The Shutdown is a Democratic Electoral Gimmick

As Americans awoke this Saturday morning to the first government shutdown in nearly five years, the blame game had already begun. When I was a child, my parents taught me that “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.” It seems that the Washington version of those words of wisdom is “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you place the blame.” Clearly, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wanted this government shutdown as a way to create some electoral momentum at the outset of 2018. As the Wall Street Journal words it so well “The Democrats Won’t Take ‘Yes’ for an Answer” with regard to a deal to avoid a shutdown.

As this midterm election year opens, Democrats have less to run on than they anticipated. The tax reform bill they denounced as “Armageddon” has already led to real pay increases for American families, jobs being created, and companies expanding their American operations. These tangible economic benefits of the tax act are going to bolster GOP prospects this fall, as not a single Democrat voted for the law in December. DACA policy seemed like a place where Democrats could corner Republicans, and set-up a fight over the future of Dreamers. Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans, however, signaled a willingness to work on a legislative form of DACA, so long as it was coupled with border security measures to avert further illegal immigration.

After Republicans agreed to address DACA legislatively, Democrats grew even more desperate for a wedge issue for 2018. Thus, the demands began with Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California calling for a “clean” DACA bill. Clean is code for do it the way Democrats demand: legislation to enshrine DACA with zero additional border security measures. Enacting DACA without border security measures will lead to a repeat of what we witnessed when President Obama illegally enacted DACA by executive order in the first place. We will see tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors crossing our borders in hopes of being granted amnesty. This will lead to a true humanitarian crisis, as desperate parents in impoverished countries put their children onto trains, into trucks, and on foot to try and obtain entry into the United States. We cannot repeat this mistake again.

Make no mistake, this government shutdown is on the shoulders of Democrats. They want this shutdown to try and frame Republicans as opposed to Dreamers (which isn’t the case as long as there’s border security included), and as responsible for a government shutdown while there’s total Republican control in the capital. This entire fiasco is designed to help Democrats raise money and win elections this fall. It’s unfortunate that Democrats don’t care about our military men and women, who will be forced to serve without pay if this issue is unresolved, and the millions of people who will, in some form, feel the effect of their electoral gimmicks.

Republicans should not back-down, but make the Democrats own this obstructionism until they act like adults and run the country responsibly. I agree with White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, this is the Schumer Shutdown.

 

 

The post The Shutdown is a Democratic Electoral Gimmick appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


ABC News Blames Donald Trump for False Alarm in Hawaii

If you watched ABC News this morning, you would be forgiven for believing that President Trump has caught-up Hawaii in a new Cold War. After a government employee hit the wrong button and set-off the state’s incoming missile alert system, people ran for cover, said their last goodbyes, and prepared for the worst. After 38 excruciating minutes, the false alarm was signaled, but the trauma remained. All of this, according to the mainstream media, is Donald Trump’s fault.

The entire episode in Hawaii looks like something from the Cold War Era, and is the result of North Korea’s saber rattling with regard to their nuclear program. This reality is lost on liberals like George Stephanopoulos, who think that the uproar in the Aloha State is entirely Donald Trump’s fault. During a segment on Sunday morning on the false alarm, ABC News ran clips of Trump’s “fire and fury” comments regarding North Korea’s missile tests and suggested that he was ratcheting-up tensions. While I don’t always agree with President Trump’s rhetoric, and think that some restraint is warranted, it is more than a stretch to accuse the President of creating this crisis with North Korea.

North Korea’s goal since the Kim dictatorial dynasty began after Kim Il-Sung, the grandfather of Kim Jong-un, seized power in 1948 has been a unified Korean Peninsula under North Korean control. The United States has long represented the single greatest national obstacle to the Kim Dynasty’s dream of a communist unified Korea. This has led the North Koreans to maintain a belligerence toward the United States from the time of the Korean War to the present.

In spite of multiple American presidents seeking diplomatic solutions to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, the Kims have moved ahead unabated. Most recently, President Obama’s policy of “strategic patience” toward the regime failed to produce any meaningful results, other than providing time for North Korea to further develop its nuclear weapons delivery systems.

President Trump may not be restrained with words, but his tough stance on North Korea is long overdue. Putting Kim Jong-un on notice is the only way to protect America and our allies from a rising nuclear threat. The false alarm in Hawaii yesterday is more a symptom of decades of passivity toward North Korea, while they’ve armed-up, than of Donald Trump’s fiery rhetoric.

