Come join the Georgia Tech College Republicans as we enjoy a fun day out on the range! (Not to mention any pent up frustration before dead week/finals!)
Sunday, December 4th at 1 PM
Transportation will be provided.
To RSVP email chairman@gtrepublicans.com or visit our Facebook event!
As many of you are aware, President Peterson recently interviewed with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution concerning proposed gun legislation. He said when asked if he supports the carriage of concealed weapons on campus, “Absolutely not.” Despite what you may think, I’m inclined to agree with him. Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for exercising the Second Amendment – just not in this case.
Here’s my logic: when you step forth onto a government institution, you sign away certain freedoms for the general benefit of your peers. This sounds incredibly 1984, I know, but consider why you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater – bottom line, you’re putting those around you at risk.
Imagine, for a second, that someone decided to use the First Amendment to spark a deadly stampede for the exit. Is the Second Amendment so far removed from this?
I don’t mean to imply that I think there are homicidal maniacs at Georgia Tech, but I do think tensions run high here, tempers can flare, and things can get out of hand. The argument for guns on campus implicitly dictates that all Georgia Tech students are mature, responsible adults. For the most part that may be true, but there are those for which this is not the case, and giving them the opportunity to arm themselves could be a huge mistake.
But let’s get past the argument that perhaps arming students could increase the chances for inter-student violence and return to the notion that all of us here at Tech are mature, responsible, and brilliant adults. Let’s introduce the scenario that most people fighting for concealed carry on campus are probably most concerned about John (or Jane, to be polite) Doe who lives in Towers and has a 7-10 pm chemistry lab in the basement of the CoC. Say John has a run-in with a mugger who surprises him from behind with a weapon. If John were armed, he would immediately draw his weapon and…
Now, wait a second. There is no chance the average student would have time to draw that weapon unless the robber first announced himself before jumping out, unless that student was actually Howard Darby. The only way the student would have time to ready himself for defense would be if he carried that weapon in his hand.
“Alright,” you may be thinking. “Clever enough, but you still haven’t considered an even more heinous possibility: the chance that armed students may be able to neutralize a campus-wide killing spree like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech. Surely you would want to prevent such a disaster, wouldn’t you?”
The answer to that question is a resounding “Yes,” and my heart goes out to the families of all those affected by the disaster. But arming students simply isn’t the way to get it done. Maintaining our assumptions that all Tech students are mature, responsible, and brilliant, I posit the following. Assume the shooter has taken command of a recitation class and has disarmed and subdued his classmates. Should one or even a team of Tech students barge in there to the rescue, at best one and at worst most of the students in the scenario would be seriously if not critically injured. College students are not police officers, and say what you will about the APD, but in a firefight, I know who I would turn to (or get behind, more like). President Peterson makes an additional point on the aforementioned scenario which is worth repeating: units responding to the VT tragedy were looking for an armed student. There was no time to sift the good guys from the bad. Quoth President Peterson, “I believe if a student had a gun, he would have gotten shot.”
I agree, and I prefer not to borrow trouble.
–Andrew Malinowski
America must reform its health care system to become more simple, accessible and affordable, while maintaining its high standard of quality.
To increase simplicity, America must encourage economic competition by allowing medical practitioners to operate openly in a free-market system. Allowing doctors to compete will raise quality standards to higher levels while driving costs down for consumers. Fewer mandates, frivolous lawsuits and less bureaucratic red tape will empower the relationship between individuals and primary-care physicians (PCP) in addition to spurring health care innovation.
To increase accessibility and affordability, America must, as Milton Friedman advises, “…convert the patient from a ward of the state to an independent, self-interested customer.” One step towards establishing this status is to reduce the already existing fraud and waste in the healthcare system, as Congressman Norwood did in a provision of the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act that restricts illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid. The GOP alternative to Obama’s health care bill (H.R. 3400) spells out this consumer-driven approach in more detail.
Any real health care reform must first emphasize the individual.
– Toby Tatum
In his first official State of the Union address, our president treated us to an oratorical smorgasbord, rife with ethos and filled with heart-rending stories of children upset by the economy, small business owners on the rise and moving towards a new hope.
Our president has long made his mark by speaking of hope and nonpartisanship; this speech was no different. However, the policies he has advanced show his mark to be quite the opposite: an unfair representation of the will of the American people, who have clearly shown opposition to his agenda through in polls and at the polls. Perhaps his lack of response to a general change in the American public may be some of that “stubborn resilience” that he attributed to all Americans showing through. He speaks about sweeping economic recovery as if we are almost out of the tunnel, as if all that is left to us is to step out. Factual evidence suggests otherwise. When a government spends billions of money it does not have to “create” 2 million jobs (this term being White House doublespeak for jobs salvaged or saved via the Recovery Act), that is not a sign of recovery. It is a sign of a government gone out of control.
