Last Tuesday, President Barack Obama — in one of his few acknowledgements that he still has an obligation to obey the Constitution — delivered his 3rd State of the Union address before both houses of Congress. Entitled “An America Built to Last,” the speech (as usual) was touted by the talking heads of MSNBC as a monumental address during desperate times.

In reality, the speech was nothing more than an amalgam of the stump speech he will use against the Republicans in the general election this fall and the usual deception of “hope and change.”

Throughout his entire speech, the president touted his “accomplishments” in alleviating our country’s stubborn unemployment problem and sought to portray himself as a job creator. Such rhetoric is at the least extremely laughable and at worst a conscious lie to the American people. While his claim that “over the past 22 months businesses have created more than three million jobs” is certainly a step in the right direction (especially considering that he has done everything in his power to inhibit job creation) the facts of our economic stagnation clearly illustrate that such progress is woefully inadequate.

Continue reading...

The President’s State of the Union address was a laudable effort to get the country back on track by outlining agreeable and necessary policy proposals for the following year and resetting the agenda and language with which we debate the issues. He reiterated the need to invest in America’s future and stance in the world economy with an economy built to last. But he also emphasized the need to meet this growing strength with growing standards of fairness and equal opportunity — for citizens and residents of the U.S. to be treated by their government and by each other in a manner becoming of the greatest country in the world.

Like most State of the Union addresses, Obama’s speech was peppered with a list of initiatives designed to keep American manufacturing on top. We saved the domestic car industry in 2009, returning General Motors and other companies to the status of most productive and profitable in the world, and saving a million jobs in the process. It’s time to encourage other industries to stay in the U.S. and create jobs by ending tax breaks for outsourced companies while creating tax incentives for bringing factories and job opportunities back to the States. The president also proposed making it easier to export products to countries with trade agreements and announced a new initiative to fight back against unfair Chinese trade practices, using a new federal investigation agency that will present the strongest cases possible to Chinese diplomats and international arbiters. (Incidentally, his remarks about the unfairness of piracy overseas was not a reference to SOPA, which the administration decidedly opposes; it referred to very real and very prevalent industrial espionage of American companies by potentially government-affiliated actors within China.)

Continue reading...

Affirmative action is the misunderstood child of liberal politics in America. The reasons for and details of its implementation are hardly understood by most Americans today. It’s not “reverse racism,” it’s not a form of reparations and it’s not the rubber-stamp, automatic green-light admissions policy that a lot of people make it out to be.

One of the most pervasive myths in the American consciousness today is that of a “colorblind” America. Racism has no longer become socially or morally acceptable to practically anyone in the U.S., but that doesn’t mean the end of racism; it simply means a shift away from overt racism to covert and/or subconscious racism. Institutional racism is a reality — human beings within society’s system maintain their own personal biases and prejudices, making it possible for them to (intentionally or not) deny societal benefits to certain groups. There’s ample historical evidence for this, such as the systematic exclusion of blacks from federal housing programs just a few decades ago. Structural racism is a reality — minorities are very disproportionately likely to be born in areas of endemic poverty with lower quality education (since K-12 education is funded by local property taxes) and lower chances for advancement. Individual racism is still a reality — “racist” as a label is passé, but we’re still allowed to maintain our own prejudices by proclaiming to ourselves and others that we are “definitely not a racist.” MLK Jr. certainly called for a “colorblind” society — but we do not live in one now, and pretending that we do doesn’t make it true.

Continue reading...

“Let us not wallow in the valley of despair my friends. Even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream … I have a dream that my children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

This past week, the entire nation celebrated the life of Martin Luther King Jr., by far the most instrumental man in bringing about legal equality for people of all races (a.k.a. — if your elementary school was anything like mine — the most important man in the world). In his speech on the National Mall he spoke of God, the American Dream and a promised land … where everyone would be colorblind.

Yes, dear reader, you read that correctly. Contrary to what many liberals like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have to say, MLK Jr. envisioned a world where you and I would judge each other on whether we are paragons of virtue or treacherous renegades, hard workers or lazy wastrels, not whether you are white or black, yellow or brown. This makes it even stranger that liberals — particularly most of the Congressional Black Caucus — insist that his mission was to force the government to pit people of different ethnicities against one another through affirmative action.

Continue reading...

It’s that time of year again. Soon after reading this article, you’ll probably be heading home to stuff yourselves with turkey and mashed potatoes. Some of you will go temporarily insane over the 4 a.m. deals on Black Friday. If you live anywhere in a place where there are actually seasons, the fall foliage will be dropping. At some point, either here when you return for finals or at home, you will inevitably wish someone “happy holidays.”

Before you do such an absurd thing as to give someone this meaningless greeting, I beg you actually consider this: What leads you to say “happy holidays” rather than wishing someone a “Merry Christmas”?

