CRmonth ly

: fall editionseptember/october

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY’S COLLEGE REPUBLICANS NEWSLETTER

Conservative Perspective:Gay Marriage is (Legally) Inevitable

Opinion: Yes, They Really Are That Clueless

The Lincoln Dinner

Why are YOU a Republican?

Meet the E-Board Additions

Fall Kickoff

Conservative Perspective

Fall 2011 Events

in this issue...September/October Fall Events

Remembering 9/11

Wacky Wednesday

CR BBQ

Fall Kickoff

Meet The New E-Board Members

Freshman Representatives

Director of Public Relations

Conservative Perspective

Gay Marriage is (Legally) Inevitable Kevin Reagan Opinion: Yes, They Really Are That Clueless

Lincoln Dinner Sinead Casey

Why are YOU a Republican?

Christian Christoefl

Alex Kraemer

Chris Ring

Interested in Writing?

2

3

6

9

13

17

FALL EVENTS

The BEST partyin town!

9/11 Never Forget Project

Wacky Wednesday on the Vern

3

CR BBQ

Amelia Wolf greeting new members

Amanda Galonek signing up new members

Victor Bogachev grilling burgers and hot

dogs for the CRs

Our Chairwoman Kaitlyn Martin representing the CRs!

4

October 22nd, 2011

FALL KICKOFFwithGEORGE ALLEN

Eric Su asks Gov. George Allen a question

Gov. George Allen meets with the Executive Board

Victor Bogachev presents Gov. George Allen with a CR t-shirt

5

meet the new e-board additions!

Freshman RepresentativesAlexander MillerHey everyone! I’m Alexander Miller, one of your two Freshman Representatives for this year. I am a Philosophy major and Politi-cal Science minor in the Columbian College of Arts and Sci-ences here at GW. Dalton Pennsylvania, a small town just out-side of Scranton, is where I come from. I am a 2011 graduate of Lackawanna Trail High School where I held many leadership positions such as junior and senior Class President and FCCLA President. I was also involved with Envirothon, baseball, and HOBY Youth Leadership. My political experience includes work-ing on several campaigns, interning with a Pennsylvania State Senator, and acting as Campaign Manager in a Pennsylvania Campaign.

Back in Scranton, politics are generally confined to left side party lines, which leave very few endeavors for the few Republi-cans that do live there. Because of this, I am extremely excited to be part of one of the most recognizable CR groups in the nation! I have had a passion for politics for many years and will continue to pursue the political world ahead of me.

I am ready to witness the craziness that is just starting up for the 2012 election. Recently, we have witnessed disappointment with politics, which is deterring many students from getting involved with politics and political organizations. I honestly believe 2012 can change that. We need to get started now to revolutionize the future of politics.

Outside of politics, I enjoy baseball, cigars, and traveling. I am looking forward to a great year with the College Republicans and GW.6

7

Brooke ScottHey everyone, my name is Brooke Scott and I am more than

excited to be one of your Freshman Representatives this

year. I am from Louisville, KY and have always had a pas-

sion for politics. I am majoring in Political Science, and I

am also very interested in joining the SMPA program where

I will hopefully be able to expand my interest in journalism.

Besides my academic interests, I also enjoy golfing, tennis,

good food, and spending time with my family and friends.

I attended Sacred Heart Academy for high school. Having

the opportunity to attend an all-girl, private Catholic school

allowed me to be able to solidify my beliefs as a Republi-

can. I was very involved with Pep Club, Student Activities

Committee, the Ambassador program, and other organiza-

tions that allowed me to use my creativity to excite other

students and get them to be more involved.

As your Freshman Representative I want to make this

already exciting time in politics also an exciting time to be a

member of the College Republicans. Having just turned 18 I

cannot wait to experience my first time voting in our

nation’s capital. I hope that all of you are as excited as I am

to get started on this year’s upcoming events and see what

will turn out in 2012!

The Freshman Reps from Election Night!

8

Director of Public RelationsChris WassmanAs the Public Relations Director for this upcoming year, I am very excited to be on the board and to have this opportunity to serve.

As we head into this upcoming election year, I believe together we can make the GW College Republicans a powerful voice on campus and throughout DC for promoting conservative values through hosting influential speakers and holding effective advocacy events. In the months to come, one of these opportunities will be our debates with the College Democrats, which will allow us to lay out the Republican path to strong economic growth and job creation, as well as discuss other issues facing America today. I would encourage you to consider debating in one of these events as well as plugging in with the various events and speakers that we plan to host.

I have greatly enjoyed being a member of the GW College Republicans and hope that you will as well, and I look forward to serving you again this upcoming year.

