Eagle Forum Collegians

Seven New Ways to Experience CPAC in 2011

Thu, 10 Feb 2011 15:33:15 -0600

*If you're at CPAC this weekend, make sure you stop by our booth and say hello! We've got lots of exciting info and opportunities you won't want to miss out on!

Seven New Ways to Experience CPAC in 2011
(From conservative.org)

CPAC :: New Media Team

   1. Blog: The Inside Scoop
         1. Receive the latest updates on the day’s events each morning of CPAC at the CPAC Director’s Blog.
   2. Behind the Curtain
         1. From the planning phase to backstage deliberations and candid speaker interviews - Find out how CPAC 2011 comes together! Videos will be launched nightly from February 9th to 12th at the CPAC Director’s Blog.
   3. CPAC Backstage: Twitter & Facebook
         1. Join CPAC Backstage! Exclusive access on Twitter @CPACNews and at the CPAC Facebook fan page.
         2. Have your questions ready as Congressmen, Senators, and Political Celebrities come off the stage so they can respond to you in real time!
   4. Speaker Guest Blogging
         1. Special commentary from select CPAC Speakers immediately following their live remarks - Available for a limited time at the CPAC Director’s Blog.
   5. The Student Experience: CPAC 2011
         1. Never been to CPAC? Experience it is first-hand through the video diary of student attendees Rodney and Keith on Twitter @ACUConservative and at the ACU Facebook fan page.
         2. Customize their experience! Log on to the above-mentioned social networks and let Rodney & Keith know what you want to see in real time. Be a part of The Student Experience: CPAC 2011.
   6. CPAC Live
         1. Watch CPAC 2011 from the comfort of your home! Visit CPACLive.org to watch the speeches in real time or to catch any part of CPAC you may have missed.
   7. Social Networking Contests
         1. Be rewarded for your use of Twitter and Foursquare regarding CPAC 2011 from February 10-12. Interact at home or on-site.
         2. Contests Include: Best Insight on CPAC 2011- Tweeted; Best Speaker Quote of CPAC 2011 - Tweeted; Best Photo of CPAC 2011 - Tweeted; Most Check-Ins - Foursquare.
         3. Eligible Tweets must include #CPAC11 or @CPACNews.
         4. Eligible Foursquare Check-Ins must occur at the CPAC 2011 event page.
         5. Winners will receive a free CPAC 2012 Conference Only Pass.
         6. For official details please visit http://www.conservative.org/cpac/cpac-2011-social-networking-contests/.

Read More :: http://www.conservative.org/seven-new-ways-to-experience-cpac-in-2011/8405/#ixzz1Dau89CCU

Lessons from 'The Law'

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:58:50 -0600

By: Erin Grant, Eagle Forum Intern

Though a government following such rules as mentioned earlier—going no further into citizens’ lives than necessary to defend the freedoms of the governed, and possessing no more rights than given to individuals—would maximize freedom and diminish governmental involvement in society, it is the very character of the law to overstep its bounds. Furthermore, the law’s nature itself defines these intrusions as anything but inconsequential. When it oversteps its bounds, it acts directly in opposition to its purpose of defending freedom. According to Frederic Bastiat, the law “destroy[s] its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect” (The Law). Instead of protecting liberty, person, and property, government then exploits and plunders them.

Concerning this idea, Henry George—an American writer, politician, and political economist—remarked, "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line, they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve.

Government extension of regulation into society necessitates the removal of associated liberties. Thus, the instant government seeks to secure liberties through governmental prohibitions and directives, it defeats its very purpose by removing liberties.

Ultimately, when man is given full responsibility for himself and his actions, and that responsibility is not distributed to higher authorities but kept within his own person, only then is freedom maximized and governmental control diminished to its smallest extent. In addition, the state under these conditions would see not need to intervene in citizens’ private lives, and thus can fulfill its purpose as the simple punisher of any intrusions upon liberty.

What kinds of candidates should the RNC chair support?

Fri, 17 Dec 2010 05:10:00 -0600

Any kind of talk about who should lead the RNC should include what kinds of candidates the RNC should and should not be supporting.

Why?

America's problems stem not from an inability to elect Republicans into office; history shows America can do that. (Note: we just did with Steele in charge of the RNC...)

The real question is: can we get the *right* kind of Republicans in Congress?

