In the year 1787, James Madison said,

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

On June 6, 2013, the Guardian officially interviewed Edward Snowden, an employee at Booz Allen Hamilton working as a private contractor for the Central Intelligence Agency. By June 9, the Guardian released the interview to the public causing ground-shaking reverberations from the media and public. These revelations have caused outcry against the National Security Agency, the Obama Administration, the C.I.A., and even Snowden himself. However, what is the truth? What crimes have been committed and who is at fault? While the controversy is still fresh and ambiguous, there are truths which can already be detailed. The Director of National Intelligence has lied before congress, Edward Snowden has broken the law, and a plethora of citizens are now literate to a concealed truth.

James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, stated before an open congressional hearing, on March 12, that the NSA “does not wittingly” collect data on millions of Americans. Taking into account the recent leaks by Edward Snowden we now know that James Clapper was lying before a congressional hearing. There were two statements Clapper made that incriminate him of perjury. Firstly, Senator Wyden, in the hearing, asked Clapper if the NSA collects, “any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.” Clapper responded by saying, “not wittingly.” What exactly does not wittingly mean? According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, wittingly means; knowledge or awareness of something. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witting) How could the NSA accidently collect data on millions of Americans? To begin with, that’s not even physically possible, also we now know that they were deliberately collecting information through the PRISM mandate on Verizon. Secondly, he actually admitted to lying in the hearing. Clapper goes on to justify his answer by stating, “that’s the least untruthful answer.” Alright, what does that mean too? Just like all government administrators, he’s trying to dodge the question, but pins himself into a corner. By saying least untruthful, he’s admitting that there is a factor falsehood to his statement. The maximum punishment for federal perjury is five years in jail.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRhjgynfhag) (Insert Youtube video into article)

While many praise Edward Snowden for exposing the truth behind the curtain of the NSA, many emphasize that he has broken the law by leaking classified information. U.S. Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 37 Section 798 specifically states, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798)

            “ Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

            (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States…

            Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

While some may say that Snowden’s actions were well intentioned and ultimately exposed credible governmental corruption, he is in violation of U.S. Code. This is important to remember while furthering discussion on the matter. It is key to discuss the leaks of Snowden while not justifying his actions. Whether or not the information he leaked should have been classified to begin with is besides the point; the fact is, he leaked it.

Finally, ignoring the lies produced by NSA officials along with the DNI and ignoring Snowden’s illegal leak, millions of people are upset. According to a national Gallup Poll published on June 12, 2013, 53% of Americans disapprove of the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government-surveillance-programs.aspx) However, the disruption over the controversy has spread beyond the United States. On Friday June 14, the European Union plans to meet in Dublin, Ireland to discuss the issue of the United States spy programs. EU Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, is demanding “swift and concrete” answers from Attorney General Holder about the controversy stating, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/prism-europe_n_3427186.html)

            “Programmes such as PRISM and the laws on the basis of which such programmes are authorised could have grave adverse consequences for the fundamental rights of EU citizens,”

On a conclusive note, the National Security Agency’s intrusive programs under the ascendancy of PRISM have and will continue to agitate rebuke from both domestic and international communities. While the controversy is doubtlessly complicated and callow, these facts can easily be recognized. James Clapper has lied, Edward Snowden is in the wrong, and everyone demands answers. The tenable James Madison grasped best the ease with which tyranny creeps into governance;

“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” 

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

The last month has shown that, if nothing else, our government is far too big to keep in check. When our founders framed our country, it was set up so that the Federal Government was intentionally kept small and decisions were made on the local level so that we could hold our elected officials accountable. Now, the case is quite different as we have a government bureaucracy placed in every aspect of our lives. The Internal Revenue Service has shown itself to be especially unaccountable for as it not only has targeted many conservative/libertarian and religious groups, but also taxing to death nearly every American and preventing true economic growth through the broken tax code it enforces.

In 1913, with the passing of the 16^th Amendment, the US Government was now legally allowed to collect an income tax on the American people. President Woodrow Wilson was one of the biggest voices in getting the amendment passed, he needed the income tax amendment so that he could successful begin to “redistribute wealth”, however; he promised it would only be 1% on just the top 1%. By the end of his presidency, the top tax rate was over 70% and as his IRS collected more and more of the tax payer’s dollar the nation spiraled into a short-lived depression which ended only because he left office and Harding and Coolidge began to free up the market and drastically cut taxes.

