Wabash Conservative Union » Blog

Reflecting on 2011: A Bold Year for WCU Events

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 06:38:36 +0000

2011 was a magnificent year for the Wabash Conservative Union Events program. Through support of Wabash College, supporters of WCU, and a the help of Young America’s Foundation, we were able to bring in top-notch speakers.

It all started in March with our first visitor to campus, Star Parker. Star delivered a bold and straight-forward talk on the continuation of government-endorsed welfare and poverty among minorities in urban areas. Star goes as far to say that the culture of dependency within the inner-city is a government “plantation” that does not instill values of hard work or moral behavior, and has led to an increased dependence on abortion. In April, WCU was able to bring former Congressman and Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo to campus. Mr. Tancredo spoke on the importance of a melting-pot, prosperous United States. In his mind, to most effectively ensure that the US is a melting pot, immigrants need to assimilate into the English language as well as maintain definitive cultural aspects and heritage. Finally in September, WCU was proud to welcome Jimmy LaSalvia of GOProud. Jimmy spoke on the importance of broadening the tent of conservatism to include gay Americans. He offered 2008 exit polling data, as well as working relationships with various tea party and conservative groups in DC to prove the fact that the “number one goal is to defeat Barack Obama in 2012.”

As a group, we were glad to bring in such a wide array of opinions and intellect to Wabash College. With the diverse variety of knowledge came large student crowds and larger-than-expected faculty participation. The Wabash Conservative Union is in an up-swing. There’s no doubt about it. We would like to thank our readers of The Phoenix, and loyal visitors to our website. In addition, we would like to extend a deep gratitude to our donors. Without your help, these events would not be possible. If you have never contributed to WCU, please consider a small gift today. Our donation link is accessible at the top of the page.

In addition, please check out the complete albums for the photos below! Just click ‘photos’ above to see the history of WCU!

Media Spotlight: WCU’s 2007 interview with State Treasurer Richard Mourdock

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:09:23 +0000

Brian Howey cites the Wabash Conservative Union’s 2007 interview with State Treasurer Mourdock. Check out his article “Questions for Mourdock” http://howeypolitics.com/main.asp?SectionID=39&SubSectionID=123&ArticleID=7039 Related posts:Communication, Education, and Passion: An Interview with Indiana’s State Treasurer Richard MourdockNovember 2007 Back Page CoverEvan Bayh and the Media Narrative Related posts:

On the Contrary

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:07:03 +0000

Joe Scarborough of MSNBCs Morning Joe makes a good point in regards to the Herman Cain scandal as well as other GOP candidates. ”It has nothing to do with ideology, it’s whether you would trust them not to run the United States of America…”

Scarborough brings up a good point about this entire primary process in general. The trend has been to settle with different candidates during different weeks. In essence, we seemingly have conservative leaders building ships, then bailing on them.

Of course, I follow the conservative leaders seeking a direction, and inside knowledge of various campaigns. However, many conservative and GOP Americans are sick and tired of this game of hype. If our new president can’t effectively get policy through the Congress, we will simply end up with another ideological president.

See the video here:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/15/scarborough-i-was-embarrassed-by-cain-before-it-was-cool-video/#ooid=xpZ2UwMzoiUI2YJMmH3rSRKc4HV8Z7f6

Perspectives on Herman Cain and GOP Elitism

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:40:50 +0000

It is not everyday that I aggressively scan positions of individuals from talk radio. However, lately the immediate dismissal of Herman Cain has been on my mind. I saw this great article from Tom Tancredo (whom WCU brought to campus in Spring 2011 and was a former GOP Presidential candidate and Congressman) that discusses why Herman Cain is a legitimate candidate. Tancredo makes the case as to why Herman Cain’s lack of political experience would have landed him a special place in the Reagan Administration, and why Cain passes the Reagan “three C’s” test.

Yet, Herman Cain is not without some establishment, academic blunders in his campaign strategy. Specifically, Cain has not educated himself enough on foreign policy, and has had some tense relationships with the media. However, Tancredo argues, this does not disqualify him for President- it just may hurt his campaign. It is also important to remember that Tom Tancredo has had 30 years of elected public experience that works to shape this analysis.