Has anyone noticed that Ann Wagner’s agenda doesn’t mention what *kinds* of Republicans the RNC, under her leadership, would help elect and raise money for?

Is Ann’s goal to get the *right* kind of Republicans in?

Now, I suppose it's unfair to pick on Ann Wagner because she is probably no different than the other candidates, including Steele. However, Saul Anuzis from MI, who is also running, is endorsed by Tea Party nation (last point). But like Ann Wagner, his "Why Support Saul" page does not mention the kinds of candidates he would support. At the same time, Ann Wagner has a history of supporting candidates like Rep. Roy Blunt, who led the way for using taxpayer money to bailout the "to big to fail" via TARP while Saul Anuzis has connections to Reps like Rep. McCotter (MI-R), who was one of the few disenting Republicans who voted not once, but twice against the big bill authorizing lots of stuff including TARP.

Thus, maybe it's not politically savvy to mention that you want to support the outsiders who will do the right thing on your website. Maybe it's up to conservatives to connect the dots to know which candidate is more likely to support truly conservative candidates.

Even more, the entire purpose of the RNC should be in question but those who have spent time fighting to end out-of-control government spending. The best candidate to support is one that can articulate why supporting Republicans who can win is not a legitimate long-term strategy for saving our country.

The goal should be limiting government not electing Republicans (without definition). I call this “sticking fingers in the leaks of the dam” to hold off the inevitable. But maybe this is the best we can do. Yet something inside of me says “give me liberty or give me death”!!!!

Side note:

This post is already too long, but...

At an RNC meeting in Hawaii last January, conservative members united to try to pass a resolution prohibiting RNC funding for candidates who don't support eight of ten key conservative issues, a proposal that Steele opposed. A compromise resolution was passed that was similar, but didn't really affect the types of candidates that the RNC supported, as there are plenty of examples of the RNC supporting incumbents who voted for deficit spending and earmarks. You would think this would go against the Republican National Platform, but the platform really isn't that great; no where can one link to principles the TEA Parties have spent over 1.5 years articulating. But then, that's why people people are TEA Partying.

What should be obvious is that while the RNC chair will say he or she is neutral and should support all Republican candidates; this isn't true. The RNC supports incumbents first, and follows what it is typical of politics: financial support is linked to how likely it is that you will win and able to raise money for the RNC in the future. The RNC is about it's own survival--not yours.

True or False: Americans Have a Right to Healthcare

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:46:38 -0600

By: Erin Grant, Eagle Forum Intern

Healthcare: Right or privilege? Though this topic remains in heavy dispute, the problem persists: in declaring a right to healthcare, you ultimately diminish genuine freedom and rights. When government declares an open-ended “right” to something manmade, and strives to protect this “right,” we end up losing our inalienable rights because such manmade rights or enacting their protection as such usually conflicts with those defined, God-given rights.

Government was created merely to protect our God-given rights—listed in the Constitution as life (personal life), liberty (individual freedoms not encroaching on the freedoms of others), and the pursuit of happiness (the right to work and to reap the rewards of your labor)—because these rights lend to genuine liberty in all situations.

Just because America exists as a compassionate, wealthy nation does not mean that we should provide healthcare for those without it. Following this logic, government-mandated food, public housing, government-issued vehicles or federally-distributed food would also be applause-worthy. Yet these either would be considered ludicrous or have been proven ineffectual through actual trial. Though food, shelter, and clothing are necessary to life, we do not possess a right to them. Nowhere are they considered in the Constitution, or in the Biblical conception of rights. These are the fruits of labor, and must be earned.

The infeasibility of government-mandated healthcare as a right lies in this: in deeming that everyone has a “right” to healthcare, and assuming that the government was instituted to protect our rights, then the obligation would fall upon government to ensure everyone’s equal access to healthcare, regardless of personal work ethic, desires, or income. Essentially, this states that everyone deserves to possess healthcare, whether or not they have earned it. Thus, in creating a program encompassing an entire nation of people, our individual, inalienable rights are violated: we no longer can freely choose the healthcare program of our liking, or even, in a sense, deny healthcare completely. It is a right to be protected, and the government will dutifully attempt ensure that it’s protected for each individual. Under original intentions, the Constitution grants us the right to pursue happiness, leaving us to define such happiness and to pursue it. In government-provided healthcare, the government defines that which is believes is to bring us happiness, and then drops it before us and will defend it, whether or not we want it. Robert Samuelson once stated, “The trouble with casting medical-care as a “right” is that this ignores how open-ended the “right” should be and how fulfilling it might compromise other “rights” and needs. What makes people healthy or unhealthy are personal habits, good or bad (diet, exercise, alcohol, drug use); genetic makeup, lucky or unlucky, and age. Health care, no matter how lavishly provided, can only partially compensate for these individual differences.” When life is on the line, or when perceived benefits can appear convincing in the short run, potentially-harmful choices in the long-run become much easier to make. However, principle, original intent, and common sense declare that government healthcare, defined as a right, is not worth the cost.

