The hot-button issue of illegal immigration has bubbled to the top once again over the summer. The SB1070 law from Arizona has sparked politicians into taking another stab at the immigration problem. But what’s it going to take for true immigration reform this time around?

States like Arizona have it the hardest being on the border when it comes to illegal immigration. The flow of illegal immigrants contributes to drug and violence related crime, and also puts stress on services such as hospitals and the public school system. They are a burden on the taxpayers and they can take away jobs from citizens. The people in Arizona are desperate for solutions to the immigration problem, especially with the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected Mexican drug trafficker.

With the federal government lacking solutions that get to the heart of the problem, Arizona lawmakers took the matter into their own hands. The now infamous Arizona law SB1070 was passed in response, including key provisions such as making illegal immigration a state crime and allowing officers to check immigration status. The officers would only be able to check the status during a lawful stop for another offense. Once officers make the stop, they must additionally have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally. Whether the law would actually be effective is up for debate, especially since the aforementioned provisions were blocked by a federal judge for now.

President Obama and the Justice department filed this lawsuit with Arizona based on the potential of racial discrimination and overstepping the already existing federal law. This is politics at its finest however, because the law specifically bans racial profiling and compliments the existing federal law (it is less strict in fact). It is merely a maneuver to please the constituents who are opposed to enforcing the laws.

It would seem the real reason for attacking Arizona policy is that Obama and many Democrats want comprehensive immigration reform first. Arizona senator Jon Kyl heard it first hand when he spoke with the president on the issue. Obama said if the borders were secured, there would be no reason for Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform. The “comprehensive” policy would most likely involve giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants already here. In other words, they want to make it easier to become a citizen, and then maybe talk about enforcing the border as an afterthought. That’s already been tried with the amnesty legislation of 1986. It failed because it didn’t attack the heart of the problem – unsecure borders.

If true immigration reform is to happen, it must be looked at as an issue of safety before all else. With the little enforcement we have on the borders, it creates an incentive for criminals and terrorists to access our country. It is a huge source for the transport of illegal drugs as well. If politicians truly care about homeland security, they will do everything to close off our border. People do not like the extra tax burden illegal immigrants place, but it is primarily a problem of protecting Americans.
Politicians who have emphasized securing the border are already starting to see the benefit. Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, took a stand for securing the borders and signed the SB 1070 law. Since then, she has gained favor with Arizonans and easily won her primary election. John McCain also handily won his primary after a strong shift to the right on immigration policy. In the polls, Arizonans supported the law with over 60%, and a majority of Americans supported it as well. It is an issue that Americans are fed up with and they want to see action. Republicans might be divided on ways to implement immigration reform, but they all need to agree on securing the borders first and foremost. It is the desire of the people, and Republicans would be wise to continue the push.

To their credit, President Obama and congress have been taking action on the issue. Arizona is now starting to receive their share of 500 of 1,200 National Guard troops ordered by Obama to patrol the southern border. Just recently, Obama signed an immigration spending bill with bipartisan support. The measure will pay for 1500 more border agents among other security provisions. Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain continue to fight for the border saying that the new law doesn’t do as much as it should. It is a step in the right direction, but there is still much to be done before stopping the flow of illegal immigration.

In the meantime, states should continue to pass legislation to secure their borders. It reflects the desire of the people and it sends a message to Washington to act. Immigration advocates will still be pushing for easier access to America, but conservatives should stay on track by implementing practical reforms such as troop deployment, surveillance, and physical walls. Once we can prevent illegal immigrants from coming across the borders, the rest will fall into place. With the source of the problem cut off, congress can take a fresh look at reforming immigration policy for those who are already here. Who knows, Republicans might even be open to talk about streamlining access to America.

In August 2005, Americans were reeling from the worst environmental catastrophe in recent memory, and begging for help. The state and local governments were overwhelmed and unprepared for the magnitude of what had to be done. Historic New Orleans was devastated as many pointed the finger of blame at President Bush, calling his response slow and inefficient. Five years later, the country seems to be suffering from a case of déjà vu. An environmental disaster, compounded with mismanagement at the federal level, is crippling the Gulf coast and leaving many Americans wondering who to blame.

The BP oil spill began as an opportunity for President Obama to demonstrate his administration’s superiority over the “disastrous” policymakers of the Bush era. But the oil spill quickly became another example of the federal government’s inefficiency and ineptitude. Decisions made by President Obama concerning clean-up, recovery, and even his own attention to the area are completely contradictory to Louisiana’s best interests.

Immediately after the April 20th explosion and resulting oil spill, the United States government received several offers of clean-up assistance from other countries. A spokesman from the Dutch embassy, Floris Van Hovell, said in an interview with Voice of America that his country stood ready and waiting to aid the United States. But an antiquated law from the protectionist era prohibits foreign ships and crews from working in American waters. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, was designed to protect American maritime industry. Yet, as the crisis in Louisiana worsened, President Obama allowed the destruction to continue by not issuing a waiver of the act.

