The Right Paw

The Right Paw

Volume 1, Issue 2

May Issue

MU’s Ratliff becomes State CR chair, Dinkins head of MUCRS

MU's very own Jonathan Ratliff was elected Chairman of the Missouri College Republicans, the statewide organization that contains all College Republican chapters in the Show-Me State. The election took place at the April 4 MOCR State Convention, in addition to party-building activities, guest-speakers such as Lt. Governor Peter Kinder, Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer, former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman, and state Senator Kurt Schaefer. The attendees also volunteered at the Truman VA Hospital. Missouri State's Nick Maddux defeated fellow Bear Rachel Hassani to become Vice-Chair. Missouri Western's Colin Hoffman (Secretary) and UCM's Mikey Tyler (Communications Director) were elected and appointed respectively. Coming back are Treasurer Kristen Sanocki of Missouri State and Mizzou's Justin Smith as Executive Director.

Succeeding Mr. Ratliff as MUCR chair is Brett Dinkins. The MU freshman rose from super-volunteer to become the chapter's head and has an ambitious, idea-driven plan for next year. He plans to deal with limited government, the unborn, defending gun rights, and the environment. Eric Hobbs was elected Vice-Chair for next semester. Jorell Kuttenkuler will take over when Mr. Hobbs graduates in December. Megan Roberts is the new Secretary and Matt Sheppard is the new Treasurer. Janie Gibson retains her spot as Vice-Chair for Social Affairs after a close election with Chelsea Maltagliati. College Republicans are ready to go out and there and work for Victory!

100 Days and the "Shrinking Tent"

by Justin Smith

We have reached another juncture allowing the media to sing Barack Obama’s praises, print commemorative newspapers and produce special reports, and further lower their credibility. If that is even possible, that is. This week marked the passage of 24,000 hours in the Obama presidency, better known as the fabled first 100 days. It has become the point when an initial assessment is made of a new administration.

Critiques of the Obama administration will be difficult to find from his fans in the press. So a few criticisms are in order.

The first 100 days have been riddled with mistakes: insulting children who participate in the Special Olympics and Nancy Reagan with “jokes”; giving an iPod to the Queen of England; giving Gordon Brown DVDs that don’t work in Europe; not thoroughly vetting multiple appointments that later withdrew; and allowing AIG executives to use bailout money for exorbitant bonuses. That’s an incomplete list, to be sure.

Terrible decisions litter the first 100 days as well: bowing to a Saudi prince, and then attempting to deny what is plainly obvious; not standing up for America when Latin American leaders railed against the United States in Obama’s presence; restricting the world’s most elite forces from rescuing Americans held hostage by pirates off the coast of Africa; and somehow not realizing that the screaming engines of Air Force One and its fighter escort would terrorize the people of New York City, and spending more than $300,000 to do so for a photo op. And there are more.

And then there are the historic deficits, the outrageous spending, the earmarks, and the vast expansion of government influence in the private sector.

For someone whose primary campaign message revolved around his sound judgment, President Obama has demonstrated very little such judgment since he moved into the White House. Perhaps he will grow into the job, or perhaps he will continue to make mistakes that embarrass our country and decisions that weaken it. The nation waits.

Also this week, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania changed parties from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Conservatives acted unsurprised, given Senator Specter’s moderate tendencies, and generally seem to be saying, “Good riddance.” This despite the fact that the eventual seating of Al Franken as Minnesota’s junior senator now will give Democrats 60 votes, the magic number for ending a filibuster, which is often the minority’s last best hope at stopping harmful legislation.

What our party must remember is that it is far better to have a liberal Republican than a liberal Democrat. For example, look at the 2009 National Journal Senate ratings. Senator Specter voted as a conservative 55.2 percent of the time, making him the 45th most conservative senator. Not so good at first glance, but for perspective: Norm Coleman, for whom Republicans are fighting to the death in Minnesota, was 39th, holding a 61 percent conservative voting record. Elizabeth Dole, who ran the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2006 and was spoken of fondly by conservative activists, was 40th, only with a 60.8 percent conservative record. Joe Lieberman, who spoke at the Republican convention and is almost an adopted Republican, was 55th, with a 40.7 conservative record. Suddenly, Senator Specter doesn’t seem so intolerably liberal.

Now consider the Democratic alternative. Rick Santorum was a conservative stalwart, and one of my favorite senators. But he was too conservative for Pennsylvania, and lost in a 2006 landslide to Bob Casey. In those same Senate rankings, Senator Casey was tied for the 75th most conservative senator, and voted the conservative position 20.7 percent of the time. To put that in perspective, the 74th most conservative was Robert Byrd, with a 22.3 percent conservative record. The 73rd most conservative was Harry Reid, reporting a 22.7 percent conservative record. And the 69th most conservative was that famously liberal John Kerry, surprisingly with a 25.8 percent conservative record.