By the 30’s, FDR not only saw the power of the IRS as a tax collection agency, but also as his own personal attack dog. During his years in office, FDR faced much opposition from many people who saw Roosevelt as taking dictatorial powers. Roosevelt knew that this would be troublesome during his many election seasons, so he would use his IRS to target and audit many of his political enemies. On the other side though, Roosevelt would have many political allies, such as then congressman Lyndon Johnson, who truly did get backed up on their taxes and who really deserved to be audited, yet because of the political power they contained and how much Roosevelt needed them to win in his elections, as the IRS came knocking at their door, Roosevelt told the IRS to back off in order to ensure his victories come election season.  FDR saw the power in government bureaucracies like the IRS and didn’t hesitate to use them.

The IRS has shown itself over and over again to at the very least be a drag on the economy through heavy tax burdens. At most, it has proven itself to be a corrupt, faceless government bureaucracy that is used to satisfy one’s political needs. The resent actions by the IRS, from targeting Tea Party and 9/12 groups during an election season for extra scrutiny to ensure that their political cause is damaged in the process, to demanding the content of a group’s prayer and targeting many religious organizations like the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the Samaritan’s Purse, the IRS has well overstepped its bounds and it is time to abolish it and replace it with a truly “fair” tax code like the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax to ensure that this can never happen again. Senator Ted Cruz is currently the leading voice in the Senate to make an effort to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, but it will not be enough if the American people don’t stand up behind him and say we have had enough. It’s time we abolish the IRS!

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

 What if the presidency was the major driver of policy in this country, our founding fathers would not be pleased. We live in a country where all three branches of government participate equally and that is more specifically called checks and balances. Many have compared this scenario to an imperial presidency and over the years it has become increasingly common. Dating back to as far as Teddy Roosevelt and now presently with Barack Obama critics have argued the dislike of imperial presidencies. Generally, when a president is faced with divided government he tends to become more of a driver when it comes to policy. It is important to realize that Congress should be the primary driver of policy in this country because an imperial presidency provokes the wrong kind of division.

When a president has to declare war he needs approval from the U.S. Senate to grant his declaration. This is a different scenario when he wants introduce domestic policy. For example, when President Obama called on a democratic majority in the house to take action on an 825 billion dollar stimulus that, was a prime example of driving national policy. That stimulus was approved in the house without one republican vote. President Obama resulted in trying to take matters in his own hands by lobbying than moderate GOP Maine Senator Olympia Snowe so they could try to get the stimulus passed in the senate. On NPR Senator Snowe stated “it would of helped if the president had widened his outreach with republicans.” Snowe went on to say that all the White House really cared about was meeting the 60-vote brink required for passage of the stimulus in the senate. It passed the 60- vote requirement with the help of two other moderate republicans and the compromise of lowering the package by 38 billion dollars. The Democrat in charge of rounding up the votes was Obama’s best bud Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. Durbin said on NPR “most Republicans had no interest in helping the bill move forward.” He believes republicans didn’t help because they wanted the president to fail; this is coming from one of the most partisan democrats in the senate. Senator John McCain was invited over to the White House with other Senate members to debate immigration but never was contacted again after that meeting. In the beginning of his first term President Obama demanded that Guantanamo detention center be closed and that the terrorists would be in U.S prisons. This example set many republicans off but also some in Obama own party. Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats showed their disagreement with president by taking out the money that was suppose to be used to shutdown GITMO. Harry Reid united both democrats and republicans when he stated, “ The United States Senate, the Democrats and Republicans, do not want terrorists to be released in the United States. That’s very clear.” Republicans would win the majority in the house after President Obama demanded congress create legislation giving healthcare to every American. By that time Congress was so divided not one republican voted for the bill. This would lead the president to wage a war against the republicans in congress and try to use it as an advantage. As Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma put it “President Obama has decided running against Congress beats running on his record.”  It is one thing to be an imperial president, it is even worse when you are a partisan one.