Waivers of the Jones Act are not uncommon. In 2006, a private company was granted a waiver of the Jones Act for shipping purposes. Despite accusations of not giving enough support to the Gulf, President Bush issued a waiver of the Jones Act after Hurricane Katrina, calling upon American allies in a time of need. However, President Obama saw no need to cry for help, preferring to wait until American ships and crews were ready to tackle the situation.

Obama’s hesitance to waive the act may have been due to his relationship with labor unions. Rather than use the advanced equipment possessed by other countries, Obama encouraged American crews to take the lead on cleanup. He seemed to disregard the fact that these crews would need weeks of training before they could begin cleanup. Skimmers in the Persian Gulf built especially for these disasters sit idle as Obama’s unions operate less capable equipment.

Ironically, Obama’s environmental policy may also be to blame for his failure to call upon foreign aid. Some Dutch vessels, for example, suck up oily water, extract most of the oil, then return the water to the ocean, nearly oil-free. However, the EPA and U.S. regulators claim that this water is not clean enough: in order to be returned to the Gulf of Mexico, water must be 99.9985% pure. It is perhaps on the basis of this absurd standard that President Obama has refused to waive the Jones Act, despite the wishes of his constituents.

In spite of this federal blunder, a full economic recovery for both Louisiana and its oil industry could have been possible. But President Obama’s obsession with advancing his environmental policy, no matter the costs, has made growth improbable. After the spill, Obama passed an offshore drilling moratorium, to the pleasure of environmentalists and concerned Americans. Among those opposing the moratorium, however, was the surprising coalition of shrimpers and fishers. These workers recognize the necessity of drilling to Louisiana’s coastline, and described the close relationship between the oil and seafood industries. 60% of polled individuals from the affected counties opposed Obama’s moratorium, and three quarters said that drilling should return at its original level.

The moratorium, though repealed, is still in de facto effect as uncertainty remains about the oil industry’s future. As drilling rigs evacuate the Gulf Coast for friendlier waters, Louisianans feel certain that this will cripple their economy. Before the spill, a proposed bill would ensure that royalties from offshore drilling went to aid Louisiana infrastructure and coastal restoration. However, with the future of offshore drilling uncertain, the money Louisiana needs to protect its coast against future accidents may be nowhere to be found.

Slowly but surely, the finger of blame is turning to President Obama for his mishandling of this disastrous oil spill. His refusal to immediately begin clean-up and his continued pressure to halt offshore drilling are destined to turn an environmental disaster into an economic catastrophe.

Obama’s policy in the Middle East has been based more heavily upon the perseverance of his political image than on pragmatism.

On Aug. 2, 2010, Obama said that he is on the way to fulfilling his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq. Under his plan, the United States will have removed all combat troops by Aug. 31, 2010 and 50,000 troops will remain to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide security for ongoing U.S. civilian efforts. Obama, however, seems more intent on being precisely on schedule to withdraw than to actually assess the situation and to make decisions based on that assessment. According to Obama’s website, “the responsible pace of redeployment called for by the Obama-Biden plan offers more than enough time for Iraqi leaders to get their own house in order….” However, on August 1, 2010, the Washington Post reported that “nearly five months after disputed parliamentary elections, leading Iraqi politicians say they have all but abandoned hope of resolving an impasse over forming a new government before fall.”

The latest government figures show that July has been the most violent month for Iraq in more than two years. These figures cause critics of the withdrawal to question the readiness of Iraqi security forces to take over.

Although Obama is adhering to his withdrawal timetable, he is doing so at the expense of stability in Iraq and the welfare of Iraqi civilians.

As Obama draws down forces in Iraq, he has also ordered a surge of 30,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. He has emphasized that al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that the goal of the war in Afghanistan is to ultimately defeat al-Qaeda. However, the goals of the withdrawal in Iraq and the defeat of al-Qaeda are at odds with each other. General Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, says that a quick U.S. withdrawal would result in a political vacuum that the al-Qaeda network could quickly fill, thus establishing a major safe haven from which to expand its jihad in the region and plan attacks against the West. A National Intelligence Estimate released on July 17, 2007 states that “al-Qaeda will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland… and will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaeda in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate.”

The continuing violence in Iraq and the Iraqis’ inability to form a new government reveals the region’s instability. The political vacuum created by US withdrawal would open the floodgates for sectarian and terrorist violence, and the inevitable spillover effects could destabilize the entire Middle East, including tipping the balance of power in favor of Iran. A State Department-issued report on global terrorism declared that Iran “remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism” in the world in 2009. On August 3, 2010, John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said that “this is exactly the wrong moment to complete the withdrawal of combat forces, given the uncertainty in Iraq and Iran’s increased involvement in trying to cause trouble in Iraq.” And yet, Obama not only ignores the threat of Iran, he wants to open up the possibility for talks in Afghanistan. According to an article in the Washington Post on August 5, 2010, Obama said he favored a “separate track” for discussion of the issue, in which the two countries have a “mutual interest” in fighting the Taliban. However, a February 7, 2005 threat report, which was released as part of the Wikileaks Papers, showed that U.S. commanders received regular reports of collusion between the Iranians, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremists groups. The report states that Iranians arm, train, shelter, and fund the jihadists.