Analysis of these statistics shows that Senator Specter votes with conservatives more than one out of every two times, while Senator Casey votes against conservatives about four out of five times. Who is better for the conservative movement: someone who is almost as conservative as Elizabeth Dole, or someone who is more liberal than John Kerry and Harry Reid?

The “Big Tent” Party’s tent no longer is so big. We are in the minority today for many reasons: corruption, incompetence, poor communication, bad candidates and poor leaders. But our inability to tolerate moderates is also a factor. Our party is dominated increasingly by activists (re: primary voters) who demand ideological purity on every issue. Not just a few important issues. No, every single issue. If a candidate does not vote for every abortion restriction, or against every gun restriction, or for every single tax cut, or for every defense spending bill, no matter how big or how wasteful, and vote correctly on so many other issues, their record is manipulated by talk show hosts, bloggers, and primary opponents to create an evil liberal caricature. Much better, we are told, to have a “true” conservative. Yet the strong conservative alternatives sometimes are too conservative for their state, and unelectable. While I would rather have a senator in the mold of Mike Pence for Pennsylvania, Mike Pence could not win statewide in Pennsylvania. While I disagree with him on many issues, I would rather have Arlen Specter than Bob Casey.

This issue arose during the presidential primaries last year as well, as candidates competed with each other to see who could stake out the most conservative ground on each issue. Those positions were too conservative even for Republican primary voters, resulting in John McCain’s nomination. And in the months following his nomination victory, conservatives whined and complained that McCain was too liberal, and that they would refuse to vote for him based on principle and to send a message. After Sarah Palin joined the ticket, these same conservatives made it clear that they were supporting Palin, not McCain. The continuing criticism for our presidential nominee and the reluctance to support him is one of the reasons why we have more than 1,300 days of President Obama still to go.

There are issues for which there can be no compromise, but there are also issues on which we should be willing to tolerate a moderate position. No politician will ever agree with us 100 percent of the time, so accept that now. We must learn to support candidates with different opinions, even if those opinions sometimes fall on the left side of the spectrum. Otherwise, we will toil in the minority and commemorate 100-day milestones of Democratic administrations for many years to come.

Note: Due to error, two conceal-and-carry articles were assigned this month. They both make strong arguments and are published in their entirety.

The Importance of Conceal and Carry
Campuses across Missouri have been abuzz lately with discussion regarding legislation making its way through the Missouri General Assembly which would allow citizens to carry licensed, concealed firearms on college campuses. The actual provision is contained in an amendment to HB 668, which is an expansion of the Castle Law doctrine, reaffirming a person's right to use a firearm to defend their dwelling. The bill also lowers the age requirement for obtaining a conceal and carry permit from 23 to 21, and prohibits illegal immigrants from selling, purchasing, or possessing firearms, components, or ammunition.

Opponents of the bill include Columbia law enforcement, University Administration, and a host of the “usual suspect” student groups on campus, who have been quick to claim that allowing students to conceal and carry firearms on campus will only lead to more violence, chaos, and the end of civilization as we know it. To this, I say, “Poppycock!”

There is no evidence which suggests that the presence of concealed weapons increase crime. In fact, it has shown to produce the opposite effect. The presence of concealed firearms is the best deterrent possible to violent crimes on campus. What would make a would-be quad mugger or campus shooter more reluctant to commit their heinous act than the thought that they could be dispatched with extreme prejudice by their potential victim(s)? It certainly makes ne'er-do-wells think twice.

Prohibition of firearms does not prevent those who would use them illegally from bringing them on campus, so what is so bad about leveling the playing field? Chances are those who want to go through the trouble, expense, and training necessary to legally acquire a gun, license, and conceal and carry permit are not the people who are going to be using them for evil. We should not deprive citizens of their rights to protect themselves and others, especially when a well-held firearm could mean the difference between one or two deaths and 10 or 20 deaths.

If we can't trust the MUPD or Columbia Police to dispense MIPs(Minor in Possession) in the residence halls, or break up pot circles on the front steps of university buildings, what makes us think they would quickly and effectively respond to a situation such as this? Don't get me wrong, I am in no way doubting the ability of the police officers who live to protect and serve this country, but a lecture hall full of unarmed, frantic students would be sitting ducks, and even if it took them a mere five minutes to respond, those five minutes could prove disastrous for those students, and their families. I will admit that the concept makes me a little uneasy, and the solution is not without its flaws. But at some point in the future an average Joe with a keen knowledge, a bit of nerve, a steady aim and a practiced shot could be the only thing standing between us and a campus tragedy. Considering the alternative, I'll put my trust in him.