In June 2012 President Obama made an appeal to congress to try to revive the job market, coincidently it was right before the 2012 presidential election. Speaker of the House John Boehner released a statement after Obama’s campaign speech saying “The House has passed more than 30 jobs bills to expand energy production and approve popular projects like Keystone XL, eliminate excessive federal red tape, repeal laws like Obama- care that are making it harder for small business to hire new workers, and more.” The president asked Congress to pass his Veterans Jobs Corps, which tries to help returning vets get jobs. It was highly unlikely since it was an election year for anything to get done in Congress. There is nothing wrong with President Obama’s Veterans Job Corps initiative the problem is he is trying to use it for political purposes right before an election when he clearly knows nothing will get done.

When you are a president who likes to drive national policy it is important that you are a good politician. For example Lyndon Johnson was referred to as a great politician because he had a wealth of experience in politics, the Civil Rights Act had his fingerprints all over it. President Obama is one of our least experienced presidents so I would not call him a masterful politician he is more of face man. Most recently when our leaders were trying to avert going over the fiscal cliff an important point was made. Two long time politicians Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden took matters into their own hands by some closed room deal making. The bottom line was the more McConnell and Biden talked the more headway was made in the fiscal cliff negotiations. They compromised on moving 250,000-dollar tax rate to 450,000 for top earners. In politics nothing is perfect and it showed when the both men delayed the budget cut discussions to two months later which is going on has we speak. This example shows the little influence Obama had and success was made. It wasn’t perfect but they did what they had to do for now.

The ability of the president to drive national policy has increased over time and congress should be the primary driver. President Obama shows us he is one of those imperial presidents who treat congress like his maid. He blames congress when it is convenient so he can shy away from his own abysmal record. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves at the sight of President Obama and other presidents who were imperial presidents. As it says in the book The Logic of American Politics about the Presidency “the framers, in their deep-seated ambivalence toward an independent executive, mandated that presidents be leaders yet gave them the tools to be clerks.” It is important to realize that Congress should be the primary driver of policy in this country because an imperial presidency provokes the wrong kind of division.

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

                The United States Federal Government has an addiction to spending right now, and there are very few signs that this addiction will be broken.  For the 2013 fiscal year, the Federal Government received over $2.9 trillion in revenue and spent over $3.8 trillion, leading to a deficit well over $600 billion dollars. In order to make up for the money spent that we don’t have, the U.S. sells off treasury securities to its people and to foreign countries like China and Japan. This borrowing of money leads us into debt, which is to be paid off over time with budget surpluses. Since the budget rarely creates a surplus, the debt is passed on to the next generation and continues to grow. Eventually, the debt will accumulate interest. High interest rates would mean that taxes would have to be raised substantially because a high interest rate on the debt could lead us into inflation. Inflation would raise prices and kill the value of the U.S. dollar. In order to avoid an economic crisis, this nation needs to encourage fiscal responsibility. Now more than ever, this nation needs a balanced budget. To reach a balance between expenditures and revenues, Washington doesn’t need to raise taxes, harming the hard working American citizen. This government needs to make serious across the board spending cuts, whether it be mandatory spending or not. If spending is cut taxes will be cut as well, which is necessary for job creation.

To begin, the U.S. could make cuts in its discretionary spending which is determined by Congressional appropriations. About $750 billion goes to the Defense Department which makes up half of discretionary spending. Our military will not be weakened if we cut defense spending. It is still possible to make cuts without making our military less powerful. As Senator Rand Paul once suggested, the Defense Department should be audited. The department’s budget is approaching $800 billion and we don’t know just how large our Defense Department is. It continues to build up inventory, technology, and foreign bases and the taxpayer continues to pay for it. In 2003, the U.S. entered war in Iraq in order to change their government, although Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. Over the last ten years, it has ended up hurting tax paying Americans and was one of the reasons our economy went into a recession. Staying out of Iraq could have saved the United States a few trillion dollars. What can be learned from the Iraq War is that if the U.S. stays out of foreign conflicts that do not pose a threat to our country, we can end up saving money for ourselves. If the Defense Department cut down on its expanding technology, expanding nuclear weapons program, increased the age required to receive retirement benefits, and cut down on the amount of its civilian workers, its budget would not be approaching $1 trillion.

