Obamacare: A collapse of the Progressive Movement

by Zach Moore

Since 2009, Bill and Hillary Clinton have piggy-backed off of President Obama’s attempt to build a progressive platform for a liberal America. For obvious reasons, this is something that the Clintons feasted off of. Why did they do this? Hillary would love a bid in 2016. Moreover, they saw an opportunity to take advantage of progressive America; a system of big, careless government that is in control of dependent individuals. You see, President Obama has created this dependent America, not for reasons of sympathy in which he tries to display, but for strictly politically motivated ideals. If the majority of Americans are dependent on the Democratic Party to feed them out of their hands, they are never going to vote against them.

So what do the Clintons do? They endorse Obamacare. Believing it would be a success, they knew that Americans who enroll would be dependent on Hillary getting elected in order for their “free” care to continue. Therefore, sadly, they believed it would be a sure win for the Democratic Party in 2016. This is just another clear example of the left taking advantage of progressive America, as they use it as nothing but political leverage. This can be seen clearly as Bill Clinton endorsed the Affordable Care Act in September of this year, again as a mere attempt to get his beloved wife elected.

Was this a successful strategy? Of course not. Obamacare was a dismal failure just as many people in the United States expected. In addition, Bill and Hilary Clinton endorsed an individual who lied to the faces of American people on multiple occasions. To be precise, President Obama stated, “If you like your health care plan you can keep it....period”. This, as agreed upon by the majority of Americans is not only deceptive, but an outright lie. Bottom line is, the Clintons endorsed a now perceived liar. They tarnished their reputation (even further), and President Obama quickly became a political liability to their campaign. So what do they do? They run from the disaster and distance themselves from President Obama.

Today, October 12, 2013, Bill Clinton decided to make his distance well known to the American people by saying, “I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to these people and let them keep what they got." Hold on a second Bill, during many speeches you attended and endorsed, the president contradicted what you just said. Did you raise a red flag then? No. Even though you knew it was wrong, you let it go all in a mere attempt to deceive the American people just at the president did. If anyone in the world thinks this revelation of Clinton’s beliefs on the Affordable Care Act is anything more than an attempt to run as far from President Obama and the Affordable Care Act as possible, they are completely wrong.

Bottom line is President Obama has become a political liability to anyone in the Democratic Party who supported the Affordable Care Act. Even further, his presidency and the Affordable Care Act is a ticking time bomb that will surely destroy the reputation of his supporters in government. Thanks to him, Republicans now have a very distinct opportunity to lay this “progressive” movement to rest for many decades to come. So, from all Republicans in America, thank you Mr. President for proving that your “landmark” legislation was in fact, a total disaster.

On the Medical Device Tax

by Zach Moore

A part of the "First Word, Last Word" column on the The Voice
Originally published on 10/31/13 and available here: http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/10/31/first-word-last-word.html

(Advisor's note: this submission was required to be "about 500 words", but the subsequent rebuttal from a writer of The Voice totaled 637 words)

Since the beginning of Barack Obama’s presidency, an image has been painted for the American people of a universal, problem-free health care system that offers affordable or even “free” care. Based on the president’s rhetoric, one would believe that there is a magic money tree placed in the north lawn of the White House that miraculously drops leaves of one hundred dollar bills right into the pockets of Obamacare. Although this sounds excellent and the president somehow has fooled many Americans into believing this fairy tale, it is far from the case. An American who thinks based on logic understands the sad truth and reality, which is that President Obama has drafted a piece of legislation that is destroying the economy. Where does $60.1 billion of funding for the Affordable Care Act come from over the next decade? Sorry, not from the money tree the president is hiding from us all, but from the all too familiar 2.3% medical device tax.

Pacemakers: About to be way more $$$

Before jumping into the medical device disaster that the president has pursued, I believe it is important for readers to understand the importance this industry has in health care. Pacemakers, chemotherapy and defibrillators, just to name a few, are products that the medical device industry is responsible for. In order to produce and sell these products, research and development is key. A 2.3% tax on all revenues now significantly threatens the ability of this industry to devote money to innovate new products that could save lives.

Although many understand the effects on price and demand based on tax rates, it is obvious that the president does not. It is common sense for one to know what happens when tax rates increase on the revenues of a company: The price of goods go up in order to counter act the lost revenue. Therefore, what the president said would be more affordable, actually becomes less affordable. The price of medical devices goes up, therefore, making health care less affordable than it was before. What happens when these prices increase? Sales decrease, leading to a downward spiral of demand and lost revenues for one of the largest employers in the U.S.

Currently, according to the Wall Street Journal, the medical device industry employs 400,000 U.S workers directly, and another two million through supply and distribution. A 2.3% tax on this industry threatens many of these employees’ jobs. By cutting revenues by $6.7 billion annually, companies simply will not have the ability to maintain the size of their workforce. This is seen already, as, according to the Wall Street Journal, medical device companies have cut their workforce by 10% in order to brace for the impact.