The post ABC News Blames Donald Trump for False Alarm in Hawaii appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Entitlement Programs Wouldn’t Be Bankrupt if Not for Abortion

I have never understood how some folks say that they are fiscal conservatives who do not care about social issues. To say that one is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is contradictory, as you cannot truly be one without the other. This principle is nowhere better illustrated than examining the link between abortion and the coming economic tsunami of unfunded entitlement mandates. The coming generational debt crisis was, in no small part, created by a death crisis that has preceded it in this country.

Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in “Letter From Birmingham Jail” that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This statement is one of the most powerful writings on natural law in modern American literature, written on scraps of toilet paper in a jail cell. It expresses the timeless truth that, if the rights of any member of society are disregarded, then the rights of all are diminished. This was certainly true during Dr. King’s struggle for civil rights for all Americans, and it remains true to this day with regard to abortion.

Abortion advocates, who ultimately paved the way for Roe vs. Wade, hit their high water mark in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The argument they made in favor of abortion was that the unborn baby was just a blob of tissue and “not really a person.” Life was not revered, and the rights and privileges of some were elevated above the unborn baby’s. This culture of death created out of convenience now not only threatens the lives of the unborn, but undermines the quality of life for all Americans. Because of this holocaust of abortion 57 million American babies have been aborted, which has immeasurably impacted our nation’s culture and economy.

Of the 57 million Americans who have died since 1973 through abortion, over 12 million of those people would be in the economy and workforce today. This means that, had Roe vs. Wade not been decided in the favor of abortion, there would be over ten million more Americans working, paying taxes, and bankrolling programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Since 57% of all federal spending is related to these three programs, it is fair to say that our national debt as exploded, in no small part, as a consequence of abortion. Our nation’s debt crisis was, indeed, preceded by a death crisis.

Policymakers are now confronted with the difficult decision of trying to overhaul entitlement programs because our birthrate is unable to keep pace with our current population, which puts pressure on social programs that are typically geared toward older individuals. Thus, the sickeningly sad irony of the culture of death is that it’s early champions in the 1960’s and ’70’s are now among the older Americans who are experiencing economic consequences caused in part by abortion. In addition, this entitlement debt tsunami threatens the very solvency of our nation and economic prosperity for future generations.

If we are going to rebuild our nation’s fiscal health, we must restore our moral sanity with regard to the sanctity of life. The ongoing truth of failing entitlement programs is that abortion undermines their future fiscal solvency. We must remember that societies that kill their children, kill their future. We must reform our entitlement programs to protect or nation’s fiscal future, and protect future beneficiaries, but we must also end the holocaust of abortion that undermines our moral strength and, as a result, jeopardizes our financial strength as well.

 

The post Entitlement Programs Wouldn’t Be Bankrupt if Not for Abortion appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The DREAM Act Without Border Security Would be a Nightmare

President Trump held a meeting at the White House yesterday that U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham summed-up as “Most fascinating meeting I’ve been involved with in twenty plus years in politics.” The topic was immigration, and the cameras were rolling for this forty-five minute public meeting of Republican and Democratic lawmakers in the Cabinet Room. The President and his team certainly had Michael Wolff’s new book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House in mind when this meeting was scheduled. In contrast to the book’s description of the Commander-In-Chief, President Trump seemed calm, cool, and collected as he met with lawmakers over the future of the DREAM Act and border security. While the White House may have accomplished a recasting of the President’s image, the policy implications of the meeting are unclear.

At one point in the conversation, Democratic U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California suggested to the President that he agree to a “clean” passage of the DACA / DREAM Act. This is Democrat code speak for “don’t include any border security, just pass what we want, as we want it, right now!” The suggestion is, on its face, absurd. The reason that DACA is even being debated is that border security has been lax at best, and significant levels of illegal immigration have been allowed into the United States for decades. The minor children of illegal immigrants who broke U.S. law to come to America are the beneficiaries of any legislative form of DREAM Act, as they have benefited from DACA. Dreamers, as they are known, are the children of unauthorized immigrants who were brought to America in prior waves of illegal immigration. Passing a pathway to permanent status and / or citizenship for these young people, without border security measures, will serve only to encourage future waves of illegal immigration.