The United States, by nature of the first amendment, allows anyone to practice any religion that they want to, and provides that no state religion be formally established. This is one of our most fundamental rights, and it deserves the praise and celebration we give it. However, in our society’s pursuit of “tolerance” and “celebration” of the diverse people that collectively make up our great nation, we have allowed ourselves to succumb to ploys which lead to the exact opposite.

Continue reading...

I get really ticked off when I hear the term “political correctness,” but not for the reason you’d think. Think about how many times you’ve actually heard someone use it in a positive, non-ironic context. Now think about the number of times you’d heard someone say, “I know this isn’t entirely politically correct, but …” before saying something shockingly offensive. (Alexandra “Asians in the Library” Wallace is a prime example.) It’s one of the most pervasive and destructive red herrings and straw man arguments in American history — an engineered political term intended to dismiss and marginalize social justice and equality.

Yes, “political correctness” as a term did originate with positive connotations. It gained some fluency with New Left thinkers in the very early 1970s, but by the end of that decade it was being used by those same writers, feminists and progressives sarcastically to satirize factions of their own movements they found too orthodox and backward-thinking. By the mid-1980s, most users of the term were members of the American right who realized it was the perfect mechanism by which they could derail the argument about social equality and try to create a culture war. They succeeded brilliantly: In 2011, you can boost the perceived legitimacy of any epithet or remark by labeling it “politically incorrect.” Even the brilliant liberal comedian Bill Maher drank the Kool-Aid on that one (although he was using it in a very unconventional, non-offensive sense).

Continue reading...

When Barack Obama was a senator running for presidency in 2008, he promised “hope” and “change” not only for the American people but for the world. Since the day he took office, people polled in foreign lands have registered more support for our president than the American people time and again. His healing, meditative “cool” was inflated to the point where he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his “potential” to bring about world peace. But this last week it became clear — if it wasn’t already obvious from the Arab Spring — that our president has pursued a naïve and dangerous foreign policy, this time with regards to Iran, that threatens the stability of the world.

Despite numerous political claims by many Democrats and Congressman Ron Paul, Iran is not pursuing a nuclear program for “peaceful” purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency report released last week very clearly confirmed the world’s worst fears: Iran’s protestations of innocence are a complete lie, and they are not only developing nuclear weapons test sites and nuclear detonators, but also figuring out how to fit nuclear warheads onto their existing missiles. At best, this development will mean that our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, will be forced to take military action and destroy Iran’s nuclear development site to preserve their security. At worst, Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon will set off an arms race in a region of the world in which everyone is holding a knife to everyone else’s throat. That, in turn, will force Russia to reverse disarmament and compel other regional powers such as China and India to increase their own nuclear armaments.

Continue reading...

It should be pretty clear to most observers by now that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a peaceful nuclear energy program. While they haven’t yet enriched uranium to the very high levels required for weapons use, they’re well beyond any capacity required for a nuclear power plant, and their claimed intention to use medium-enriched uranium for “medical research reactors” is questionable at best. The Iranian government routinely refuses offers to import low-enriched uranium from trusted neighboring countries, and likewise outright rejects subjecting their facilities to regular inspection by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, the intergovernmental organization which monitors many other countries’ nuclear plants). While I can understand the desire for nuclear energy, since this would give them a greater surplus of oil to sell on the international market, I see no reason to believe that’s their true desire — and the IAEA report released earlier this week corroborates this.

Continue reading...

When the United States was first established under the Constitution in 1787, not all men could vote — much less women, who wouldn’t have the uniform right to vote until 1920. Universal suffrage for all citizens is one of the few constitutional changes which can be truly said to draw negligible amounts of controversy — though it is understandable why the Founding Fathers initially restricted who could vote, you’ll likely never meet anyone who thinks we should go back — but with new rules and ideals come all the responsibilities necessary to make them work. The new voter ID laws that have recently been implemented in Wisconsin and Ohio are a good step toward ensuring that the agency of American citizens is not diluted by political crooks and opportunists.

The fact of the matter is that voter fraud happens. Our nation has a long history of voter fraud, the most famous cases being the Democratic machines of Chicago, New York City and Boston. Though fraud is not as widespread and blatant as it was back then, the problem is the same. The more people that vote when they’re not supposed to, the more your vote doesn’t count as much as it’s supposed to. The effects of voter fraud are magnified even more in elections that are closely split, when every vote literally makes a difference. Especially in a constitutional republic like ours, this can result in the winner of an election not being a legitimate representative of your interests and have far reaching policy implications.

Continue reading...

Issues alone do not determine election results; the makeup of the electorate is the most important factor. This is why getting out the vote is so important to any political campaign; voter persuasion is great, but supporter mobilization is more important. Unfortunately, this emphasis on turnout also leads to the temptation of voter suppression: tactics designed to discourage or disenfranchise potential voters for the opposing side. This year, a vast wave of voter suppression techniques have been unleashed on the American public — the new and most pervasive of which are the voter ID laws introduced for consideration in 35 states in 2011. They may seem like common sense at first glance, but they’re not; they’re completely unnecessary and undeniably discriminatory.