This frivolous tax is something that the people of this country can not continue to ignore, nor can we as American’s continue to fall victim to the blinding image of something the president portrays as being free. Funding $60.1 billion comes from somewhere, and in this case it comes from thousands of lost jobs, increased costs for consumers, and irretrievable innovation that could have potentially saved lives.

Society and Murder

by Grant Murrow
published by The Voice on October 17, 2013
in response to "Taking Control of Gun Control", published by The Voice on September 26, 2013

Many things have occurred in America in the past 20 years that should cause every American to question where our country is heading in terms of culture, and how we behave as a society. Several very important occurrences that should incite curiosity are mass shootings and massacres. April of 1999: two students at Columbine high school open fire and kill 12 classmates.  April 2007: student Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and wounded 15 others at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia.  January of 2011: Jared Lee Loughner opened fire killing six and injuring 12 others including the now recovered Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona.

All three of these events remain firmly engrained in the minds of those there to witnessed them, and each caused a stir in its own right. After each of these shootings, national arguments were sparked over the controversy that is “Assault Weapons” and how their regulation along with other firearms regulation could help stem the tide of such events from occurring. Something that may surprise you, however, is that only one of the four shooters involved in these deadly events used what the media refers to as an assault weapon during their spree.

That person was Dylan Klebold of the Columbine shootings and he was in possession of a TEC-9 semi-automatic machine gun, with three 30 round magazines (which he used the least out of his three weapons). Otherwise, every shooter used weapons that do not fall under the “Assault Weapon” category. Both Cho and Laughner used pistols, and the other Columbine shooter Eric Harris used a 12 gauge double barrel shotgun, all of which were purchased legally or taken wrongly from someone who had legally purchased them.

While “Assault Weapons” remain an issue of heated discussion, many people overlook the actual number of murders committed with these weapons. According to the FBI statistics for the years of 2007-11, less than 1180 out of 46,320 total gun murders were committed with rifles or long guns throughout the United States, which includes the firearms that fall under the now infamous term “Assault Rifles.” Also, according to the Department of Justice, only 2% of state and 3% of federal inmates were armed with the newly branded “Assault Weapons.” So comparing our firearm murder rates to other countries’ rates doesn’t exactly bring the true issue to light. In fact, examining our gun violence points to a very different trend, one in which “Assault Weapons” are not the main culprits.

So if it’s not the availability of firearms, what could it be that causes people to commit these murder sprees? Is it trends in society towards violence? Lack of mental healthcare availability? Or are these shooters overly glamourized and given too much attention by the media after committing these atrocities? Perhaps it’s all of the above.

According to the National Institute for Mental Health, only about 50% of adults with a serious mental issue receive treatment, and the largest group to have these illnesses falls between the ages of 18-25. Combine that with classic trending violence in American movies, TV shows, games, etc., the amount of attention given to the shooters whom commit these atrocities, and the availability of firearms and you have a deadly combination. But people seem committed to removing only one, rather than spending the time and money needed to correct and prevent mentally sick persons from both obtaining firearms and putting them on the road to recovery.

With only a few years and a small investment of money, and who knows? One day events like these can be a distant, but not forgotten memory.

Meeting with State Representative David Millard

Thanks to Representative David Millard for inviting us to his office last night for pizza, a discussion of state and local issues, and encouragement.  A great time was had by all!

Crash Course in Shutdownology

This post is not meant to completely cover the topic regarding the shutdown, but to just answer your most pressing questions.  Here we go:

Question: Why is the government shutdown?

Good question to start with!  Well, have you hear that the government has been running a bit of a deficit the last few years?  The problem with that is no one has actually fixed that issue yet, and the House, Senate, and President just keep agreeing to Continuing Resolutions to fund the government for a determined amount of time.  The last one was to expire at midnight, the end of September 30, 2013.  In other words, the government has no funding at this time.


Question: Why don't they just write another Continuing Resolution?

Here's the thing, the House offered three CRs to the Senate, and the senate voted against all of them.  See, the House is doing all they can to prevent the monstrosity known as Obamacare from comopletely obliterating our healthcare system, putting the government between you and your doctor, and killing jobs.  The first attempted to defund Obamacare all together.  The second resolution attempted to delay Obamacare for a year and repeal the medical devices tax (which Democrats at one time agreed with).  The third CR would have just delayed the individual mandate for a year and would have eliminated the subsidies for lawmakers and their aides. 


Question: So this isn't really the fault of the Republicans, is it?
No, not really.  Even people who don't like the Republicans or the Democrats see this as mostly President Obama's fault.  One major reason is that back in the begining of the year,  "The Republican-led House passed a budget calling for $3.5 trillion in spending, the Democratically controlled Senate passed a budget calling for $3.7 trillion in spending, and President Obama issued a proposal calling for $3.77 trillion in spending. This happened back in the spring. The House and the Senate passed their budget plans in late March. The president's proposal, the last to be issued, came out on April 10."


