Well, it has finally happened: Democrats in Southern Nevada have gone too far, and are now embarrassing themselves daily for the entire world to watch.

It all began on November 2, 2010 when Dr. Joe Heck was elected to Congress over Dina Titus, the darling of the liberal activist community in Las Vegas. Democrats began attacking Heck across various media, for not creating the jobs he promised – a promise he never made in the first place. Congressman Heck has always maintained that government cannot create jobs, something President Obama has yet to figure out. He has, however, made it clear that government needs to create an environment favorable for the private sector to create jobs.

Although many liberals never heard his entire view on this issue, because Dina Titus routinely cut it out of her attack ads, to make it seem as though Heck felt Congress had no role in putting people back to work.

Now being a sore loser is nothing new for the devoted liberal activist, but since then they have taken their activism to a whole new level – outright lies.

These activists are now claiming that Rep. Joe Heck charges constituents to see him, requires a fee for them to ask him questions, and refuses to hold a public town hall. They’ve even gone so far as to use the term “Pay-Per-View Congress” when referring to the cost to enter private events where Joe Heck is speaking.

One of the outfits spearheading this nonsense is The Nevada View, a Vegas-based “non-partisan” news website run by 32-year old President of the CSN “Young” Democrats, Justin McAffee, and contributed to by a whole host of liberal/progressive politicos. One such progressive is Andrew Davey, of the Nevada Stonewall Democrats, who wrote that members attending a private luncheon with Rep. Heck were “human shields.”

This is absolutely ridiculous, even for Democrats.

There is no doubt that Nevadans are suffering, and many cannot find work. Many have been out of work for years. For these activists to politicize that suffering, for ideological gain, is embarrassing.

The reality is that Rep. Heck has held numerous public town halls and other public events where constituents can hear him speak, ask him questions, and interact with him. And like any high-profile individual – elected official or otherwise – he also appears as a special guests at various private events.

When a Republican club has their monthly luncheon, and attendees are required to pay $25 to cover the cost of their meal, it is a private luncheon for their members. They invite high-profile speakers – including elected officials – and Democrats do the same thing.

When a band of screeching liberal hyenas show up to disrupt the event, they are told they must pay the $25 to attend the luncheon. The activists have now claimed that this practice boils down to Rep. Heck charging constituents to ask him questions.

This is absurd, and a patently false allegation. In fact, these “constituents” are purposefully exploiting an innocent practice as something heinous. It is disingenuous.

When the Lambda Business Association – Las Vegas’ LGBT Chamber of Commerce and heavily Democratic audience – holds its monthly $15 luncheon, they also require attendees to pay. Does anyone believe a group of Republican activists, wishing to disrupt a speech by a high-profile Democrat, would be allowed to enter without paying for the meal? Nor should they! It’s a private luncheon, and the organization has gone to great lengths to invite high-profile speakers for the benefit of their members – and need to cover their costs.

These liberal activists are attempting to turn this narrative into a legitimate news story, and KTNV-TV, Channel 13 in Las Vegas, was happy to oblige when protestors descended on another private event featuring guest speaker Rep. Joe Heck.

In the video, activists repeated their Democratic talking points:

“Where are the jobs he said he was going to produce?”

“He’s willing to vote for continued tax breaks for million- and billionaires, but he’s not willing to put any money into creating jobs.”

However, at no time did Joe Heck ever promise to “produce” jobs, unless they’re talking about his own small business – which he had to shelf when he became a Congressman.

The government cannot create jobs. Private industry must do so, and government needs to create a favorable environment to do so – or get the hell out of the way.

Period.

Joe Heck understands that, as someone who has actually created jobs in the private sector. How many of these activists have created jobs?

As for voting for continued tax breaks for the rich, this particular bullet point proves the speaker is not informed on the issue. For example, the Bush Tax Cuts – which Democrats want eliminated for “the rich” – provided a 4.6% cut for the highest income bracket in America, from 39.6% to 35%. However, it provided a much larger cut for the lowest income bracket, from 15% to 10% – and increased the standard deduction enough so that many in the lowest income bracket pay no federal incomes taxes at all.

Democrats continue to say the Bush Tax Cuts for “for the rich,” but the “rich” got 1/3 the cut the “working poor” got. The narrative simply does not hold up in the presence of facts.

As for tax policy, Rep. Heck voted for legislation in the House that would get rid of many deductions, subsidies, and loopholes.

In fact, during Congressman Heck’s visit to “Face to Face” with Jon Ralston last week he said, “We’ve sent [the Senate] 14 jobs bills from the House and all but one are sitting in a pile collecting dust.”

Are these liberal activists aware that the Harry Reid controlled Democratic U.S. Senate has blocked a myriad of bills that the Republican House has passed? Of course they are, but you won’t see that on TV. In fact, they wouldn’t have it any other way, since they favor Harry Reid’s policies – not Joe Heck’s.

But “dozens” of protestors (It looked like one dozen to me) in a district of over 1,000,000 Nevadans, is hardly representative of a district-wide opinion.

What these liberals fail to realize is that Las Vegas relies very heavily on tourist dollars – funds that are in short supply due to this prolonged economic malaise. This recession ended two years ago, yet no one has seen anything close to a recovery.

Increasing government spending and raising taxes on those who are surviving this crisis, will only result in LESS disposable income flowing into the Nevadan economy.

Piling on thousands of new regulations on business, and delaying the implementation of costly legislation like Obamacare, creates uncertainty – which stifles expansion and hiring.

Think about it: If you still owned a profitable business in this economic climate, would you be quick to hire if you had no idea how much that employee will cost you in Obamacare compliance three years from now? Or how much in payroll taxes you’ll have to pay the next time the Democrats in the Nevada legislature decide to DOUBLE it as they did during the recession in 2009?

Of course not. Business owners aren’t stupid. If they were, their business would have failed long ago.

Perhaps these liberal activists should be calling the White House, and asking President Obama: “Where are the jobs?”

It is President Obama who claimed unemployment would not exceed 8% if his $787 billion stimulus package was passed. Yet unemployment stands at 9.1% (14% in Las Vegas), and ZERO net jobs were created in August – an event that hasn’t happened since 1945.

It is President Obama who promised to cut the budget deficit in half, yet he has quadrupled it – adding more than a trillion dollars to our already sky-high national debt each year.

It is President Obama whose Party controls the White House and U.S. Senate – and refuses to support legislation passed by the Republican House.

It is President Obama who twice told businesses and individuals not to “blow a bunch of cash on Vegas.”

In the meantime, here’s a great video of Senator Harry Reid’s people turning away the public from private events – including turning away a UNLV student from attending a pizza party for UNLV students.