Despite this, the president feels no need to be bound by checks and balances or the petty restrictions of the Constitution.
When the Senate blocks a bill, he passes an executive order to override it (although the Constitution dictates that only the Congress may create and legislate law). For a man whose job is to enforce the law that Congress passes with the consent of the American people, he manages to use his charm and intellect to make people forget that he is flagrantly stomping on the principles that make this country great.
The president says he hates the bank bailouts, but his actions dictate otherwise. He says he has gotten the stimulus money back, but reason indicates otherwise. He says government must create conditions for business to grow, but sound economics say otherwise. He says he prevented a great depression, but an ever-mounting deficit and a still-rising unemployment rate show otherwise. He says all men must be treated decently, but his treatment of doctors, wealthy Americans and Islamic countries tell otherwise.
All in all, his every statement is laden with contradictions. While he tells not direct lies as some Republicans would allege, Obama’s rhetoric simply puts a pretty face on an ugly situation that will only get worse should this cycle of government expansion continue.
It is unfair to criticize one man for the failures of a country. However, it is imminently fair to criticize the president for not being what he makes himself out to be. This president has grossly overstepped the duties outlined for him in the Constitution; if he chooses to make himself a legislator rather than a leader, then we must treat him as such.
There is no easy way out, but blindly going in the wrong direction gets us nowhere. Spending money we do not have to get out of an economic collapse caused by big government expansion is like giving heroin to an addict to make his withdrawal symptoms better. It helps in the short term, but in the long run the problem worsens until it is incurable. Deficit spending and regulation have failed us utterly. To think that any group of human beings can predict the subtle oscillations of the market is lunacy.
There is, however, a fix for these massive deficits. The solution is to move towards an Austrian-school, free-market system of laissez-faire economics and limited government (à la Ludwig Von Mises). That is the only way to stop the endless boom/bust cycle. Those ideas and the ideas of our Founding Fathers hold the keys to lifting America out of this crisis and returning us to a position of prominence. It is only then that we can rise from the ashes and be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Man is not free unless government is limited…. As government expands, liberty contracts. -Ronald Reagan
–Austin Parker
In his first official State of the Union address, our president treated us to an oratorical smorgasbord, rife with ethos and filled with heart-rending stories of children upset by the economy, small business owners on the rise and moving towards a new hope. Our president has long made his mark by speaking of hope and nonpartisanship; this speech was no different. However, the policies he has advanced show his mark to be quite the opposite: an unfair representation of the will of the American people, who have clearly shown opposition to his agenda through in polls and at the polls. Perhaps his lack of response to a general change in the American public may be some of that “stubborn resilience” that he attributed to all Americans showing through. He speaks about sweeping economic recovery as if we are almost out of the tunnel, as if all that is left to us is to step out. Factual evidence suggests otherwise. When a government spends billions of money it does not have to “create” 2 million jobs (this term being White House doublespeak for jobs salvaged or saved via the Recovery Act), that is not a sign of recovery. It is a sign of a government gone out of control. Despite this, the president feels no need to be bound by checks and balances or the petty restrictions of the Constitution. When the Senate blocks a bill, he passes an executive order to override it (although the Constitution dictates that only the Congress may create and legislate law). For a man whose job is to enforce the law that Congress passes with the consent of the American people, he manages to use his charm and intellect to make people forget that he is flagrantly stomping on the principles that make this country great. The president says he hates the bank bailouts, but his actions dictate otherwise. He says he has gotten the stimulus money back, but reason indicates otherwise. He says government must create conditions for business to grow, but sound economics say otherwise. He says he prevented a great depression, but an ever mounting deficit and a still-rising unemployment rate show otherwise. He says all men must be treated decently, but his treatment of doctors, wealthy Americans and Islamic countries tell otherwise. All in all, his every statement is laden with contradictions. While he tells not direct lies as some Republicans would allege, Obama’s rhetoric simply puts a pretty face on an ugly situation that will only get worse should this cycle of government expansion continue.
It is unfair to criticize one man for the failures of a country.
Harry Reid, our Democratic Senate Majority Leader, wants it all to go away. Lately, he’s been busy giving all sorts of speeches on why he is not racist and how many black friends he has, apologizing to all the people that he thinks matter, except, of course, the American people. For those of you who don’t know what I’m referring to, Reid was recently quoted as saying that President Obama was electable only because he was “light-skinned” and had “no negro dialect.” …As if anyone actually thought Obama was going to finally end racism and hints thereof in this country by being elected. Well, it is my sincere opinion that racism has stepped up, ironically, rather than diminishing under his presidency – and not by the folks you would normally suspect.