Question:  Has this ever happened before?

Yes.  Seventeen times.  It's a miracle you're here at all, isn't it?


Question: So I don't have to worry about the NSA spying on me or paying my taxes, right?

HAHA!  You go ahead and think that.  In actuality, about 80% of the government is still functioning.  Here's a fun Buzzfeed quiz for you to take to see what is still running. 


Question: How can I stay informed about this topic?

We personally recommend news outlets like National Review and the Drudge Report, but you can also come out to our weekly meetings held on Mondays at 5pm in KUB 411 (though we will be off-campus on October 7) and follow us on Twitter @BloomURepubs.

Surprising Benefits of a Split Congress

by Greg Harvey

 

Ever since the Republicans took the House of Representatives in 2010, compromise in Washington has been hard to find. This all came to a head on Monday night when Congress failed to pass a bill to continue any discretionary spending, resulting in the first government shutdown since 1994. Obviously, both sides are pointing fingers at each other over whose fault the failed negotiations were and the media naturally blames the Republicans, but maybe the shutdown really isn’t that bad. Here are a few points to think about:

First, the shutdown forces the government to only fund bare necessities. While it is a shame that national parks and some agencies will have to close abruptly, all the essential functions, including the military, mail delivery, and Social Security checks, won’t be affected. Even the USPS and Amtrak will stay open, though for how long remains uncertain. Overall, the whole shutdown simply forces the government to only spend money on the things it really should, which is what it should have been doing all along. For too long the government focused on spending money every time the opportunity arose, which created a system that couldn’t be justified indefinitely. While the parties have been quick to criticize each other over whose who caused the failed compromise, it’s really just the culmination of decades of irresponsible government.

Second, even though the media blames the House Republicans, they deserve some credit. They passed two bills before the deadline, only to be shot down by the Senate. While the Senate disproval of the bills due to the cuts to Obamacare was certainly expected, what was shocking was that they refused even to compromise. Instead, they engaged in a war of words, with Harry Reid stating the Republicans “lost their minds,” but then rejected the Republican offer to create a committee to settle differences.

Finally, this is the third time this year that Congressional partisan caused scares; the other two times were the sequester and the expiration of the payroll tax. Both of those times, remember, were preceded by warnings that failure to work out a deal would lead to bad things for the economy. What was the ultimate effect? There weren’t any major repercussions to the economy, at least nothing as serious as the aforementioned warnings promised, and, as an article from Fox Business reported, the government actually ran a $117 billion surplus in June. While the actual effects of the shutdown have yet to be seen, recent events certainly indicate, this shutdown will likely not create any widespread harm to the country. Rather, it may even produce some good side-effects to our fiscal health.

Senator Ted Cruz Tries to #MakeDCListen

In case you missed it, Senator Ted Cruz engaged in a filibuster really long speech beginning yesterday into today.  Here is a link to one of the better "update" feeds available from the speech (the picture of Cruz's daughters back home when the senator read them their goodnight story from the senate floor is pretty goshdarn cute!).  I believe it wound up being just shy of 22 hours. He was joined by a number of senators, including most prominently Mike Lee, Maro Rubio, and Rand Paul. Also spending time on the floor were senators Mike Enzi, Pat Roberts, and Jeff Sessions. Notably absent was Pennsylvania senator Pat Toomey.

While Mike Lee and Rand Paul were great speakers, it should be noted that Marco Rubio was outstanding. Waking up early this morning, as he was last night, giving a passionate defense of the free market. He might have stepped out of line with his amnesty bill, but at heart he is a conservative.  Here are his early remarks:



To be clear, this was not technically a filibuster (though, I guess it depends on who you ask), but a lengthy floor speech. It seems that Senator Cruz knew it would be coming to an end around noon today before the day's business began, and before Cruz joined Rush Limbaugh on his show.

The Republican argument against what Senator Cruz undertook is that it makes no difference. The continuing resolution to fund the government without Obamacare wasn't going to pass, and no one wants to shut down the government in order to prevent Obamacare from being implemented.

All that might be true, but many of our elected officials have been appointed to fight this monstrosity of a law with every ounce of their being. Senator Ted Cruz did just that. We might be stuck with a terrible law that destroys jobs, is incredibly expensive (make that ridiculously expensive), puts the government between the doctor and the patient, and the American people overwhelmingly don't want, but we're not taking it lying down. That's what the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham don't get. No, we don't want the government shutdown, but we will not go quietly into the night on this law. We will fight, and we will be heard. We will #MakeDCListen.


Here are some of the highlights:

"I intend to speak in support of de-funding Obamacare until I am no longer able to stand, to do everything that I can to help Americans stand together and recognize this grand experiment three and a half years ago is quite simply not working."