September 20th, 2011: Election Night

the conservative perspectiveGay Marriage is (Legally) Inevitable

Kevin ReaganI recently attended a congressional meeting in which the national Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and its pending repeal were discussed. On the way back from the meeting, I dis-cussed the issue with my colleagues and they were very surprised by my position on gay

marriage.

To be clear, I do not in any way endorse homosexual marriage. I maintain a deep-seated religious and personal moral opposition to it. I do not plan on instructing my children to accept it morally. I firmly believe in the benefits of traditional marriage and its positive

effect on society and on future generations. However, as much as I personally disagree with the action and find it morally reprehensible, I can find no satisfactory legal recourse to pre-vent it from happening. In the pieces I've read, they have all failed to address key arguments

or counterpoints.

(The articles I refer to below are pieces by Thomas Messner, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and can be found on that organization’s website.)

1) In Messner's "From Culture Wars to Conscience Wars," he argues that all sorts of battles of "conscience" will increase in volume as more jurisdictions recognize homosexual

unions. The problem is they are going to continue, not as more jurisdictions recognize homosexual unions, but as more jurisdictions pass anti-discrimination laws which include

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This is one of the great hypocrisies of the conservative side: while it claims to be against discriminating based on sexual orientation

(and only then due to intense societal pressure and aversion to allegations of bigotry) in the workplace and society-at-large, it wants to discriminate based on sexual orientation when it comes to the institution of marriage and the benefits therein. The reality is that it is impos-sible for society to have both anti-discrimination laws which include sexual orientation and also have laws which officially sanction discrimination the public arena. The two are axiom-atically mutually exclusive. The only legal solutions are to either a) recognize homosexual

marriage, or b) allow discrimination in general based on sexual orientation.

ctd on page 10

9

2) His second piece, "Religion and Morality in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate," begins

by highlighting all of the non-religious arguments in support of exclusively traditional

marriage. These are all fine, but they ignore the lack of evidence that their position is the

only correct one for the benefit of society. Much of the argument for exclusive recogni-

tion of traditional marriage (indeed, the only Constitutionally-defensible position) is the

"greater good" argument. Apologists for this side assert that gay marriage will definitively

hurt society. The problem is that there is no affirmative evidence for this position. There

is simply evidence showing that traditional marriage is a benefit to society. It is illogical

to argue that, because traditional marriage is good for society, homosexual marriage is

inherently bad (perhaps this argument could be made if it were to say that homosexual

marriage is the exact opposite of traditional marriage, but that would be a hard sell

given that divorce or separation would be more accurately described as marriage’s oppo-

site). Unless and until that can be proven, there really is no legal recourse for refusing to

recognize homosexual marriage.

3) The second piece also discusses morality as a measure to consider when debating

the issue of same-sex marriage. The author’s principal point is that while the moral argu-

ment is used by proponents of same-sex marriage, the moral argument should also be

used by opponents. The problem with this is that it hastens the slippery slope of legislat-

ing morality. It adds yet another dimension to the age-old debate over the relativism of

morality and whether society has the right (or obligation) to dictate and adhere to some

form of morality. The question is: where does that stop? I would imagine that many

people see burning the American flag as immoral; however, that act has routinely been

protected as free speech. There are countless actions which many see as immoral but

people have every right to do them. Ultimately, the question is how an institution which is

moral in one case immediately becomes immoral based solely on a change of gender.

That is the definition of sexual discrimination. Furthermore, there is always the issue of

the “inalienable right” to the “pursuit of happiness” mentioned in the Declaration. How

is preventing gay couples the right to marry not denying them that right? That is one

question that has been posed to me by advocates of gay marriage to which I believe

opponents have no satisfactory response.

Finally, the debate inevitably ends up bringing up the question: what is marriage? I do

not believe there is any legal way to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a

woman. It is discriminatory based on sexual orientation. Given this reality, the solutions

to the question of gay marriage are as follows:

1) Allow general societal discrimination based on sexual preference. This option, obvi-

ously, will never even be considered.

2) Recognize “marriage” as a union between two consenting adults.

3) Allow marriage to become a completely religious institution. Those who so chose

will be “married” within their religion, and in society, “legally joined” or something

of the sort.

4) Adopt a theocratic model of government which rejects the legitimacy of homosexu-

ality and/or homosexual marriage.

ctd on page 11

10

What should probably happen is a version of number two. The federal government will be forced to legally recognize “marriage” (or the legal benefits currently contained therein) as between consenting adults. The government will then have to protect the right of religious

institutions to reject that definition within their religions. They should not be forced to legiti-mize the institution in any way that interferes with the practice of their religion, as would be their constitutional right in the First Amendment. As to the issue of businesses, businesses open to the public would have to recognize the association regardless of personal aversion

to the idea, otherwise Option 1 above would come into effect.