Yep, that happened.

Mark Ciavola is the State Chairman of the Nevada College Republicans, and president of the College Republican chapter at University of Nevada – Las Vegas

Today, a video surfaced on YouTube from the College Democrats of America (CDA) explaining why they are Democrats. This video, titled “The Obama Generation” shows support for the Democratic Party for a wide range of reasons, from believing in hope to opposing free trade. The video was made private after dissenting comments began appearing, but a public version appears here.

In order to illustrate the pure delusion among young Democrats, here is my recap. I left out those students who made purely emotional points that need no rebuttal.

“I am a Democrat…” the video begins.

Student #2: “… because of the Patriot Act.”

Let me get this straight. You are a Democrat because you support the Patriot Act? Or because you oppose it? Either way, it doesn’t matter.

First, the Patriot Act was passed in 2001 when this student was about 10 years old. It passed the House 357-66 with 145 Democrats voting in support, and the Senate with only one Democratic no-vote, 98-1. So if you oppose the Patriot Act, then you probably shouldn’t be a Democrat.

Although Democrats spent the entire length of the Bush Administration decrying the Patriot Act as an abuse of government power, so if you support the Patriot Act you probably shouldn’t be a Democrat either.

Seems like an ignorantly vague statement, at best.

Student #3: “ … because I’m a Christian, not in spite of it.”

This one makes no sense at all. The Christian faith represents a focus on traditional family values including marriage, and respects the inherent dignity of all human life – opposing abortion. Why would any Christian support a political party that promoted abortion as an alternative to birth control? Why would any Christian support a political party that pokes fun at religion, members of which routinely attempt to get prayer out of public schools, and remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance and our currency?

This student obviously doesn’t know what it means to be a Democrat, a Christian, or both.

Student #4: “ … because I believe in every child has a right to a fair and high quality education.”

This sounds nice, but in practice the Democrats oppose charter schools, school vouchers, or any other mechanism through which parents can ensure their children get a fair and high quality education. The Democrats only want children going to public schools, which employ public teachers, with public dollars, little accountability, and shoddy results.

Republicans believe parents should be able to choose where their child goes to school. Instead of the government giving the public school $8,000 per child, let’s give that money to the parents to use at the school of their choice. “NO!” says the Democrat, who realizes that after 30-years of liberal dominance in education, their meal ticket is coming to an end.

Cut wasteful spending? Use technology to improve education? Use online supplements? Performance-based merit pay increases? “HELL NO,” say the Democrats, in the form of powerful teachers unions.

Republicans believe in returning control of school districts to the state, county, and local levels – rather than a one-size-fits-all plan from the federal government. “NO WAY,” say the union-backed Democrats.

Student #7: “ … because I believe anyone can make it in America.”

No you don’t. You believe government can make it FOR THEM.

If Democrats believed that “anyone can make it in America,” they wouldn’t support racist affirmative action measures. Democrats believe that members of minority communities need preferential treatment in order to get certain jobs, or into colleges.

Funny, I thought Democrats believed in equality.

There’s nothing equal in giving people preferential treatment because of race.  Period.

I, however, do believe anyone can make it in America – if they want it, and if they work hard for it. I did it. So can anyone.

This is yet another emotionally-driven non-sensical cliché. Bravo, brainwashed youth. Bravo!

Student #8: “ … because I believe the government should take care of its citizens.”

Who is the government?

If you’re a Democrat, you believe it is an abstract concept with no tangible, real world, application.

If you’re intelligent, you know that government is me, you, and everyone else in this country who pays taxes.

The government has no money, until we give it to them in the form of taxes and fees. This is 8^th grade government class stuff, folks.

If you believe the government should take care of its citizens, then you believe that we, the people, should take care of each other. And we do.

We take care of ourselves and our families. We take care of our neighbors. We take care of others in our community. We do this through church, charity, and volunteer work. We don’t need to do it through government.

Why do we need to send our money to Washington, have 20% taken off the top for high bureaucratic salaries, lose 10% in waste, and have the remaining 70% returned to us in the form of government programs with strings attached?

We don’t. Only a Democrat would think we do.

But then again, if the government has less money, who is going to employ all those people who have no real skills? Not me, that’s for sure.

Student #9: “ … because I love HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges & Universities), and CDA (College Democrats of America) are able to reach out to HBCUs and be able to get them involved.”

Do Republicans hate HBCUs? I highly doubt it, since they were founded by Republicans.

Oops. Guess this student should’ve paid more attention to history class.

Oh wait, they don’t teach that in history class anymore, because Democrats run our education system.

Lovely. Next.

Student #10: “ … because we are the Party of civil rights.”

Really?

You might want to check your facts on that one.

The NAACP was founded by white Republicans in 1909 – a fact conspicuously absent from their website.

Republicans fought to end slavery and give blacks the right to vote. The Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves, was signed by Abraham Lincoln – a Republican.

Republicans fought to give women the right to vote, and were responsible for the 19^th Amendment. Susan B. Anthony was a women’s rights leader – also a Republican.

Republicans fought for several civil rights act, including the big one – the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Republican support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act outnumbered Democratic support, 80% – 65%.

Fun fact: In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96% of the votes.

It may be convenient for Democrats to ignore these facts, but they are facts nonetheless. Democrats, meanwhile, turned fire hoses on blacks in the South – and founded the KKK.

But hey, if that’s the Party you want to be associated with, that’s fine. It’s a free country.

Student #11: “ … because I want to fight for those who don’t have a voice.”

Like who?

Unions represent about 8% of the American people; Blacks about 12%; Hispanics 13%; Gays 3% – 10%, depending who counts.

These groups have some of the LOUDEST voices in our political process.

So who are you fighting for, that doesn’t have a voice?

How about the unborn children? They don’t have a voice. But they don’t count, if you’re a Democrat.

In fact, it is estimated that more than 45,000,000 babies have been aborted since 1973 – about 15,000,000 of them were Black.

Is that what fighting for those who “don’t have a voice” looks like? If so, I’ll pass.

Democrats aren’t only pro-choice, but pro-abortion. They frequently advocate for the loosening of restrictions on abortion, the removal of parental consent, and parental notification.

Even if you believe women should have the freedom to choose abortion, how can you believe a minor should be able to get an abortion without their parents knowing?

What about the rights of the father? They have no voice in the abortion discussion. It’s up to the mother. How many fathers sit by helplessly as their children are aborted, without their consent?

Sorry, but this is utter garbage.

Student #12: “ … because I believe that, through government, we can come together and do what we can’t do individually.”

Wow. I agree. That is the role of government. Sort of.