The president told reporters that Iran “could be a constructive partner” with the U.S. in fighting the Taliban and stabilizing Afghanistan.

Obama was criticized in the 2008 presidential campaign for having an appeasement policy toward Iran. He has since made concerted efforts to assert his “hard-line” stance on Iran. On June 9, 2010, the U.N. Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran’s military establishment to pressure Iran to negotiate with the U.S. and its allies. However, the legitimacy of his stance on Iran begins to fall apart when he states that he wants to partner with a country who is at war with us. Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said in 2008 that “it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans….”

If there was any confusion on Iran’s sentiments and the likelihood that it would partner with us in Afghanistan, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the situation quite clear on the day after Obama’s new peace offering. According to the Weekly Standard, Ahmadinejad hosted Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and declared that their two nations, together with Tajikistan, could form an alliance that would serve as a bulwark against Western influence in the region.

Obama cannot continue to ignore the threat that Iran poses to both U.S. domestic security and to regional security in the Middle East.

The popular rhetoric of campaign speeches is a poor substitute for informed foreign policy decisions. Obama needs to adapt to changing situations in the Middle East, and make decisions that will protect the American people.

This just in:

BJ Lawson has won the Republican Party’s nomination for NC’s fourth congressional district, earning  46 percent of the 23,000 votes cast (2010 North Carolina Primary Election Results, WRAL.com (link)).

Lawson, who also won the 2008 GOP nomination, won tonight’s primary election running on a platform of limited government and fiscal responsibility. The Lawson campaign especially highlighted the importance of constitutional government and opposed the Federal Reserve.

“I think the primary message of the campaign has been about getting our economic freedom back, the freedom to create our own jobs and our own businesses and get the economy going again at the grass roots,” Lawson said in a post-election phone interview.

As the Republican candidate for the fourth district, Lawson will represent all of the constituents of Durham and Orange counties, as well as many residents of Wake and Chatham Counties. He will represent the Republican party against incumbent David Price (D) this November.

In addition to permanent residents of the fourth district, Duke students who registered to vote locally participated in tonight’s primary election. Chelsea Goldstein, current DSG Vice President for Academic Affairs, proudly voted in today’s Republican primary. She laments that “it’s a shame that so many people didn’t vote in such an important primary,” a competitive election for both the Republican House and Democratic Senate races. “I think going at noon and having less than 20 people having already voted at the polling place where all the Duke students should be voting was sad,” Goldstein says.

Nonetheless, “More than 7,000 Wake County people voted early, compared to 700 in 2006, the most recent off-year election without a presidential or gubernatorial race” (Turnout steady, slow for Tuesday primaries, WRAL.com (link)). However, 2006 was the lowest voter turnout in recent history at 12 percent, while “the 2008 presidential primary recorded the highest turnout at 37 percent” (Vote 2010: Trickle Of Voters Decide Key Races, WSOCTV.com (link)).

The Gothic Guardian also extends its congratulations to first-time candidate and runner-up Frank Roche, who won 41% percent of the vote, as well as candidates David Burnett and George Hutchins (9% and 5%, respectively) (WRAL.com (link)).

Read The Gothic Guardian‘s profile on BJ Lawson here.

You know there is a problem with the tax system when the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury fails to file his taxes correctly.

Whether or not Timothy Geithner knowingly evaded his taxes, the discrepancy shows how complex our current tax system really is.

If you’ve ever filed taxes, images of inscrutable tax policies and forms are probably ingrained in your recent memory – studies agree.  A Tax Foundation survey in April 2007 found that 83 percent of people surveyed said the federal income tax is “very complex” or somewhat “complex.” The Brookings Institution reports that a recent study estimated that taxpayers spent 3.2 billion hours and $18.8 billion preparing and paying taxes in 2000. On average, each taxpayer spent an average of 25.5 hours and $149.

The tax system is difficult to navigate because over the years, Congress has made rules and exceptions to incentivize taxpayers to use their money in certain ways. However, taxpayers often cannot easily take advantage of incentives, because they are hidden amid the mounds of instructions.

In addition to being complex, the current tax system discourages savings, according to a testimony to the President’s Advisory Board on Tax Reform. The government taxes hard-earned income each step of the way. With payroll taxes and income taxes, state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, sales tax – even taxes on money made from investments, the government seems to have developed a never-ending stream of innovative methods that serve the sole purpose of taking money from the Americans that earn it.

To fix this system that fails to reward the middle class for working hard and being economically productive, the tax system needs to be completely overhauled. We need a simpler, flatter tax.  It seems that most Americans would agree, as

78 percent of people surveyed by the Tax Foundation believed the federal tax system  needed “major changes” or “a complete overhaul.”

One alternative tax proposal is the “FairTax.” The FairTax would eliminate all federal income and payroll-based taxes and institute a flat 23 percent national sales tax in its place. The tax is levied at the point of purchase on all goods and services for personal consumption.

