Page 1




Kurdish Ambassador Visits BU pg. 6 Post Office Cuts Saturday Service pg.8 Homophobic Conservatives pg.9 President Obama’s State of the Union Address pg. 12 Abortion pg. 20 Liberals Love Racism pg. 23

Binghamton Review

P.O. BOX 6000 BINGHAMTON, NY 13902-6000



EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Jacob L. Hayutin Managing Editor Daniel D. Milyavsky Copy Desk Chief Larry P. Gerchikov Layout Editor Dina Truncali Associate Editors Samuel P. Bondy Nicholas Fondacaro Editors Emeriti Aaron Ricks Mark Soriano Contributors Josh May, Roy Kwak, Alyssa Famolari, Amanda Baker, Sean Glendon, Ben Sheridan, Jordan Clifford Patriarchs of the Review Louis W. Leonini Adam Shamah Friends of the Review Dr. Aldo S. Bernardo The Leonini Family Mr. Bob Soltis WA2VCS The Shamah Family The Grynheim Family The Menje Family The Leeds Family The Lombardi Family The Packer Family Mr. Michael O’Connell Binghamton Review is printed by Our Press in Chenango Bridge, NY. We provide the truth; they provide the staples.

From the Editor...


y fellow Binghamtonians – We appear to have fallen on tough times. I haven’t seen the sun in over a month, and I think I’m forgetting what it looks like. I remember that it’s bright, but not much more. I saw a patch of blue about a week ago, and was astounded! Although other areas of the country might have better weather, we’re still in a massive sinkhole politically. Even though the government will continue to spend more next year than it did this year, President Obama is still doing his utmost to frighten you into submission about the devastating cuts that will happen. Correction: the cuts that have happened. That’s right, sequestration has already occurred, and we’re all still breathing. What a shocker. The President’s State of the Union was equally progressive to his Inaugural Address. But this time around he seemed to deliver a complete new list of empty promises and ignore many of the issues he originally campaigned on. I guess now that his first priority, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care

Act, has been upheld there is no need to address the trivial issues that won him the majority of the electorate. Does anyone remember Obama’s campaign promise to fix the economy, slash unemployment and cut the federal deficit in half? I know first hand that you can avoid all math classes by taking the humanities route in college, but the difference between half (a function of division) and double (a function of multiplication) is understood by most as common sense. Even a law professor should understand the objective difference there. We are now well on our way to living in round two of Obamerica, a land of government regulation, ever rising taxes, high unemployment, quantitative easing, historically low interest rates, a devalued treasury, and a central government that borrows more money than is printed. If we continue on this progressive path of federal expansion we will realize that we have been traveling on the Road to Serfdom after most of the damage is done. B

Our Mission Binghamton Review is a non-partisan, student-run periodical of conservative thought at Binghamton University. A true liberal arts education expands a student’s horizons and opens one’s mind to a vast array of divergent perspectives. In that spirit, we seek to promote the free exchange of ideas and offer an alternative viewpoint not normally found on our predominately liberal campus. It is our duty to expose the warped ideology of political correctness that dominates this university. We stand against tyranny in all its forms, both on campus and beyond. We believe in the principles set forth in this country’s Declaration of Independence and seek to preserve the fundamental tenets of Western civilization. Finally, we understand that a moral order is a necessary component of any civilized society. We strive to inform, engage, and perhaps even amuse our readers in carrying out this mission.

Press Watch.........................................................4 By the Editors


What You Missed................................................5 By the Editors Kurdish Ambassador Visits BU...........................6 By Josh May Travis Alexander Murder Trial ............................7 By Roy Kwak Post Office Cuts Saturday Service........................8 By Jacob L. Hayutin Homophobic Conservatives................................9 By Daniel D. Milyavsky Diplomat Alumnus Visits BU..........................10 By Jordan Clifford Mayor Bloomberg and U.S. Debt.....................11 By Alyssa Famolari Obama’s State of the Union...............................12 By Amanda Baker President Paul...................................................14 By Sean Glendon Andrew Breitbart...............................................16 By Nicholas Fondacaro Qatar................................................................18 By Ben Sheridan Abortion...........................................................20 By Josh May Liberals Love Racism.........................................23 By Bill Diatribe


CPampus resswatch by The Editors Pipe Dream “The Impending Threat of Peak Oil” February 26, 2013 The write of this piece tries to warn of a problem known as “Peak Oil.” A peak, liberals first claimed we hit back in the late 1800s. The writer also tries to get people to join her cause by talking down to her readers and insulting them. “In my ideal America, we’d all be tree-hugging, granola-crunchin’ environmentalists living in log cabins powered by solar panels.” In her environmentalist America we would be living in the 1800s just with solar panels. We will all be forced to live

in houses not of our own choosing but those forced upon us. And somehow we will be tree-huggers and at the same time living in log cabins, that promote the inefficient use of wood. “Unfortunately for me and my treehuggin’ compatriots, most people have their heads up their arses… Nothing boils the blood of ignorant Americans like threats to our dominance.”

back in the late 1800s. The writer fails to understand that is that as technology advances we have learned to use resources more efficiently and have found substitutes for others, like copper and fiber optic cable.

As we all know, the best way to get people to join your cause is to insult them and call them ignorant.

In 1882, experts said we had 95 million barrels remaining. In 1919 experts said we only had 20 years of oil left. And 30+ years later they claimed we had 100 billion barrels left. In 1956, scientists predicted peak oil in 14 years, but in 1980 they claimed we had 648 billion barrels in the ground. As you can see estimates are still growing to this day. As of 2008 scientists predict that 1.2 TRILLION barrels of oil are still in the ground. The reason for this is, as the price of oil rises oil companies continue to explore and find new reserves. A little research would have help this writer out a lot.

