Russia”), an old saying comes to mind — “Even a blind squirrel will occasionally find a nut.”  It’ll be interesting to see if Brown can protect his seat from Elizabeth “Running Deer” Warren. Time will tell. Stay up to date on Scott’s campaign by visiting: http://www.scottbrown.com/

No.3: Mark Neumann vs. Tommy Thompson, Wisconsin.*

Another Midwestern state looking for a Conservative repeat. In 2010, Ron Johnson knocked off liberal stalwart Sen. Russ Feingold and proved that Tea Party Conservatives can claim ground in Wisconsin. Now, former Rep. Mark Neumann is locked in battle with former wishy-washy moderate Governor Tommy Thompson (the kid from that Tim McGraw song) for the Republican nomination for retiring Democrat Herb Kohl’s Senate seat.

Neumann doesn’t exactly have a campaign winning track record for the past few years, but that hasn’t stopped Tea Party groups, the Club for Growth, and Conservative firebrand Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservative fund from throwing their weight behind Neumann.

On the Democratic side, Rep. Tammy Baldwin looks like a sure bet for the party nod, but as of now, all of their time, money, and effort is going to a floundering recall effort to remove current Governor and Bosley spokesperson, Scott Walker.  With the recall soaking up most of the liberal and union resources, and with Walker’s principles steadily improving Wisconsin’s economy, the GOP could very well take over both Senate seats in Wisconsin. Help the cheese-heads get the job done:  http://neumann2012.com/

No.4: Ted Cruz vs. Time, Texas.*

We’re looking for a few good Conservatives, and not the fence riding kind either. It’s the Kentucky 2010 Senate primary all over again as Ted Cruz and Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst exhibit the ultimate Tea Party vs. Establishment showdown to rival that of now Sen. Rand Paul and Trey Grayson’s battle for the Republican nomination in the Bluegrass state.

Cruz has the support of the unambiguously libertarian duo, Ron and Rand Paul, as well as Sarah Palin’s endorsement and Jim DeMint’s money. Tea Party activists have been rallying around Cruz as attention is growing in Texas ahead of their May 29th primary. I say Cruz’s major opponent is time, because he has all but caught up with Dewhurst and is nipping at his establishment heels. Texas loves liberty and Cruz is definitely a chance to upgrade from the moderation often exhibited by retiring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, whose seat is the one up for grabs.

On the Democratic side, there is just a big “LOL” on the ballot above an attached road map to San Fransisco…seriously, does Texas even have Democrats anymore? It’s pretty much accepted statewide that the race will come down to the Republican primary. Keep your eyes on Texas, the Senate Tea Party Caucus could use another member and Ted Cruz would be a great addition. Check out the Cruz campaign at: www.tedcruz.org

No.5: Jeff Flake vs. Richard Carmona, Arizona.*

Arizona: the home of sweet tea and sour politics. It’ll be a photo finish in Arizona between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. For Republicans, having a strong conservative and household name on the ground and presenting principled conservative ideas will not only help Mitt, but will also be a good way to retain the Senate seat currently held by retiring Republican Senator Jon Kyl.  Tea Party favorite Rep. Jeff Flake has built a good ground game is looking strong in the primary to win the GOP nomination. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona is the only Democrat filed to challenge the GOP for control of the Conservative seat.

Arizona will be ground zero of western battle ground states, so keep Jeff Flake on your radar this fall: http://www.jeffflake.com/

—

These five races were picked based on several different criteria that spread broadly across the GOP spectrum. From establishment to Tea Party, moderate to conservative, from solid red states to bellwether swing states– every seat is important, but these are the races to watch. These states have the opportunity to swing the balance of power in the Senate and neuter the progressive agenda.

2012 is going to be a wild political ride. Hold on to your hats – the show is about to begin!

Tanner Salyers | Pensacola Christian College | @TannerSalyers

Tweet

Conservatives have a history of being inarticulate and impressionable on the subject of same-sex marriage. Either they defend their position with Bible verses, or they give in to the Left and say: “Get the government out of marriage” or “The Constitution protects homosexuals’ right to marry.”