Panels and Speakers and Forums, oh my!

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:36:45 -0600

How often do you attend a free "speaker series," panel, or seminar?

Yesterday morning (yes, even though I've graduated), I attended a free expert panel at Webster University in St. Louis on social media.

I often forget how many incredible opportunities lay within the doors of the local colleges and universities around us… for free! If you’re overly busy as a student now, I still encourage you to make the time to attend the free seminars provided on your campus... and keep them in mind after you graduate! Take advantage of “speaker series," especially in areas you need to gain more insight. And you don't have to limit yourself to your own campus!

At a time when college credits are not cheap, I Iearned how to do my job better from a expert panel of media specialists, marketers, and networkers (some, from large companies like Monsanto and Scottrade)... for free! (Did you notice how many times I used the word free so far!?!)

A few things I took away from the panel this morning:

Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, blogging, etc) are all pieces of the overall conversation. To be effective, think about the specific uses and audiences of each medium, and craft messages that maximizes the strengths of each one.

If you make your presence online with a regularly updated blog, and active Twitter and Facebook accounts, people will come to you. When you are googled, they will learn a bit about your organization before you even have a chance to interact!

It doesn’t cost money to be a successful social networker. Listening is free! What are people already saying about you? How often your organization or business is being discussed online, and is it positive or negative? This is where you start.

Don’t be terrified of “failing” or of criticism online. You have to start somewhere! Whatever you perceive as “failure” is really just “real-time feedback.” Take it and learn from it.

Stick with it… Gain followers. Create a solid presence. It takes time.

If you screw up somehow, correct your mistake publicly and quickly!

Good luck with the end of semester, Collegians! And the next time you get the chance to attend a panel or discussion, I encourage you to go for it! You will graduate from school, but you’ll never graduate from learning!

Van Jones's Plan = 3 Pay Checks for Red-State Farmers

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:39:33 -0600

By: Ruth Carlson

Van Jones, who worked with the Obama Admin to redistribute tax payer money via "Green Jobs," talked to undergraduates and law students as well as the public at Washington University today.

While I was only able to video tape the last 15 minutes of his speech, I can say two things about Van Jones:

1. He's an inspiring speaker who is motivated by a deep moral conviction that it's important for the strong to stand up for the weak.

2. He believes the best way to stand up for the weak is through government programs that implicitly require the redistribution of wealth using a 21st-century code word for it: green jobs.

Watch Van Jones describe the three pay checks (from who?? YOU minus money to pay politicians and bureaucrats) that "Red-State farmers" would get if his plan was enacted. Note: he is about real equality; he's not just giving taxpayer money to the inner city communities, he wants to give it to the rural communities too!

In sum:

1. Farmers would get paid by the government via subsidies needed to support windfarms and turbine technology that require huge capital investments

2. Farmers would get paid to grow "energy crops" via subsidies given to business that can't support themselves without help because their energy costs MORE than coal, gas or nuclear energy

3. Farmers could sell carbon from the ground to companies who need carbon credits if "Cap and Tax" passes!

Yes, there might be "Green Jobs" out there, but my question for Van Jones is: where's the pay check coming from?

"Komen's Dark Side"

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:37:45 -0600

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month. In light of this, take a few minutes to watch this video. The Komen Foundation gives money to Planned Parenthood... which is interesting, considering that there is a scientific link between abortion and breast cancer. Hmm.

Check out the video here: http://ow.ly/2Xcx9

Summit in the Spotlight!

Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:02:17 -0600

Collegians Scholar Emmalee Mattern wrote an article about this year's Summit in her campus' newspaper! Check it out here!

Emmalee at Collegians Summit, 2009.

Happy Constitution Day!

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:29:58 -0600

From the Heritage Foundation...