“Peak oil is the point at which maximum petroleum is extracted and the world sets into decline.” America was first told it hit peak oil

Are you an Independent thinker? Do you like to write? The Binghamton Review is looking for writers! please Direct letters to



“My final words of wisdom: you may be content to sit in a windowless room and play video games for the rest of your life, but if you don’t join the cadre of voices calling for sustainability, the lights might go off. Then you’ll be sitting in a dark room with no Internet connection and no friends. That’ll be awkward.” Why Pipe Dream is accusing the reader of being a hopeless social reject, we have absolutely no idea. B


What You Missed By the Editors Finally, there was a public discussion of Sodexo’s outrageous pricing. The editors of Pipe Dream did something incredibly rare, and actually wrote an intelligent editorial on the subject. However, the discussion seems to have been completely pointless, with the administration firmly on Sodexo’s side. James Van Voorst, the Vice President for Administration, idiotically said that Sodexo didn’t have a “captive audience” and that students can go somewhere else if they don’t like the prices. This is nonsensical on a number of levels. First of all, everyone who lives in a residence hall is required to buy a meal plan. Secondly, many students don’t have cars, and so can’t drive to another place to eat, and are stuck with Sodexo. So yeah, Mr. Van Voorst, I’d say Sodexo’s audience is pretty fucking captive. For some reason, there was no other bidder when Sodexo’s contract was renewed in 2005. Do I smell a whiff of corruption? •

Remember, back then we had a University President who was actively involved with recruiting crack dealers to our basketball team just so we could make Division I (and as a result lose almost every single game we play). • Chuck Hagel and Jack Lew were confirmed as Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Treasury, respectively. I don’t particularly like these people, but I guess Obama did win the election, and is thus entitled to pick his Cabinet. • A freaking meteor exploded in Russia’s airspace, and NASA had no clue about it! The strength of the explosion was several times stronger than an atomic bomb, but luckily it was in the middle of nowhere, and nobody was killed, although over a thousand were injured from the blast. • Mitt Romney recently gave an interview to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, saying that it “kills me not to be in the White House.” Well, Mitt, maybe if you didn’t run

such a shitty campaign, and weren’t so awful at expressing yourself, you could’ve been. But you messed up, and while you retreat to your mansion in California, the rest of America has to suffer four more years of the worst President since Lyndon Johnson. Thanks for trying! • Speaker of the House John Boehner said that the Senate “needs to get off its ass” to pass a bill to replace the sequester. For some reason, the entire mainstream media acted like we were back in the 1950’s and was in shock that a political figure could talk such a way. In response to David Gregory asking Boehner whether it’s appropriate for the Speaker to use such language, Boehner replied, “Listen, I speak English.” • The Pope resigned, for the first time in centuries. Millions of people loved him. Others, like Christopher Hitchens, claimed that he had a history of defending child rapists. I’m neutral. • It’s still damn cold in Binghamton!B


Kurdish Ambassador

Kurdish Ambassador Visits Binghamton Josh May

In keeping with their commitment to representing all sides of the Middle East, the Binghamton chapter of Dorm Room Diplomacy recently hosted Mr. Dasko Shirwani, the Director of Community Affairs for the Kurdistan Regional Government. The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world that still remain statelessand with a population rivalling that of Canada’s, Mr. Shirwani spoke of the pressing need for independence for a people long-suffering. Scattered around the world, the Kurdish people are concentrated mostly in Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq--perhaps the worst four countries in the world after North Korea for a people who desire simply peace and stability--in short, to



be left alone. In Turkey, the country infamous for massacring over a million Armenians, the government has enacted a brutal crackdown over the years on the Kurdish minority. In Iraq, a similar story occurred the barbaric rule of Saddam Hussein, when mustard gas was used to wipe out entire villages of Kurdish men, women and children in the late 1980s. In Syria, the revolution that has engulfed the nation in war while the West sits idly by has not left the Kurds unaffected, and the violence has touched every aspect of life. And finally, in Iran, the Kurds have similarly suffered under the monstrosities of a group of Neanderthals known locally as Mullahs. Put simply, the outlook for the Kurds is dire. This did not deter Mr. Shirwani, however, from remaining

unabashedly proud of the distance his people have come thus far, and of the potential for reaching the goals ahead. He saw great hope first and foremost in his native Iraq- the definition of ethnic fractionalization. While the Shi’a and Sunni blow each other up in their petty sectarian struggles, the Kurds have gradually amassed more and more autonomy in the north. The American liberation of the country and the toppling of Saddam have allowed Iraqi Kurdistan--the most oilrich region anywhere in the world--to assume a degree of independence like never before. The Kurds, Mr. Shirwani maintained, are a distinct and unique entity, with a story and a promise all their own. They deserve to be granted a state long denied, a state as individual and as different from its neighbors as the Kurds themselves are. It is time, he asserted, to rectify the colossal ignorance that created imaginary nations like Iraq and Jordan after World War II. Considering that Mr. Shirwani does not to this day speak any Arabic (and in fact did not even encounter the language until coming to America, of all places) but only his Kurdish, it is easy to see how the Kurds can make the case that they are a people all on their own. In an age when individuality and the right to self-determination of all peoples is supposedly cherished, it is time to stand up as an international community and work together to help our Kurdish brethren, who have suffered for far too long. It’s time for Kurdistan. B FEBRUARY 2013