Marriage is civilization’s only suitable institution for raising children. It’s not the government’s rubber-stamped approval of you and your partner’s love. Government and the people have a vested interest in insuring that children are capable of continuing a good society. We shouldn’t, therefore, legalize same-sex marriage, because then we are effectively saying marriage is no longer primarily about procreation, but about coupling.

Consider pro-gay liberal Democrat—I’ll repeat: pro-gay liberal Democrat—and author of The Future of Marriage, David Blankenhorn’s words: “Marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and law.”

Nearly every society before us has recognized this as the role of marriage. This is why, “Sorry, Fred and John, marriage isn’t for you” isn’t that odd of an answer, and doesn’t deserve to be characterized as discriminatory (in the way people discussing these things usually mean it anyways). It would be like crying foul because living people can’t attend their own funerals, or complaining that men can’t enter the ladies room or get Pap smears. What’s in a name? Well, a lot actually.

In the words of Susan Shell (another liberal against same-sex marriage): “Least of all, can gays be guaranteed all of the experiences that stem from the facts of sexual reproduction and its accompanying penumbra of pleasures and cares.”

But back to Blankenhorn—he’s right. We should object to becoming more like the societies that endorse this behavior. There have been studies that show how legalizing same-sex marriage furthers societal ills like illegitimacy, and I don’t think these studies are unfounded, but they’re also not the bombshells many of my fellow conservatives think they are.

Homosexuals—and then homosexuals that want children—are a small minority, and any negative effects their marriages would have on society would be tiny compared to things like divorce and single motherhood. But let’s not give a disease to a dying patient.

By liberalizing divorce laws and expanding the welfare state we’ve already shot American families in the foot. Let’s not erase the fundamental purpose of marriage on top of all that. We, as a people, should have a moral objection (regardless to our religious identity) to further liberalizing any marriage laws—if we truly care about making America economically strong again, we should be trying to do the exact opposite.

There are many objections made to this stance, and you should be able to address them.

You’re denying equal rights: The 14^th Amendment’s equal protection clause doesn’t forbid restricting same-sex marriage because it’s simply a regulation of the institution of marriage. No person (regardless of sexual identity) can marry someone of his or her own sex. Similar restrictions are placed on marrying within one’s family and the amount of people one can marry. There are also restrictions on who can vote and how, as well as on anything else that’s regulated by the state.

But…the separation of church and state!: Even if that meant what you think it does, no one is coercing anyone into any religious beliefs. It’s not religion that’s being legislated, but morality.  Just because it correlates with biblical teaching doesn’t make it unconstitutional (if that’s the case, get ready to throw out laws against murder and theft as 1^st Amendment violations).

Also, since some churches endorse same-sex marriage, then it must be unconstitutional to legalize it, right?

 I was born this way: How did you come to that conclusion? Were your parents homosexuals?  And what if I were born with a natural inclination to verbally assault minorities, would the state have to endorse it?  Civilization is the restraint of destructive behavior and desires.

Being gay is like being black: Not in any conceivable way.  Behavior is always a choice; race is an immutable characteristic of birth. It was Frank Turek who said: “You’ll find many former homosexuals, but you’ll never find a former African-American.”

As for opposing same-sex marriage being like opposing miscegenation: Race is irrelevant to procreation, but gender is essential.

Aside from these objections, there are also some supposedly conservative solutions that are quite bad. The evangelicals automatically spring for amending the Constitution. Remind me how this is conservative again? The Constitution restrains government’s actions, not the people’s. Marriage has always been and should always be a state issue.

Likewise, saying government shouldn’t be involved in marriage is an easy way to answer a question without facing reality. Angela Morabito joked that “your cousin who took that online quiz and is now a ‘universal life minister’” could marry you and your fiancé.

Anyone can marry anyone at any time. I could likely go off and marry multiple women, I could accidentally marry a relative (which has actually happened without proper government oversight), and I could break those marriages whenever I wanted by saying that they were never valid (perhaps I changed religions—I went from a universal humanist to a practicing Catholic, and am now free from those family obligations).