President Trump, at first blush, seemed to agree with Senator Feinstein that the bill should be passed as a stand-alone measure, which would violate his own demands that any DACA / DREAM Act deal must contain greater border security measures and funding for those measures. The President’s stunning seeming agreement with Senator Feinstein prompted House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to chime in that “”Mr. President, you need to be clear, though, I think what Sen. Feinstein is asking here, when we talk about just DACA, we don’t want to be back here two years later. You have to have [border] security [in the bill], as the secretary would tell you.” It was an amazing moment, wherein the second-in-command of the House GOP Caucus had to remind the President of the position he has taken with regard to DACA and border security.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders later sought to clarify the President’s seeming agreement with Senator Feinstein with regard to a clean DACA bill. In her afternoon press briefing, Sanders said that “He only embraced it if you look at the president’s definition of what a clean DACA bill is, and within that bill, he thinks that you have to include not just fixing DACA, but closing the loopholes and making sure we have a solution on that front so we don’t create a problem and find ourselves right back where we started one, two, three years later.” Let’s hope Sanders is right; passage of a DACA bill without border security measures and closed loopholes would exacerbate America’s illegal immigration problem, not solve it.

I believe that a legislative solution to replace DACA is both appropriate and good policy. We should not punish children for the mistakes of their parents, and we do not want to be in the position of attempting to deport young people who have never known a home other than America. This being said, while we do the just and compassionate thing for approximately 800,000 young people caught in this legal limbo, we must not move to grant amnesty to over 12,000,000 people who willfully, knowingly broke America’s immigration laws. DACA must not become a hobby horse for blanket amnesty. Further, we must include, as a condition of passage, enhanced border security measures, better visa entry / exit tracking systems, and close loopholes that would allow a legislative DACA / DREAM Act bill to be exploited to further chain migration policies. We can and should be compassionate to young people seeking a better life, free of legal limbo. We should not, however, allow our compassion to cloud good judgement when it comes to securing our nation’s borders and immigration system.

The post The DREAM Act Without Border Security Would be a Nightmare appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Are We Supposed to Believe Democrats Suddenly Support States’ Rights Over Doobies?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions set-off a firestorm of controversy this week when he told U.S. Attorneys that marijuana is still illegal under federal law. That it is controversial for the nation’s chief law enforcement officer to enforce the law on the books is laughable. The Left is so unhinged; they applauded Eric Holder’s and Loretta Lynch’s lawlessness, yet now they are appalled that an attorney general would actually enforce the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. This week’s decision by the office of the Attorney General has more to do with the preservation of our Constitutional form of government than it does with pot smokers, a fact lost on our liberal friends.

In incensed outrage at Jeff Sessions, the Left has embraced something out of convenience that it has normally denounced: states’ rights. When the Obama Administration was nationalizing America’s healthcare system, nationalizing same-sex marriage by prodding the Supreme Court, dismantling religious liberty, and ordering schools to maintain gender neutral bathroom policies, liberals did not give a flip about federalism. Now, states that have legalized pot in spite of federal law are in legal limbo, and liberals are up in arms about states’ rights. It’s a complete farce.

Federal laws prohibiting the recreational use of marijuana were first passed in 1937, and pot has been illegal ever since. In spite of a recent flurry of articles, ads, and opinion pieces, it seems that misinformation about marijuana is at an all-time high (pun intended). For starters, today’s pot isn’t the stuff of Woodstock legend; these products are stronger, more addictive, and more
likely THC than natural weed. Additionally, Harvard brain expert Bertha Madras has indicated that marijuana primes the brain for addiction to other prescription and non-prescription drugs. Recreational marijuana is dangerous, and states that are recreationally legalizing it are making a mistake.

In addition to making a mistake with regard to public safety, recreational legalization creates a legal conundrum. With federal law presently preempting state by state legalization, the first step the recreational marijuana movement must take is to repeal the federal prohibition by congressional action. According to one U.S. House leader, there are less than 100 votes in the House of Representatives for such a measure. Without federal legalization of recreational marijuana, citizens in states like California and Colorado are skating on thin ice when it comes to opening marijuana businesses and / or carrying marijuana across state lines.

