Fighting Back Against the Bureacrats

Alexander Rowson
U Idaho

Recently, the great state of Arizona took a groundbreaking step against the multicult bureaucrats of academia. The media reported it as a ban of so-called "ethnic studies classes". As usual, this was not quite the truth.

In Arizona, you can still take a class on the history and culture of any ethnic group of the world - from the Aztecs, to the Germans, to the Japanese or Greeks. That is any sane person's definition of what an ethnic studies class is. But not to the liberal academia of Arizona, allied with radical ethnocentric groups like "The Council of La Raza (The Race)".

Their vision of "ethnic studies" classes was radical leftism, hatred of the historical American nation, and encouragement of racial grievances amongst "oppressed minorities"... for example, the substantial Hispanic population of the Southwest United States. A common mythology promoted by groups like La Raza declares that land won by the USA in the Mexican-American War is stolen, and should be reconquered by Mexican nationals. This includes much of California, Colorado, Texas, and Arizona. Of course, this was all paid for by the taxes of honest, hardworking Arizonans, without their consent.

The Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, John Huppenthal, said that when he went into these classrooms, he would see portrayals of Ben Franklin as a "racist" and portraits of Communist mass-murderer Che Guevara, a hero of both Hispanic ethnocentrists and far-left loonies.

So Arizona, led by Governor Jan Brewer, took action. The state legislature drafted and passed a law which allows the Arizona government to halt funding to any school with classes that:
* 1) promote the overthrow of the United States government;
* 2) promote resentment toward a race or class of people;
* 3) are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group; or
* 4) advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.

In other words, the majority of multicult, left-wing classes are no longer eligible for public funding in the great state of Arizona. Anyone can still preach these ideas if they want - but no longer will they be supported by the the money of the Arizonan taxpayer, and no longer will student money that should be going to maintenance, equipment, and real classes be used to fund this garbage.

Of course, there was an outcry from the usual suspects. The New York Times said that the Arizona government "promotes discord and intolerance" and called the concerns of the voters "nativist fears". Dolores Huerta, a race hustler along the lines of Jesse Jackson, proclaimed that "we’re just going to teach ethnic studies and violate the law, [and] get people in jail."

We stand with Arizona whole-heartedly on this issue. In fact, we find this to be the most exciting conservative development in recent memory. The leftists captured America by capturing the schools and the academia, and this is the first blow against that stranglehold. Ethnic studies classes and the immigration situation are not the core of this issue- it is that a corrupt and narcissistic academia dictates far too much of the national rhetoric.

Why just Arizona? Why not Idaho? Washington? Montana? In all states, the majority of tax money comes from middle and upper-middle class, hardworking people, who tend to be conservative. They don't want their tax-money funding radical propaganda. Nor do most students want their hard-earned tuition money spent on the same.

Let's start getting organized and demand change from the university system. Simple activism really can change things, as can contacting your senators and representatives. Let them know that YOU know and care about these issues, and that you're ready to take a stand for what is right. The leftists knew that once they controlled the schools they controlled the country - and once we take back the schools, the future for young patriots and conservatives will look much brighter.

THE NORTHWEST ALTERNATIVE: Connecting Conservatives in Washington and Idaho

Phil Tignino
WSU / Co-Editor

The Collegiate Network, an organization that has worked hard to support independent college publications for 30 years, has accepted THE NORTHWEST ALTERNATIVE into its ranks.

Being a member of this network will help propel this publication forward. Our goal, to unite conservative youth groups across the Northwest, is slowly being realized, giving us all the ability to change the political landscape on our campuses.

We'd also like to thank the Student Freedom Project, the Leadership Institute, and Youth for Western Civilization for being supportive and encouraging.

The Changing of the Guard

Alexander Smith
Student Freedom Foundation

There comes, in the course of history, times when a small minority can forever change the very fate of our nation. Often people claim that these times are eras of conflict or civil unrest, where the dedication of a few revolutionaries can surpass the collective apathy of the masses. Very rarely are elections credited with being true turning points in America history. Even political professors say that in the end of the day elections don't really matter, movements matter.

So what can you change by becoming just another yes or no vote in the electorate, unless you're part of the political elite? What can really changes the fate and direction of our nation is the social and cultural shifts. Often those shifts can be assisted by those we elect to higher office or the leader we prop up, but the momentum and the heart of any movement resides within the emotions of the people.

From my work in the political community for the past year, I have ridden shotgun to many of the political revolutions and issues of our time. I have seen the impact the media and our pop culture has on the direction of the people of my generation. More importantly I have seen the end result of all the madness and "reforms" that so many groups have been fighting for. The only results from their labor are a disenfranchised youth whose very future is being taxed by the growth of our nation.

This fact is being driven home by the rise in the cost of education and the continued reduction in entry level jobs for those soon to be out of school and/or out of work. For those raised on the promise of a good life after college are met with the cold reality of the stagnate waters that seem to be the future of our generation. With students being drunkenly awaken by Obama's last election found themselves quickly sobered by the increase attacks the their futures. What will become of the entitled youth when their comforts and future hopes are wagered against the preservation of a system they believe to have no stake in?