"Millions of people are asking for accountability, truth, the truth about Obamacare is it's failing the men and women of America. It is time, quite simply, to make D.C. listen."

Non-Approval

We've seen this before, but last time there was a boring/moderate Republican running a weak campaign against President Barack Obama.  What will save him this time?

The public is finally coming around.

Are you?

 

We Remember

As we remember those whom we lost, we also remember those who served without a second thought.

September 11, 2001.  We will always remember.

Red Lines: Military Defense or Political Pressure?

by Zach Moore
President of BU College Republicans

Roughly one year ago our president, the commander and chief of the military, made a statement that solidified the position of the United States on the use of chemical weapons. Imaginary or not, President Obama stated that use of chemical weapons by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, would cross “a red line for us,” and therefore we would respond with military action. By creating this red line without UN support, President Obama put the United States in not only a foolish position, but casted our fate in a solo mission against the deadly Assad Regime. 

After threats and intelligence of chemical weapons throughout the last year, the president refused to reinforce this imaginary red line he single handedly traced.  Now, Assad has committed a massacre against his own citizens, and the United States is forced to act due to the words of a political figure.

Through this situation the question arises, do red lines really protect the American people and prevent military action? Logically speaking, no they do the exact opposite. They expose us to dangerous and involuntary political actions due to political pressure. However, speaking emotionally as the left does, a red line is some sort universally supported monstrosity, built with metal spikes, electric fencing, and barbed wire protecting the American people and preventing a war. Sadly, a red line is nothing more than a failed president’s rhetoric, in order to make a train wreck of a foreign policy look like it has legitimacy. In reality, President Obama put the United States at major risk by making this statement, and now is forced to act on those words in order to save his already failed presidency. Most importantly, such red lines put far too much political pressure on our leaders. Now, we have a president who is attempting to build an image, rather than protect our citizens. In order to avert this, you can see the president trying to dump the load of pressure onto our legislatures for it to no longer be his fault if he breaks his promise of a red line induced military strike. Moreover, as of recently, the president even denied his comments about enacting a red line, by saying “I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line”, another obvious attempt of our president shifting the blame of his attempted actions onto another body of legislature.

Since when do we as American people find this as acceptable? What happened to the president taking responsibility, standing up, and taking a clear and signified position on an issue? Even further, the president continued to contradict himself in his attempt to shift the blame around August 20, by saying, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” Notice how the president states, “a red line for us,” “my calculus,” and even, “my equation.” By “my”, Mr. President, I would hope that you are referring to yourself, commander-in-chief of the military, and by “us” the United States of America. However, as I recently highlighted, the president said the world set the red line, not us. Once again, rhetoric with no logic.

Our president speaks strictly with emotion, and through that blinds himself and the rest of this country to the power of his words and what he says as a leader. As the citizens of the United States, we need to learn to hold leaders accountable for their words, so that a president does not have the ability to make emotionally backed statements such as Obama’s on an imaginary red line.

Rebutting "Five Easy Steps..."

Anthony Beard
BUCR Advisor

The campus community was recently forwarded this link to an article titled "How the American University Was Killed, In Five Easy Steps", which basically blames the entire downfall of higher education on conservative principles.  Thought it was important to share a rebuttal.  So far this summer my reading has focused on intellectual works such as Atlas Shrugged and Academically Adrift, so it’s nice to have some light reading that requires less thinking. 

I would say while I obviously agree with the premise of the importance of education, it’s a wild assumption to think that H.G. Wells was specifically speaking of higher education.  To think that traditional university or college education is the penultimate education one can receive in life strikes me as a bit narcissistic.  What I find even more narcissistic is the thought that a faculty member’s wage is equivalent to a migrant worker.  I read The Press Enterprise and I sincerely believe George Milton would disagree.

By no means do I disagree with the downfall of higher education being linked to “poor educational outcomes in our graduates, the out-of-control tuitions and crippling student loan debt.”  As I rebut this article I see the same issues, but recognize the true causes of them.

Before I get to that, I would also point out that I am neither a war-monger or a corporation, yet I am not foolish enough to see things as simply black and white as this article does and assume that the culturally liberal upheaval of the 1960s didn’t come with any drawbacks, such as out of wedlock birth, which leads to increased poverty, which leads to more crime and (ironically enough) less education.  I’m grateful that the 60s brought us open-mindedness, but as all revolutions do, they also brought about consequences.  You don’t need to love war and big business to see that.

But on to the rebuttal...

#1: First, you defund public higher education

To address one immediate thought, Pennsylvania is not defunding education; the oft perpetuated lie.  State funding of basic education has steadily increased each year going back to the 2010-2011 fiscal year (the final year under Governor Ed Rendell).  Some folks get confused, since there was federal stimulus money that was added to the expenditure in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, but when it comes to how much Pennsylvania taxpayer money is going to basic education, it has increased each year under Governor Tom Corbett.