Opinion: Yes, They Really Are That Clueless

Kevin Reagan

I don’t know about you, but I have been watching the development of the “Occupy Wall Street” and the many satellite solidarity protests it has spawned with increasing amuse-

ment (and a fair measure of incredulity). The views being propounded by these protestors range from standard liberalism to the lunatic fringe left.

Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4 (from the D.C. version of this protest)

I challenge you to attempt to make sense of the opinions and assertions of these individu-als. Easily 80% of the whole video is utterly unintelligible. The interviewer catches the inter-viewees in contradictions of their own assertions, and they absolutely cannot intelligently defend their position. The “quotables” from this video are too many to count. My personal

favorite: “The government is now FULLY privatized…” I’m sorry, say again?

Satire is not even needed to find humor in these protests. The views expressed by the pro-testors themselves are comedy gold. Which leads me to…

Exhibit B: http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

Of course, the administrator of the site is quick to disassociate the site with the demands, but to me, they sound like a pretty accurate representation of the views of many of the

protestors.

This “movement” is already notorious for its disorganization and lack of coherent message, yet it has widely been compared to the Tea Party. Such a comparison is laughable. Even

supporters and participants in the protests can’t put their finger on its message. How will it ever translate into political representation or electoral manifestation? Short answer: it

won’t.

ctd on page 12

1 1

Participants are thus left to ask absurd questions like:

“What are the political and socio-economic conditions of our country failing to achieve such that an increasingly large number of people feel they must go to the streets without

solutions, without leadership, without message and point to a set of buildings that are themselves not the problem, filled with people who are working for a living and are also,

as individuals, not the problem?”

Oh, I don’t know…sanity? Wasn’t that the point of the Jon Stewart rally? To “restore sanity?” But yet, Jon Stewart, the comedian with an admittedly liberal agenda, comes to the defense of the protestors by contrasting media coverage of their protest with that of the Tea Party. Newsflash, Jon: the two movements are fundamentally different. The Tea Party is anti- big government whereas this protest really appears to be anti-capitalist.

As Charles Krauthammer astutely observed, this protest without a goal is like a “party of a picnic of the unemployed and the indolent. Unless you have an objective, what are you

doing out there?”

When I look at the protestors I don’t see nearly the demographic diversity and clear, attainable agenda evident in movements like the Tea Party. I see young, unemployed liber-

als advocating policies that remind me of the precursors to fascism. They echo the war cry of Roseanne Barr, referring to bankers and the wealthy, “Off with their heads!” They want to see President Obama re-elected, despite the fact that Vice President Biden just told America to hold the Obama administration responsible for the dismal economy. For

goodness’ sake: they’ve been endorsed by Nancy Pelosi and Van Jones!

Surprised? Neither am I.

The Lincoln DinnerSinead Casey

On September 20, 2011 the day “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” officially ended, I represented our Executive Board at the Log Cabin Republicans “Spirit of Lincoln” awards dinner, in which five Republican Representatives: Charlie Dent, Richard Hanna, Nan Hayworth, Judy Big-gert and Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, and two U.S. Senators: Susan Collins and Scott Brown

were honored for their actions taken in regards to ending the policy.

When Representative Richard Hanna accept his award, while I don’t have the direct quote, he said something said along the lines of, “I am honored to receive this award, but I don’t deserve it because that’s just the way I was raised.” His actions on DADT derived

from the way he was raised -- the way many of us were raised.

I know my approach to DADT and other issues regarding gay rights derives from the way I was raised. I, like Rep. Hanna, was raised to see all people as the same with the guar-

antee of having the same rights. I always expected people to be free to express who they are and act on their passions. That was always an innate right for me.12 ctd on page 13

The dispute over gay issues in the GOP has always frustrated me. How could a party that grounds itself in the protection of individual liberties and personal freedoms reject indi-

viduals’ rights to express themselves freely?

I went to the Lincoln Dinner with an open mind and limited expectations, and I was blown away by the support that the Log Cabin Republicans received from such prominent Republi-

cans. At the event, it truly felt like our party was on the brink of something revolutionary. Smart people were talking about the right solutions to the fundamental problems that

effect our party and our nation, and one of those problems was not who could marry who. In these harsh economic times our party and our country has a lot to loose if we don’t welcome the ideas and the support of all Americans. It is time for the GOP to wake up, learn from the success of the Log Cabin Republicans, and put social issues on the back burner. It is time to fight for the limitation of government and fiscal responsibility that

grounds our party in full force. Republicans have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not engaging and soliciting the gay community.