For those of you involved in the political realm, put your ears to the ground and listen to the rumble that's a coming. There is nothing more volatile to then a large number of high trained unemployed young people. As we have seen in the Middle East, the revolutions do not come from the old and the experienced, but from the youth whose dreams seem plausible with their perceived coming victory over the very culture that raised them. The larger the deficit grows, the more the entitlement generation will lose the dream that they where promise. To that end a great cultural revolution will come to America. A great cultural revolution that will forever change America and redefine the dream my generation fights for.

To what end do we strive? To whom do we find fellowship? To What send will the leader of tomorrow fight for today? One thing is for sure the changing of the guard is coming and the ranks will be filled with those that wish to fight to reclaim that which many of us feel was taken from us. The American Dream.

Onward to Damascus

Mark Brophy, WSU

Having committed to another "War of Muslim Liberation" (thank Bill Kristol for this inspiring phrase), on the pretext of protecting Libyan "civilians" as they clash with government forces, by what rationally consistent justification can President Obama abstain from rescuing their similarly "democratic" protesting cousins from very similar repression in Syria? American foreign policy has become so confused under Obama, that it is natural to ask why the Gulf monarchies and other authoritarian states remain ungraced by American gunboat democracy, while Libya is receiving several hundred million dollars worth of humanitarian missile bombardment.

Of course, Mr. Obama is not wholly to blame for this inconsistent Team America: World Police mentality, as his predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton also had a predilection for poorly thought out military endeavors, usually regretted after the fact.
The Baathist regime of Syria is, according to the impartial liberal internationalists at the New York Times, among the "most oppressive" in the Middle East, as well as kin to the despised and deposed Baathists of Iraq, who were earnestly purged by the US occupational authorities. With many Syrian civilians confirmed dead by Western media, despite the regime's obfuscatory efforts, it seems inevitable that America will be called on by "democracy advocates" to commit our weaponry and soldiers' blood to another mission of Middle-Eastern freedom.

After Syria, why not on to Saudi Arabia, another oppressive and undemocratic regime, intermittently involved in repression of protesting "civilians"?

Somehow, I feel that suggestion would not go over well amongst the political class of the U.S. and our European allies.

It is obviously militarily and politically untenable to ride to the rescue of every troublemaker in the smoldering Arab world - yet this is the obvious conclusion to the Obama administration's stated foreign policy philosophy. It is certainly true that the US plays this card selectively and quite often, but the brazenness of our pick-and-choose philosophy of war is especially on display during this current situation.

Attempting to regain influence in the Middle-East, through an assumption of gratitude that we assume the locals owe us, is one of the foremost recurring US foreign policy wall bangers. But the predictable necessity of leaving Syria's bloodied protestors to their fate casts doubt on the already shaky reasoning behind the Libya escapade. Once again, the greatest imperial juggernaut in the history of the world seems to be flailing about without any real idea as to what it's doing.

In Defense of Family

Sally Smith
U Idaho

In today’s world, the divorce rate for first marriages is 50 percent and for second marriages it’s 75 percent. Instead of getting married, people just live together. It’s easier when there’s no strings attached. And now, gay couples can adopt children. What happened to mom and pop having kids?
With an ever increasing number of single parents, juvenile crime rates have gone up. Single parents just don’t have time to spend with their kids when they’re worrying how they’re going to put the next meal on the table. Teenagers trying to ‘fit in’ get into trouble by partying at an early age or selling illegal substances.
The famous Andy Griffith once said, "If we don’t teach children to live in society today, what’s gonna happen when they grow up?" It is so true. Children need to be taught family values at an early age in order to distill in them an upright and moral character. They need to be taught to make healthy choices on their own that will benefit society.
Gordon B. Hinckley said, "The family is the fundamental unit of society". A nation cannot expect to survive if the very institution that ties it together fails.
"A healthy, happy family benefits our whole society. Among the children of strong families there is less crime, less divorce and less emotional problems. They tend to go on and have strong, healthy families of their own, having learned from their folk’s example," states Mim Ford. A family must be founded on principles of honesty, hard work, respect, and love for others.
The family will endure when these values are taught to children. When a man and woman are lawfully wedded as husband and wife and work together to raise their children, the world will see a ‘blessed change’.