The writer seems to go on a tangent when the topic of attacking political correctness comes up.  So to quickly address that, political correctness runs completely counter to the idea of open dissent, the downfall of which the writer laments.  It can’t go both ways.  We cannot champion being PC and also expect dissention.  The very essence of being politically correct means we cannot say what we honestly think; thereby, avoiding true dissent.  Unless, of course, the actual goal is to just dissent against opinions we dislike.  Personally, I find it remarkable when a student dissents against such a lack of diverse thought in higher education,

Back to topic, it’s a safe area of agreement to say that the percent of 18-25 year olds enrolled in undergraduate studies has generally increased over the years.  While the historic value of higher education in the area of humanities and liberal arts cannot be understated, we can simply not have more and more of our young adults enrolling in these studies, or else it will contribute to a consistent unemployment rate of over 7% (like we've had for years).  I stand by the merits of fields of study such as English, history, psychology, and economics, but they rarely have a positive result in employment.  The immediate defense of these studies is the intangible benefit of “expand[ing] the mind, develop[ing] a more completed human being, [and] a more actively intelligent person and involved citizen.”  Ignoring how differently one can define “complete”, “intelligent”, and “involved,” it’s important to consider the cost of that benefit.  Is it worth the student accumulating over $35,200 in debt to earn a degree that leaves him or her unemployed or underemployed?  Is it worth taxpayer money for a student to earn a degree in philosophy, but now finds him or herself unable to pay rent and needs to move back in with his or her parents?  And while underemployed, interest continues to build.  What is a poor liberal arts major to do?  Why, grad school of course!  And while more debt is being added for this education, assuming the student has not received more taxpayer money for a likely useless degree, more interest accrues and the student is not earning money during that time to pay off any debt.  Gleaning lessons from recent housing turmoil, we know that owing more money than something is actually worth is chaos.  This will inevitably lead us to a burst in the higher education bubble.

In addition, there is evidence to suggest the more federal government gets involved with paying for education, the more expensive it becomes.  When you subsidize something, you get more of it.  So if tuition is subsidized, there will be more tuition.  And just forgiving debt doesn’t solve any actual problem.

And quite briefly, while the article bemoans the attempt of conservatives to more easily manipulate citizens, I think there are countless articles and books that would argue that students are inundated with liberalism (which is even getting more extreme) at college (and in The Department of Education) far more than conservatism, which makes a mockery of the writer’s premise.  It is not the conservatives that are at the forefront of indoctrination.

 

Where Al-Qaeda Stands

by Dan Lacca

Before I proceed with this entry, I feel I am obligated to mention that there are over a billion Muslims in the entire of world. The majority of which live out there day to day lives in peace and harmony with the rest of us. This entry is NOT about them.

Al Qaeda was formed during the years of 1988 and 1989 right in the middle of modern globalization. The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse, and advances in Information Technology were making it possible for non-state actors to coordinate across international lines challenging the interactions of states with other states as the fundamental principle of international affairs. When Osama Bin Laden created Al Qaeda, he was able to build a vast centralized network that operated across national borders. He became the leader of one of the largest non-state international organizations in the world. The organization’s primary goal was to ultimately break off all foreign influences in Muslim countries, and create a global Caliphate. On September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda proved just how powerful a non-state actor could be with the right resources and leadership. By embracing irregular warfare, Al Qaeda was able to hold out against the United States, and Osama Bin Laden evaded capture. Finally on May 2, 2011, United States Navy Seals killed Bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan, after an intense ten year long man hunt. Upon his death, many questions were raised about the future of the war on terror. Perhaps the most important question being asked was “what would the future of Al Qaeda would be without the man who founded this global network?”

Since Osama Bin Laden’s death in 2011, the structural integrity of Al Qaeda has been hotly debated. Its central command is believed to be still intact, functioning in the tribal areas of Pakistan. There are still reports of Al Qaeda operations taking place across the world, most recently Syria. Rather than being structured as an international organization operating under a single chain of command, Al Qaeda has decentralized into multiple independent factions. Some believe this a ripple affect caused by Bin Laden’s death that will ultimately lead to Al Qaeda’s demise.

Make no mistake. Al Qaeda may have been weakened, but it is still very much alive.It seems for the time being the organization’s primary focus has shifted from an ongoing conflict with the United States, to more local operations. Each faction operates separately from the core command acting on its own local or regional agenda. For example: Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is the North African faction. Their primary objective is an overthrow of the Algerian government and to replace it with an Islamic state. Al Qaeda’s Syrian faction has played a major role in the ongoing civil war, with a similar objective. These are both local insurrections and although the central command under Ayman Zawahiri supports the movements it has little involvement in any of the daily operations. The factions are loosely held together by a simple pledge of allegiance to one another and sharing the common goal of reestablishing a caliphate in the Middle East. However, this is the exact goal the organization was founded on.