Government uses marriage oversight to decide issues of child support, custody, and adoption. Government tells you when you’re married or divorced rather than your cousin who perhaps didn’t even pass his online exam (backed by whom, by the way?). Marriage is an important factor in these issues as well as deciding who gets Social Security, Medicare, and insurance benefits. It was for these reasons that a very smart woman once said: “A world without government stop signs would be safer than a world without government marriage.”

I’m usually happy with getting government out of the way, but it isn’t always the answer, because believe it or not, it actually has a purpose.

(For more in depth analysis of the issue see Dr. Frank Turek’s Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone; Susan M. Shell’s “The liberal case against gay marriage.”)

Keith Fierro | California State Fullerton | @KJFierro

Tweet

The United States of America was the first nation in history to be founded on the doctrine of natural rights (i.e. those inherent, God-given rights, of life, liberty, and property). In other words, the United States was the first nation in all of human history to have their rights both completely respected by a government, and to have the entire governmental system built around those rights. Sadly, the United States has strayed greatly from this path. In doing so, many areas of liberty have been trampled upon, and have thus hindered and held back America. That is why it is time to set America free.

Economics – Over the past one hundred years, the United States has been economically hindered, perhaps, more than any other area. This is the case because of economics’ central importance in life. Because our society is not composed of hunter-gatherers who produce all goods themselves, it is necessary to engage in the market — that is, if one desires to have a variety of different goods/choices.  Through various means against the free market — including anti-trust laws, tariffs, and heavy regulation and taxation — American industries, individuals, businessmen, and inventors have been held back from most efficiently producing that variety we desire. Thus, the free market must be set completely free —allowing individuals, with luck and skill, to attempt to meet their needs and wants.

Taxes – Closely-tied to economics is the issue of taxation. In examining taxation, I must be completely frank and decry nearly all forms of taxation as robbery — except for those which go to fund the legitimate functions of government, such as the military.  The confiscation of the fruits of our labor has thrown vast amounts of money into the futile labyrinth of government. In doing this, the money has — with some exceptions, in regards to the necessary and Constitutional functions of government — been wasted. Consider both what might have been and what might be if the American people were allowed to keep their earnings and property.

Government Debt – The federal government continually assumes debt that is going to destroy the United States. The Federal government may collapse. Foreign debtors may simply start confiscating American property and working under the guise of “modern” democratic ideas (i.e. that people are representatives of their government). Or, the federal government may begin to pillage and plunder the American people on a mass scale.

The Environment – Environmental regulations abound, with the EPA only growing in its power and vision. All of this is based upon one philosophy — that the actions of man cause changes in climate.  Climate change is a great front to attempt to crush the free market and liberty, which triumphs regardless. Environmental regulations stifle industry and violate one of the most sacred rights — private property rights. A man’s property, as long as he does no harm to others, may be his own private anarchy or organized paradise; no other man may tell him what to do with it. What he does with his trees is not a government agency’s business. Nor should the fraudulent delusions of climate change be forced upon him with coercion. While the current environmental regulations are a great harm to both property rights and industry, the machinations of the environmentalists stand to cause unimaginable damage.

Gun Rights – Allowing Americans the unrestricted right to their arms (which is inherently a natural right, as well) will bring about the effect of lessening crime. By doing this, more Americans will be set free from the fear of crime, and become empowered to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.

The Size of Government and Bureaucracy – The growth of the Federal government over the past one hundred years has been unprecedented in American history. There has been no greater loss of liberty — accompanied by the growth in government — at another time in the history of our nation. While one may not — apart from the previously noted point — not see the growth of the government’s relation to the cry and philosophy of “set America free,” one must look carefully, just as Bastiat’s “unseen.” The unseen in this case is that the growth of government did not come from voluntary gifts, bequeathed to the Federal government by benevolent citizens. Rather, through massive taxation, growth was possible. And, as previously noted, this is money that cannot be put to good use in areas that are not legitmate, governmental functions. Consequently, this growth in government did not bring about greater efficiency and economy. Rather, massive bureaucracies — worthy of Kafka’s nightmares — came about. These not only are backwaters for resources and funding, but a frustration for private citizens. To bring the federal government back to the Founding Fathers’ original, Constitutional size would rid it of this bureaucratic mess and bring about positive effects in the free market.