One of the gentlemen I sat with asked me about College Republicans, and as I described our Conservative experience here on the GW campus, a smile came across his face. He told me that when he was in college, the problem wasn’t that he was gay but that he was a gay

Republican. He was thrilled to know that he would always be welcomed by our organization. As Executive Director this year, I look forward to working with gay Republicans both on and off campus. No one should ever feel ashamed to be gay or a gay Republican; that’s not how

I was raised.

Why are YOU a Republican?

Christian Christoefl

As our nation once again faces a future in peril, I am reminded of the simple principle that has led me to be a Republican my entire life, idealistic pragmatism. While this term may appear contradictory, allow me to explain.

The entire experiment of America, of the original huddled masses venturing into the unknown to escape the oppressions of abusive government, is based on the very idea of individual freedom. Our Founding Fathers firmly believed that it was through the indi-vidual that government was granted its power, with its main directive being the protection of those very freedoms. Here in lies the fundamental characteristic of our American Exceptionalism. By allowing individuals to maintain their inalienable rights to aspire, to

ctd on page 14 13

create, and to attain, we all succeed. There is nothing more central to our nation than the American dream. However, in our modern lexicon this dream has been diminished and weakened by our liberal friends that see it as some kind of ploy of the Republican Party to keep the down trodden subservient to a select few. I firmly disagree, if we do not dare to dream, how can we ever hope to achieve? Some, if not all, of the greatest triumphs of our history were not dictated to us by overarching government bureaucracy, but, rather, were the results of everyday Americans exercising their individual rights to reach for the stars. This is the idealism I speak of, the idealism that I believe is engrained in the Republican Party. The simple idea that if I work hard enough and long enough I can achieve a better world than my parents hoped for, than my forefathers sought for, just simply, a better world.

Coupled with this idealism is the similarly critical notion of pragmatism. The virtue of common sense is no more imperative to the state of our republic today than any other time in our history. Ill conceived fixes to issues in the hopes that they will simply go away has proven to be a failed policy that has only done more to irritate the problem and limit other solutions. Our Founding Fathers were reverent to the notion of common sense; even Thomas Paine’s pamphlet originally espousing American independence was titled Common Sense. The Republican Party has continued to hold firm to these notions in the wake of rising bureaucratic costs and programs, that while inherently derived from good faith lack the essential ingredient of sensible thinking. This has led to harsh criticisms from the left call-ing us heartless and disaffected. This again, is wrong. Compassion to suffering is not a bullet point for a political platform but a central characteristic of what defines our humanity. Practicing pragmatism to these problems, therefore, is not a vilifying act but a forward look-ing approach that considers the impact on our future generations.

Essentially, now more than any other time in our history we stand before a ledge of uncer-tainty, fear, and apprehension. Perhaps the greatest comfort is in knowing that when the outlook has always been darkest Americans have always shone brightest. Who we are has never depended on the magnitude of the challenges that stand before us, but rather the principles we choose to meet those challenges. For 235 years we have chosen to stand in the face of adversity, and our resilient individualism has come to define us. The Republican Party is the one party that not only understands the American Idea but is its staunchest advocate. For all these reasons, I proudly consider myself a Republican.

Alex KraemerI’m a Republican because I continue to believe in the promise America represents: a country where someone can become as successful as their talents will make them.

I believe in capitalism. I believe in personal responsibility and hard work. I believe in my home, my heritage as a proud fifth generation American, and fourth generation farmer of the Willamette Valley. I believe in country, and defending it with your very life, gladly laying it down to ensure that my descendants will have the same wonderful opportunities I’ve had. I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is central to the American experience, and I believe in defending that right just as aggressively as I would our sovereign soil. I believe in conservatism in a literal sense: America as it stands today is the height of human civilization,

ctd on page 1514

and we’ve got here on our traditions, institutions and legal systems. Why should we change them?

I believe that national defense should not be predicated upon international opinion. The UN is an impotent, corrupt organization and represents an unacceptable compromise of our sovereignty, and as such should have little bearing on how we choose to conduct ourselves in the international arena.

I believe in turning more administrative authority over to the states, and taking it away from a bloated and wildly inefficient federal government. I believe in a complete retooling of our federal bureaucracy, especially the Social Security administration, which will place respon-sibility for paying for decades of mismanagement and corruption squarely on the shoulders of America’s most recent generation. I believe in the total rejection of socialistic notions such as “Healthcare is a civil right,” and the redistribution of wealth via heavy taxes.