Continue reading...

“Vox Populi; Vox Anon; the voice of the people is the voice of anonymous; WE ARE LEGION” — Anonymous, 10/9

In recent weeks, much has been made of the mindless rabbles known as the Occupy Wall Street movement. They have claimed, at different times, that they are “what democracy looks like,” a “liberal Tea Party” and that they speak for the 99 percent of Americans who aren’t “millionaires and billionaires.” In reality, one must stretch the truth for any of these claims to be remotely factual. They are nothing but mindless mobs — and the mob is demonic.

The OWS method has been extolled by several national figures — including dear leader — for being a movement that is properly holding Wall Street accountable for their actions and their greed. In the first place, it ought to be pointed out that Occupy Wall Street is in fact not organized — they pride themselves on not having centralized leadership — and have not yet produced concrete national demands or stated that they intend to be a participant interest group in next year’s elections. If a large group of leaderless protestors without a common goal except to disrupt rich people’s lives as much as possible by occupying their front lawns and harassing them at work don’t qualify as mobs, one must ask what does qualify. Furthermore, this makes them drastically different from the Tea Party, which possessed all three of these qualities before the 2010 Elections and now.

Continue reading...

I’ve been doing a lot of soul-searching lately. Right under my nose, against any expectations I ever had, and apart from any institutions or organizations I’ve been a part of, an inspiring new movement has sprung up and caught the nation’s — nay, the world’s — attention. For over a month now, protesters have been camped out in Zuccotti Park demonstrating against the social and fiscal irresponsibility of many of the world’s corporations and financial institutions. As someone who believes passionately in the importance of economic justice, corporate responsibility and equal opportunity, I can’t help but be swayed by the protesters’ admirable call for a world controlled less by unfathomable wealth and those who attain and concentrate it either by good fortune, inheritance or exploitation. I can’t help but wonder if I’m missing out on the organic, self-sustained people’s movement of our generation.

Continue reading...

Left Said:

Anti-immigrant groups seem to lie in two main camps. The first claims that immigration is an economic concern — U.S. wages are being undercut by illegal and unregulated labor — and that government resources are being drained by millions who do not pay into the system. The second are the “culture warriors.” These are the people who vocally lament the entry of Latin Americans into our country because they fear American culture will be subverted and altered. They’re usually pretty ticked off when they have to press “1” for English.

I can respectfully disagree with the first camp, though I would argue they often spill into the second camp as well. The culture warriors, though, are completely perverted in their priorities and in their understanding of American identity, which was built upon immigration and includes many diverse cultural aspects. If you love America so much, embrace multiculturalism.

Continue reading...

Right Said:

Every American is somewhat familiar with the immigrant experience, most more recently than the Mayflower landing at Plymouth or the Godspeed at Jamestown. My own maternal ancestors came to the United States as recently as 70 years ago, forced to flee — since they were “bourgeoisie” capitalists — from Chairman Mao’s genocidal revolution. Though my own firsthand knowledge of the immigrant experience may only come from my Latino friends back home, I beg you resist labeling me as “racist,” “xenophobic” or “nativist” as I engage in a “heartless” evaluation of immigration policy and reform in the United States.

President Obama and Governor Brown’s position on immigration reform, while well intentioned, is nothing short of misleading, hypocritical and illegal. While there is certainly a “moral” argument to be made in favor of the DREAM Act — after all, why should people who were underage (within reason) be punished for the sins of their parents? — the legal case is absolutely nonexistent. Not only does the DREAM Act violate federal law, it also opens the state to hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits from legal out-of-state students who are now entitled to receive in-state tuition rates. Any reasonable person also cannot help but notice that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party is playing a game of double standards. On the one hand, they claim that Arizona (and every other state that’s passed an AZ-style immigration law) is breaking the law by actually enforcing federal immigration policy, while at the same time pushing for passage of a law that violates another section of those very same policies.

Continue reading...

Left Said:

“Nothing can be said to be certain, except love and war.” — Benjamin Franklin

“All is fair in death and taxes.” — Anonymous proverb

Wait a minute. Something tells me I didn’t quite get that right. Regardless, the permanence of these four institutions as part of the human condition — and the permanence of their unfairness — strikes and moves me. And given that I’m limited to 500 words, I’ll stick to the last one.

“Hold it right there, pilgrim,” you may say. “A liberal complaining about taxes?” Surprising, I know. But in the depths of a vast recession and soaring deficits on both the state and federal levels that threaten both governmental solvency and the social services that all but the most privileged among us depend on, new economic measures are at the forefront of everyone’s mind. Tax reform addresses both the recession and the deficit because it helps account for the social services that are even more necessary when job losses skyrocket, and because it concerns the very revenue required to lower the deficit.

Continue reading...