Conservatives always are forced to prove they are not racist, that they are tolerant, and that they mean well, while Democrats get an automatic pass because they support policies that “help” different minority groups, giving each group their “fair share.” The liberal media and liberal leaders really make sure to spell this out to their constituents and viewers. But shouldn’t it be the liberals having to prove they are not racist?
Case in point: Back in 2002, Republican Trent Lott had to step down because of supposedly racist comments he made about Strom Thurmond. He said that the country would not have been facing as many of its current problems had Thurmond been elected president (keep in mind, this was just a dumb cheer at a birthday party). Republicans blasted him, and so did Democrats. Now Democrats are denying that they ever pushed for Lott’s resignation in order to cover up the fact that they’re not pushing for Reid to step down, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Said Sen. Mary Landrieu in 2002: “Does the Republican Party think this should be their leader? I can promise you if a Democrat leader said something like this or close to it, their leadership position would be pulled, because our party feels very strongly [about racism].”
Case in point #2: Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Donovan McNabb a few years back. Limbaugh basically said that sports media was very enthralled to have a good black quarterback because that was a position dominated by whites, and thus, his talent was hyper-inflated by the press as a result of this desire to see a black quarterback rise to historical ability. Whether or not Limbaugh’s or Reid’s quotes are true is up for debate, but these episodes only shine more light on even more hypocrisy. Today, the Democrats are circling the wagons, asking us to move on and forget about Reid’s quote because there are “too many other important issues to talk about.” We are expected to forget what Reid said because he’s a Democrat and because all of the civil rights groups give him a “clean record” on race…whatever that means. Yet, recall that Limbaugh was literally blocked from becoming a minority owner in an NFL franchise just last year because of his quote from six years ago. But wasn’t it also just this past year when Joe Biden said of Obama, “I think you’ve got the first sorta mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright” and when Bill Clinton said of Obama during the primaries, “A few years ago this guy would have been getting us coffee?”
What Harry Reid could have said was, “Hey, I like this Obama guy. I don’t think Americans really care what color his skin is.” But he didn’t, and I urge everyone not to give Harry Reid a pass simply because he is a Democrat. Remember Reid’s quote next time some tells you that it is conservatives who dwell on race and that liberals only want the best for everyone. If only.
– Johnny Simmons
The tomfoolery exhibited by various elements in our society never ceases to amaze. It is as if a state of drunken stupor persists when it comes to our commitment to the Afghan war, not to mention the Afghan people. We find ourselves in something of an “intellectual malaise,” if I can steal a quote from Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. Let me begin by stating clearly that I salute our Commander-in-Chief’s order to deploy further troops into Afghanistan. What I find distasteful is this administration’s lack of commitment to the war.
This is a war not only against terrorism but against the very fabric of oppression. Centuries of a decaying and backward society have led to great misery and hopelessness. For once – and we Americans must recognize this – it has come time for the pendulum to swing the other way. We cannot and should not desert the principle on which lay the foundations of our own nation: secured liberty for all.
It wasn’t so long ago that we almost universally embraced the war in Afghanistan as legitimate, yet it has now become a war of choice. Have we not learned anything from history? Was it not these same naysayers who critiqued the Afghan abandonment of the ‘80s, of how we up and left the region leaving the devil to wallow in his hobby room?
So, what say the Michael Moores of this world? In Mr. Moore’s recent open letter to President Obama he stated:
“You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there.”
Perhaps those who question our intent in Afghanistan should experience the level of injustices done to the Afghans not just by the Taliban or al-Qaida but also by decades of corruption and abject poverty. Indeed, it would be disastrous for the international community as a whole to ignore such a strategically crucial region in light of today’s nuclear-armed world.
The pseudo-intellectuals amongst us need to realize the severity of this issue. As leaders of the free world, we have a responsibility to uphold certain universal values. We need to lead by example, not shy away in the face of war. A long commitment is required to stabilize Afghanistan, and consequently the entire region. Anything less would be to lay down a responsibility we promised to take on. That’s neither right nor American.
– Anonymous
This past Tuesday marked a big day for the Republican Party and the conservative voice that is once again being restored: Scott Brown was elected to the Senate seat that belonged to Ted Kennedy for over 47 years until he passed away this past August. Kennedy and the entire state of Massachusetts have supported a far-left reaching agenda for the better part of the last 50 years in spite of Senator Kennedy’s ability not to drive around and through lakes too well.