Travis Alexander

Finding Her Guilty: The Travis Alexander Murder Trial Roy Kwak

On June 4, 2008 in the city of Mesa, Arizona, Travis Alexander was brutally murdered in his home. The murder trial was opened up on January 2, 2013; nearly five years after he was killed. The only and quite obvious suspect is Jodie Arias, an ex-girlfriend of Mr. Alexander and the last one to see him alive. In fact, the defendant has already admitted to shooting her exboyfriend in the face and to killing him in ‘self-defense’. Travis Alexander was found dead in his shower by some of his co-workers. He was shot in the face, sliced in his throat, and stabbed 29 times. Medical examiner Doctor Horn, who performed the autopsy, remarked that the knife wounds on the victim’s hands showed he had put up a fight trying to defend his life. The dear doctor also proclaimed the wound on the victim’s throat went so deep it reached his spine. Somebody was obviously very displeased with Mr. Alexander. Ms. Arias has claimed she remembers shooting her exboyfriend, who was supposedly attacking her, in the face with a pistol that has since gone missing. Interestingly, about a week before the killing occurred in Arizona, a strange burglary took place in the defendant’s grandparents’ home in Yreka, California. A .25-caliber gun was taken from the house; the same caliber gun used to kill Travis Alexander. Is this merely coincidence? I think not. The defendant has admitted to shooting her ex-boyfriend in the

‘Travis Alexander was found dead in his shower by some of his co-workers. He was shot in the face, sliced in his throat, and stabbed 29 times.’ face to dispatch him, but has said she has no recollection of stabbing him or slicing his throat. This is the part of the case and her defense that really sticks out as unbelievable. For one, Doctor Horn (the aforementioned doctor) has said Mr. Alexander was shot after he was actually dead. From that information we can deduce it was either the stab wounds or the giant slit to his throat that killed him. We know from the evidence that Mr. Alexander struggled with his assailant before she got the upper hand and murdered him. We also know from the evidence gathered that Ms. Arias’ DNA was found mixed with the victims DNA in a bloody handprint on the bathroom hallway. The evidence is all there, and it’s quite blatant who the culprit is in this murder case. For a woman trying to avoid a first degree murder charge, Ms. Arias has not done well for herself. She initially

told police she was not in Arizona at the time of the killing, then went on to tell them how she had been with the victim at his home in Arizona when a group of burglars broke in and killed him. Ms. Arias and her defense team seem to be standing behind a new story now. She admitted to killing Mr. Alexander but only as an act of self-defense against the sexually abusive man. Needless to say this is a very interesting case; reminiscent of the infamous Casey Anthony Murder Trial of 2011, though the outcome will most likely not favor the defendant this time around. This is also a case under jurisdiction of the State of Arizona, meaning if Ms. Arias is found guilty she faces the death penalty. The defendant has already admitted to murdering the victim, but stands behind her story that it was an act committed in self-defense. Hopefully this time around the jury won’t mess up and let a killer go as they did with the Casey Anthony murder case. The defendant’s tears may be compelling, but mere emotion is nothing in the face of solid evidence. B



USPS Cuts Saturday Service

‘The USPS is “rooted in a single, great principle: that every person in

the United States -- no matter who, no matter where-- has the right to equal access to secure, efficient and affordable mail service... ’ Jacob L. Hayutin In the first week of this month, the USPS announced its plan to cut Saturday service starting August 1st. How can the government cut something so integral to the functions of our society and so explicitly enumerated in the constitution? Just last year the USPS lost 16 billion dollars. In fact, the Post Office hasn’t turned a profit since 2006. You may be asking yourself, what kind of business runs seven years straight netting negatives in the billions before restructuring? The answer: one run by the government that elegantly totes the line between being a private business and public service. The USPS has been decaying for quite some time; its competitors (UPS, FedEx and DHL) have increasingly taken a greater market share and so too has email. If the market is telling USPS that

it is not worth what it used to be, then why are the big shots in Washington wasting our money to keep this sinking ship afloat? Ideologically, the post office seems to be an integral institution. According to their website the USPS is “rooted in a single, great principle: that every person in the United States — no matter who, no matter where — has the right to equal access to secure, efficient, and affordable mail service. For more than 231 years, the Postal Service has delivered on that promise, transforming itself to better serve its customers.” But now that the Post Office costs the taxpayers billions every year, this mission is more questionable. A brief history of the the Post Office may help clarify its dynamic legal status. On July 26th 1775 during the Second Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin

was appointed as the first Postmaster General. In 1792 the Post Office was established as a cabinet-level functionary until the Postal Reorganization Act of 1971. This Act passed under Nixon, allowed the Post Office to act as corporation-like independent agency with an official monopoly on mail delivery service. This legislation was passed under the pressure of the US Postal Strike from the previous year, when it got so bad that it thwarted stock market transaction volume. As a result, the USPS gained the bargaining power of an organized union. However, many argue that some of the employee protection terms in the Postal Reorganization Act have actually hurt the USPS more than it helped. For example, it takes several months and piles of paperwork to fire an unsatisfactory worker. Since the 1980s, the USPS has not directly received any tax revenues but still offered more costly postal products, such as stamps and boxes. The prices of which have grown disproportionately to similar goods like newspapers. In 2006, when the Post Office reached a record high volume, Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which mandated $5.5 billion be paid into an account to for retiree healthcare seventy-five years into the future and allowed the USPS to work as profit-neutral. Since then, their financial problems have only worsened. As a federally protected agency that is not required to make a profit but is required to set aside billions for a retiree pension fund, it is no surprise that they are having a hard time remaining competitive . B

Homophobic Conservatives

The Republican Party Needs to Rid itself of Homophobic Conservatives Dan Milyavsky

CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) is the biggest event of the year for those on the Right. Anyone who’s anyone in the conservative or libertarian movement is usually invited to speak. This year alone will feature Senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, Representatives Paul Ryan and Allen West, and other famous names on the Right. Even some of those who explicitly refuse to call themselves conservative, such as Students for Liberty president Alexander McCobin, are given a prominent spot at the conference as featured speakers. This is all for the good – the conservative movement should embrace all of those on the Right, not just mainstream Republicans. In 2010 and 2011, CPAC did a good job of this by letting the gay Republican group GOProud co-sponsor the conference in those years. This caused much ire among homophobic and often times religiously motivated social conservatives. The social cons got their way when CPAC refused to let GOProud cosponsor in 2012 and continued their ban in 2013 GOProud calls itself “an organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets,

limited government and a respect for individual rights.” Before he died, Andrew Breitbart sat on its board of directors, and the group was formed when members of the Log Cabin Republicans thought that the group was too liberal. It also endorsed Mitt Romney for President in 2012, despite his opposition to gay marriage. Sounds pretty conservative, no? Well, it’s not good enough for some groups, like the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, and Liberty University, which all withdrew from the conference in 2011 over the decision. GOProud is working to undermine one of our core values,” said Mathew D. Staver, dean of the Liberty University School of Law. Letting gay men and lesbians attend the conference is one thing, he said, “but they shouldn’t be allowed to be co-sponsors.” Well, I suppose it could be worse: he won’t put an outright ban on gay attendees, he’d just stop them from having any sort of leadership positions within the movement. Great. In the 2012 election, Romney and Obama split the straight vote with 49% each, but Obama won the gay vote by about 75%. Gay voters constitute about 5% of the electorate, so they can’t simply be ignored. Rather

than ignoring them, though, some social conservatives go out of their way to insult them, and refuse to share a seat at the table with them. The ostensible reason for this is the issue of gay marriage. Some social cons and members of the Christian Right feel that letting GOProud cosponsor would be an implicit endorsement of gay marriage. GOProud claims to be neutral on gay marriage, favoring letting each state decide. The social cons have a point that GOProud alleged neutrality is probably fake and that GOProud’s members do some behind the scenes lobbying to acclimate Republicans to the idea of gay marriage. But so what? When it comes to the issue of gay marriage, social conservatives have proven themselves to be stubbornly close minded. They managed to put in the GOP platform a support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That’s right, the party that’s always calling for increased autonomy for state governments wants an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to have a onesize fits all definition for this ancient social institution. Fortunately for the Republican Party, this amendment 9

Diplomat Alumnus


it comes to the issue of gay marriage, social conservatives have proven themselves to be stubbornly close minded.’ doesn’t have a chance in hell of passing. I’m personally rather apathetic about gay marriage. My life didn’t change in the least, for either better or worse, when gay marriage was legalized in New York State. I’m sympathetic to arguments that homosexual deserve equality before the law, but I’m also sympathetic to those who argue that marriage is a time-tested social institution that can’t just be arbitrarily changed by a legislature, and that gay and straight marriage are just completely different things. Fine. But at least you can understand why liberals are passionate about this issue – to them, the rights of a minority are being trampled upon, which is a true call to action. But why are conservatives so batshit in their opposition to gay marriage, when it can’t possibly actually harm them and certainly won’t do anything to hurt the institution of heterosexual marriage? I can’t help but feel that the reason for this is anti-gay bigotry on the part of social conservatives. The Bible has some nasty things to say about homosexuals (although it has 10


some nasty things to say about rich people, too, in the New Testament, and you’ll never see CPAC banning wealthy people from speaking or cosponsoring), and social conservatives read their Bible. So although many won’t explicitly say so, the real reason they won’t let GOProud into the fold is because they view homosexuality as disgusting and atrocious. We need to get past this. We’re in the 21st century. The time for simplistic homophobia is long past. Looking at the featured speakers on CPAC’s website, it seems that conservatives have successfully rid themselves of racism, and if anything go out of their way to reach out to people of color who believe in small government. Here’s to hoping that one day this will be the attitude conservatives have towards homosexuals as well. B

and Migration; UN Deputy Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery; and Senior Director and Special Assistant to the President for Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs. In 2011, he was named Dean of the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Policy at the University of Minnesota. The speaking engagement is cosponsored by Dorm Room Diplomacy, the Binghamton University Alumni Association and the Department of Political Science. Come and join us for an extensive talk on Human Rights issues in the contemporary world, followed by a reception. Come engage an active member in the public service sector, and see what insight and knowledge he can employ to develop the thoughts of the audience. This will be one of Binghamton DRD’s largest semester events and we look forward to seeing you there!

BU’s Diplomat Alumnus Eric Schwartz Scheduled to Speak

Monday March 18th 7-8:30pm Eric Schwartz will be speaking in the Anderson Center Chamber Hall. He earned his bachelor’s degree in political science from Binghamton University in 1979. During his illustrious 25-year career in public service, his positions have included U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees

For more information about this event, contact Ben Sheridan, president of Binghamton’s Dorm Binghamton University is proudatto hos Room Diplomacy chapter, B and former White House and United N

Anderson Center on Monday, March 18

2013 to tak world politics, andFEBRUARY will be happy

The event is free and open to the publi

Mayor Bloomberg

Mayor Bloomberg and the United States’ Debt

As of March 2, 2013, the federal government will face a multitude of spending cuts unless Congress and the White House agree to a different method of deficit cutting. As opposed to focusing on the deadline at hand, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is concentrating on the fact that unless the “sequestration” lasts for a substantial amount of time, it will not affect New York City at all. “It depends on how long,” Bloomberg commented on his weekly radio show. “If it lasts a few weeks, no. If it does, yeah. We get 10 or 12 percent of our budget from the federal government, not all of that is going to be cut back, but there would be effects–not good effects. But in the context of, ‘Is anything going to change tomorrow? Are we going to run out of money tomorrow?’ No.” Everyone is well aware of Mayor Bloomberg’s intellectual insight on all situations, so it is no surprise that he graced this topic with a scholarly argument. “We are spending money we don’t have,” Mr. Bloomberg clarified. “It’s not like your household. In your household, people are saying, ‘Oh, you can’t spend money you don’t have.’ That is true for your household because nobody is going to lend you an infinite amount of money. When it comes to the United States federal government, people do seem willing to lend us an infinite amount of money.… Our debt is so big and so many people own it that it is preposterous to think that they would stop selling