If the pot lobby wants to expand recreational legalization, they should first try to repeal the federal prohibition, though that seems unlikely in the near term. The Left certainly should not try and sound like conservatives who care about states rights in an attempt to deceive the American people. We are all smart enough to know that the political ideology of statism and economic collectivism isn’t suddenly concerned with federalism just because they want to roll a doobie.

 

The post Are We Supposed to Believe Democrats Suddenly Support States’ Rights Over Doobies? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Speaker Ryan is Right: Entitlement Reform is the Next Step Toward Making America Great Again!

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan wants to spend 2018 doing something Republicans have promised for thirty years, yet he is facing a steep uphill climb even within his own party. The Speaker wants serious entitlement reform, namely reform of the big three of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, something that must be done if we are going to avert an eventual fiscal disaster in this country. During the Obama Presidency, Republicans in the House and Senate fought against trillion dollar deficits, which they rightly called fiscally irresponsible. Many of the same Republicans who were outraged while Obama was president are now balking at Speaker Ryan’s plans to reform entitlement programs to prevent them from becoming fiscally insolvent.

It is not a question of if the big three entitlements will go bankrupt; they are bankrupt already, and are dependent on continued federal spending to support them since their trust funds are depleted. These three entitlement programs, alone, make-up 57% of all federal spending, and are on-track to account for more than 80% of the current federal budget within the next decade. These numbers are stark, and they underscore the urgency with which Congress needs to tackle the so-called “third rail” of American politics to secure the future for all Americans. For this reason, it is more than disconcerting to hear the GOP Majority Leader in the Senate all but say that entitlement reform is dead on arrival in his chamber.

Without entitlement reform, America will become Greece within most of our lifetimes. We are accumulating debt at a staggering pace, even under a Republican government that is seeking to cut spending from other departments and programs. This is because non-discretionary entitlement spending continues to grow exponentially, and will, ultimately, eclipse the entire federal budget and push our nation into a long-term fiscal crisis. It won’t be Republicans that kill entitlement programs; it will be mathematics. Democrats who claim that entitlement spending can continue without reform are either knowingly lying for political purposes, or they are fiscal idiots who cannot read a financial statement.

Speaker Ryan’s call for entitlement reform is the logical next step toward restoring our nation’s financial strength following the Tax Reform and Job Creation Act of 2017. As I wrote earlier this year, Republicans cannot repeat mistakes of the past and cut taxes without cutting spending at the same time. Economic growth, alone, is not enough to erase the massive debts that saddle our nation. If we want to reduce the size and scope of government, free-up our economy, and return to balanced budgets, entitlement reform is an absolute necessity. Entitlement reform is also the only way to ensure that programs on which people depend can be preserved for future generations.

Despite what Democrats say, entitlement reform is not an evil scheme to throw grandma off a cliff. In fact, smart entitlement reform can keep grandma and the nation from going over the fiscal cliff from which there is no return. By providing a voucher system for Medicare and Medicaid patients to buy privately offered insurance plans, instead of having government pay healthcare providers directly, Congress can cut the out-of-control spending growth related to these programs, while tapping the private sector to create a solution to prevent cutting benefits. This same sort of public-private partnership would also work for Social Security, and will have the bonus effect of preventing Americans from continuing to pay into a federal Ponzi scheme from which they will never benefit.

Entitlement reform is critical to the future of our country, and I hope that Republicans in the House and Senate put the good of their country before their own political interests and support Speaker Ryan’s efforts at an overhaul. Anything short of true entitlement reform will ensure that millions of Americans lose access to these programs, and that the nation will experience a financial crisis within the next decade. The time to act has long since come and gone, and congressional Republicans need to seize this moment to secure the future.

 

The post Speaker Ryan is Right: Entitlement Reform is the Next Step Toward Making America Great Again! appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Tax Reform is Not Obamacare, and Democrats Won’t Win Congress Next Year

Democrats are practically giddy over the passage of the Republican tax bill, which became law without a single Democratic vote. This is because they believe that they finally have a winner when it comes to electoral strategy, as polls suggest that the GOP has passed a law as unpopular at its inception as Obamacare. Democrats believe this means that, just as Republicans swept into power in the 2010 midterms after Obamacare became law, their party is poised to reclaim Congress and take-over the speaker’s gavel next year. There are many key differences, however, between the Tax Reform and Jobs Act of 2017 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The most obvious, and most important, difference is that tax reform will work where socialized medicine failed.