What is an Assault Weapon? (It's Already Banned)

by Zach Moore
from The Voice's "Political Perspectives" published on April 18, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/4/18/political-perspectives.html

In the aftermath of many disastrous events, there is an ever increasing pressure on legislatures to create a ban on what has been characterized as “assault weapons.” Speaking directly on emotion rather than reason, many citizens of the United States fall victim to the propaganda released by the pundits in favor of gun control legislation. Throughout this ongoing debate, it is clear that many gun control advocates enjoy the abuse and exploitation of the word “assault weapon.” In reality, while speaking on facts, Dr. Edward Ezell, a preeminent expert in the firearms field, along side the United States Defense Department, stated “a key characteristic of a true assault weapon is that it must of the capability of full automatic fire.” Even with these type of statements, it is evident that a mischaracterization of these weapons has been presented to the American people. Factually speaking, and assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon, which is already banned by the Gun Control Act of 1968. If legislatures and political pundits would like to limit the availability of these weapons, well, their battle has already been fought, and they accomplished this many years ago. Sadly however, it is evident that the American people have been manipulated into believing a false image of the weapons that are both legal and illegal in this country today. Based on this, it is entirely fair to say that we as Americans need to have a better understanding of the sanctions being implemented on our constitution by gun control advocates today.

For the purpose of this piece and for the better understanding and knowledge of the readers, it is responsible of both sides to begin referring to these proposed banned weapons as semi-automatic rifles rather than the abused and false term of “assault weapons.” As this misconception of the public has been revealed, it is time to dig into the policies that have been proposed, as well as the ones that have failed. In the heat of emotion and lack of understanding, the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 was implemented. Ten years later, it failed. Through this 10 year time period, 14 mass shootings took place which included, the notorious 1999 Columbine High School shooting. While the American people were victims to a pointless ban, it is shown through statistics that the ’94 ban was avoidable. As a matter of fact, Gallup and the U.S Justice Department have reported that crime began to fall prior to the ’94 ban, and continued to fall while it was in place. Even more importantly, this downward trend is still evident today as there is a consistent decrease in violent crimes taking place. It also evident that these type of policies are entirely unnecessary, as violent crimes committed with these weapons are truly minimal. This is supported through many statistics, one being presented by the Borough of Justice Statistics, when reported that “violent criminals only carry or use a military-type gun in about one percent of crimes nationwide.” In addition to that, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 2011, of the 8,583 firearm homicides that occurred, 6,220 of them were committed by handguns while only 323 were committed by rifles. This goes to show that the bans proposed are targeting absolutely the wrong groups of weapons, and it is only a matter of time that the failures of previous bans repeat themselves.

 

One of the most respected members of society, and a group that is consistently in the line of fire, and should be the epitome of gun control, is in strong opposition of the proposed bans. A survey conducted by PoliceOne.com in 2013 shows that officers are overwhelmingly against the proposed legislation. When asked if a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazine would reduce violent crime, 95.7% of the respondents replied with the answer “no.” The people who are facing violent, destructive criminals on a daily basis, overwhelmingly agree that these types of bans simply do not work.

 

Out of all arguments by gun control advocates, probably the most disturbing is that the constitution does not protect citizens from obtaining semi-automatic rifles. Sadly, they are entirely mistaken and false in stating this. The second amendment states “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Gun control advocates say that bearing arms is only allowed for a well-regulated militia, mistakenly believing citizens are not citizens permitted to exercise this right. This is incorrect, as stated by the U.S Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, “militia” was defined in the Militia Act of 1792, which said that it included every free adult male in the United States. Moreover, in Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated “the Militia, comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” As Americans, we need to view such debate based off facts, and speak, decide, and primarily vote on facts, rather than emotion. Do not succumb to the overwhelming pressure and commotion to act, created by gun control supporters. Rather, analyze the facts and act based on what has proven to work, rather what has proven to fail.

Freedom of Speech: Are We Being Heard?

by Zach Moore
originally published by The Voice on April 3, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/4/3/freedom-of-speech-are-we-being-heard.html

in response to "Politics: The New Blame Game" originally published by The Voice on March 14, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/3/14/politics-the-new-blame-game.html


Through large amounts of political pressure, there is an ever-increasing manipulation implemented on the rights each citizen of the United States holds. One of the most respected rights that citizens obtain is their ability to have freedom of speech.

Through the stances of opposing political sides, it is evident in many ways that the individual’s right to freedom of speech is dwindling. These limitations are seen on different scales, beginning with newspaper editors and ending with the Obama administration.
Sadly, in today’s society it is seen as “disgraceful” to question the policies of a certain president or political party. In order to defend President Obama’s catastrophic policies and below 50 percent approval rating, some view that the opposition needs to keep quiet in order to hide the atrocious policies that the president has implemented.

Interestingly, what you did not see is the left’s insolence of the Bush Administration’s ‘War on Terror’ being labeled and published as a “lack of respect for his or her president.” Regardless, in the context presented by previous editorials, it would be disrespectful for President Obama to attack the War on Terror.