However, this election was not just about the issues that surround the state of Massachusetts; this was an election that decided the outcome of the nation. With Kennedy being gone and Brown stepping in, this takes away the filibuster-proof majority that President Obama enjoyed in his first year of office. This election was a symbol for the direction this country is going and how the people felt about it. Massachusetts voters could have just as easily selected a Democrat that isn’t all too familiar with her recent Red Sox history, but nonetheless they would have provided the continuity of previous leaders and elections.
Instead, the state of Massachusetts selected a state senator with conservative leanings to represent them in the United States Senate. This was because of the issues of health care, cap-and-trade, and many other bills that feature big-government and unsustainable spending the American people are growing tired of.
The most pressing of issues right now is health care. Scott Brown campaigned on being against the current health care bill that his Democratic counter-part supported. Brown and the GOP alike have been against the large taxes and regulations this bill is going to put on insurance companies and individual citizens if it were to be enacted. With Brown in office, this gives the Republicans 41 seats in the Senate and prevents the Democrats from being able to block whatever filibuster the GOP may use to kill the current health care “reform” bill.
But let’s look at the most current trends in politics. The states of New Jersey and Virginia responded to the Democrats’ current foothold on national politics by electing Republican governors this year. Both states previously had Democrats filling the roles of Governor and both seats in the Senate. How is it that traditionally left-wing States like New Jersey and Massachusetts are selecting Republican leadership? Why is it we are seeing major electoral changes only one year removed from inauguration of the most liberal president this country has ever elected? Is it because the American people are tired of big government? Tired of wasteful spending? Tired of seeing their children and grandchildren’s futures being sold to China?
Perhaps America is waking up and beginning to understand that the policies of the current Congress and executive branch are just not going to cut it anymore. Americans want more than catchy phrases like “hope” and “change”. Americans want jobs, Americans want opportunity, and most importantly, Americans want freedom. The Democrats have failed to provide or improve any of these aspects of our lives thus far.
This election wasn’t just about a Senate seat in Massachusetts, it was a message to Washington that things are changing, and that Americans are not going to tolerate Washington shoving big government down their throats anymore.
–James Padget
The first words on the homepage for Tech’s Office of Diversity Programs read, “Diversity is one of Georgia Tech’s greatest strengths.”
But is it?
The results of an investigative study by The Conservative Buzz into the political donations of Tech faculty, staff and administration found that an overwhelming near-90% of their private, personal campaign contributions went to Democrats or Democratic-aligned organizations during the 2006-2009 campaign cycles.
Of the $82,433 contributed to candidates by Tech employees, a mere $9,065 went to Republicans or conservative-leaning organizations, and a paltry $250 was designated as independent – a single donation made to the campaign of perennial presidential candidate Ralph Nader.
An inordinate plurality of the monies went to one candidate inparticular in 2008: 48% of the total dollars contributed were given to Barack Obama, the then-Democratic presidential nominee. Comparatively, only $1,500 of Tech professors’ individual donations went to John McCain, Obama’s Republican opponent.
Similarly, Democratic organizations like the DNC raked in a 6% share of the campaign cash from Tech employees. And while the RNC took in a nearly equivalent $4,540, other liberal groups like the notoriously left-wing MoveOn.org received contributions in excess of $1,000. The pro-abortion group EMILY’s List received a $2,000 contribution from one Tech professor alone.
The donations information, compiled via open-source data released by the FEC, was accessed and cross-referenced for accuracy via the online contributions databases OpenSecrets.org and FundRace.org, a subsidiary of the Huffington Post. However, the nature of the databases made searching for professors’ names one-by-one a next-to-impossible task. Thus, searches were performed by employer; any and all variations of “Georgia Tech, GA Tech, Georgia Institute of Technology,” etc., were entered in search of relevant contributions. Such measures considered, it is conceivable (and extremely likely) that many Tech employees who contributed to political campaigns escaped detection due to this non-comprehensive search method. But the results we were able to capture indeed tell a troubling partisan story.
It is hardly surprising to find a massive leftward tilt among Tech faculty when it comes to their political affiliations. In 2007, the school was chastised publicly by watchdog groups and by the press for soliciting volunteers (using taxpayers’ money) for an Obama campaign rally on campus in violation of state code. In 2006, Tech was sued by two conservative students who had their free speech rights silenced by Tech’s unconstitutional school policies that advocated an unusually selective notion of “diversity” and “tolerance.”
Admittedly, the private political donations of Tech professors do not expressly violate the employee conduct code which prohibits staff from being “involved” with campaigns, but the irrepressibly partisan bent of Tech professors’ individual contributions call into serious question Tech’s commitment to diversity (ironically, the number two goal of GT’s Strategic Plan).