We need government for things like fighting wars, protecting our borders, providing police and firefighters, roads and highways, public education, and the like.

We do not need government to provide charity. We can do that individually.

We do not need the government to fulfill the role of private industry. Businesses can do that.

We do not need the government to do those things we can do individually, and if this student actually believed what he says, he’d be a Republican.

Instead, these Democratic students believe government should do everything, including those things we can do individually. And that’s where the problem lies.

“We cannot be all things to all people.” That quote was uttered by none other than Democratic Senator Claire McKaskill – on the Hannity Show last Friday, no less.

Is she starting to see that the government can only do so much? I sure hope so. Maybe she’s just saying that to avoid the pitchforks. Time will tell.

But the reality is that our government has grown beyond our ability to support it. Currently, according to the U.S. Debt Clock, each citizen owes the federal government $46,000.

Who is fighting for our rights, to not have to enter the taxpaying workforce $46,000 in debt to the federal government?

Who is going to fight for the right of future generations to not have to live under the crushing pressure of our debt?

Certainly not Democrats.

Student #13: “ … because I support candidates that believe in the power of young people.”

Ever heard of the College Republicans? The Young Republicans? Get over yourselves.

Young people turned out in overwhelming numbers for President Obama. Yet many of them had no idea what specific policies he stood for, or much about his opponents. In an exit poll video of Obama voters, many thought Sarah Palin said, “I can see Alaska from my house.” It was actually Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey, but hey, who’s counting.

If you get your news from SNL, the Daily Show, or the Colbert Report, you are a dumbass – and you should have no power.

Student #15: “ … because I believe in equal pay for equal work.”

Another Democratic Party talking point, full of emotion.

Studies have shown that women make less than men for many reasons, including discrimination. But we can’t discount several important factors:

Women gravitate toward jobs that are more flexible, because of children.

Women are more likely to take extended time off, which interrupts their climb up the pay scale.

Men tend to do the jobs with more physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts, and dangerous conditions, which tend to pay more.

Men are more likely to work longer hours.

Of single urban workers between age 22 and 30, women make 8% more than men.

A higher percentage of women are employed than men, because men were adversely hit by the millions of construction jobs lost in this recession.

Women are outpacing men in college enrollment and degrees.

So spare me the emotional stuff.

Student #16: “ … because America is a Democracy, not a theocracy.”

Odd. Your friend, student #3, says he’s a Democrat because he’s a Christian. Which is it? Is religion good? Or bad? Pick one.

Inconsistency is a Democrat’s best friend. However, America is not a theocracy, regardless of which political party this genius belongs to.

Back in Massachusetts, where I’m from originally, just about everyone is Catholic. They’re also all Democrats. So is Massachusetts a theocracy, as the state with the largest concentration of Catholics in the nation?

Or is this just the typical liberal assault on religion? (PS: Don’t tell Student #3!)

Also, America is a democratic republic, so he’s wrong anyway.

Student #17: “ … because I believe everyone deserves the same right to a good public education and to marry whoever they want.”

I already touched on education earlier, but it’s worth mentioning again that liberals have failed to deliver a “good public education” over the last 30 years. So this student should be very upset with her Party over education.

As for everyone marrying whomever they want, someone should ask her where she draws the line. Should cousins be able to marry? Sisters? Brothers? How about polygamists?

I’m sure she’s referring to gay marriage, so let’s talk about that for a minute.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage to begin with. Marriage is a sacred institution, and couples seeking a religious marriage should not need the government’s permission to do so. It should be between them and God – via their church.

Those not seeking religious marriage should be able to enter into a civil contract with their partner – at a governmental level. Civil Unions. After all, atheists get married all the time – and that doesn’t seem to be a problem for the religious folks. They just don’t get married in a Catholic church.

But this student is cleverly alluding to the fact that Republicans are somehow anti-gay. Which, as both a Republican and a gay man, I can say is patently false.

However, if gay couples want to get married because the government offers 1,100 benefits to married couples, my question is: Why is the government bestowing 1,100 special rights on married couples?

If every straight and gay couple can get married in America, no unmarried couples would be eligible for these 1,100 special rights. That’s not equality, now is it gay activists? No. It’s not.

So we should just get government out of marriage altogether, and then we won’t have students like this insinuating that Republicans are anti-gay, just because they don’t want the government forcing their church to marry same-sex couples.

Finally…

Student #22: “ … because I’m tired – sick and tired – of NAFTA-style free trade agreements that are shipping good-paying American jobs overseas.

This one is easy.

The House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, with a vote of 234-200. Over 100 Democrats voted in support of NAFTA in the House. It passed the Senate 61-38, with 27 Democrats supporting.

Democratic President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA on December 8, 1993 – well before the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress.

He also signed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act into law, but Democrats conveniently forget that.

When Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, he said, “NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.”

Aw, I guess this student needs to rethink his party affiliation or his position on NAFTA. But either way, he looks pretty stupid now.

In the end, these students have no idea why they are Democrats. They’ve just been told by society, academia, Hollywood, and Jon Stewart, that they are supposed to be Democrats.

Someday they will learn to think for themselves.

Learn more about the College Republicans at: www.crnc.org

I first met Herman Cain this past February when he addressed a Republican luncheon in Las Vegas, and spoke about his ideas as a potential candidate for president in 2012. Overall, I liked his frankness and some of his ideas to tackle some of the most serious issues our country is facing. If I had to describe Herman Cain in one way, it would be that he pulls no punches, tells it like it is, and has no patience for nonsense.

When I saw Cain for the second and third time, in early March and again in May, his speech was pretty much the same. He recited his sturdy one-liners like “not on our watch,” and his “immigration is four problems.” He didn’t offer too many specifics on foreign policy, but all three times he gave the audience some applause-worthy red meat. Herman Cain is an outsider, a different kind of presidential candidate. He’s not a politician, and he’ll tell you so.

However, is that what American wants? Or needs?

If you’re anything like me, you don’t like the typical career politician. You know the type: Always running for office, avoiding controversy once elected, putting on the fake smile, and never actually doing anything. Washington has too much of that. Too many people want to be something, rather than do something. There is a difference.

Now, suppose I need to have surgery to remove my appendix. Do I want the career doctor? Or would I prefer to have the receptionist operate on me? If my football team – the New England Patriots, if anyone cares – makes it to the Superbowl, do I want a career quarterback in the game? Or would I settle for the guy who runs the concession stand?

In the world of government and politics, it is important to understand how the system works. Regardless of how much a presidential candidate may want to change the system, he or she is just one cog in the machine. One could say that in order to change the system, you have to know the ins and outs first.