"As we celebrate another Constitution Day, we should take time to reflect on the awesome gift of the Constitution and work to commit ourselves further to the principles of the Founding."

Summit Pictures and Video!

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:51:55 -0600

Photos from our 2010 Collegians Leadership Summit are now online! Visit http://www.lightproductions.net and click "EVENTS" for a photo gallery.

Also, if you're interested in checking out the C-SPAN coverage of the event, video clips are available here.

Hannah Giles: Exposing ACORN

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:45:07 -0600

Who is Hannah Giles?

A twenty-year-old journalist, Hannah’s name may not instantly ring a bell. But she played a vital part in bringing down the enormous, controversial institution, ACORN, by exposing criminal activity within the organization itself. Wearing a tiny, hidden camera, she and friend James O’Keefe dressed up as a prostitute and pimp and infiltrated the organization as a couple looking to start up an underage prostitution ring. Videotaping their response, Hannah and James recorded the ACORN workers as they went out of their way to assist the couple, even ignoring those who had made appointments and waited in the lobby, and spoke to Hannah openly, revealing throughout the conversations that they had already been long involved in such illicit activities. They gave her advice to keep from being discovered while setting up such a ring, and then advised her on ways to evade trouble should something occur after her business had been established. Hannah’s revealing expose of this organization ultimately contributed to its downfall, as it brought to light the proof needed to convict ACORN of its illegal activities.

Excitingly, Hannah Giles will speak at the Collegians Leadership Summit next week to share more on her experience with ACORN. You won’t want to miss this! To register, visit here: http://www.efcollegians.org/2010/info.html

Hannah's interview with Sean Hannity:

Taking the Wind Out Of the Sails

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:46:07 -0600

Frederic Bastiat’s "broken window fallacy" is an economic parable explaining how destroying wealth cannot create wealth and how policies that favor one industry will hurt another. A broken window, for example, may give the glassmaker more business, but the shopkeeper who must fix his window uses money for the new window that he would otherwise use to buy something else--like a new suit. The shopkeeper only has the window (that he paid for twice) instead of a window and a new suit. Henry Hazlitt discusses this fallacy extensively in his Economics in One Lesson.

You might think this fallacy would be easy to avoid. However, as recently as June 11th in Pennsylvania lawmakers were being caught falling prey to Broken Window thinking. The topic here is green jobs.

Jobs in "green" and alternative energy fields are themselves great things—but sometimes they’re like replacing a window with more expensive glass and only benefit the glass industry. Subsidizing green energy specialists means they get work just as the glassmaker does, but overall our society is worse off. Why? Because government support is being given to an industry that cannot sustain itself. Katrina Currie, research associate at the Commonwealth Foundation stated the problem clearly before the PA House Republican Policy Committee by saying that “when government attempts to pick winners and losers—by identifying which industries are ‘green’ or ‘good’ and subsidizing them at taxpayers’ expense, mandating their use, and even punishing their competitors with costly regulations—it hinders our overall economy.”

In Pennsylvania $2 billion in alternative energy subsidies has been spent since 1999, yet the state sits in sixth place for total jobs lost. European studies cited by the Commonwealth Foundation show that for every green job created, 2.2-4.8 jobs are lost. Thus, we have more "green" jobs, but other people losing their jobs results in a net loss of jobs. As Commonwealth’s testimony says, “Jobs created in industries that depend on government assistance are not sustainable, will not stimulate the economy, and will not result in net job growth.” We can’t afford that now, nor can we afford paying $2 billion (at a state level) to keep an inefficient market afloat.

Yes, we must do what we can to attempt to reduce the environmental harm we are inflicting on our planet, but we must be cautious when we let emotions replace sound economics. We must be sure that our green laws are the best policies for all groups.

I recommend checking out the Commonwealth Foundation’s testimony online—it’s brief and very readable.

Former Teen Eagle Collegian Crowned Miss Oklahoma 2010

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:18:57 -0600

Emoly West, a former attendee of Eagle Forum’s Collegians Conference, was just crowned Miss Oklahoma 2010. Growing up politically involved, Emoly’s mother, Stephanie, lobbied pro-life legislation at the state capitol, bringing Emoly along in a stroller; her grandmother, Mollie, had actively assisted STOP ERA in Oklahoma and introduced Emoly to Eagle Forum at an early age. In addition, Emoly became involved in Teen Eagles, and attended Eagle Forum Collegians Leadership Summit a few years ago.