According to the Americans for Fair Tax, the FairTax is more progressive than the individual income tax, payroll tax, and the corporate income tax. Only those with the ability to pay actually pay. It eliminates both the payroll tax and hidden tax costs passed along to consumers in the price of goods and services.

By proposing federal government issue monthly “prebates” that would ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, this tax method would continue to protect lower-income families. For example, under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines for 2005, a family of four could consume $25,660 worth of new goods tax-free (under this system, used products would not be taxed at all). Above the poverty line, taxes increase according to how much a family consumes. The tax, unlike the current tax system, gives workers their full paycheck so they have the choice to spend, save, or invest.

One primary point of concern is the viability of such a flat tax, even though this model has already improved financial stability in a number of European countries. In a February 2010 article, the Financial Times compared 27 European countries’ gross government debt to their gross domestic product in 2010. The overall European Union nation has a gross government debt that represents 79.3 percent of their gross domestic product. European nations with flat tax systems tend to have more financially efficient government systems: six of the eight lowest indebted countries have a flat tax system, with an average gross public debt of 29.2 percent.

Tax policy is complicated and controversial, and ideas for tax reform are often met with cautious silence from political leaders and misrepresentation from media outlets.  According to research by the Business and Media Institute, the media has largely ignored the FairTax and has mischaracterized many of its measures when the FairTax has been covered. It is time that the American people set the facts straight and advocate for a better system.

So when the dreaded April 15 rolls around again, just remember that the Secretary of the Treasury could not even get his taxes right. Hopefully that will offer some consolation. When it doesn’t, consider supporting a better method of taxing.

As we look forward to the 2010 elections, The Gothic Guardian sat down with BJ Lawson, a Republican candidate for the United States Congress representing North Carolina, for an interview.Our interview with Frank Roche, Lawson’s opponent in the Republican primary, can be found here.

“I’m not trying to fit into anyone’s box, in terms of labels,” William “BJ” Lawson says.

At age 36, Lawson, a Republican Congressional candidate for North Carolina’s fourth district, has already fit and outgrown many labels. He has been an engineer, a doctor, an entrepreneur, and now again a potential congressman (he ran in 2008 as well). His political leanings are similarly difficult to pin down – having been deemed progressive, Republican, libertarian, Lawson prefers to simply cite the United States Constitution as his platform.

Accurate, concise labels, appear difficult to find for this particular political candidate.

This is not to say that Lawson is arbitrarily running for the GOP nomination. He has considered himself a Republican his entire life – reading the National Review at a young age, listening to Rush Limbaugh, and even supporting the George H.W. Bush campaign. Many of his political beliefs align safely within Republican party lines: for example Lawson, like most of his conservative peers, is pro-life and against gun control. He supports a smaller government and reduced bureaucracy.

But for each stance that colors within the lines, there is also a thoughtfully articulated idea that challenges standard-issue Republican beliefs. These are not the outlandish suggestions of a radical, but the product of a thoughtful political evolution that took place over the last 10 years.

For example, Lawson is vehemently against the existence of the Federal Reserve, a major point of contention between him and his opponent in the Republican primary, Frank Roche. While his stance deviates significantly from that of his party, Lawson defends his belief with plenty of factual evidence and intelligent rhetoric.

Lawson claims that the Federal Reserve fits the mold of a Marxist organization and has helped provoke inflation since its inception in 1913. “Plank number five [of the Marxist “ten commandments”] is centralization of the control of money and credit in the hands of the state,” Lawson says. “That’s it. That’s the federal reserve.”

Using a simple example of purchasing milk, Lawson described the lack of flexibility and free market in the Federal Reserve “monopoly” system. He says that, under a commodity purchasing system analogous to that of the Federal Reserve, all Americans would be forced to buy their milk from the Federal Reserve at a price solely determined by the Federal Reserve itself. If you want chocolate milk and the Fed only sells vanilla, Lawson says, then you just cannot have chocolate milk.

Instead, Lawson advocates for a system that promotes free market currency options. “There’s nothing wrong with the Federal Reserve note as a currency … but it shouldn’t have a monopoly. Just like the post office still exists, even in the age of Federal Express and UPS,” he says.

It is because of his belief in a less monopolistic currency system that Lawson supported the Plenty, a community currency coupon intended to encourage Pittsboro, NC consumers to purchase local goods. Roche, Lawson’s Republican rival, was critical of Lawson’s belief in competing currencies. Lawson counters that the plenty is really a means of promoting grassroots prosperity and local self-sustainability. “The idea behind the plenty was simply to recognize that at a very basic level we need to have communities who are able to sustain themselves in certain areas,” he says.

Even Lawson’s more conventional political positions seem to be a product of research and careful consideration. He is against affirmative action because he believes that Americans should be protected by government policy as individuals, not groups. By following “systems of counting noses and doling out special favors based on things like affirmative action,” Lawson believes that the U.S. is taking “a step towards collectivism.”

Lawson’s own history with gun control policy best illustrates his commitment to adapting his views to a consistent, logical framework. As a child, Lawson says that he was not raised around guns, and as a medical resident, grew increasingly wary of guns as he personally watched gunshot victims brought into the emergency room. “You’d just see bullets in places where they’re not supposed to be,” Lawson says.