If Democrats believe that Republicans will pay at the polls they way they did in 2010, they likely have another thing coming. It is true that the GOP tax bill is not popular at present, but a year is a political lifetime and things will almost certainly change. In 2010, Obamacare became even more unpopular post-passage because it was an unwieldy scheme that drove-up costs, put government between doctors and patients, and slowed-down the economy. By the time the 2010 midterms came around, the news on Obamacare had gotten worse, and a landslide loss for Democrats was all-but inevitable.

The same is not true for Republicans in 2018.

The past fifty years of economic history has established the fact that tax cuts work to stimulate economic growth. From John F. Kennedy’s Tax Reduction Act to Ronald Reagan’s tax reform in the 1980s, and George W. Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, economic growth and job creation has always been the result of lower taxes and less regulation. This is because free markets work, and the more government gets out of the way, the more the American economy can produce. As a result of tax reform, Americans will earn more take-home pay, pay less for goods at the grocery store, and have greater economic upward mobility.

By the time the 2018 midterms arrive, I believe that the economy will be growing at nearly 4% per year, businesses will be expanding, the American people will have bigger pay checks, and manufacturing jobs will be returning from overseas. This will create a much more favorable electoral environment in 2018 than political prognosticators predict for Republicans here at the end of 2017. The old axiom is true that good policy makes for good politics, and for that reason I believe Republicans will retain their majority in 2018 where Democrats lost theirs in 2010.

Nancy Pelosi should follow her own advice regarding Tax Reform that she gave with regard to Obamacare and wait to see what is in it after it is implemented. Americans found out what was in Obamacare in 2010 , and we gave Democrats the boot. I believe the American people will find out what’s involved with tax reform in 2018 and renew the Republican majority next fall.

 

The post Tax Reform is Not Obamacare, and Democrats Won’t Win Congress Next Year appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Child Tax Credits are Not “Social Engineering”

America’s birth rate is perilously low, as fewer young families are forming, and even fewer young people who get married are having children. In fact, in 2016, the U.S. birthrate hit the lowest level in American history, with only 62 births per 1,000 women of child-bearing age. This figure means that America is unable to replace its population internally, short of elevated levels of immigration to make-up the difference. The latter scenario, however, puts enormous pressure on the American workforce, wages, and the nation’s immigration system.

Economists on the right and left agree that, in order for our economy to hit its full output potential, and to reverse the staggering national debt, we need around 10 million more people in the workforce. Our inability to field that increase in the workforce is, in no small part, the result of abortion being legalized by the Supreme Court in 1973. The holocaust of abortion has cost over 54 million American lives, and more than 10 million of those lost to abortion would have been working age by now.

The Great Recession of 2009 took an already-low birthrate even lower. Nearly a decade of Democratic economic policy gutted the economy, and decimated entry-level jobs for young college grads and entries into the workforce. The result has been delayed family formation, which has driven the birthrate among 20-30 year old women to a dangerously low level. Families are forming later, and couples are having their first child in their 30s, which drives-down the overall birthrate as women 30-40 years old have less children, on average, than women who have children in their 20s.

Republicans would be wise to financially enable young families to have children, a position that is both fiscally and socially conservative. For this reason, I supported the Rubio-Lee Amendment to expand the child tax credit by $87 billion for working families. Currently, child tax credits only apply against income tax bills, which does not help lower-income young and / or working families. The majority of taxes paid by younger, blue collar families comes in the form of payroll taxes, not income taxes. The best way to help them afford to raise young families is to allow the child tax credit to be applicable against both income and payroll taxes, which is what the Rubio-Lee Amendment offered.

It is not social engineering to enable American families to keep more of their own money to raise their own children. Including this provision in the tax code would help create families while the broader tax reform package creates millions of new jobs and opportunities in the American economy.

Inclusion of the Rubio-Lee Amendment was not worth scuttling the entire tax reform package over, but including it would have made the bill even more fiscally and socially conservative, especially for younger American workers.

