Looking Back at the Election

Needless to say, I was severely disappointed in the results of last week's election. Initially rejecting Romney as a mainstream Republican, I grew very fond of him, and knew he would make a great president. He had the governing experience as a Republican in a state left of Lenin, and could get the politicians in Washington, D.C. to work for the people yet again. However, my fantasy did not play out. The American people (by a frightening margin), voted Obama back into office. Such a result is patently reflective of the entitlement nature of our country. With more Americans than ever on handouts, and fewer Americans with skin in the game, I see how the candidate proposing austerity would lose. Once people start getting their treats, they're not going to want them taken away, as we will see even more now that Obamacare will come into full effect. While many in the GOP are calling on us to capitulate to a new electorate, we must hold strong to our conservative values. Conservatism is still wildly popular; evident in the majority of states holding Republican governors. And, as it clashes with the election, many people still favor less government; according to polling. We cannot abandon our principles of economic freedom, a powerful defense, and strong family values because of one election, or we truly will see the end of conservatism as we know it.

The Senate results leave yet another bitter taste in my mouth. We had a chance here, and thanks to the selfish egos of a few, lost it. Murdock and Akin had easy races, with Akin facing one of the most vulnerable Democrat candidates in the country. The two Republicans decided to get philosophical on the issue of rape, and put the nails in their coffins--similarly to Goldwater's approach to the CRA of 1964. Rather than saying "ban abortion except in the cases of rape and incest," the two candidates took on a stance popular with only a few percent of Americans--trying to defend a radical position with more philosophy than medicine. Yes, I am vehemently pro-life, and I want abortion to become a thing of the past. The ghastly procedure is said to be backed by a constitutional right. However, in my mind, crushing an unborn baby's skull and dismembering the child, is not in the Constitution I know and love. In order to effectively reduce abortion, we need a national standard declaring exceptions for rape and incest. Then, simply return to the tenth amendment. Allow states to ban abortion to varying degrees, but not crossing the threshold set by the Congress. You'll then have liberal states allowing abortion up to term, while the nice, conservative states, will ban it early on, or all together--but with the exceptions. Such a method will allow citizens to create the society that best fits the maximum number of people. Why force California's values upon Texas or Mississippi? That was the purpose of the tenth amendment, and of states' rights as a whole.

A similar approach is needed for gay marriage. Since nowhere in the Constitution lies a clause on marriage, allow states to regulate marriage. Allow some states to ban it, while allowing others to recognize it. There is plenty of evidence, and testimony from homosexuals, that the gay lifestyle is a choice, and declaring gay rights tantamount to the civil rights movement for Blacks is offensive. Even if there is biology involved, there are a lot more genes making a person white or black than there are genes making a person gay or straight. Allow states to regulate gay parenthood as well; just as they play a role in straight parenthood. There are massive amounts of evidence showing how non-traditional households have negative effects on children, and to say that this is a non-issue is to ignore the better for the country's children. Again, states reflect the interests of the most number of people.

As we move forward to 2014, 2016, and beyond, let us remember the importance of conservative government, and the importance that states play in the success of our union. I hope and pray the elected officials in Washington start working for the people who elected them, and for their own ideology.

My We the People Experience: The Importance of Liberty

I wrote this essay for my college application process...it had some politics in it, so I figured I'd post it here...enjoy!!

Presenting before a panel of three complete strangers, all constitutional scholars, is certainly no walk in the park.  We had been preparing for this day for months.  We were finally in Washington, DC, participating in the national competition for We the People; an organization designed to familiarize students with the teachings of the United States Constitution, and its message of liberty.  Participating in this activity not only helped me become more cognizant of US legal history, it also taught me how to work effectively in a group, and was key in establishing my set of values and goals.

             

Leading up to the competition in Washington, my four teammates and myself had quite a bit of work to do.  Besides preparing speeches, researching court cases, and developing arguments, we had to learn how to work as a group.  Most of us were strangers.  The ideological spectrum in my group was very wide as well.  Between intense arguments ranging from citizenship to abortion, we managed to accomplish our goals.  Additionally, with the assistance of University of Iowa law students and We the People alumni, we were able to peacefully overcome our differences.  In Washington, nervously sitting in front of the judges, prepared for our six minutes of unscripted cross-examination, we knew each other well enough to provide succinct, thought out responses—albeit with a few disagreements along the way.

           

Researching the history of the founding period had the greatest impact on my sets of values and goals.  Participating in We the People required us to not simply read the founding documents, but to understand the arguments behind Hamilton and Madison’s Federalist Papers, Jefferson’s Declaration, and the Constitution.  Delving into Supreme Court history, and spending a gratuitous amount of time on news sites, has given me the background to make more informed decisions based upon the Constitution—and not just on partisan talking points.  The class taught me that rights of the accused are just as important as the right to free speech and press, and that states’ rights are fundamental to the success of the Union.  Walking into that class, I was looking at medical programs at colleges and universities.  Walking out of that class, I am looking at law programs.  The class taught me to be appreciative of our rights and freedoms, and to never take them for granted.  As an adult, I hope to be able to defend those rights for other citizens.

My Thoughts on the GOP Debate

So I was going to write an article on Federalism, but I'll put that off for later...I thought I'd put my thoughts out there on how each candidate did tonight...

Santorum: Made me sleepy.  He has quite a bit of gall to call himself a Conservative.  He supports national marriage standards, abortion standards, and is an all around social statist.  I'm opposed to both aforementioned issues, but the states know those issues best.

Cain: I love his business experience, but the pundits didn't spend much time on him, unfortunately.  He needs to be more specific, though.

Paul: You know my thoughts on the libertarian doctrine...I felt his non-interventionist position was a nice contrast, but when Iran came up, I stopped listening.  To suggest that the nation is not a threat is ignorant.  I really liked his closing statement, though...a nice summary.

Romney: I've never been a Romney supporter, I feel that allowing Romney-Care is a sign of failed leadership.  His response to h/care was the best it could be, but the fact he even signed it shows he isn't a great Conservative.  His jobs message was good, though.  His business experience is quite appealing.

Bachmann: A standout at the last debate, she didn't shine quite as much tonight.  I like her 10th Amendment driven statements.  The press doesn't like her, and it's obvious.  Why bring up her marriage or migraines? They purposefully got her and Pawlenty into an argument--to get the party off the message of "defeat Obama." She crushed Pawlenty, though.

Pawlenty: I fell asleep when he talked.  He has no right to call out Bachmann--she is a much stronger leader.  He's mad because he's losing, and he's going to be out after the Straw Poll on Saturday.

Huntsman: He was not impressive. Had no specifics, and I'm not sure of his political ideology.  He'll be out soon.

Gingrich: I loved his response to the gotcha questions.  He is a walking, talking file of facts which is really impressive, and key in a debate.  He's been in politics too long.  His personal debt is a mild concern, as is his repeat marrying. I like him, though.


Overall loser: Huntsman
Strongest Conservative: Bachmann--of course
Strongest Specifics: Gingrich--no question
My take: I'm glad Rick Perry's in.