Alyssa Famolari

us more. It is the old story: If you owe the bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a problem and that is a problem for the lenders. They can’t stop lending us more money.” When Mr. Gambling, Bloomberg’s former radio show co-host, suggested cutting “waste” could solve a significant portion of the deficit, Mr. Bloomberg flat-out disagreed. “Listen, I’ve worked now in government for 11 years,” he said. “One of the problems is the definition of ‘waste.’ You think the programs that I want are waste and I think the problems that you want are waste. It’s not like somebody is taking wheelbarrows full of dollar bills and throwing them out the window. It’s a question of definition, what is ‘waste’ and what is not.” It is not as if banning all soft drinks above 16 ounces is a waste. Mr. Bloomberg, if the federal

government has the capabilities of borrowing a countless amount of money, why are citizens still paying taxes? No one has to pay taxes. The government can just borrow it from the endless cash flow. Let us just run this country on unlimited borrowing and debt. In addition, what makes you so sure that these countries will continue to lend the United States money when our country is in extreme debt? Just because something is done numerous amounts of times, it does not mean it will happen in the future. What happens when the lenders slightly increase the interest rate? The budget will crumble. However, since the lovely mayor believes in fairytales and unicorns, an immense amount of debt certainly will not cause the country to default. Mayor Bloomberg, thank you for this enlightenment. I have a question for you. Can I borrow $50 million? B 11

State of the Union

President Obama’s State of the Union vs. Inaugural Address Amanda Baker Our forty-fourth president, Barack H. Obama was sworn into office on January 20, 2013. On Monday, January 21, he gave his inaugural address in front of thousands. The President was met with an uproar of people chanting his name. The question is truly, was it worth the cheers and love? Will this term be like the others, filled with empty promises? His inaugural address revolved around the concept of “We The People” and the rights we have as citizens and those that

‘Barack H. Obama is our President now, like he has been for the last four years. Not much has changed; do you honestly believe much will change now? ’ 12


should not be infringed upon. In this speech, he made clear that everyone, from the countryside to the hillside, from the sunny shores of Florida to the cold winters of Maine, deserves equality. Equal opportunities, he believes, should be given to everyone, from the poorest girl born into poverty to the child who is born to wealth. He wants to spread equal opportunity to all so they can live out their dreams as they seem fit. But before any of this is possible, he claims two things need to be changed: the health care system and the economy. In his speech he does not go into detail about how he intends to change either of them. In his State of the Union speech, given on January, 12, he spoke for almost an hour explaining his goals for the next term and what needs to be done to improve our current economy and system. Many of these “plans” were his plans for his last term; however not much came to pass. He says that throughout the past four years, the economy improved, six million jobs were created, the stock market is rebounding and the housing market is beginning to thrive once more. “We have

cleared away the rubble of destruction,” says Mr. Obama. He continues by saying that, although this process has begun, it is nowhere near complete. We still have a myriad of changes to make, starting with bringing the soldiers home and creating more jobs in America rather than offshore. He also wants to increase wages because they have not increased in ten years. We need to give people drive; this is only accomplished with a better economy. In 2011, we had many problems passing a bill that both parties finally agreed on. These problems would cause a plethora of issues which include: damaged quality of military, education, energy, medical research, and the job market, as a whole. With the baby boomers reaching retirement age, we need to make many changes that would allow the children of today to have the same benefits that they have. He says that we cannot ask those struggling to pay for it but rather the wealthy... yet, the taxes of the middle class will be increased as of March. The struggling class will still be paying for these changes which Mr. President FEBRUARY 2013

State of the Union

said we would not. He said that changes needed to be made not based on how many tests one receives, but on the quality of the treatment they receive. Pharmacy bills need to be cut down. Barack Obama also wants to get rid of guns because of the most recent tragedies. He neglects to admit, though, that all of the killing that has occurred since Sandy Hook was done by illegally acquired guns. He wants to take away our second amendment rights from those

who follow the law just because there are others who do not want to go through the legal process. This right should not be infringed upon, because we need to defend ourselves against those who do not abide by laws set by the Constitution. Barack H. Obama is our President now, like he has been for the last four years. Not much has changed; do you honestly believe much will change now? After all, in his last term he kept promising jobs, jobs and more jobs, yet the unemployment rate is still high.

Six million jobs barely begin to alleviate the pain our country is currently going through. It just brushes the fine line of the word improvement. If he could not finish all he promised in his last term, why should we believe he will do so this time around? We have been promised more production in America, a better economy, education system and medical care. Let’s see what the next four years has to bring. B


Rand Paul

President Paul? Sean Glendon

Dr. Paul may be president in 2016. At a minimum, he should be one of the most influential and recognizable faces of the Republican Party by then. Don’t get too excited, though, Paulites, because the Dr. Paul I am talking about is not obstetriciangynecologist-turned-congressman Ron Paul, but his son Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist-turnedsenator. At age 78, Ron Paul will certainly not walk quietly into the sunset, but it’s likely his time as an elected official has come to an end. As Ron Paul tries to spread Libertarian ideology through a

‘For Republicans to reclaim the White House in 2016, Rand Paul has said they “are going to have to have somebody a little bit different than we’ve had in the past’ 14


college campus tour and other activist methods, his son looks to the future in hopes of achieving something that his father never could: success within the Republican Party Ron Paul has been viewed as a fringe candidate throughout most of his career and although he has been well respected by his congressional peers, constituents and many Americans throughout the nation, widespread success outside of his Texan districts never seemed possible for him. And despite the fact that his following became quite large nationally, it was still only a large minority. This is where Rand Paul comes in. Rand Paul and his father share similar viewpoints on a majority of issues, but take different approaches to achieve their goals. While Ron Paul refused to play politics with the Republican Party, Rand Paul has no problem playing hardball with the GOP establishment. Ron Paul refused to compromise his morals and ideology in the 2012 race, and refused to endorse Mitt Romney. Rand Paul decided to endorse Mitt Romney after the nomination was secured and was given a speaking slot at the Republican National Convention in return. The endorsement was insincere, and his speech minimized mention of Romney while bashing Obama and Obamacare and praising capitalism, liberty and limited government. Some hardcore Ron