But more than anything else, I’m a Republican because I believe America is the world’s last, best hope. And conservatism and the Republican Party are America’s last, best hope.

Chris RingI identity primarily as a fiscal conservative because of the red menace, Governor Mitch Daniels calls it, that is threatening to destroy our country. I used to be a social conserva-tive, but those days came and went long ago. I am still the most socially conservative person you can find but I rarely discuss them. For example, I do not believe in gay mar-riage ever in Virginia, not it a thousand years. I am addicted to the Wall Street Journal and watch way too much Fox News. If I could pick my favourite conservative columnist, it would have to be Doctor Charles Krauthammer, a regular on Special Report with Bret Baier at 6 on Fox. Krauthammer is one of the most articulate and intellectual conservatives in the nation, if not the most. Even former President Bill Clinton said he was very smart and one of the smartest columnists in the country.

You are probably thinking who is this loser has on his political hero list. Well if you have been to my facebook page, you may have seen it. In case you haven’t looked because one you are too lazy or you are not friends with me, I’ll tell you. (If you have not friended me on facebook do so or you’re a Marxist-Leninist-Obamist.) My number one hero is not even an American. He is from the jewel of Africa, Rhodesia. Ian Douglas Smith was the last Prime Minister of Rhodesia before it became Zimbabwe. He fought against commies such as Robert Mugabe who we foolishly thought was a “freedom fighter”. Good ol’ Smithy believed in responsible majority rule in his country, which it was not ready for at the time when Rhodesia declared independence in 1965. Liberals did not understand what the situation on the ground in Rhodesia was. Even many conservatives thought that Smith should turn over his country to majority rule as soon as possible. But there was one man who trusted and believed in Ian Smith. He understood how critical Rhodesia was in the Cold War and how it was absolutely necessary to not hand it over to irresponsible majority rule, as had been done throughout the

15ctd on page 16

continent. If he were president at the time, he would have recognised Rhodesian Indepen-dence. Smith called him the greatest American President of the 20th Century. That man is Ronald Reagan, the greatest President of the past 150 years. Ronald Reagan began the consensus on low taxes, less regulations that has lasted for the past three decades. He finally delivered the knockout punch to those commies with the Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars). In this time of fear and anxiety, we need another Ronald Reagan.

Now to the moment you have been waiting for if you still have even bothered to pay atten-tion. Who am I supporting for president? Well if you have been paying even remote atten-tion to why rather dull and uninteresting rant, you could easily guess. If you think I am a load of hooey, which some dare to think, you also know. For those of you who have no clue I will be nice and give it away. I am supporting the only candidate with Confederate ances-tors, Governor James Richard “Rick” Perry of Texas. Not because he is one of my own kind so to speak but because he knows the environment for creating jobs down in Texas. This election will be about jobs and there is no one better to run on jobs than Governor Perry. All of the other candidates have some weakness when it comes to jobs. Mitt Romney was 47th in job creation in Massachusetts and he laid off people when he was at Bain Capital. Also the Obama campaign will portray him as Gordon Gekko. (If you do not know what I am talking about, watch Wall Street. Watch it anyway because it is good for you.) Herman Cain knows how to create jobs but not holding elective office is not exactly the best way to run for president. Jon Huntsman is Mr. One percent. Sorry Huntsman fans but Romney and/or Perry would have to collapse like the Soviet Union in order for him to have a chance. And the rest were not governors, sorry everyone but I am tired of the lack of leadership and executive skills from the current occupant of the White House. Most unfortunately, the greatest governor in the history of the country, Chris Christie, is still refusing to run. I am not sure if it is right to love another man, but I love Chris Christie. He would destroy Obama in a debate and get this country back on fiscal tract. Every world leader who does not like us will cower in fear just like those greedy teachers union members who refused a one year pay freeze.

Now you are probably thinking I am a cocky wacko as former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island described Sarah Palin. But I am not. I’m Chris Ring, the most inter-esting, right-wing, boring, and possibly the funniest member of the CRs.

16

Glenn beck: 10/6A few of the CR executive board members were given the

opportunity to sit it on stage during one of Glenn

Beck’s shows. Here are some pictures from the night!

Kaitlyn Martin, Brooke Scott, and Amelia Wolf

in front of Times Square before the show!

Interested in writing for the CR Monthly? Contact Jill Reavis at Jill@gwrepublicans.org

The views expressed in the CR Monthly represent those of our members, and are not necessarily the views or positions of the College Republican National Committee, the DC

Federation of College Republicans, or the George Washington University College Republicans.