But after the Virginia Tech shooting, Lawson says his perspective changed. He argues that had a campus bystander been able to successfully shoot down the gunman, the end results would have been less catastrophic. A means for self-defense, Lawson believes, is critical to the preservation of individual freedom and protection against tyranny.

“If you do not honor an individual’s right to self defense, with firearms being … the fundamental equalizer between people of different physical strength, you’ve paved yourself a nice downhill path to tyranny pretty quickly,” Lawson says.

Lawson’s open mindedness has allowed him to form opinions that go beyond cookie-cutter arguments, especially on controversial issues such as gay marriage. Lawson believes that marriage should be outside of government jurisdiction altogether and, consequently, that gay marriage is permissible because it is not the government’s place to dictate a social principle like marriage.

But Lawson goes further. He recognizes the necessity of government involvement in a domain like marriage for practical reasons (taxes must take family structure into account, etc.) and argues that the government should simply create a more accommodating legal framework for families and partnership. He says the necessity for such a legal framework extends beyond gay marriage and would also affect partnerships such as those between unmarried, elderly siblings caring for one another.

“We need bigger churches, we need better, stronger families, we need more individual liberties and the way you do that isn’t by growing government to make it define more things,” Lawson says. “It’s by saying you know what, you’re right, this isn’t a government issue.”

Lawson’s willingness to make innovative, controversial proposals separates him from many other Republican politicians, including Roche. Roche previously said in an interview with The Gothic Guardian that he did not consider Lawson to be a Republican and believed that Lawson should be running on a more progressive party’s ticket.

Lawson, too, cites a number of crucial differences between Roche and himself. On a basic level, Lawson believes that he has more experience in working with people and observing economics through an individual, personal lens as an entrepreneur and doctor.

He also rejects Roche’s criticism about his place in the Republican Party and any claims that his progressive social views will hurt his ability to win the Republican base. In Lawson’s view, these are merely arguments that inhibit actual discourse about important issues. “As soon as someone starts to label me a Republican, conservative, progressive, libertarian, whatever … as soon as we rely on labels, instead of actually talking about the issues … it really shortcuts the dialogue,” he says.

He believes that he has the grassroots support and media presence to challenge and beat David Price. Lawson initially dropped out of the 2010 race because he questioned his ability to win against Price, but has since reevaluated his position. After seeing Price vote in favor of the health care bill last December, Lawson decided that it was time to reenter the race.

He is hoping to build on the relationships first formed in his 2008 run, when he received 36 percent of the vote. Lawson reasons that, without the wave of Obama-support Price had in 2008, his campaign will have a much higher likelihood of success. With the roughly 150,000 votes he received, Lawson believes that he would have earned 45 to 47 percent of the vote had it not been for the Obama factor. “We have a chance, and we can do that because the dynamics for voter turnout are gonna be lot different in 2010 than they were in 2008,” he says.

Unlike many other Republican candidates in traditionally Democrat districts (Price has been in office for two decades now), Lawson may also have the financial backing needed to pose a serious challenge. While the fourth district Republican candidate raised only $50,000 in 2006, Lawson was able to raise $600,000 in 2008. Aided by endorsements from traditional conservatives like Ron Paul, in poured the donations in small increments, each one averaging around $100. This year, Lawson hopes to raise over a million.

Should he win, Lawson seems determined to restore constitutional order to Congress. He routinely carries pocket-sized copies of the Constitution to hand to potential voters (he gave each of us interviewers a copy) and gave out 50,000 of these copies the last time he ran for office.

He says that if Americans want real change, even the ones “who are progressive and who [were] just weeping on election night in tears of joy,” they should simply return to the Constitution. That kind of change will not include auto-industry or big bank bailouts, or the continued military presence in countries like Afghanistan. It will also not include approving votes for initiatives like the Patriot Act, for which Price voted in favor.

“Let’s get beyond the fact that the constitution was written and put into place by imperfect human beings in a social environment that left a lot to be desired in terms of equal rights for every American individual. And let’s look back to the philosophy upon which our nation was founded and that is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for every human being,” he says.

When American President Woodrow Wilson initiated the League of Nations in 1919, his aim was to create an organization that would unite national governments in the pursuit of a global agenda: peace. Criticism of the move, however, flowed thick and fast, with perhaps the most lasting objection being that America should not serve as the “world’s policeman.”

There is little doubt that the United States could fill such a role, especially after the end of the Cold War and the political decline of the only major contender for international hegemony. The topic of “policing” has been raised more recently in critiques of America’s foreign wars.  Now, a spike in longstanding tensions between the U.S. and China over human rights issues, caused by the sentencing of a Chinese dissident, has again pushed the question to the forefront of the political scene; except, it has been re-worded. Critics no longer ask if America should serve as the world’s policeman, but if it can.

Tan Zuoren, a Chinese magazine editor and environmentalist, was officially sentenced to five years in prison for subversion of state power on February 9. The Chinese government claims that several emails written by Mr. Tan criticizing the 1989 bloodshed at Tiananmen Square are designed to undermine state power, and is using these emails as grounds for the charge.