Liberty for Security

Michael Freimuth
UW

It was 1787 and delegates from the 13 states had met in Philadelphia to determine what form the new government would take. The strict secrecy in which the meeting was conducted led anxious citizens to gather outside freedom hall in anticipation of the final agreement. Upon his emergence, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a local woman named Mrs. Powell who asked, "Well Doctor, what have we
got?"
To which Franklin replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."
Two years later, the First United States Congress added the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to the constitution were part of the Massachusetts compromise which occurred after a long debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were concerned that the central government they were creating would be too powerful and the bill of rights was a way of explicitly limiting its power and preserving those "essential liberties", without which, we would be in danger of descending back into tyranny. To put it another way, it was to help us preserve our republic.
It is imperative that we rediscover the importance of our constitutional rights because they are under assault and we don’t even seem to notice. To see what I mean read the fourth amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Then go to the airport where you will see people being "randomly" (which means arbitrarily) selected and put through a rigorous and intrusive search with no warrant or probable cause merely because they wanted to get on a plane. But this is not an intrusion according to Attorney General Janet Napolitano.
Her response to people who don’t want to go through the searches: "Don’t fly."
According to Napolitano, "If people want to travel by some other means, they have that right."
But consider for a moment what this means. Unlike driving on public roads, which has long been held to be "a privilege not a right," getting on an airplane is a purely private exchange between two private parties. If the government can interject themselves between you and an airline and force you to submit to intrusive searches before you are allowed to conduct a private business transaction, then do you really have the right to travel by other means or do you just have the ability to do so at the moment because the government hasn’t decided to take it away yet? The answer is obvious, but in case you’re not convinced, here is what Napolitano had to say about it on "Charlie Rose":
"I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"
If the government came out and said that from now on, the police have the right to "randomly" stop cars and search them or stop people walking down the street and search them wouldn’t we be outraged? So why aren’t we outraged when they stop us in line at the airport? Clearly it is because terrorists are scary and remember that we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. But are terrorists confined to attacks on airplanes? Couldn’t a terrorist put a bomb in his car and park it in Time’s Square? Couldn’t they strap one to their chest and walk down the street?
Maybe you think that the government will just stop at the airport, and you might be right but if they don’t stop there what will stop them? Where is the line that they cannot cross? That which was designed to stop them is the Constitution and it drew the line at unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. But now they are blatantly violating this protection and we are just shrugging and saying, "whatever it takes to keep us safe." But we need to understand that this is not just about trading a little privacy for safety, it’s about trading liberty for safety. And remember:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Ben Franklin

Can You Defend Your Rights?

Max Nelsen
Whitworth

Now that the 2010 congressional elections are over, commentators are buzzing about what the results will mean for the future. However, I think it is important to pause and take a look at some of the key issues that surfaced during the last campaign cycle. In particular, several candidates supported by the conservative Tea Party movement brought up issues that are rarely discussed in modern politics. Unfortunately, many were successfully branded by their opponents and the media as too extreme, though I would argue that some of their views were perfectly valid.
One of these individuals was Republican Sharron Angle of Nevada. Angle had the backing of the Tea Party movement but lost her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. Angle made many highly controversial statements during the course of the campaign, but I would like to take a closer look at her views on the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which delineates "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Angle was quoted by Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent as stating that the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment "for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government." Angle quoted Thomas Jefferson for support and went on to say that people were starting to consider "Second Amendment remedies" as a way to respond to an out-of-touch government.
Angle was immediately and passionately condemned for her statements. Without offering any rebuttal, Democrat David Philips, writing for Examiner.com, called Angle an "extremist" and relegated her views to the "fringe." Somewhat lacking in originality, The Huffington Post also called Angle "extreme" and her comments "outlandish." It is quite likely that Angle's statements and the media response contributed in some way to her loss to Harry Reid.
Without defending Angle as a candidate, I believe that her views on the Second Amendment are not as unreasonable as they may sound. While some today perceive the Second Amendment as protecting only minimal gun rights, such as recreational shooting and hunting, it is undeniable that the Founding Fathers had far broader intentions.
I will not dwell on the fact that the Founders meant for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals; I believe there is credible evidence enough to support that. Beyond that, however, I would argue that one of the fundamental purposes of the Second Amendment was to provide the citizens with a defense against tyrannical government. All of the following references come from the James Madison Research Library and Information Center.
For instance, Samuel Adams said, "If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Does Adams envision patriots experienced with pitchforks defending their freedom? Not likely.
Thomas Jefferson takes it a step further: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thus, individual citizens should not only defend their freedom, but they should do so with firearms.
But it doesn't stop here. In Alexander Hamilton's opinion: "…if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights."
Along similar lines, Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
Both Hamilton and Webster are essentially stating that, in order to defend their freedom, the citizens not only need to be armed, but need to be "little if at all inferior" to the military. By no means am I arguing that every home in America needs to have a tank in the driveway. However, this is a clear indication that at least some of the Founders believed that citizens should be able to possess military-grade small arms. True, these are beyond what is needed for hunting and recreational use, but that was not the point. The point was to allow the citizens to provide a last-resort check on government power if needed, and the prospect of a citizenry armed with now-vilified "assault weapons" provided such a check.
In this light, candidate Sharron Angle's views shouldn't seem quite so extreme. At any rate, her views are not incompatible with those of the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, instead of initiating a debate about the proper role of an armed citizenry and the nature of the Second Amendment, Angle's comments were dismissed out of hand. This should cause us great concern. Indeed, I think the question needs to be asked: do Americans any longer "stand ready to defend their rights?"

Contact Max Nelsen at max.nelsen@whitworthian.com.