Paul supporters refuse to support Rand Paul because he voted in favor of sanctioning Iran, something his father never would do (although a viewpoint favored by many Americans) and does not take as strong of a stance as his father on some issues, but I would assume that the majority of Paul supporters would be universal Paul supporters in most scenarios. In the past few months, Senator Rand Paul has been all over the news. He recently became a member of the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations and traveled to Israel to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other foreign leaders. While in Israel, he spoke about gradually reducing foreign aid (Israel has received 115 billion dollars from the U.S. since World War II) to other nations, beginning with nations we do not have strong allied relations with. After controversy surrounding Section 1021 of the NDAA 2012, Rand Paul vocally supported the Feinstein-Lee Amendment to the NDAA 2013, which would reaffirm the 5th Amendment for American citizens. Rand Paul also voted down the Fiscal Cliff Bill and told reporters that the bill was introduced three minutes before the vote took place. On top of this, he attacked Republican House leadership for removing lawmakers from committees because they stood FEBRUARY 2013

Rand Paul

up for conservative principles. If he continues to make news at this rate, Senator Rand Paul will have no problem being a household name by the time the midterm elections roll around and will be well prepared for a presidential bid. For Republicans to reclaim the White House in 2016, Rand Paul has said they “are going to have to have somebody a little bit different than we’ve had in the past … someone who can appeal to people in New England and

on the West Coast. Someone who has a little more of a LibertarianRepublican approach, I think, would have a better chance.” Mr. Paul is talking about himself here; he feels that he could appeal to moderates and independents, and most importantly, the young folks whose hearts were captured by his father. Expect Rand Paul to become one of the biggest leaders in the Republican Party as the Liberty Movement gains more traction within the party. Although some critics are labeling Rand Paul as a sellout, it’s far too

early to make that assumption. His goal is to make Libertarian ideology more mainstream, and he is willing to sacrifice a few unpopular ideas so others will be accepted. Unlike his father, he is willing to compromise, and this is why he will be successful. This compromise will allow him to infiltrate the Republican Party and change it from the inside, which was ultimately his father’s goal. If the Republican Party is Troy, think of Rand Paul as the Trojan horse. B



In Memoriam of Andrew Breitbart

‘Andrew Breitbart was a man of great courage. He loved to fight with his political opposition and always met them on their own turf’ Nicholas Fondacaro A little past midnight on Thursday March 1st, an idol to me and many others, Andrew Breitbart, passed away. He was walking home with his fatherin-law when he collapsed. Paramedics were called but could not revive him. He had a history of heart problems. Breitbart was 43; he is survived by his wife and four children. Andrew Breitbart was a man of great courage. He loved to fight with his political opposition and always met them on their own turf. He was known for re-tweeting all of the hateful tweets that were sent to him. His professed goal was the destruction of the institutional left by reporting on the stories the media would not, and in most cases cover up. He is known for releasing the photos that led to Rep. Anthony Weiner’s resignation. He also helped release the damaging video taken by James O’Keefe

that led to the fall of ACORN. His latest accomplishment occurred a few weeks before his death. At CPAC he had a confrontation with Occupy CPAC that led to the media reporting on the numerous rapes that occurred at occupy camps. He staged the confrontation because left wing media outlets were ignoring the rapes and the occupy cover up of them. The favorite target for his attacks was the left wing media complex. He was tired of how the left controlled the media, the narrative and the imagery. He saw how the media was set up to protect and promote Democrats. He saw how the media vilified the Tea Party yet praised the riots of Occupy. When the left was calling the Tea Party racist he stepped up to protect them. He would go around with his famous rollerblades and video take the real violence and Astroturf rallies of the left. When the left accused the Tea Party of spitting

on black members of congress he proved the accusations false and a sham. He called the media out on their hypocrisy and their one sided attacks. His efforts helped the Tea Party get a breath. His book Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World is a great motivational source for myself and many other conservatives. In it he talks about how the early internet was a place for conservatives while the mainstream media was and still is for the left. In the early internet Matt Drudge was the number one source for conservative news; that’s where Breitbart first made his stand on the internet. His influence grew and he helped pioneer the new media on the internet. He created numerous websites for conservatives like BigGovernment. com,, and Through these websites he was able to call out the left media, liberal progressives, and


occupy defenders. As a result of his efforts against the left he became the largest target for their hate and vitriol. Because of his courage and his strength in facing the hatred from the people who want to “Stop the Hate,” he gave the rest of us the courage and strength to do the same. He gave me the courage to walk up to the people that call myself and people like me ‘racist,’ ‘uneducated,’ ‘insane,’ ‘hick,’ ‘evil’ and say “FUCK YOU!” Andrew Breitbart may no longer be with us but the effect he had will stay and grow. Conservatives will no longer sit by and be the target of left wing media attacks. We will no longer curtail our beliefs to fit the left’s view of the world. We

will be calling the left out like never before. We will be pulling them into the light to show who they really are to the public. You call us racist for wanting all people to be equal in the eyes of the law. You call us antiimmigrant for wanting to secure our borders. You call us war mongers for wanting to have a military that could actually defend us. You call us heartless for wanting to cut the size of government. You call us anti-intellectual for not wanting our kids to be taught to worship the government. You call us evil for wanting to make sure the future is bright for our children. You call us backwards for believing in Nature’s God, who gave us our unalienable rights. We will not take it any longer.