The sentencing has sent Chinese and American human rights activists into an uproar. According to the New York Times, Amnesty International alleges the real impetus behind Mr. Tan’s sentencing is his plan to release a criticism of state-directed school construction in Sichuan Province, where thousands of children died in a 2008 earthquake as schools collapsed (“Editor Reviewing China Quake Deaths Is Sentenced”). In both scenarios, the Chinese government has obstructed Tan’s freedom of speech, which is protected under China’s constitution according to 2004 revisions.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama have been hesitant to address human rights in China. Obama, against protests from the Chinese government, met with the Dalai Lama on February 18 – but the President took pains to make the meeting appear casual, refusing to see the Dalai Lama in the Oval Office (the meeting took place in the Map Room). By receiving a political leader from a region victimized by China in such a manner, Obama has allowed China to dictate his treatment of foreign dignitaries.

Clinton publicly supported Google’s plan to stop censoring search results on its China engine as a step towards freer expression in the nation, triggering a rebuke from the Chinese government. The Secretary of State has kept silent, however, as a confrontation unfolds between Google and China over attempted hacking by people affiliated with the Chinese military. Google’s threats to pull its program from Chinese webspace unless free speech rights are honored have received no backing from American leadership.

Despite the limited action that has been taken, the overall message sent by America remains conciliatory as China’s global economic and political power continues to grow. It would be an exaggeration to say this strategy has caused a confrontation among Democrats, but human rights activists are unhappy with what appears to be the prioritization of economic and trade concerns over the welfare of the Chinese people, a strategy typically attributed to the Republican Party. At the same time, the political leadership in Washington is constrained by the enormous foreign trade deficit and a desire for Chinese cooperation regarding matters of international policy, such as limiting Iran’s nuclear program.

These economic and political circumstances , which make America somewhat dependent on China’s good will, make the question of America’s “policing” habits a moot point. The country’s political leadership has neither the motivation nor the mettle to challenge China’s human rights violations. Gone are the days when a months-long hostage crisis overseas can be ended by a single warning from the White House. The U.S. is grappling with so many other issues that the social politics of the Chinese government currently have no place on its list of concerns.

In fact, the resurgence of human rights as a point of global attention does not derive from any change in equilibrium on the issue — China still offends, America still halfheartedly slaps them on the wrist with the national media — but rather from an increased focus on China itself. Human rights have merely been dragged into the media limelight by habit and happenstance.

This does not mean that the U.S. should never be concerned with China’s human rights policy. America has, on several occasions, infringed on the sovereignty of foreign powers when great injustice has occurred (the plight of those in occupied France during WWII comes to mind). Whether the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are another manifestation of that principle is hotly debated, but will be passed over here.

Should the situation in China progress to a point where the populace is treated with blatant injustice and brutality, then America may have grounds to interfere – the nation’s legacy of so-called “policing” in such matters suggests that it would interfere. But events have not escalated to that point, and America has its own concerns, and so for now China’s human rights matters will continue to decorate the headlines of international newspapers instead of the headings of U.S. policy memos.

Bribery, corruption, cronyism, you name it. Obama’s new appointees have participated in them all.

These policy “czars,” as they are often called by the media and the Obama administration, are high level White House officials appointed sans Senate confirmation. Historically, presidential administrations have used czars to rise above the usual Washington fray and help various bureaucracies work together. However, the Obama administration has run amok with the appointments.

According to the White House Report to Congress on White House Staff, the czars are among the highest paid staffers in the White House, and they have a free rein with federal funds and policy-making . There is not enough scrutiny of their actions, and many Americans are not even aware of their existence. If we look closely at some of the backgrounds of these czars, we find histories riddled with corruption, and they bring their expertise to the current administration.

On the campaign trail, Obama pledged to transform Washington’s lobbyist culture. Soon after taking office, he signed an executive order saying that White House appointees should not participate “in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to any former employer or former clients.” Certainly a noble goal to bring change to Washington.

Ladies and gentlemen: meet Obama-appointed health czar, Washington professional Nancy DeParle, formally known as the director of the White House Office of Health Reform. DeParle ran the Medicare and Medicaid programs during the Clinton administration. Following her tenure, she proceeded to make over $6 million in the health care private sector, according to the Investigative Reporting Workshop, a project of the school of communication at American University. DeParle served on the boards of nine other prominent medical companies companies, many of which have undergone federal investigations and whistleblower lawsuits. An example is while DeParle was a board member of the Guidant Corporation, government regulators found that the company was hiding patient deaths from the FDA.

While serving on the boards of these companies (2002-2008), DeParle was also a member of the government-sponsored Medical Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC). MedPAC advises Congress on the services Medicare should cover and its reimbursement rates. According to The Commonwealth Fund, a private organization that supports the improvement of the health care system, DeParle is quoted as saying that Obama was “open to making the recommendations of MedPAC mandatory.”

