Columnist.
While the celebration of female empowerment stands as a constant theme in commercials and advertisements, what does it actually mean?
I realize that it comes from a good place: Empowerment. Confidence. Success. But your way of achieving this has caused some real problems.
Experts estimate that the average consumer sees 10,000 ads a day. Slogans like "Just Do It," "Drivers Wanted," and "I'm Loving It" are easily recognizable to the modern ear. But what if advertising has penetrated beyond just products and services?
In our current culture, "freedom" incorrectly means the ability to do what we please without suffering any consequences.
It is the greatest human rights abuse of our time. Its implications affect families, public health, and government. It calls into question our very humanity.
Most elections center around policy issues: health care, the economy, or immigration. This election does not.
On Thursday, in Judge Brett Kavanaugh's testimony, the American people saw a man fighting for his reputation, his integrity, and his family. His moving words felt less like a testimony and more like the last cries of an innocent animal before it is slaughtered.
Once upon a time, there lived a people ruled by a constitution and the rule of law. Their legal system rested on the presumption of innocence and equality before the law.
Attractive, educated, relatable, progressive. These are the words some use to describe Beto O'Rourke, a current House member and a Democrat nominee for the Senate seeking to unseat conservative Ted Cruz. His campaign has struck national appeal with articles in *Town & Country*, *Time*, and *Rolling Stone*, as they herald him as the future of the Democrat Party. In Texas, his signs dot urban landscapes. His bumper stickers speckle the streets. His unsolicited texts fill phones. But who is this guy?
As voters look to the November election, many seem discontented with the Republican Congress due to its failure to repeal Obamacare and to support commonsense border enforcement. In fact, according to a recent study, 53% of Americans are dissatisfied with the GOP leadership. Though grateful for the tax cuts and the economic recovery, many voters seek a change.
Marine Le Pen, the French presidential candidate for the National Front (FN) party, speaks boldly of economic protectionism, stronger borders, leaving the Eurozone and returning to a national currency.
This week's proposal by the House of Representatives, the American Health Care Act (let's just call it NewbamaCare), appears to be a diet ObamaCare at best and not the repeal and replace for which most Americans had hoped. Perhaps we were not clear enough with "Repeal and Replace." Perhaps we should have said "Repeal…*selah* (Hebrew for 'pause quietly and think') and Replace."
While critics call America "divided" and paint a hysteria-driven picture of a fraying democracy, the divide occurs less along political grounds than it does on "protected" and "unprotected" grounds.
As we try to hear above the noise, it can be difficult to distinguish the exact grievances that the Women's Marches over the weekend sought to remedy. They appeared to be a conglomeration of anyone who was angry about anything — ranging from abortion and birth-contro, to race and social justice to guns and Trump. The women who marched all across the country (and the world) seemed to hold one thing in common: a feeling of disenfranchisement and under-representation fueled by anger. Yet, many of the non-participating women felt, in turn, misrepresented and disenfranchised by a march that claimed to be for women but in reality only represented the women who agreed with them. This one was #NotMyMarch.
In contrast to the beautiful, patriotic inauguration ceremony yesterday that honored our military, our country and our people, hate-mongering protesters vandalized, shouted and sought to stir up dissension in our nation's capital. What is wrong with these people?
Hillary's campaign ran on the line of "breaking through the glass ceiling," an outdated feminist archetype for disenfranchised women who are unable to break through society's paternalistic ceiling of power to achieve key roles in business, economics and, in this case, politics.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson, the chief architect of the Declaration of Independence, penned one of the most iconic sentences in our country's history: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." This election asks one chief question: Do we still hold these truths to be self-evident? Do we still believe that the Creator, not the government, gives us the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? We must choose not between two candidates but between two ideas: Do we believe that an "all-knowing" government should manage our freedoms or that an all-knowing God has granted us our freedoms in the first place?
As decision 2016 draws to a close, we witnessed the final debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This debate focused on some of the key issues facing Americans: the economy, gun rights, abortion, the Supreme Court and immigration. This article critiques Hillary's plans and highlights her ideas to increase government control of the economy, her views on gun control, her overwhelming support of abortion and her plans for immigration. As a nation, we are at a crossroads: Do we choose her path of a government-controlled economy, reduced rights to protect ourselves with firearms, radical pro-abortion judges, and minimized security on our borders? Or do we choose another path?
Although Hillary Clinton hopes to be the "champion" of small businesses, she fails to recognize the difference between how a government program works and how a business is run. From her website, DNC speech, commercials and debates, it appears that her plan is not only to simplify the tax code but to overtax the wealthy in order to finance government loans for business efforts. It is indeed noteworthy that she has identified 1) the tax code as too complicated and 2) there is a need for businesses to thrive in the United States. However, government-sector solutions for private-sector problems rarely, if ever, work well and efficiently. Let's take her plan to overtax the wealthy and redistribute the money in an unspecified way for businesses. For this example, we'll name our chief protagonist Bob.