Herman Cain says he doesn’t want to know how Washington works. In fact, he said at the Right Online conference in Minneapolis this weekend that he doesn’t need to know how it works, because it doesn’t.

Wouldn’t fixing the problems of our country be more difficult, if our next president had no idea how the system works? Is Herman Cain ready to be president, simply because of his business credentials?

Some examples from the campaign trail may shed some light on the situation.

While being interviewed on Fox News Sunday last month, Mr. Cain was asked about the Palestinian concept of “right of return.” This refers back to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs either fled or were expelled from their homes in what became Israel. Palestinians believe that these refugees, and their descendants, have the sacred right to return to their homes and property in Israel, or be compensated by Israel. This has become a major sticking point in the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Herman Cain was caught flat-footed, only able to demonstrate that he was not familiar with the concept. His answer was convoluted at best, first stating that it should be negotiated, and then claiming that Israel doesn’t have a big problem with people returning. This was after slamming President Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus.”

The previous day, when announcing his candidacy for president in Atlanta, Herman Cain said that Americans do not need to re-write the Constitution, they need to re-read the Constitution. This line grew great applause from the audience in attendance. However, Mr. Cain went on to quote the Constitution as including a line about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which actually appears in the Declaration of Independence. Cain went on to talk about Americans’ right to “alter or to abolish” government – also found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. This prompted several pundits to suggest that it was Herman Cain who needed to re-read the Constitution, and with good reason.

On Afghanistan, Herman Cain refuses to put forward a plan, saying that he would defer to the experts – unnamed experts. While I certainly hope he would surround himself with knowledgeable experts as president, it is still concerning that he has no tentative plan with which to deduce how he would handle the issue as a whole if elected. Cain has used the “defer to experts” line so often, it became part of the Daily Caller’s New Hampshire GOP Debate drinking game, this past week.

Then there’s the 2^nd Amendment. Herman Cain, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer earlier this month, stated that he supports the 2^nd Amendment. That’s great! But when asked about gun control, and whether states or local governments should be allowed to control guns, he answered, “Yes.” Now perhaps this was yet another example of how Mr. Cain was unprepared for the question, but he’s not running for president of Wendy’s, he’s running for president of the United States. And if he truly wants to be the next president, he needs to know that these questions are coming, and have answers.

Finally, there is a problem of messaging. It’s a problem most Republicans have, so it’s hard to be too critical of Cain.

In one interview, Mr. Cain was asked about his position on homosexuality. He replied, “I believe homosexuality is a sin because I’m a Bible-believing Christian. I believe it’s a sin. But I know that some people make that choice. That’s their choice.” When asked to clarify his position that homosexuality was a choice, Cain replied, “I believe it is a choice.”

Now, having been raised Catholic, I understand that Herman Cain’s view of homosexuality being a sin is perfectly valid. It is what his faith teaches him, and he has a right to believe that. However, as president of the entire United States, Cain would have to represent all Americans – even homosexuals. Last week, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie answered the same question with the following:

“My religion says it’s a sin, but I’ve always believed that people are born with the predisposition to be homosexual. So I think if someone is born that way, it’s very difficult to say that’s a sin. My church says that, but I don’t look upon someone who is homosexual as a sinner.”

In speaking with young people daily about politics, both gay and straight, I can say that the “religious right” is one of the reasons many people leave or avoid the Republican Party. That is not to say that having a foundation of faith is a bad thing. I simply believe that most Americans do not want to get their moral advice from a political party.

As a gay man, I know I was born with a predisposition to be gay, as Governor Christie speculates. Much like heterosexual people develop an attraction for the opposite sex, gay people develop it for the same sex. It’s just that simple. And while the church would advise gays to not act on those attractions, the reality of life necessitates otherwise.

For Herman Cain to believe that homosexuality is a choice, not actually being homosexual himself, would be like me, as a Caucasian, believing Black people face no discrimination in America today. It is simply presumptuous. What it does do, is ensure that many homosexuals never hear his conservative vision for America – because he has already turned them off.

As a gay conservative, I know first-hand how hard it is to convince gays of the merits of conservatism – due in large part to the religious standards within the GOP.

Again, it all goes back to messaging.

This past week on the Alan Stock News Show in Las Vegas, Herman Cain stated that “all Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists have been Muslim – except a couple.”

This is up there with John McCain’s “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” song.

While conservatives will stand up and say “But he’s right! All terrorists ARE Muslim,” they are wrong. There are terrorists all over the world. Some are Black, some are white. Some are male, some are female. Some are right here in the United States, and aren’t Muslim at all.

It’s one thing to say that the radical Islamists who have attacked us look similar, come from similar places, etc. It’s another to make an insensitive statement that all terrorists are Muslim.

Herman Cain is a good guy, and he wants to get involved and help save his country. I get it. And I applaud his willingness to get out there, in front of the public, in front of the media, and be a candidate.

However, we elected a candidate with no experience in 2008, and look where it got us.

Up on stage with six other candidates for the 2012 nomination, Herman Cain, for the first time, looked to be outclassed. His answers were vague, he repeated his standby lines, and offered very little new information as to who he is, and what he would do as our next president.

Herman Cain might make a great CEO and even a great elected official some day. But he is not ready to be president of the United States.

We conservatives may like his no-nonsense attitude, but that and three F-bombs landed Donald Trump back on Celebrity Apprentice, if you know what I mean.

This week, a video surfaced on the Texas College Republicans Facebook page, of the newly-elected state chairman of the organization, Charlie McCaslin, endorsing College Republican National Committee chairman candidate Alex Schriver. The video was put up by an Alex Schriver supporter. The Texas College Republicans were proud of this endorsement, and Alex Schriver and his team were ecstatic about having the endorsement of the 30 College Republican chapters in Texas.

What the video showed, however, was a clearly intoxicated McCaslin giving an offensive endorsement of Schriver, including recalling hooking up with a girl on a desk, and calling Schriver’s opponents “nerds and fags.” The full unedited video also shows McCaslin say they’re going to “one-up them so hard on Monday, they’re gonna be recovering from pain in their asses for the next week.”

Again, this video was put on Facebook by an Alex Schriver supporter.

And this video feeds into every false stereotype of Republicans out there, from the southerner, to the sexist, to the homophobic bigot, etc.

Now this was a private event, but it ceased to be private when it was put on a Facebook page for the world to see. And the worst part?

Alex Schriver toasted Charlie McCaslin when he was finished embarrassing himself, by yelling “TO CHARLIE!”

See, Alex Schriver might be a great guy, but he has proven he is a bad leader. Schriver had no problem with what was said on that video, either at the time, or in the days following. It was not until his opponent issued a press release and put the video on his website, that Schriver felt the need to apologize.