Moreover, this would also mean President Obama is disrespecting the 2,996 Americans who lost their lives on 9/11, who would support bringing the people who terrorized this country to justice. Unfortunately, this is the way in which the left has characterized disapproval of a particular political candidate or policy, and ultimately the expression of freedom of speech. As a student, and more importantly a citizen of the United States, I value my right to express my opinion and to utilize my freedom of speech, without my political affiliation being considered disgraceful.
These restrictions and limitations of freedom of speech are also evident in the Obama Administration. The distaste President Obama has for individuals who oppose his policies is seen in Vice President Joe Biden as well. For example, one of the largest activist groups against the Obama administration is the Tea Party.

In the recent debt-ceiling discussions, the Tea Party’s expression of freedom of speech towards the White House policies led to Vice President Biden and other democratic representatives to characterize the Tea Party as “terrorists.” Inappropriately, this is how your very own Vice President views individuals and organizations that exercise their freedom of speech in this country.
Recently, when the United States rolled over the automatic spending cuts, also known as the sequester, in order to avoid the questioning of the press, President Obama forced the press out of the room ironically during the “press” conference. This is not the first time the president has denied the press of their freedom of speech in questioning him.

According to abcnews.com, President Obama has only engaged in question and answer with the press 94 times. This is a nominal number compared to George W. Bush’s 307 question and answer sessions, as well as Bill Clinton’s 493. The president takes the lead in scripted, non-confrontational interviews with the press.

Students of Bloomsburg and citizens of the United States need to understand the value their words hold and the reasons why they were provides with the right to freedom of speech by our Founding Fathers. This right shall not be infringed upon, nor should our distrust and lack of approval for a president to be considered disgraceful or disrespectful.

Misdiagnosed "Gun Violence"

by Dan Lacca

As the country tries to heal from the horrifying event that occurred in Newtown, CT, lawmakers at the national, state, and local levels have been searching for ways to prevent yet another tragedy from occurring. However, a massive gun-control hysteria has hit the nation by storm, forcing at least the Maryland state legislature to delay the search for a solution to school shootings, and focus their efforts on stopping school officials from abusing students due to a national fire arm phobia. An unprecedented amount of harsh school disciplining begs one to ask the question: “what happened to common sense in the United States?”

Pop Tart "gun"

According to the Huffington Post and Daily Caller, second grade student Josh Welch, was suspended for two days after his teacher noticed his pop-tart took the shape of a gun after little Josh bit it. Josh suffers from ADHD and struggles academically, however he excels in art. Josh admitted to shaping his pop-tart, but a gun was not what he had envisioned. He was trying to make a mountain. To justify the suspension, the school claimed that Josh threatened other students by pointing his half eaten breakfast at them saying “Bang Bang”, which Josh denied in press interviews. “I didn’t say bang, bang. I just pointed it at the ceiling.” The school sent home a letters home with students, asking parents to discuss the incident with their children in a manner they feel appropriate and that the school councilor would be available for anyone who feels they are in some way traumatized by Josh’s behavior. The incident has forced Maryland State Senator JB Jennings to propose the Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013, commonly referred to by the media as “The Toaster Pastry Gun Freedom Act.”  The act restricts what actions can be taken to discipline students that make innocent gestures that an over sensitive school official may deem offensive. Jennings reasoned that “These suspensions are going on their (the students) permanent records and could have lasting effects on their education.”

Little Josh is not the only victim of unnecessarily harsh school discipline. In early March this year, Hunter Fountain was celebrating his ninth birthday in Michigan in the traditional way that many children have done for generations in this country. The Fountains baked cupcakes for young Hunter to generously share with his class and decorated the top of each treat with World War II Army men. A classic American tradition and a classic American child’s toy, is there a better mix? Apparently the principle of Hunter’s school believed so. According to multiple news outlets such as, FOX, Yahoo news, The Daily Caller, and other sources the Principle of Schall Elementary School deemed the cupcakes “insensitive” in the wake of Sandy Hook and confiscated the desserts until Hunter’s mother told the school to just take the toy soldiers off and serve the cupcakes without them. Hunter’s Father stated in an interview with FOX News “It disgusted me. It’s vile they lump true American heroes with psychopathic killers.

Minimum Wage Brings Unexpected Increases

by Grant Murrow

originally published by The Voice on March 14, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/3/14/minumum-wage-brings-unexpected-increases.html

During his State of the Union address in February, President Obama announced his plan to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour. He claims that this raise would lead to a “raise in the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets.” However, this is not the case.