The Obama administration casually overlooks DeParle’s industry ties, despite its rhetoric. The Investigative Reporting Workshop found that as the health czar, she controls $19 billion of federal stimulus money that has been earmarked for health information technology.  DeParle served on the Board of Directors for the company Cerner Corp., which, shockingly, specializes in health information technology.

For another spectacle of cronyism within the Obama administration, look to Adolfo Carrión. He heads the White House Office of Urban Affairs, whose role according to a July 2009 Washington Post article, is to be “part of the Obama administration’s new kind of urban policy to address cities and also their suburbs, which urban advocates hoped would be the focus of the administration’s development approach.” In March of 2009, the New York Times reported that Carrion had accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from developers and real estate firms while their projects were being reviewed by Carrion’s office. As a result, these companies landed lucrative deals.

Carrion also has been known to spend an excessive amount of taxpayer dollars on items such as a $1,700 for the purchase and installation of blue fabric to cover a podium, $690 on gold-sealed business cards, and $50,000 on a going-away party on himself, according to a February 2009 NY Daily News article. A classic example of hard-working Americans’ tax dollars being flushed down the toilet.

On December 15, 2008, the Obama administration added yet another ethics-compromised Washington professional to the White House staff. Carol Browner was named the Director of the White House Office of Energy and and Climate Change Policy, or better known as the “energy czar.” Browner headed the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993-2000, and many controversies abounded during her reign. In her first term as the head of the EPA, a Congressional subcommittee found her to be using taxpayer funds to send out illegal lobbying materials to around 100 environmental lobbying organizations around the country. Browner used her government position to mobilize left-wing groups and forward her own liberal agenda.

In addition, according to the testimony in a freedom of information lawsuit filed against the EPA by the Landmark Legal Foundation, Browner ordered the destruction of agency computer files on her last day as the head of the EPA. A federal court order for the EPA to preserve records had already been put into place. When the case was brought to court by the Landmark Legal Foundation, the judge held the EPA in contempt of court.

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have voiced their concerns about Obama’s czars. Democrat Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia voiced his concerns in a cautionary letter to Obama in early 2009. In reference to past czars and White House staffers, Byrd writes that “they rarely testify before congressional committees and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege.” He adds that, “the rapid and easy accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances.” Ironic, since this is the same party that denounced the Bush administration’s use of executive power.

For his part, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) is sponsoring a Czar Accountability and Reform Act of 2009 that would “would bar the use of appropriated funds to pay either expenses or salaries of members of task forces, councils, or similar offices established by the president and headed by a person appointed inappropriately to such a post without Senate advice and consent.”

Obama promised to bring change to Washington, but he continues down the path riddled with corruption and cronyism. The facts are clear: despite touting its dedication to government transparency, the Obama administration has reneged on its promises and continues to cater to the Washington elite, amassing enough czars to make the Romanovs turn in their graves.

We have heard a lot recently about a return to core conservatism being, necessarily, a return to social conservatism.  Many within the party have reacted to the failed 2008 Republican Party and have adopted the view that the failure of the McCain-Palin ticket was a combination both of the continuation of George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” and the moderation taken to social issues by Senator McCain, and by extension his family and his campaign staff, publicly.

The general view of the Republican Party as the party of white, religious and wealthy men has been joined recently by what appears to be conclusive evidence of the importance of social conservatism to minorities (including blacks and Hispanics in California who voted on California Proposition 8).  Thus, Republicans are told that it is in their best interest, moving forward, to buy into social conservatism in order to retain votes, and secure new ones.

But, as proper conservatives, we should not buy this.  Issues that, in the end, come down to the cultural are difficult to solve or moderate, and even to articulate.  For example, a conservative conscience should tell us that in the abortion debate, when questions of life are at issue, life supersedes liberty.  For many of us this is the case, and yet other Republicans are proponents of the basic protections of Roe, admirers of Reagan’s nominee Justice O’Connor and supporters of Emily’s List congresswomen.

Consistent with conservative logic, we should approach the death penalty with the same manner of caution:   that caution over life should supersede any political action to be taken.  Isn’t this the most morally upright, conservative and conscientious objection to capital punishment?

Cautiousness should be taken where even one innocent may risk execution, in recognition of the irrevocability of death which conservatives often use as a feature of the abortion debate.  But the death penalty for many is an irreplaceable feature of an American system of justice, and leaders from Ronald Reagan to Mitt Romney have supported the continuation of its measures.

Moreover, this year GOProud, a newly formed gay Republican group replacing the Log Cabin Republicans, has chosen to co-sponsor CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, to some notable controversy.   And The Advocate is on record as referring to the McCain family as “notoriously pro-gay.”   We should learn from this that it is impractical to seek to exact a position statement on any one of these cultural issues, and declare it a part of the Republican Party platform.

This will prove to be to the continued failure of the Republican Party, and in my mind, is what has been behind much of the failure of the Democratic Party historically:  that when you strip away the social liberalism, there is nothing left to Democrats.  When you strip away the social conservatives from the Republicans, you have yet an understanding of the individual and his right, and control, of what he creates, a logic to governance, an understanding of debt, spending, and public service and merit-based pay and opportunity.  It is Republicans that fundamentally value independence from government, responsibility for success and failure, limited taxation, and by extension the fundamental nature of liberty itself.