The other half of discretionary spending also needs to see some cuts. The State Department receives about $60 billion every year, but this number could easily be cut in half. This country gives hundreds of millions of dollars to countries like Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan with the hopes that they will prevent terrorism. But these are countries we just can’t trust. Most of the governments in the Middle East are too unstable and resentful of the U.S. In the past our nation has become involved in foreign conflicts that do not affect us and this has caused people in the Middle East region to grow resentful toward us. It makes no sense to give these countries as much money as we do. The countries that we give most of our aid too have trouble figuring out their own problems, so they aren’t going to be as helpful to our interests. This is why our founders warned of developing entangling alliances. Instead of developing multiple intelligence agencies, our country should begin to develop within our own borders instead of continuing to snoop around in other nations as excessively as we do. It is important to have useful data and intelligence of other countries, but the money our country spends on it is something we just can’t afford.

The Federal Government also has departments that are inefficient or useless. It really makes no sense to use taxpayer dollars to fund a governmental agency that is designed to help our small business owners. If I were a small business owner, I would be insulted by the Small Business Administration. The typical business owner is smart enough to know how to handle their own finances and does not need help from the government. If they really do need help or knowledge, they should get help from mentors or finance experts.  Another inefficient department is the Department of Education. Eliminating this department does not mean our children go uneducated, it means that our education system becomes more efficient. It would make more sense to put education policy at the state level. Each district across the nation is unique and each has its own needs. Making national educational requirements may be fitting to one district but it may be difficult to another. State governments can better observe their own districts and adjust to their own needs. Also impractical is the Department of Energy. Our nuclear weapons program should be left to our military. Also, this country should be energy independent. This nation has more natural resources than any country in the Middle East, so we should use them. Before we try to obtain our oil from algae, we should open up lands for drilling right here in our own country.

The biggest burden to our budget is our mandatory spending which makes up over $2 trillion of the budget. This includes Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid. If this spending is not addressed and reformed, it could create a big problem. Social Security is estimated to go bankrupt not too long from now because of the many people born in the baby boomer generation. While Social Security is helpful to some, it is not needed by all. To make sure that this entitlement is available for those who truly need it, Social Security should be a means tested program. Wealthier individuals who retire should not have access to Social Security payments because there is no need for them to have it. This will allow for availability of the payments for those who truly need it. Medicare and Medicaid are entitlement programs that will also need to be cut from and reformed so they don’t go bankrupt. Welfare also needs reform. This country should encourage individuals to find work and leave the welfare system behind. One out of every three people living off the government is just too high of a rate. Tens of billions of dollars should not be spent on the food stamps program. The government should encourage individuals to provide for themselves and to become a productive member of society, instead of spending tens of billions of dollars on a program that will only harm our nation’s economy.

This government clearly has a spending addiction that needs to be seriously addressed.  Too many Americans live off of other Americans, when those Americans could be providing for themselves. Encouraging personal responsibility and independence will not make anyone suffer; it will only help our economy. We as a people need to stop this big government from growing any further. It needs to stop sucking up our tax dollars on inefficient programs putting us into massive deficits. America’s economy truly has great potential but only if Americans demand better of it.

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

I am currently a senior at the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA). As I reflect back upon the past two years at my school, I realize how invaluable the experience has become. Never before have I been placed in an environment with peers who are equally as intelligent as I am, and share similar ambitions. More importantly I never once imagined of being so prepared in the growing fields of mathematics and science.

IMSA is a public boarding school that specializes in extensive math and science academic opportunities for its students. Founded in 1985 by Nobel Prize winner Leon Lederman, the Academy instructs its students through the use of a unique inquiry-based method, in which the students direct their own learning and seek answers to questions in a student-driven learning environment, as opposed to a teacher-driven one.

However, IMSA is not the only school of its kind in our nation. Various science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) schools have sprouted up throughout the United States, in states such as North Carolina (The North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics), Oklahoma (Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics), and Texas (John Jay Science and Engineering Academy), largely as a result of America’s falling behind in its previous academic standards in mathematics and science. As former presidential candidate Newt Gingrich noted in an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), “if America is going to remain competitive with China and India in the 21st century, then we must commit to improving education, especially in math and science” [1].

So is funding STEM education really worth it?

In order to examine the ramifications of funding of STEM education, we must defer to the economic implications of such an investment. Our nation blossoms not because we offer more of the same types of employment, but because our corporations shape their job prospects around the new demands of the more STEM-extensive skill set in employees. According to the United States Department of Labor, “the STEM workforce [currently] accounts for more than fifty percent of the nation’s sustained economic growth” [2]. In addition, 61 percent of opinion leaders and 40 percent of the general public identify STEM skills as some of the most crucial components in America’s strategy to compete in the globalized economy [3].