Furthermore, while the apology contained all the usual tributes to disappointing family and friends, it did not urge Charlie McCaslin to resign for bringing shame on the Texas College Republicans, and the College Republican name. It was as weak of an apology as I’ve ever seen.

People naturally have a tendency to be sorry, only when they get caught. And when it comes to our political leaders, we should expect more.

The College Republicans are an integral part of the Republican Party, and they represent the future of the GOP. And as a Republican, and a College Republican, I expect more from the future leaders of my Party. McCaslin’s actions have given Democrats ammunition to use against Republicans for a long time to come, and Schriver’s tacit endorsement is simply unacceptable coming from someone who wants to lead the CRNC into the 2012 election.

Can you imagine if this happened in Summer 2012, while Alex Schriver was chairman of the College Republican National Committee?

That brings me to Mike Esteve.

Mike Esteve is the State Chairman of the Maryland Federation of College Republicans. He, like me, is an openly gay Republican. Like me, I am sure he faces enormous criticism from the Gay Left and all liberals for being a traitor, among other things. Yet every day he represents a growing segment of the GOP, and represents them well within the Republican Party in his state.

Today, he issued a statement via Facebook in which he stands by Alex Schriver. At first, I thought this was a poor attempt at an April Fools’ joke, but I was wrong.

Mike Esteve actually believes that those who condemn Alex Schriver and Charlie McCaslin publicly are the ones damaging the image of the College Republicans and Republican Party. He said as much when he called into my radio show, Zombie Nation (podcast will be up shortly), last night.

If Mike Esteve had his way, we would simply sweep this under the rug and “quietly taken it to the appropriate persons, ensuring that [the video] was removed.”

Is that how we want to build the future of the Republican Party? By sweeping these things under the rug? Should we wait until Congressmen must resign, because they were sending shirtless pictures of themselves to women on Craig’s List? Should we wait until the scandal is much larger, and a Governor is taking trips to Argentina on the taxpayers dime to “clear his mind” with his soul mate, who isn’t his wife?

This is completely unacceptable, and Mike Esteve has lost my respect as a Republican, a gay Republican, and a College Republican.

He believes this is nothing more than campaign tactics, but this is about leadership. This is about Schriver’s ability to lead the largest grassroots Republican organization in the country into the 2012 election. This is about Schriver’s ability to unite Republicans, gay and straight, male and female, black, white and Hispanic, under ONE unified banner to take on the liberal agenda of Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. This is about Schriver’s ability to raise money, from donors that don’t want to hear about banging chicks on a desk! This is about Shriver’s ability to overcome the false stereotypes placed on Republicans by liberals, who believe we are all old, white, racist, sexist, bigots.

This video clearly shows Alex Schriver can no longer do these things. And Mike Esteve’s defense of this video, and suggestion that we simply ignore it, shows that the future of the Republican Party will not be strong until we stop putting politics first.

That is the problem with politics.

We must remember the difference between right and wrong. Charlie McCaslin in Texas understood this, and resigned. He realized he could not effectively lead 30 chapters of College Republicans in Texas with this hanging over his head.

Alex Schriver has yet to realize the same.

And today, Mike Esteve has given gay Republicans all over America a bad name.

Demand better. I know I do.

One reason the U.S. military is the most powerful fighting force on the planet, is that leaders don’t tolerate excuses. You do the job, and you do it right, or you will be reprimanded, counseled, and instructed to not make the same mistake again. The Marines call it a “Page 11.”

The same mentality works in the NFL. Good coaches like Bill Belichick, for example, don’t accept excuses. He wants the job done right, or you hear about it – in terms that cannot be repeated here. But that leadership, combined with high expectations, has resulted in numerous playoff appearances, four Superbowl spots, and three championships (Damn you, Giants!). And when players sit out, waiting for a better contract, they end up on other teams (Deion Branch to Seattle, Asante Samuel to Philadelphia, etc.).

This level of accountability is missing from America’s education system, and it is one of the major obstacles to success. In the private sector, employees are expected to perform their tasks satisfactorily, or they will be written up. Verbal warning, written, final, termination: Taken with an appropriate amount of coaching, these are four easy steps to a better employee, or a new one. It’s really that simple, just not in academia.

As an example, this past Sunday the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s higher education reporter Richard Lake wrote an article titled: “Workload has picked up, faculty at UNLV say.” In it, Lake reports that the faculty at UNLV is working harder than they were two years ago according to statistics from the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE). But even Lake notes that gauging the faculty’s actual workload is difficult due to the many different functions they serve.

Greg Brown, the president of UNLV’s chapter of the Nevada Faculty Alliance said, “The workload has increased substantially,” in large part because, as Lake reported, “the university has 10 percent fewer full-time faculty than it did in 2006 and virtually the same number of students.” But it does not have the same number of programs and classes, which is why I’m happy Mr. Brown teaches history and not math.

Prior to returning to school at an older age, I would have believed this nonsense, as I’m sure many people who read the article do. But having first-hand knowledge of how higher education has changed since I was in college the first time, I find these claims to be ridiculous.

First, many of the classes at UNLV consist of a PowerPoint presentation, which is read to the class, and later posted online for download. In a class like this, 39 students may as well be 339 students, since the presentation does not change. Furthermore, in these classes, professors typically learn very few students’ names, and rarely deviate from the lesson plan. So where is the increased workload? Grading quizzes?

Quizzes are conducted primarily in two ways: In-class or online. Many professors utilize UNLV’s WebCampus system to administer quizzes, as they are automatically graded by the system. Other professors have in-class quizzes which are done on a ScanTron – a sheet with bubbles, which can either be purchased from the university bookstore or picked up “for free” courtesy of student government (actually paid for by student fees). ScanTrons are also automatically graded, so where is the increased workload? Scanning 339 quizzes may take longer than 39 quizzes, but nowhere near as much time as actually hand-grading quizzes in the past.

So it must be papers. Clearly there is increased workload in correcting 339 papers versus 39, right? Even I can agree with that. But what the article doesn’t point out is that most tenured professors have graduate assistants that help in grading papers and other assignments. And what about classes that assign very few papers, if any? (None of my classes this semester have assigned papers)

The article also points out that some professors don’t necessarily have to teach 3 classes per semester, as many other activities count toward this “requirement.” Waivers are given to 255 of 712 full-time professors at UNLV, to perform other functions toward their 3-class workload. Some professors focus on research, others serve as a department chair, some supervise internships, and one in particular hosts a radio show.