Finally, Rachel Maddow, of all people to cite as an authority, speaks to the issue of Democrat party hesitancy, promise-breaking and yet still self-acclaimed libertarian righteousness—“when it can be said that the Republican Party is being equally as vigilant as the Democratic Party on equal rights, namely here gay rights, and not be laughed out of the room, there is indeed a Democrat problem.”

What you have in the Democrat Party’s policies of social conservatism is bigotry, and also guilt and irresolution.  The “soft bigotry of low expectations” that President George W. Bush spoke of before the NAACP in reference to affirmative action is one example of the first.

The Democratic Party’s guilt, and not just white guilt, completes the party’s platform on racial progressivism, since never before historically has it positioned itself on the correct side of the race issue when it could have made a difference (neither was it the party of Lincoln’s emancipation, nor the party of Eisenhower’s integration).  Ann Coulter, of all people to cite as an authority, brought this to issue in How to Talk to a Liberal.

Many will argue that “party realignment,” as if that term itself is a squelcher of any logic behind the party’s positions on race, can be said to account for this.  But, doesn’t this make the point itself?  By and large: people are not buying social conservatism, nor should they.  It divides, it makes familiar and activates as something useful a government’s willingness and ability to determine a nation’s culture or cultural values.

Social conservatism is not the same as religion or moral governance.  Social conservatism crosses the line, treats as policy what should govern and be governed in conscience.  Meghan McCain is often lauded for being Ann Coulter’s younger, more moderate opposite in what I refer to as the “political entertainment” industry.  Yet I cannot imagine either of these women running the country.

Social conservatives should stand down—you have been standing up for too long.  Do not hitch your stars to Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee; if you must hitch your star to a homegrown, small-town “country” politician, choose Alabama’s fifth district Republican Representative Parker Griffith.

Not content to merely spend money it doesn’t have, our government wants you to join in the spending too.

The health care reform bill, recently passed in both the House and Senate, will require all Americans to buy insurance, even if they would rather spend their money on other ventures.  The bill is especially pertinent to young adults, who have the highest uninsured rates of any age group.

Based on Census Bureau data covering 2006-2007, there are roughly 19 million young adults adults (aged 18-34) without insurance number, about 41 percent of the total 47 million Americans without insurance.  When the new legislation is enforced, all these young adults, who are most likely to be healthy of all age groups, will be required to purchase health insurance or face government fines.

It is not difficult to figure out why young adults would be forced to obtain insurance.  With regulations being placed on insurance companies to end discrimination based on prior medical conditions and to lower premiums for the elderly, increased expenditures and lost revenue must be made up somehow.

Young adults tend to incur fewer costs for insurance providers, and can be used to effectively subsidize care for older Americans, who are more likely to need expensive medical care.

While there is nothing wrong with the young helping to support the elderly, it would be a blatant violation of freedoms to force Americans to buy any product to ensures that this happens.  Liberty is an integral part of American values and should guarantee Americans the maximum amount of individual freedom possible without condoning active trespasses of others’ rights.  For the government to stipulate how Americans must spend their disposable income is an overstep of its power and reeks of socialism.

The government has no authority to dictate how its citizens should spend their income, just as it has no authority to force its citizens to be charitable.

The issue here is not that universal health care will add meaningfully to some lives, it is that the same program will significantly restrict others.  While every American should aim to contribute charitably to society, there is no constitutional mandate or legal requirement that states they must do so.  Each individual should be credited with a moral conscience and allowed to judge whether or not they can afford to contribute to others’ well-being.

For the government to assume it understand each household’s finances (it can’t even balance its own checkbook!) and needs best is ideologically problematic, shows too little respect for freedom and liberty, and can affect many Americans negatively.

Restrictions on income can especially affect young adults, who may believe it more advantageous to allocate their funds to small businesses, investments, or savings.  But on principle, even if they were to choose to buy a new TV or car with money otherwise devoted to health insurance, it should be their prerogative to spend their money in whatever way they so choose.

Common sense aside, there is also nothing in the constitution that gives Congress the power to require all Americans to buy insurance.  However, there is a great deal of precedent set against these new regulations, including United States v. Lopez, which questioned the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1990 and whether the government could regulate gun possession near schools on the basis of interstate commerce.  The United States Supreme Court eventually concluded that the Act was unconstitutional, effectively blocking Congressional attempts to use interstate commerce as an excuse to unreasonably expand its power.

That Congress would go so far as to disrespect the Constitution should raise alarm among American voters.  As noble a cause as universal health care is, its implementation insults some of the basic principles on which this country was founded. The choice to obtain health insurance, or not, should remain a private one, a system that best allows for individual responsibility and liberty.

Young Americans have serious cause to be concerned about health care reform legislation, which is too careless with their rights.  This is the not the first time the government has sought to spend the wealth of future generations (see: $12 trillion national debt), and health care reform will set a dangerous precedent for continuing this trend in the future.