Not only does funding of STEM education prepare the next generation of American citizens for the demands of a changing market, but also the payback of such an investment is monumental for the federal government – one that is currently over 16.8 billion dollars in debt [4]. Many Americans today cringe upon hearing of another seemingly absurd idea of “spending more to save more,” but even large-scale corporations, such as AT&T acknowledge that “[they] understand that the payback is long-term, … but [STEM education] ultimately delivers more workers [to] the STEM workplace” [5].

Ultimately, the decision to further fund the efforts of providing a STEM education to the rising generation of future employees is largely a bi-partisan one. It comes down to not whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. Instead, it boils down to whether or not you support preparing the next generation of Americans to succeed in the changing demands of the globalized job market.

Sources:

[1] American Association for the Advancement of Science,  http://elections.aaas.org/2012/comparisons/gingrich.shtml

[2] United States Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, http://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/pdf/STEM_Report_4%2007.pdf

[3] Zinth, Kyle. 2006. Recent State STEM Initiatives. Denver: Education Commission of the States.

[4] United States Debt Clock, http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[5] AT&T, http://www.att.com/Common/about_us/files/pdf/120827_stem.pdf.

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

As my bio says, I am from New Jersey. New Jersey has a reputation for having a “dirty”, “union-corrupted” state government. While many believe this is still a fair characterization of the state assembly, Chris Christie has single-handedly done a phenomenal job of cleaning this up at the executive level.  While cleaning- up the government Christie has attained a 69% approval rating, and according to the Huffington Post, 72% of registered New Jersey voters approved of the job he did in the Sandy recovery. In a liberal state such as New Jersey a Republican governor having a dramatically high approval rating speaks for itself. Last but certainly not least, after the recent death of Frank Lautenberg Chris Christie has chosen to give his fellow people of New Jersey an immediate voice rather than allowing party elites to dictate who the new senator will be.

I believe the lesson is clear — Chris Christie chooses what is best for his people rather than what blind partisans believe to be correct,. Chris Christie leads with fresh ideas and strong actions.  Not only is this a refreshing change but also it is the basis for hope of the GOP returning to the Oval Office.

It has been a widely held belief that managing the fiscal crisis will determine the effectiveness of the next president.  When looking at Christie’s record as governor of New Jersey the best gage of predicting how he will handle our national debt or fiscal crisis is his willingness to make cuts where it hurts. Unlike most politicians Christie is willing to make cuts that jeopardize his numbers in polls. According to nj.com, in the year 2012 Christie made a record number of spending cuts, while at the same time being able to maintain a fully functioning government and education system. By having a backbone Christie has not only managed to successfully alleviate the state’s fiscal crisis, but he has also managed to gain the respect of his fellow citizens of New Jersey across the political spectrum. Through his actions Christie has shown both sincerity and competency, which comes few and far between in this modern era of mud slinging politics.

Many of you probably remember and are still angry that about two weeks prior to the election Chris Christie walking arm-in-arm and praising Obama for his efforts in helping the people of New Jersey after “Sandy”..  What one must understand, and this is a bit clearer to those of us impacted by “Sandy”, is that the actions of Governor Christie rose from crisis management and getting his job done and not politics.  It is entirely inconsistent with Governor Christies record that he would have put politics ahead of alleviating the burden on the people of his state at such a critical juncture.  The fact of the matter is Christie knew that with a crisis of this proportion getting the job done was more important than politics.  Contrary to what a few radical conspiracy theorists may believe Christie did not praise Obama in an effort to sabotage Romney, he praised Obama because he felt it was the right thing to do. And given how much faster New Jersey’s shore was put on the track to recovery than New York one must conclude that Christie chose the appropriate course of action for the people of his home state. For a high profile public figure such as Christie to risk his image within his own party to get done what needed to be done deserves nothing but praise.  How an individual acts in crisis determines the kind of man he truly is, based on his efforts during hurricane Sandy, Christie is a man of conviction who does what he thinks is right regardless of the potential political repercussions.