This article also does not discuss part-time instructors or adjuncts. Some part-time instructors teach three classes and make less than $50,000/year with no job security. Their tenured counterparts make six-figure salaries to teach one class, conduct some research – which may or may not be published or bring money into the university, and host a radio show – with the ultimate job security. That seems upside-down to me.

Richard Lake’s article includes comments from one professor, Pushkin Kachroo, who taught four classes last semester and still had time to supervise graduate student research and serve as the director of UNLV’s Transportation Research Center. His salary is $116,000, while Dina Titus makes $107,855 for teaching one class, restarting her research, and hosting a radio show.

Explain that.

How about supervising internships? I did an internship last fall. I met with the professor supervising the internships for that department, and he told me I would be required to write a 10-page paper on the actual work I was doing, plus a 5-page book report on a relevant book of my choosing, with his approval. Aside from two reminder emails for required updates, I did not interact with this professor again. I hand-delivered my assignments to an administrator in the department, and had to look up my grade in UNLV’s WebCampus system. I got an “A,” but so did the other 3 students that did the same internship. So, did he actually read the papers? Or just verify that the work was done?

In a traditional class, a professor might assign 3-4 papers throughout the semester, with a class of 40 students. That’s up to 160 papers. The professor who supervised my internship would have to be supervising 80 internships per semester, just to reach a portion of the workload of teaching a traditional class with several writing assignments. Does anyone really think he supervises 80 internships per semester, every semester?

Ultimately, these are all excuses not to teach students.

UNLV’s provost Michael Bowers may believe that other activities should count as classes, such as “counseling a doctoral student,” or “reading a dissertation, making edits on it, [and] helping the student revise it,” but this is absurd. Apparently the days of professors helping students because they want to are gone.

If a professor can get credit for teaching a 3-credit course by hosting a radio show, why do I not receive the same credit for hosting MY radio show? (SHAMELESS PLUG: Zombie Nation Radio airs live every Thursday at 5pm on www.vegasallnetradio.com, podcasts available at www.facebook.com/zombienationradio)

Instead, we are told that having former congresswoman Dina Titus at UNLV is beneficial because of the experience she brings. I could agree with that if she was actually teaching students. Instead, she is only teaching 39 students in an ELECTIVE – Women in Politics – a 400-level course that only certain students can even qualify for. Her other two class requirements are made up for by her radio show, and “restarting her research” – which is a futile effort, given that she will be leaving at the end of the year to run for office again.

Meanwhile, students wait to graduate because some classes aren’t offered this semester “due to budget cuts.”

And did I mention that UNLV’s 4-year graduation rate is 11%? (6-year: 36%; 8-year: 48%).

Excuses.

There are far too many excuses, and not enough accountability. Everyone is self-interested, and not focused on what matters: EDUCATION.

Maybe, if there is no 2011 NFL season, we should hire Bill Belichick to oversee an audit of Nevada’s System of Higher Education. At least then, taxpayers and students would be taken seriously, and we wouldn’t have to listen to the politically-driven hogwash.

This semester I have the privilege of teaching a collegiate seminar of the Great Books. We just completed Thucydides’ account of the “The Debate at Sparta and Declaration of War” from his History of the Peloponnesian War.

There is a reason the study of this work has long been considered the foundation of classical education. Our culture seems to have lost a thirst for the Great Books, unless of course we can digest them on screen in Hollywood extravaganzas like Troy which are often loosely, to say the least, based on the actual text.

During the Debate at Sparta, the Corinthians were presenting their grievances against Athens to their allies, the Spartans. …the likeliest way of securing peace is this: only to use one’s power in the cause of justice, but to make it perfectly plain that one is resolved not to tolerate aggression.

Sound advice we would do well to consider as our servicemen are gunned down at airports by Islamic extremists, our soldiers are gunned down on our own army base in Texas by an Islamic extremist and our citizens are held captive and murdered on their own vessel by Somali Pirates. Our response has been muted through each of these hostile, aggressive acts. Our response, frankly, has been absolutely shameful.

The Corinthians understood what Sparta didn’t: that Athens was a determined and patient foe. …they gradually encroach upon their neighbors. Now they are proceeding slowly because they think your insensitiveness to the situation enables them to go on their way unnoticed; you will find that they will develop their full strength once they realize that you do see what is happening and are still doing nothing to prevent it (emphasis mine).

Joe Biden told us during the election that our “young president” would be tested and we would wonder at his response. From the New York Post, October 21, 2008:”Watch. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he’s going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it’s not going to be apparent initially; it’s not going to be apparent that we’re right.”

For once I agree with ole Joe. It is CLEARLY not apparent that “we’re right.” The Corinthians, however did understand the role of government in protecting her citizens: to use power in the cause of justice and to make it perfectly plain to our enemies that we will not tolerate aggression.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/politics/item_SwNf3ALrmaf4Zdb4K0KDoN#ixzz1FdyQ7YV4

A political science professor of mine once said that “some people in America consider the Constitution very important.” I should hope so. It is the very foundation of all law in our country, and the single document through which our rights are protected.

The Constitution ensures that the government cannot oppress its people, and gives individual states the right to handle matters not specifically assigned to the federal government. So should “some” people consider it very important? Or is it, in fact, very important to all of us – whether we choose to realize it or not?

Yesterday, President Obama announced that his Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. For those on the left this is a major victory. They have been waiting for DOMA to be repealed ever since President Bill Clinton (Yes, a Democrat) signed it into law in 1996.

For anyone who does not know, DOMA allows states to choose not to recognize gay marriages, partnerships or unions from other states where they are legal, and provides no federal recognition of same-sex relationships whatsoever. This has been a major sticking point for the gay marriage movement, because no matter how many states legalize gay marriage, there will be no federal benefits for gay couples.

For the record, I believe marriage is a state issue. It always has been, and nowhere in the Constitution does it mention marriage falling under the responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, I happen to personally feel that DOMA is unconstitutional. If a state decides gays can marry legally, or enter into domestic partnerships or civil unions, the federal government should be obligated to recognize the laws of that state – so long as they do not conflict with federal law.

I also believe that any state has the right to choose not to recognize a marriage from another state. Keep in mind this would not be an issue if the federal government stayed out of marriage altogether. I still have no idea why the federal government gives anyone special benefits because they are married. That is the very definition of “special rights,” whether you are traditionally married or gay married.

The 14^th Amendment, which is cited so often in protecting marriage recognition across state lines, simply states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

That means no state can deny you rights protected by the federal government. However it does not prevent states from denying you rights protected by other states. Example: You have a concealed weapons permit from Nevada. You own a gun, and are allowed – by Nevada law – to carry it concealed on your person, within the laws set forth in Nevada.