In the academic world, Herman Cain is simply not acceptable. I have noticed this lately as 2012 conversations are becoming more and more prevalent on campus. The idea that Cain does not fit the mold of what many “academic Republicans” see in Mitt Romney is worth noting. At Wabash specifically, in many cases, it is almost a popularity contest to see how many Republicans can dismiss the Tea Party and uphold conservative views from what I like to call the ‘New England Republican’ perspective.

Personally, I consider myself a true tolerant and inclusive conservative. This means that ALL folks who want to be included under the big tent called Conservatism are welcome. I appreciate libertarians, social conservatives, as well as liberal republicans. I do not appreciate dismissal of others’ views on the sole basis of elitism and academia. I want the record to be made clear that ALL viewpoints in the Wabash Conservative Union are debated, yet respected and properly acknowledged.

This all ties into the original question at hand: Is Herman Cain a legitimate candidate? I say yes. His years of doing amazing things at Godfather’s Pizza, and Burger King should be more well known. Is he ready to take on the media and run as the party’s nominee? Not yet- but he will when the time comes. After all, isn’t that what the primary process is for?

Please read this fairly brief article on Tom Tancredo’s perspective… it highlights this discussion even more.

http://tancredoradio.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/herman-cain-is-the-real-deal-2/

The above perspective is not meant to endorse any current political candidate. These views are that of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Wabash Conservative Union as a whole.

Defending Marriage

Robby Dixon '13 — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:59:37 +0000

Lately, one of the most nationally debated social/moral issues has been marriage – what is the nature of it and how far society can redefine it. There are several reasons for this, including New York’s recent legal recognition of gay marriage and the GOP presidential circus, which at fourteen months before the election is already bidding fair to be quite the endurance contest. Unfortunately, the importance of the issue is not in proportion to the quality of the conversation surrounding it, most of which ranges from the platitudinous (such as this sort of thing) to the fatuous (such as the fuss over Marcus Bachmann’s counseling service).

To anyone who wants to understand what’s at stake in the question, I very highly recommend this blog series by Steven Greydanus of the National Catholic Register. Those who take the time to read all the parts of this series (I suggest making time for it by cutting your daily ration of network news) will receive a remarkably clear and lucid explanation of the social role of marriage, the causes of the decline in its performance of this role in recent decades, the devastating societal consequences of such decline, and how a lingering romantic ideal of marriage in a society that has forgotten what it’s for has led to its gradual redefinition, first in terms of commitment and fidelity and now in terms of the basic kind of relationship involved.

Don’t let it scare you away that the publication and the author are Catholic. The basic argument is of social anthropology and anyone can appreciate it. The Catholic wisdom it contains serves only to point out insights that should be clear to everyone, but happen to fall in our collective blind spots. Also notice that it is free of any taint of bigotry or “hate”. The rhetoric is moderate and measured. There is no gay-bashing anywhere.

We at Wabash know that the first step up from complacency and tribalism is the right kind of argument: the kind that zeroes in on the central issue without getting distracted by rabbit holes, and that can also deal courteously and thoughtfully with those on the other side. This kind of argument can be applied to gay marriage, too. See for yourself.

MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggests Tom Tancredo of having “…Preferred the Death of the President…”

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Wed, 11 May 2011 01:46:12 +0000

Check out this shocking clip:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/10/msnbc_host_to_tancredo_do_you_want_obama_killed.html

WCU Spring 2011 speaker Tom Tancredo is verbally assaulted by Martin Bashir on live cable news. Mr. Tancredo is asked whether he would, “have then preferred the death of the president as opposed to Bin Laden?” Mr. Bashir then proceeds to slander Mr. Tancredo into oblivion.

(R) Threatened + Liberal Analysis = It was a (R) Bigot

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 22:22:59 +0000

Perhaps this is an overworked and classic Conservative question. Why is it that Republicans are always the bigots?

CBS News commits one of the worst and blatant blunders I have seen in a while, in its article “Bloody Pig’s Foot Sent to Rep. Peter King.” Rep. King (R) of New York was sent a bloody pig’s foot in the mail. This package was intercepted at a congressional screening facility. Rep. King has been making some controversial headlines lately for his discussions of radical Islam.