In selecting a candidate, one needs to be more critical than to simply vote for the politician who appears to fall in-line with the party’s leadership. The key to being an effective leader and the right person to hold an office as highly regarded as Presidency of the United States is to not be afraid to “go against the sheep”. What I mean by this is the President should not be an individual, who blindly follows others, because that is a follower, the President needs to be a leader. Not only is Chris Christie a leader, he is a man of deep convictions, who has the potential to be a great president in the image of Ronald Reagan.

Twitter- @2theRightofLeft

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Unfortunately, Keynesianism has a big influence on the United States’ economy. There are several dangerous fallacies that Keynesianism entails that we need to continue to disprove until they are no longer accepted. Very few people in the United States even know what Keynesianism is. It is a flawed and dangerous philosophy that needs to go. It is the cause of many of our economic problems. One particular fallacy that is associated with Keynesianism is The Broken Window Fallacy. To put it simply, it tries to explain that destruction of property will boost production because things need to be replaced. This has already been refuted by Austrian economists, however many mainstream economists still believe that this is actually true. Destruction of property cannot and will never bring prosperity. It merely diverts where production goes. It diverts capital that would’ve been used in more necessary sectors of the economy. If we apply this to an even larger scale, it also implies that war is beneficial to a country because it wreaks havoc on cities and brings destruction. Contrary to popular belief, war has never brought prosperity to a nation. Now, instead of making consumer goods that people would have bought if war never came, they need to get new houses. Therefore, things like ovens, televisions, and electronics will not be made because the economy needs houses. In World War II, we may have seen numbers that suggest our economy was booming, but this is false. Just because the GDP is high doesn’t necessarily mean that the people of a country or their standard of living is high. During WWII, the government mass produced military equipment which led to a boost in GDP. However, no American consumer is going to purchase a bomber plane.  We have even seen this in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Stalin’s five year plan may have industrialized the USSR but does that even matter if the consumer can’t buy bread at the local market?  To sum up, just because production is high doesn’t mean that the people of a country or the economy is well off. Sure, the amount of tanks put into production may have increased dramatically but the people of a country cannot do anything with that. In order to clearly see if an economy is well and booming, you cannot neglect to look at the other results of a cause. Every aspect and impact must be analyzed and taken into account. Otherwise, things like the broken window fallacy will continue to remain.

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

I know that a lot of you are sick of talking about gun control.

However, there is one particular sub-topic following from the debate that I believe deserves more attention.  The narrative of women* as a group and our access to concealed-carry is too often overlooked or under-theorized.

Specifically, I think it is problematic that women in most states do not have adequate access to handguns for protection, self-defense or even simply for peace of mind for safety purposes.  The most common counter-argument I hear in response is the fact that simply arming women with guns does not significantly affect their statistical chances of escaping violent criminals unharmed and they are almost just as likely to be overpowered by their offenders.  Furthermore, guns can actually be turned and used against their owners who are “likely to be overpowered” regardless.

Whenever women who are victims of violent rapes or other violent crimes testify in favor of access to guns, public officials often recap such unfavorable statistics. And most of the time, the conversation ends there.

However, I don’t think I’m just speaking for myself when I say that as a woman, I would like to be considered as more than part of a mere statistic.  I’d like to be able to make my own decisions, and especially with respect to decisions about how to best protect my person.  Even though women are “statistically” physically vulnerable, I still want for myself, and for other women, the opportunity (no matter how small that hope is) to beat the odds and successfully defend ourselves in such unfortunate circumstances.

After all, if women are going to be “overpowered” regardless, why not arm them the best we can? Why not start women off with as many (reasonable) options as possible and let us decide for ourselves whether concealed-carry is necessary or worth whatever benefits and risks they may come with?

I trust that given the option to have guns, at least some number of violent crimes against women that would have been committed would be deterred or successfully neutralized.

Violence against women, and specifically sexual violence, is a crucial stem and linchpin of sex inequality in this country and throughout the world.  And if allowing women easier access to concealed carry has even a chance of decreasing that statistic, then perhaps those who consider themselves in favor of sex equality should give it some more thought.

*Note: Just to clarify, when I say “women,” I mean those individuals with adequate mental and physical capacity and stability, not “all” who qualify as the biological sex.