An environment where difference of opinion is not only tolerated but encouraged is the hallmark of a great institution. By that account, academic diversity is not “one of Georgia Tech’s greatest strenghts,” and the facts seem to prove it.
– Chandler Epp
Evidently, Georgia Tech Professor Thomas “Danny” Boston looks at President Obama through rose tinted glasses. In a recent interview on CNN, the economics professor gave President Obama a B overall grade for his first year in office. For a student of economics, Professor Boston surely missed the mark on this one. Let’s dissect his presidential report card more closely.
For financial stability: A. According to Boston, the president was able to avoid a complete disaster because he stabilized the collapse via spending programs. However, many critics believe that the worst is yet to come since the markets were never allowed to “bottom out” and recover through the free market structure. But, Boston did give Obama a C+ on bank loans because the banks are “hoarding cash”. This grade more accurately reflects the inability to acquire a loan when money is tight and guarded.
On fiscal stimulus: A. Professor Boston: “[It was] the right thing to do at the right time in the right amount.” Boston criticized the stimulus because not enough money was given to small business. Well, wasn’t that the whole point of the stimulus, to help America get back to work? The unemployment rate has only increased since the stimulus bill was passed. Boston said Obama had “stopped this tremendous and mammoth collapse of jobs… We didn’t go into a great Depression, but we don’t have new jobs.” Curiously, Boston admits that the bill failed its mission, but he still gives the president an overall B, and an A+ for attention to the economy.
I wish I got an A+ for simply paying attention in class. To top it all off, Boston gave the government a B- for its activist role that has “caused some investor uncertainty.” Who wants to borrow and spend when Obama is spending all your money for you?
Boston’s grades for Obama received are based on his intentions, not actions. Obama similarly won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his intentions. I bet the professor doesn’t grade his students for their effort, so why does he grade the President on his good intentions? If I ever need to take another economics class at Tech, remind me to choose a professor who grades for accuracy and achievement and who actually looks critically at our government’s ill-advised actions, not our president’s rhetoric and failed policies.
–Kristen Greig
As I ride home from a victorious evening in Tallahassee, I can’t help but love my country, complete with football, beautiful fall weather, and hospitable Southern folks. However, amidst this beautiful, sunny afternoon, the rays of our capitalist sun provide our country with great prosperity are being blocked by the storm brewing in our nation’s capital. Instead of preserving and defending our Constitution, politicians are focusing on how to get reelected by hastily passing a health care bill to fulfill liberal, socialist promises of old.
Is there hope to prevent an intrusive and unwanted healthcare bill? Senator Judson Hill thinks so. At his town hall on Monday, October 5, he made a case for protecting Georgians from an unwanted healthcare bill by enacting the natural defenses found in our Constitution: States’ Rights in the Tenth Amendment.
Does Georgia have the Constitutional ability to successfully reject a federal health care plan? By enforcing the Tenth Amendment and passing a Georgian constitutional amendment to preserve the freedom to choose to purchase or abstain from purchasing a health care plan, Georgia can protect itself from further economic damage that this healthcare bill would create. The 10th states: “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution… are reserved to the States.” Certainly, the right to health care is not included in our Constitution, and the federal government arguably has no right to create such a bill. The state can use Constitutional law to reject ObamaCare.
Currently, health care accounts for one third of Georgia’s budget. Under ObamaCare, the state would assume a $1-3 billion responsibility that would kill our state’s economy. The state already must make huge program cuts and radical program transformations. Hill says that tax raises are not an option. Instead, we need to focus on free market solutions for health care reform. To make health care more affordable for all Georgians, Georgia must open it’s borders to interstate commerce when purchasing a health care plan. This means allowing individuals to buy their health care plan from Alabama or Florida. While this may harm insurance companies located in Georgia in the short run, the competition will force companies to adapt and reformulate their policies to cater to the consumer’s preferences. Prices will drop when the insurance companies feel the natural stress that a free market creates. Competition in the market place is always good for the consumer and sparks innovation. The health care market will respond to this competition in the same manner.
As the nation’s leader in conservative health care reform, Georgia has taken steps to prevent unfunded mandates from being shoved down the throats of Georgian tax payers like you and me. For example, in 2005, Hill co-sponsored a tort reform bill that impeded frivolous lawsuits against doctors that incur huge costs for these doctors, which trickles down to the consumer. Additionally, Georgia must enforce the law that require health insurance providers to partially refund its customers for insurance premiums if they are healthy. This incentive is a proactive way to promote a healthy lifestyle and lower health care costs.
Senator Hill and others are taking proactive, business-minded steps to true, conservative health care reform.