We will shed the lies placed on us. We will no longer let the left wing media define who we are. The effect of Andrew Breitbart’s life will forever be felt in the conservative movement. In the coming months a documentary made by Breitbart unmasking the true Occupy, will be released. Another film titled “Hating Breitbart” will be released this spring, showing all of the hate and vitriol Andrew Breitbart took from the left. He gave our movement a chance and he gave our movement new life. We will carry on, push forward, and push back. His fight will continue on. We will pick up his flag and go to war. B




‘The tiny oil-rich kingdom of Qatar will continue

to be the largest threat to Iran’s foreign policy by manipulating oil prices, building credibility with Iran’s traditional non-state allies, and aiding rebel movements in conflict-ridden countries.’ Ben Sheridan When Iranians head to the election booths on June 14th, 2013, the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will not be on the ballot. After eight years on the job, President Ahmadinejad’s two-term limit is set to expire; he will leave behind an Iran that has grown in its regional influence through state terrorism, but which is also hindered by economic malaise. The next President’s agenda will be packed from the moment he takes office. He will be responsible for the development and safeguarding of Iran’s ominous nuclear program, and also maintaining its presence in Syria, responding to a growing Sunni Muslim coalition, and regaining lost influence over Hamas and Hezbollah. Although Iran’s economy has



been battered by international sanctions, the next President’s success will ultimately been measured by their ability to remain the West’s predominant rival in global affairs. If there was any doubt over the legitimacy of the next Iranian election, comments made by Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei should cast aside all skepticism. Khamenei recently advised his people simply accept the results to preserve the country’s unity, despite the claims of fraud from the West. In the aftermath of the 2009 vote, brief protests took place, becoming known as the Green Revolution in the Western media. The leader of that movement, Mir-Hussein Mussavi, spent a few months under house arrest after trying to incite demonstrations in Tehran

during the Arab Spring. The tension in Tehran is palpable ahead of the upcoming vote, and a safe bet is that Iran’s brutal Police-110 will be called into action to break up any protests. The five candidates up for election now are: former Minister of Housing and Urban Development Mohammad Saeedikia, a religious fundamentalist; Manouchehr Mottaki, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, also a conservative; political analyst, Hooshang Amirahmadi, a reformist candidate seeking better relations with the West; former Parliament member Mostafa Kavakebian, the founder of the Democracy Party; and Mohammed Bokiri Kherrozi, the secretary general of Hezbollah of Iran. More candidates will likely



join the fray in the upcoming weeks, but it is essentially preordained that Ayatollah Khomeini will seek a President who will build upon Iran’s increased presence throughout the Middle East. It is entirely too optimistic to believe that Iran’s next President will produce a more friendly relationship with the West or Israel. However, further assessment of regional politics show that Israel and the United States may no longer pose the largest threat to Iran’s rise. The tiny oil-rich kingdom of Qatar will continue to be the largest threat to Iran’s foreign policy by manipulating oil prices, building credibility with Iran’s traditional non-state allies, and aiding rebel movements in conflict-ridden countries. Since offering direct military assistance and their special forces to the National Transitional Council in the Libyan revolution against Ghaddafi loyalists, Qatar has only increased its role in Middle Eastern diplomatic affairs. In the past twelve months both the Taliban and Hamas have opened offices in Doha. Qatar’s emir, Sheik Hamas bin Khalifa al-Thani, pledged $400 million in economic aid to Gaza, and became the first head of state to visit the territory since Hamas took control of it in 2007. Qatar also aligned itself with Turkey as the leading predominantly Muslim nations to recognize

the Syrian National Council as the legitimate opposition movement to Bashar al-Assad. The SNC has since found safe harbor in Doha (Qatar’s capital) and has been the beneficiary of funding and supplies from Qatar’s government. By taking a defiant stand opposite the Iran, Qatar has claimed its stake as the counteracting force in the umma to state terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. Perhaps, when it is no longer politically advantageous to ride the Iranian bandwagon Hezbollah will also flee al-Assad’s side with the hope that they are well received in Doha. With no Hamas, no al-Assad and no Hezbollah, the next President of Iran will face a much more challenging ascent than his predecessor. A country with less total area than Puerto Rico, Qatar’s growth has been fueled by its abundance of natural resources and amicable relationship with the West. Sixty percent of Qatar’s GDP is made from oil revenues (mainly sold to Japan) and the country’s population of less than two million people enjoy a high quality of life. The petite state sits on some of the largest oil fields in the world, and it attracts many foreign investors. At one point, Qatar even tried to sell oil to Israel. Qatar is also home to the US Central Command Forward Operating Center; it plays an integral role in a larger coalition

defense apparatus in the Persian Gulf. This force also includes the US Navy Fifth Fleet in neighboring Bahrain. Ultimately, Qatar’s strength lies is its evenhanded approach to international affairs. Such balance appeals to the markedly less assertive American foreign policy under the “Obama Doctrine,” as well as the unpredictable politicking of non-state actors such as the Taliban and Hamas. If Qatar can retain its credibility with non-state elements in the Middle East, and also preserve the trust of the United States government, Qatar will surface as the greatest threat to Iran in the Muslim world. With good diplomacy, immense wealth and a comparably liberal society Qatar’s ceiling is not yet in sight. B