So, what does CBS News do? They interview Mr. Ibrahim Hooper, Communications Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Mr. Hooper drops the seemingly predictable line, “My guess is that it was an anti-Muslim bigot, and bigots not being brain surgeons they probably got their signals crossed.”

It is amazing to me that Mr. Hooper and CBS News completely bypass discussion that maybe the act could have been from someone other than a [stereotypical] “bigot.” Immediately CBS claims that “Muslims are forbidden from eating pork products.” Now, I will take a more professional journalistic approach and say that I have no proof of who committed this act. However, I question why CBS believes that A) not eating something = not handling it and B) why someone destined to stir up fear would necessarily be concerned with obeying one specific religious tradition.

No related posts.

Abortion a Civil Rights Issue?

Zachary Churney '14 — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 05:58:33 +0000

I was sitting in one of my classes the other day and the topic of abortion came up. The discussion was whether or not the “Pro-Life movement” can honestly be considered just another matter of Civil Rights. Of course, the entire issue surrounding the debate over abortion is that some view a fetus as a non-living being, while others view it as a living, growing human. I pondered on this and had the desire to search for other ways to approach the issue. In the United States and other parts of the western world during the 18th and 19th centuries, there was a similar debate concerning slavery. Naturally it is greatly agreed upon that slavery is a brutal and terrible thing; how could people have ever thought it was okay to enslave another human for his or her own selfish desires? Furthermore, how could someone treat another person like that?

After the discussion had gone on for a few minutes I raised my hand and made the claim that abortion is strikingly similar to slavery. Right away I had an appalled fellow classmate reply, “No it is not! Not at all!” Forgive me but, I believe it is. The controversy is so similar that it disturbs me greatly at times. The center of controversy lies in that the majority of pro-choice individuals firmly believe that a fetus is not alive since it has not gone through a specific event (being birth). The center of controversy in Great Britain and The United States in the 19th century surrounding slavery was whether an individual of African descent was equal to someone that was white. In the early 1800’s there were numerous pastors and ministers such as Dr. James Hunt who even wrote books on how slavery was supported by the Bible. Some even claimed that biologically, blacks were completely different than whites. Today we have Doctors claiming that life does not start until after birth while other Doctors claim that it starts at conception. So, in one debate we have individuals claiming that those of different skin color are not “equal” to those of another skin color, and in the other there are those saying that one human being who has not yet gone through a specific event (emphasize event) is absolutely inferior to another that has!

I think that it is safe to say that the issue can not be solved politically, but rather socially. The tricky thing is that there needs to be a large agreement among the people before the political tide can be turned. Hopefully this nation will wake up and come to an agreement that a fetus, which has a heartbeat, arms, legs, eyes, etc., is a human being. Just because the newly created/conceived child has not gone through an event that lasts shorter than puberty or a first day of school, does not mean it isn’t “alive” yet. The Civil Rights Movement was about waking the nation to the fact that African-Americans are absolutely no different except in the color of their skin and deserve the same things as every other American. Americans on the Pro-Life side are arguing the same thing for the unborn. What do the growing infants inside the womb say in their own defense? Unfortunately, they can’t, so we must.

How Many Bureaucrats Does it Take to Put Up a Christmas Tree?

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:31:44 +0000

Click here to view the embedded video.

Via our glorious White House-

How many people in your own home does it take to put up the Christmas tree? What about Christmas decorations? Some people do little, others go all out as far as the decor for the holiday season.

Yet, how many people do we know that must bring in outside help, in which over the course of FOUR DAYS can only transform ONE ROOM? Would 97 people be enough? Of course these folks were volunteers, yet resembled what we all know oh so well about government involvement in anything, even Christmas decorations.

Let me also note that the following video does not come from some evil, conservative, spying insider. It is on the official whitehouse.gov YouTube.

Global Warming Issue: Progressive Bandwagon to Fragile Soap Box

Jeremy Wentzel '14 — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:39:11 +0000

Wesley Pruden of The Washington Times writes a compelling article on how even the most liberal senators in the most ‘green’ states (drowning in an enormous borrowed monetary red, ahem- California) are sitting this year’s UN Global Warming Conference in Cancun out.

I guess last year’s frigid Copenhagen wasn’t the best PR move. Happy tanning in Cancun!

Check it out here.