Now 24, and having won many beauty pageants, Emoly will represent Oklahoma (and Eagle
Forum) in the Miss America Pageant in January. She has tried for the title five times.

“I’ve been looking forward to this moment for five years,” Emoly said during her first press conference. “It’s one of the best pageants in the nation….There was disappointment, but it was also a process of humility.”

She remembers watching the Miss America Pageant with her grandmother on television when she was younger. “I saw women of poise and character,” she says of the contestants. Now, she is among those women she previously watched, as she won the Miss Oklahoma title against 42 other contestants.

However, she remains humble about the process, saying that the opportunity was an honor “not for me, but representing everyone else.”

West is a senior at the University of Central Oklahoma working toward majoring in dance performance with a minor in broadcast journalism. She hopes to become a sports correspondent at the Olympic Games.

For more on this story, please visit:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100613_11_0_Persis97415&archive=yes

One of Glenn Beck’s Favorite Historians to Speak at the Collegians Summit in July

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:20:41 -0600

Which events in our history have been among the most significant and culture-shaking?

The question usually conjures up grandiose images of Columbus’s first landing, the Constitutional Convention, the Civil Rights’ Movement, or 9/11. However, some of the answers may not be nearly so obvious as you think. Larry Schweikart, a renowned author, historian and one of Glen Beck's favorite authors, outlines the implications of seemingly insignificant events and their lasting implications on our nation in his new book, 7 Events that Made America America.

For example, how did Martin Van Buren’s decisions make the election of Barack Obama possible today? How did Dwight Eisenhower’s heart attack create a government movement for control over American diets? And how did rock and roll ultimately help to bring about the decline of communism and the Soviet Union?

Schweikart discusses all of these and more; history may be much more than you ever learned in school!

Larry Schweikart is scheduled to speak at the 2010 Collegians Leadership Summit on July 14th and 15th in Washington D.C.

Spots are still available; will you be there? Sign up now: http://www.efcollegians.org/2009/info.html

Conned by the Con Con: An Argument for Traditionalism

Wed, 26 May 2010 12:08:12 -0600

In the United States, we possess a standard system of measurement of what government can and cannot do: the U.S. Constitution. These standards provide a solid foundation on which government may rest. Imagine that you and a team of workers construct a house, each using your own standard of measurement instead of industry standards. The house will inevitably face instability and collapse. The solution remains not to create a new system of measurement that matches up to your own redefinition, but to return back to the original standard of measurement and proven foundational system.

However, the U.S. Congress is currently trying to use it's own standard instead of relying upon our current standard, created by the Founding Fathers in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. As a result, efforts have arisen calling for another constitutional convention (con con); though this is not the first time these calls have been made, efforts to call a Constitutional Convention to stop Congress from ignoring our Consitution is not the solution.

Efforts calling for a Con Con came strongly in the 1970s and 80s, and even as current as 2008, to pass good amendments such as a balanced budget amendment. These efforts were not successful because the evidenced danger of the Constitution being entirely rewritten outweighed arguments that only good amendments would be added. This danger still remains.

It must be understood that the con con endeavors today are not solely of radical Marxists or rabid leftists to recreate a new foundation to lead America to pure communism; it is largely an undertaking of conservatives and self-identifying Republicans who do not like the current functioning of our government and administration. The danger, however, remains the same.

James Madison discussed these very threats when, in November of 1788, he wrote:

“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently giver greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it would probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.

“Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America, and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.”

Should a Con Con take place, myriad “bipartisan” compromises would inevitably lead to the reshaping or even complete reconstruction of our current Constitution instead of the simple addition of a few amendments.

The question must also be asked: If trust in our current administration is at an all-time low, why would we hold faith in their abilities to resist sculpting our current standard of law to their own liking? If Americans do not believe that our administration effectively represents our core beliefs in their contemporary policies, why do we believe that they could successfully do so in the proposed shaping of our Constitution? Do we trust our leaders to make the decisions as to what actually “needs” amending, or as to what changes would ensue?

Our Constitution was created by our Founding Fathers to protect the freedoms they had suffered to live without. Several generations have passed since our Founding Fathers met, and not having lost our freedoms completely since then, nor knowing ully a life without them other than the writings of our ancestors and the faded pages of history, or perhaps the examples of other countries, we would be wise to heed their words.