Students' Second Amendment rights shall not be abridged

by Victoria Craig

The Missouri House spurred discussion among MU students after it approved a bill that, if passed by the Senate, would expand rights for gun owners.

Reporters at both the “Missourian” and the “Maneater” wrote numerous articles and editorials on the subject and published many letters to the editor. The most common argument against concealed carry on campus seems to be that if students are allowed to carry weapons, crime rates will skyrocket and our campus will end up just like the ones of Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, and others where gun violence has occurred.

But what are the students who make this argument worried about? If the bill passes, students would only be allowed to carry a concealed firearm after they pass a multitude of requirements. First, the student must be at least 21-years-old, be free of any kind of felonies or violent misdemeanors and be independent of drugs and alcohol. If that wasn’t enough, the student must also pass a training course by an instructor who is a certified police firearms trainer or who is certified by the National Rifle Association. According to the bill passed by the House, the course would teach students basic principles of handling a gun, how to care for and clean a gun, how to properly store a gun, and gun safety in the home, classroom and at the firing range.

Those who oppose concealed carry are missing another major advantage of the law. Just because the university hangs a sign outside that says “No guns allowed” doesn’t mean the campus is free from illegal guns. Laws only protect law-abiding citizens from other law-abiding citizens. Concealedcampus.org provides numerous incidents when students on college campuses protected themselves thanks to a concealed carry law. By passing this law, the state would be giving adequately trained students the chance to defend and protect not only themselves but also their peers and educators. Additionally, they would be able to diminish the threat a violent shooter may cause and end a possible shooting rampage before it goes too far. In a situation like this, it’s very possible that a student who follows the concealed carry laws would be better trained than one who carries a gun illegally.

Bearing arms is a second amendment right granted to all US citizens. Why should students be expected to willingly give up their right just because they step foot on campus? Opponents of concealed carry don’t realize how often in everyday life they come into contact with someone who has a concealed weapon. The person carrying a concealed firearm may be the grandmother sitting in the movie theater, the man buying cereal for his four-year-old son in the grocery store or the MU student buying a new shirt at the mall.

It’s important to understand the benefits of concealed carry before we jump to conclusions and deny people the opportunity to defend themselves in dangerous circumstances. In order to protect MU students, it would be in the state’s best interest to allow concealed carry laws so we don’t have to worry about how we would defend ourselves in a potentially deadly situation.

Winning America Back

by Eric Hobbs

On April 15, an estimated 300,000 people voiced their displeasure with the way our government is spending our money at local tea parties. Everyone at least noticed the crowds, and a growing number support their cause. Many people figure that they aren’t political experts, but showing their support for a cause may be the best they can do. This sort of grassroots activism is critical if we are to retake America and stop destructive policies.

Perhaps the simplest thing one can do is to simply be educated on the issues. Enough people vote simply on speeches and appearance, rather than on substance and policy. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) was quoted as saying, "Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one” in a hearing about the tax. If more people had educated themselves on this and all subjects, I am convinced that democrats in Washington would be forced to answer a lot of questions.

The average student who is casually interested in politics will surely follow major elections, such as this past presidential election, but for the right to regain its strength, it’s up to us to outwork opposition, spread our message in the community, and to support candidates in more than just the biggest elections.

For example, Kurt Schaefer was elected to the state senate representing the 19^th district, defeating the incumbent democrat Chuck Graham in the 2008 election. Members of the Mizzou College Republicans worked tirelessly on his behalf, and due in large part to their efforts, Schaefer became to first Republican to represent the 19^th district since 1962.

The next major election is the 2010 midterm election, just over a year and a half away. Until then, I encourage you to get involved, whether it be working a campaign, or putting a sign in your yard. Republicans have taken pride in outworking the democrats, and we need that work ethic again after the past two election cycles.

Retaking America is a process, and the Tax Day Tea Parties could serve as the first step. It is only that though, a first step. There must be more steps. One step could be taking part in the next round of tea parties, set for July 4^th. Last time, the crowds were estimated at 300,000, but hopefully we can rally our neighbors, friends, co-workers, and anyone else sick of the political climate we are living in, and swell the crowds to 400,000 or even a half million.

If we work together towards to common goal of fixing America, we can and will defeat the destructive policies we are up against and we will win America back.