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

Hello readers. Look at your phone, now at your computer screen, now back at your phone, now back at your screen. Fortunately, the computer isn’t your phone, but it could be if the government infiltrated it. In fact, who’s to say they haven’t? Look down, back up, where are you? You’re in the future America where the government has access to everything and I mean EVERYTHING you lay your hands on. Freedom becomes a thing of the past (like your deodorant when you switch to Old Spice). However, given the direction in which we are currently headed, that future America is not-so-slowly, but surely evolving into our present.

With news of the recent NSA scandal sobering up the people of our nation, or at least the Obama Kool-Aid addicts at The New York Times, those who walked around with blinders are beginning to see what is going on. Better late than never, ay? In this case, it did not matter that Conservative and religious groups were being oppressed or that American’s in Benghazi were murdered because our government is incompetent, it was not until circumstances began effecting them that concern began to take over.

When did people become so self-involved?

Our founding fathers fought for freedom at a time when cell phones did not exist and progressive creations like the IRS were not in place to limit free speech. Liberty was the ultimate dream for matters that extended beyond their own self interest, instead, their focus was on the idea of a better nation for future generations. John Adams wrote in Thoughts on Government:

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.

Our founding fathers were not concerned about themselves, however today, the majority are. There is no consideration of what the future might look like if they cannot see themselves in it. This is exemplified in the reaction people have now that they know that the government is tracking them versus when they heard that American’s died in Benghazi or conservative and religious groups were being attacked by the IRS. Those are non-issues in their minds. People have been dragged into this culture where freedom does not matter if it does not directly effect them, but what they fail to realize that “liberty, once lost, is lost forever,” so says John Adams.

To quote another founding father, my personal favorite, Benjamin Franklin, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.” The majority of people today are allowing themselves to become enslaved to our government. Are you willing to stand up and fight? Normally, I am the one who preaches on living in the moment and not concerning one’s self too much with the future, for it is unpredictable and subject to constant change. However, in this case, it is the present that I beg you to disconnect from and the future to ponder. The government tracks our phones, but what is next? They control the temperature of our house or the amount of water we use in a day? Oh wait, that is already happening. 

What’s more, the battle we face today is not one that can be easily won. It is one that requires dedication, strength and determination. I do not think that we are doomed. Rather, we have been blessed with the chance to show just how strong we truly are. So who will you be? The person who stands up or sits down while the world around them spins rapidly out of control? In the words of Charles de Gaulle, “History does not teach fatalism. There are moments when the will of a handful of free men breaks through determinism and opens up new roads. People get the history they deserve.”

Will you be a part of the handful?

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA

This article is not about the casinos, sports betting, horse races, or slots. It’s about chance.

We New Jerseyans are now given the chance to make a notable impact in the United States Senate. With the passing of Senator Lautenberg, Governor Christie has called for a special election to fill the late Senator’s seat. This is all out war, especially between the Democrats. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is the candidate on the other side of the aisle.
In 2008, a man named Steve Lonegan challenged Governor Christie in the Gubernatorial primary election and received 42% of the Republican vote. This 42% is not a statistic – it is a cry from the people of New Jersey who want to see our state returned to fiscal responsibility. Although he did not win that election, chance has a way of its own, and as of right now I foresee a bright future for Mr. Lonegan in the United States Senate.
I am hopeful for this candidate because if you look at his record, if you listen to him speak, if you observe his philosphies and the pursuits of his convictions, you will see that he is the real deal small government, low regulation, low tax, maximum prosperity conservative. New Jersey is overrun by moderates who have been members of both parties. It doesn’t matter whether you have a (D) or (R) next to your name in this state, they all seem to come from the same mold. If you think Chris Christie is a “tell it like it is” person, you should take a good look at Steve Lonegan. I remember one instance where he said “you can expect to see a lot of government jobs eliminated under my administration.” and to this I say hell yes.
The opposition is strong, but for once I feel as though there is an election in my home state that could translate to change on a grand scale. Given Mr. Lonegan’s background, I could easily imagine him joining the likes of Senators Paul, Lee, and Cruz in their crusades to fight the debt ceiling increase, eliminate wasteful bureaucracies, and bring us back to sound fiscal policies.
So won’t you take a chance, New Jersey?

Follow @JosephDAntuono

Views expressed are not endorsed or put forward by Turning Point USA