Election years are always moments when important messages and ideas are conveyed more strongly. This year, we must proclaim to all Americans that it is time to set America free. Though the people of the United States have fared immensely better than those in Communist nations, they still are not allowed to live at their full rights as of late.  What is being suggested is not radical, nor is it unsound. Both philosophically and historically, the doctrines of the Constitution have succeeded more than anyone might have predicted. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, crippled their government for a reason. In this age of insanity, it is time to spread the message throughout all of the United States.

Christian Lopac | Wabash College | @CLopac

Tweet

So I recently saw Titanic for the first time– my mom finally said I was old enough to go see it.

I was blown away by the story, the special effects, and the overall amazing-factor of the movie. The old couple hugging in the bed! The Irish mom tucking her kids in! Jack! After I wiped away my tears at the end of the movie, I left the theatre feeling a bit forlorn about the lack of a Jack Dawson figure in my life. I sighed to myself, wishing that one day I could experience a love like Jack and Rose.

Then I actually thought about it.

Do I really want a love like Jack and Rose? To be honest, Rose was a bit of a floozy.

I know this seems rather harsh, considering that Jack died a frozen death in the North Atlantic after surviving a shipwreck, but hear me out:

a) Rose was only 17 years old.

b) Rose was already engaged to another man.

c) Rose was clearly mentally unstable, considering she nearly flung herself off of the Titanic when it wasn’t sinking, and she threw herself back on when it actually was.

d) Rose and Jack had sex two days after they met each other, after only a post-suicide-attempt conversation, a dinner together, and a romantic nude drawing session.

Two days is definitely not long enough to establish a life-long true love relationship.

Parents: if your 17 or 18 year-old daughter went on a cruise and slept with a random boy two days after she met him, would you be pleased? Rose couldn’t have been sure that his name was actually Jack Dawson; he didn’t exist anywhere else but on the Titanic. He was essentially a vagrant, with no roots anywhere.

The movie’s distortion of what we consider to be “true love” is most troubling. Jack and Rose’s “relationship” is the furthest thing from true love. It was a short burst of passion that peaked with a romantic meeting in an automobile in a cargo hold of a passenger ship.

Sure, it’s tragic that Jack died in the end, but what are the chances that their relationship was actually going to last after the boat docked? Plenty of college students go on spring break cruises, meet someone cute, have sex with said person (most likely not in a cargo hold), and make “plans” to “keep in touch” that usually fall through and they never see the person again. Would you call that relationship true love? Rose’s relationship with Jack was no different, except that it was set to a Celine Dion soundtrack.

Girls my age shouldn’t be wishing for a love relationship like Rose and Jack’s. They deserve better. Although movie theaters pass off these intense, brief, passion-filled romances as “true love,” they’re not. For instance, take this gem of a scene:

Rose: When the ship docks, I’m getting off with you.

Jack: This is crazy.

—

Yeah, that’s what true love looks like right there.

People’s distortion of true love has bad consequences for culture as a whole. What Jack and Rose had was not a real relationship, and we shouldn’t strive for something similar because it’s simply not possible. Movies like Titanic and books like Twilight paint images for women about what “perfect relationships” should be like, and they simply don’t exist in the real world. That passion is not everyday life.

Not to say that true love isn’t real— it most certainly is. It just wasn’t present in this particular case, and we shouldn’t be tricked into thinking this way. There are better relationships to emulate than Jack and Rose, the so-called “greatest love story of our time.”

And there definitely wasn’t room for two on the piece of floating wall. Watch the movie again; it started sinking when Jack climbed on.

Christine Rousselle | Providence College | @CRousselle