The post Child Tax Credits are Not “Social Engineering” appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The Left Will Hate Pew’s Poll Results: Most Americans Still Celebrate CHRISTmas

Pew Research Center has released their 2017 Christmas findings, and the results say much about who we are as the American people. Some aspects of the report have remained consistent, like the fact that 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas, but there are many trends reported that have much to say about religion and public life in our country. For starters, this year’s report undermines the liberal claim that America is no longer a Judeo-Christian country; our passion for Christmas is still rooted in this nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage, whether the Left likes it or not. This assertion is supported by the fact that not only do 90% of Americans celebrate Christmas, but that 55% of Americans surveyed celebrate it as a “religious holiday” and include religious services as part of their celebration.

Further, a full 66% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ was, in fact, born to a virgin mother and 57% of the public believes the Biblical account of Christ’s incarnation in its entirety. These are hardly the numbers that the Freedom From Religion Foundation would want flaunted around too much in the media. Across the spectrum, we Americans are still a religious people, but that does not disguise the fact that there are troubling trends in the Pew report as well.

While solid majorities of Americans still celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, and believe the key tenets of the Christmas story, those numbers are softening. The 55% of Americans who celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday that I referenced, above, was 59% just four short years ago. The 66% who believe in Jesus’s virgin birth was 73% in 2014. These trends, if not reversed, will not only change our American celebration of Christmas, but will alter our identity as a people.

I believe that respect for Christmas as a religious holiday can be restored by restoring public respect for the holiday in general. It should not be considered taboo to say Merry Christmas, nor should nativity scenes and menorahs be banned from public spaces. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from faith. This cultural revolution must be led by each of us who refuse to forget the reason for the season, or allow the PC police to rob us of our holiday cheer. The President of the United States has decided it’s ok to say Merry Christmas at the White House this year, and I think it’s more than fine for us to say it at our houses, places of work, or at Wal-Mart.

There is nothing wrong with wishing someone Happy Hanukkah or Happy Holidays, either, but we shouldn’t allow the phrase “Merry Christmas” to be considered controversial. It’s part of who we are as a people.

Merry Christmas, America!

The post The Left Will Hate Pew’s Poll Results: Most Americans Still Celebrate CHRISTmas appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Despite What the Liberal Media Says, Not Going to College Doesn’t Make You a Dumb Conservative

The media seems obsessed with discussing how many voters in any given precinct have a college degree, especially if those voters vote Republican. In every article I read, or news story I watch, pundits and politicos champion the chances of Democrats in congressional districts where there are high numbers of college degrees, and write-off as Republican the districts where not as many people walked across the stage to pick-up their bachelors degree diploma. The implication is pretty clear: if you are college educated you are smart, sophisticated, and definitely a Democrat. If you didn’t go to college, in their mind, you’re a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who doesn’t know any better than to vote Republican. This narrative has been used in-force in the aftermath of the Virginia elections earlier this month, and its horribly unfair.

As a man who grew-up in rural Spartanburg County, South Carolina, this “logic” offends me. I am the first member of my immediate family to go to college, the first to attend graduate school, and I know plenty of people from where I am from who are brilliant without a bachelors degree. My own father never went to college, nor did my mother, yet they have built a thriving business that provides great jobs to a good number of people. I know people from my hometown who run construction companies, manufacturing plants, and sell real estate who have never sat in a traditional college classroom. Many of these folks make more money than most of the college-educated writers at the Washington Post who deride them as dummies.

Liberals love to tout that people with four year college degrees are more likely to vote Democrat, which fills them with a sense of self-pride. This sentiment, however, is misleading for several reasons. First, there are millions of American voters, myself included, who are college educated and are still conservative. Additionally, not having a college degree does not make someone automatically less intelligent; I know plenty of people who went to college who don’t have the good sense to get out of the rain. The only correlation between college degrees and Democrat voters may be that most colleges indoctrinate their students with liberal orthodoxy in a decidedly secular-progressive atmosphere.

I am by no means against higher education; I encourage people to pursue higher education and / or skills training to build a better life for themselves and their families. I do not, however, appreciate the liberal tendency to use educational statistics to berate the intelligence of their political opponents. Further, I believe that the fact that bachelors degree holders are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican should serve as a rallying cry for conservatives to reengage in education policy at every level.

Lincoln was right, the philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next. This warning extends to higher education, and the culture of our country hangs in the balance. We need more voters, regardless of whether they went to college or not, to vote for conservative, constitutional principles to secure the future for all Americans.

 

The post Despite What the Liberal Media Says, Not Going to College Doesn’t Make You a Dumb Conservative appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State