His claim of having more money in your pocket may be true in cases of employees of conglomerate employers, such as Wal-Mart or Target, but smaller businesses cannot afford to pay that much to their employees. If a company can save on labor, they will. Cutting into profits of a business by forcing a raise in wages will eventually cause them to raise their own prices in an effort to soften the impact. If it does not come in a raise in prices, it will likely come in a form that hurts the company’s employees such as, reduced hours, reduction of fringe benefits, installing machinery to take the place of workers, and even more detrimental-the higher likelihood of hiring illegal immigrants. All of which, in turn, hurt the American economy and people.

It may also lead to an increase in general unemployment. For example, the minimum wage in the state of Washington is linked to inflation, which is currently $9.19, and the unemployment rate is 7.6%. This reflects the fact that an increased minimum wage will not help employment decrease, and may even have the opposite effect in some cases. Also, as a secondary result of unemployment, crime in the areas with higher unemployment will undoubtedly rise. However, the people most affected by an increase in minimum wages are teenagers and young adults.

The people who minimum wage most affects are teenagers, the unskilled, minorities, those involved in low wage industries, and those not unionized. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the United States Census report, 18.063 million young Americans, 66% of Americans over the age of 18 whom do not have a degree, 32.28% of Americans whom are minorities, 3.6 million workers who are involved in low wage labor, and 95.8% of Americans ages 16 to 24 who are not unionized would all be affected by this increase. Clearly, this would alter the life styles of a lot of people in a very negative way. All of the groups previously listed could have to deal with reduced work hours, benefit cuts, and ultimately layoffs. Thus putting a negative mark on the economy as a whole, and put people like us at the bottom of the ladder.

An increase to minimum wage and dropping profits would leave less money to go around. People like the students here at Bloomsburg University are prime targets for these losses, as we haven’t yet had a chance to enter the job market and gain experience. So what can be done to save jobs for people like us who don’t yet have our degree? Firstly, after a formal bill or law is announced, write to our congressmen. Tell them your opinion on the matter and ask them to act on your behalf in congress. Secondly, make yourself indispensable at your job. Take the time to learn your job and become the best you can at it, and make sure that your boss sees your potential. Lastly, study, and study hard. Your degree may be the difference between feeling the effects of the minimum wage increase or getting ahead.

A Jobless Economy: Obama's Polices are Damaging

by Zach Moore

originally published by The Voice on February 21, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/2/20/a-jobless-economy-obamas-policies-are-damaging.html

While graduation from higher education is supposed to be a colossal leap to an affluent future, a sluggish labor market awaits the average college student’s resume. With unemployment soaring nation-wide, there is an alarming level of unemployment of college graduates ages 25 and younger. According to the Department of Labor Statistics, 53 percent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed, and the diminutive amount of employed graduates is earning a median salary of a mere $27,000. This figure is a depreciated $3,000 less than students who earned a degree before the year 2007.

 

Moreover, out of the college graduates under the age of 25 who were working in 2011, 37.8 percent were working in a job that did not require a college degree, according to bls.gov. As these statistics develop, it is seen that there has been a serious decline over the last four years in which students have spent working extremely hard to ensure a prosperous future. Note that in 2007, around the time that Bloomsburg seniors were beginning the journey of a college education, the unemployment rate of recent college graduates was 5.7 percent. Through this, the question of who is to blame arises.

 

Over the last four years, President Obama has made a tremendous dent in the economy in which we reside. Students have been victims to the president’s detrimental policies already. This is seen through many aspects of a young American’s life, an example being tuition rates, which have gone up 25 percent under the president, according to bls.gov. All this while a landmark one trillion total student debt has accumulated. Through this we see that not only has President Obama made it increasingly harder for college students to find a job, but once they do accomplish this near impossible task, they will have a larger debt than any other graduates in history. If this is not bad enough, once graduates begin to dig themselves out of this bottomless pit of debt, they will have a very hard time doing so because of the falling median income under President Obama.

 

It is very simple for the eye to see a distinct downfall marked by the start of Barack Obama’s presidency. When President George W. Bush left office, the unemployment rate of young American’s 25 and younger was an astonishing 5.4 percent as reported on bls.gov. Sadly, four years later we see an unemployment rate of the same group of American’s hovering just below nine percent. These disturbing figures are a direct reflection of President Obama’s damaging economic policies. Until the president stops implementing policies that hurt American businesses, employers will continue to not hire. Even if they do choose to employ a graduate, an exponentially smaller figure of capital will be put into your pocket.

 

President Obama has raised taxes on employers to the highest in recent history. The results of this are obvious: when employers have less money, they are no longer investing, no longer hiring, and most importantly no longer growing fiscally. Until President Obama does more to create economic growth, such as financially encouraging employers to hire young, educated Americans, underemployment and unemployment will continue to rise.

 

The “investment” of higher education will continue to diminish as President Obama’s disastrous economic policies continue, and the true value of a degree will no longer exist. Please examine this simple equation of economics: high unemployment, combined with record setting landmarks of student debt, equals a slow and distraught economy, which our generation is now pioneering. If we, the young Americans, the future of the United States, cannot prosper, who possibly can?