You are not allowed, however, to bring that gun to Maine – unless you obtain a concealed carry permit from Maine. Maine will deny your right – protected by Nevada – to carry a concealed weapon, until such time as you obtain that right from Maine. Meanwhile, Illinois does not allow any concealed weapons at all. Therefore, Illinois will deny your right – protected by Nevada – to carry a concealed weapon.

So clearly states have the right to have different laws from other states, and the Constitution does not force them to recognize privileges you’ve obtained from other states.

So while the left celebrates Obama’s refusal to enforce DOMA, the rest of America is wondering why this president feels he has the power to choose which laws are valid and which are not. As stated in Article 2, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” DOMA is currently the law, and therefore President Obama is constitutionally obligated to enforce it – whether he likes it or not.

Imagine, for a moment, if George W. Bush decided that he did not personally approve of Roe v. Wade, and chose to overturn it. “I will no longer enforce protections to allow abortions.” How do you think the left would react? With outrage, I’d imagine – and they would be justified. Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal in America. You can try to make it illegal, advocate the overturn of Roe v. Wade, pass laws restricting abortion, etc… but TODAY, it is legal.

Likewise, TODAY, DOMA is law. President Obama may choose to ignore the law, but the moment he chooses not to defend DOMA in court, he is in direct violation of the Constitution – which by the way is his SOLE responsibility as president: “To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

500 BILLION PEOPLE saw him recite the oath on inauguration day. A few people even saw him recite it a second time later in the week. Did he not understand what he was pledging?

Regardless of whether you support or oppose President Obama politically, there is no doubt that he is testing the limits of presidential power. He has done this numerous times.

Health Care – President Obama has given the federal government unprecedented power in the area of health care, even though it is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Obamacare has been declared unconstitutional by two federal judges, and will not likely stand up to a Supreme Court review.

The government simply does not have the right to mandate that every American buy a product from a private company, or face fines. (And for those of you who will bring up car insurance, it is only mandatory if you choose to own a car – and you get to make that choice)

Cap & Trade – The Constitution does not give the federal government power over energy, yet President Obama’s Cap & Trade policy would put costly burdens on companies (which would be passed on to consumers) to meet arbitrary goals that the largest polluters on the Earth (India and China) refuse to agree to.

You think we’re losing jobs to India and China now? Wait until these companies have to live under oppressive costs invented to fund a premature green movement. They’ll simply move to India and China where there are no restrictions – and they get the added bonus of cheaper labor. Then all the liberals will complain about evil corporations moving to China to exploit workers. You know the story. It’s as old as time.

Student Loans – Where the hell does the federal government have the right to take sole custody of the student loan industry? I have no problem with federal loans, Pell Grants, etc. But to remove student loans from private institutions completely? That’s just ridiculous. While President Obama says he wants to increase access to education, he really just wants to control the access to education.

There are many more examples just like these.

I’m not a birther, or a right-wing radical – I’m just an American that sees a president consistently ignore the restrictions placed on his office, and the entire federal government. And while every response I get to this article from a liberal will no doubt conjure up images of George W. Bush shredding the Constitution while drinking the blood of poor people with Dick Cheney – two wrongs do not make a right.

President Obama is constitutionally obligated to execute the office of the President of the United States. He is constitutionally obligated to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

While campaigning in 2008, then-candidate Obama promised to repeal DOMA. With super-majorities in Congress, he never made one attempt. He had the opportunity, and Republicans would have had no choice but to sit back and watch it happen. He did not act. He is not repealing DOMA now. He is ignoring DOMA – and that’s just as unconstitutional as DOMA itself.

We, as Americans, should want a president who stays within the confines of the Constitution, and within the restrictions it places on the power of the federal government.

We, as Americans, should want any law we disagree with to be overturned legally – so the repeal has a foundation in law and cannot be overturned later on what some may call a technicality. I happen to believe violating the Constitution is a tad bit more serious than a technicality.

This is not a matter of gay versus straight, or Democrat versus Republican. This is a matter of what is right. And even if you believe President Obama’s heart is in the right place, his methods must also be in the right place – or they have no merit.

The ends do not justify the means, when the means are illegal.

The events taking place in Wisconsin regarding collective bargaining agreements, there’s no better time to address the relationship between unions and businesses. When labor unions began in the late 19^th Century, they were desperately needed to represent the interest of workers in America against the exploitative nature of industry. Over the years, these organizations helped institute minimum wage laws, child labor laws, 8-hour work days, vacation time, sick time, and more. These were well-intentioned measures, and most Americans are happy they exist today. But making sure workers have basic rights is not what labor unions are about today. They are about profit, greed, and political influence.

Today, most labor unions are very similar to the “evil corporations” they so frequently rail against. They claim big business doesn’t care about its workers, only profit. But are unions any different? They need members to pay dues, or they cease to exist. Clearly they are also profit-driven. They believe industry has too much influence compared with the working class. But unions have far more influence than their numbers would suggest, given that only 8% of Americans are in unions. And what do many of these labor organizations do with the hard-earned dollars they take from their members in the form of dues? They give them to politicians running for office – almost exclusively in the Democratic Party – whether their members support them or not.

The issue with unions today is a simple math problem. For years, unions have negotiated pretty good contracts for their workers. These contracts typically result in higher pay, better benefits, and more perks than non-union employees receive. As years go by, these contracts are renegotiated over and over again, raising wages and increasing benefits and perks each time. Then, when we have an economic crisis like the Great Recession (2008 – present), companies can no longer afford the expensive contracts they negotiated when profits were good. As the costs of these labor contracts rise, profits must rise along with them – or something needs to give. Either the union agrees to make concessions, or the business goes bankrupt.

This face-off is happening all over the country, including in Wisconsin. During the economic crisis, some unions have agreed to work with businesses to arrive at a mutually-agreeable solution to the problem of expensive contracts and low profits. But that is not always the case. Unions were willing to do very little in the case of Ford, GM and Chrysler, so the companies had no choice but to declare bankruptcy in order to restructure their organization and renegotiate labor contracts. Who are the labor unions helping if their own greed causes businesses to fail? It’s clearly not the workers, who end up out on their collective-bargaining asses when their company closes its doors.

We see this problem everywhere in America, and frankly it is out of control.

In government, collective bargaining agreements are paid by tax dollars. When federal, state and local government experiences drops in revenue due to high unemployment and a slow economy, unions like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) are unwilling to give up a dime. Governments are then forced to fix their budget issues while suffering under the strains of paying these high-priced contracts – which would never have been agreed to under the present conditions.