‘A fetus is very clearly not a part of a mother’s

body: even if you believe that this is only one human being, fetus and mother combined, I still assume that you believe that this individual has two distinct sets of DNA, two heads, two hearts, four arms, and four legs. What individual do you know with such traits? ’ Josh May Abortion is murder. This fundamental, absolute truth is unassailable and incontrovertible. It is no more open to debate than the heliocentric model of the solar system or the existence of the moon. The issue can and has been proven from scientific, philosophical and religious standpoints, the highlights of which will be explored in this article. Let us begin by examining the claim that a fetus is a component of the mother’s body, a faulty belief that gives rise to the equally faulty claim that, as the pro-abortionists say, “it’s my body and therefore my



choice.” The right of each person to sovereignty over their own body is indeed an admirable bedrock principle in an enlightened society--and is, in fact, one of the key reasons I oppose abortion. A fetus is very clearly not a part of a mother’s body: even if you believe that this is only one human being, fetus and mother combined, I still assume that you believe that this individual has two distinct sets of DNA, two heads, two hearts, four arms, and four legs. What individual do you know with such traits? The DNA alone is enough, by any scientist’s definition, to qualify an entity as independent. Think also of the bacteria in your body at this very moment; no one

seriously considers them to be parts of the human. Rather, they are considered entirely separate organisms. If bacteria are granted this distinction, why are humans not? Some claim to agree with pro-lifers on this issue, saying that they only support abortion up to a certain (arbitrary) point in the pregnancy. But a fetus does not magically become a human being at a certain stage of development any more than a daffodil magically becomes a daffodil at any point. In both cases, a specific set of genetic instructions are present in the DNA from the very moment of conception--the instant during



which unique DNA and therefore a unique individual is formed. No other point in development makes any logical sense for declaring personhood but this, the moment of DNA specificity. Those who support only first-trimester abortions, for example, have absolutely no basis for their beliefs--what distinguishes the fetus that is 2 months and 29 days old from the fetus that is 3 months old? If a single bacterium was discovered on Mars, it would be heralded as one of the greatest discoveries in all of scientific history--not because it might become a lifeform, but because it is a lifeform. So now that we have firmly established that a human being is in fact a distinct human being, and that this individuality is conferred at

the moment of conception, all that remains is to decide what the rights of this individual are. There is no reason not to confer all the benefits of any other citizen upon the citizen in the womb. Enshrined in the Declaration of Independence is the foundational principle that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Complementing this is the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Therefore, a denial of life to a human being in any stage of life is unlawful and unjust. This is the usual segment

‘If a single bacterium was discovered on Mars, it would be heralded as one of the greatest discoveries in all of scientific history-not because it might become a life-form, but because it is a lifeform. ’ of the argument where proabortionists argue that there are “exceptions,” as though this is a magical legal word that can change incontrovertible facts of morality and scientific truth. The most common “exceptions” revolve around rape/incest and disability in the fetus. Both shall be examined herein. In the case of mental or



physical handicap in the fetus: the argument usually asserts that such a person would not have a worthwhile life and therefore it is a crime to allow them to be born. What a terrible assumption! Such overwhelming arrogance to decide for a person even before they speak their first words that they are unworthy of them! How dare we play God and determine who lives and dies in such a manner? Are we to become Sparta, where “weak� babies are left on a mountainside to die for their alleged crimes against society? To kill a fetus on this basis is an incredible insult to those humans with disability who have gone on to achieve seemingly impossible odds. Should we have



aborted Lou Gehrig because he would develop his disease? Should we have aborted Isaac Newton, Ludwig von Beethoven or Charles Dickens because they were afflicted with mental disability? The rape argument is just as ludicrous. Rape is indeed a terrible crime, one that should be punished to the full legal extent. But where one crime has occurred, why commit another? We have already established that a fetus is a human being, so why add murder to rape? One life has been terribly violated, the very least that can be done is to allow a new life to continue its existence. No one is demanding that the mother keep the child after birth;

adoption is, as they say, the loving option. There is never an excuse for an abortion, at any time or for any reason. If life is sacred, then it is always sacred. If murder is wrong, then it is always wrong. If a fetus is a human being, than it is a human being under all circumstances. These are not gray issues, and they are not open to debate. If we cannot even agree that all men are equal and that killing them is wrong, then how far have we really come in all these years of human evolution? Can we really call ourselves civilized society while these atrocities continue? B


Liberals Love Racism

Liberals Love Racism ‘They want us to look at the black student who had a 2400 SAT, a 4.0 GPA, and numerous prestigious mathematics awards and say, “He was only accepted into Harvard because he was black ’ Bill Diatribe Liberals love racism. They love, love, love racism. They just can’t get enough of it. Liberals’ unquenchable love for racist social policy in the modern world is epitomized by affirmative action. When they force academic institutions and employers to provide a handicap for specific groups, they want to show us that these people—based solely on their innate biological traits—need to be isolated from the whole and given a boost so that they can pretend to be as capable as others. They want us to look at the black student who had a 2400 SAT, a 4.0 GPA, and numerous prestigious mathematics awards and say, “He was only accepted into Harvard because he was black.” They want us to look at the Hispanic woman with an excellent résumé and academic history and say, “She only got a good-paying job because she is Hispanic.” Liberals love stripping people of their real merits. They love dehumanizing people and judging them based on traits they have no control over. Again, they love racism. And I mustn’t forget to

mention that liberals love racist economic policies. They love minimum wage. Minimum wage makes sure that urban youths are unable to find jobs and, hence, unable to climb onto even the first rung of the social ladder. Many employers are unable to hire unskilled workers, because their labor is often worth less than minimum wage that the liberals so forcefully uphold. This keeps the progress of poverty-stricken communities that are predominantly black or Hispanic at a standstill. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman called the minimum wage law “the most anti-negro law on the books.” Liberals love this policy, which keeps lowincome minorities at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. They love when minorities are left unemployed. After all, they love racism. Liberals may use innocentsounding, emotionally-driven terminology, such as “affirmative action,” “minimum wage,” and “welfare,” but the fact still remains: these policies uphold an outdated history of racial

labeling and discrimination. They are the remnants of our country’s past that haunt us—sad reminders of Jim Crowe laws, the arrest of Rosa Parks, and the beating of Rodney King. As a country, we have emotionally and morally progressed past those sad, twisted times of racial discrimination—so it is time for all of our legal policies to finally reflect that. It’s time to end the stereotype of the “racist white conservative.” It is the liberals who love racism—and we ought to despise them for it. B





February/March 2013 Issue  

Outrageous Sodexo prices, Homophobic Conservatives, Sequestration, and more!

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you