In business, the unions’ unwillingness to cooperate often results in businesses going bankrupt or closing altogether. This may be good for the individual unions who get to show off their “power,” but it’s bad for their members who have no jobs, and bad for America. If businesses go away, so do our hopes of putting Americans back to work. Industry should not be allowed to exploit workers, but unions should not be allowed to exploit industry either.

In education, unions may be the largest contributor to our failures. Without declaring financial exigency (think bankruptcy), universities cannot renegotiate their contracts with tenured professors. In K-12 education, unions demand more and more money be spent on education, yet they ensure that very little ever makes it into the classroom. Nevada is the perfect example of the problem with education, since it has the lowest graduation rates in the nation. The Clark County School District (CCSD), which covers Las Vegas and surrounding areas, is the 5^th largest school district in the country. Only 11% of its operating budget makes it into the classroom, yet unions and education officials are screaming bloody murder over impending budget cuts. The University of Nevada – Las Vegas (UNLV), where I am currently a student, has $647 million in total operating funds for this year. Under budget cuts proposed by newly-elected Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, UNLV will see a cut of $47.5 million (or 7%). Unions and education officials, as well as Democrats in the state legislature, are twisting the numbers and telling Nevadans that the cut is 29%.

Americans won’t put up with this nonsense much longer.

They see what is happening in Wisconsin, and realizing that this is a battle between greedy unions and over-taxed taxpayers. They see teachers shutting down schools so they can protest, instead of educating their children by DOING THEIR JOB! Fire these teachers for abandoning their positions, and replace them with unemployed Wisconsinites who put education above greed.

Americans are starting to see the damage unions can do when they put greed ahead of their original purpose – protecting the basic rights of employees.

This is not an issue unions can win, unless they are willing to work with businesses and governments to achieve mutually-agreeable solutions. Bankrupting businesses and governments through unreasonable demands during this economic crisis won’t earn them any support from hard-working American taxpayers.

We will learn as these battles unfold exactly how much power unions will be allowed to have in America, and how the outcomes will affect their power in the future. We will also see how this will affect the Democratic Party, with which labor organizations are closely aligned.

With unemployment at 10% nationwide, there are plenty of Americans ready and willing to take the jobs of ANYONE who strikes. Perhaps it is time to call their bluff.

Democrats have long relied on emotions to garner support from the masses, as evidenced by the myriad of bills passed with names like “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” which doesn’t make health care (or health insurance) more affordable, but does impose hundreds of taxes and fees, and allows for the government takeover of student loans and other provisions which have nothing to do with health care.

This tactic is currently going on in the state of Nevada as newly-elected Republican Governor Brian Sandoval attempts to fix a looming budget crisis. At his State of the State address in January, Gov. Sandoval announced he would be reducing the amount of funding to high education with a “less than 7% cut” from the state’s general fund. He went on to say that counting stimulus dollars from 2009-10, the net result would be a 17.66% decrease in funding for higher education.

Immediately the Democrats went to work! Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, who gave the Democrats’ response to Sandoval’s address, said the cuts to higher education would “feel like a 36% cut.” Oceguera’s math skills are just another glaring example of the poor education system in Nevada, but nevertheless, this hyperbole should not be allowed to continue.

On Thursday, January 27^th, UNLV President Neal Smatresk appeared on “Face to Face” with Jon Ralston – a local political show in Nevada. Smatresk said, “Our current budget is $172 million. It would go down to $125 million. That’s a huge reduction by any measure.”

Smatresk is right! That’s a decrease of $47 million, or 27.3%!

But what is UNLV’s budget? Is it $172 million as Smatresk says?

According to the Nevada Policy Research Institute, UNLV’s total operating funds for fiscal year 2011 (which we are currently in) is $642,517,830. That’s not exactly $127 million, now is it?

In fact, a $47 million cut from $642.5 million is around 7% — not 27%, and not 36%.

Many, including the Young Democrats at UNLV, are now saying that Gov. Sandoval is cutting 29.1% from higher education in Nevada. This number is achieved if you consider the roughly $557 million higher education received from the state’s general fund in the 2009-10 biennium, compared with the $395 million it will receive in 2013.

But, if you consider that the state’s general fund only accounts for 30% of the entire Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) budget, all of these arguments fall completely flat on their face.

The total operating funds for the NSHE in FY2011 is $1,744,202,381. A cut of $162 million is roughly 9% – not 29.1%, not 27%, and not 36%.

In fact, a reduction of $162 million from the NSHE budget will still leave the system with 3.6% more money than it had in 2007, just before the economic crisis began.

Not too shabby.

So, why all the hyperbole and doomsday proclamations? Here’s your answer.

When Smatresk claimed, in his “Face to Face” interview, that UNLV had already faced $49.6 million in budget cuts over the past four years, he neglected to mention that UNLV’s total operating budget from FY2007 – FY2011 actually INCREASED 10%!

Poor guy.

The argument is now being made that tuition may need to be increased 73% to make up for these “unprecedented” cuts. That’s remarkable, because from FY2000-FY2010, tuition at UNLV went up 74%! Student fees over the same time period went up 770.8%!

The NSHE, as well as education officials like UNLV President Smatresk, have an obligation to be cheerleaders for higher education. I get that. And obviously their priority is the education of students, right?

Over the past decade, the number of administrators-per-student at UNLV has gone up 90%, while the number of instructors-per-student has gone down 6.6%. How exactly does that help educate students?

Since 2000, UNLV’s total spending has increased 140%, and per-pupil spending from 2003-2010 has increased over 18% (adjusted for inflation). Has education at UNLV improved 140%? Have the graduation rates improved 18%? The answer to both is: No.

The 4-year graduation rate at UNLV is a dismal 11%. The 8-year “Van Wilder Plan” graduation rate stands at an embarrassingly low 48%. That means more than HALF of UNLV’s 24,000 students will NEVER graduate, and we’re supposed to believe money is the problem?

So while Nevada’s Republican Governor tries to save the state hardest hit by the housing market crash and ensuing economic disaster, Democrats are once again politicizing an issue that shouldn’t be political.

Most people, Republican, Democrat or otherwise, care about education, even if we disagree on methods and policy. But twisting numbers to fit an agenda does nothing to help solve the problem. In fact, placing the blame on Gov. Sandoval prevents any focus from being put on how UNLV and the NSHE spend the money they already have.

Surely the NSHE can find a way to cut 9% out of its $1.7 billion total budget. Sure it may suck to have to renegotiate the contracts of high-paid tenured professors and non-educators, but that’s life. Maybe UNLV can’t buy the old Carl’s Jr. building for a cool million. Perhaps the brand-new 40,000-seat domed stadium will have to wait. These guys get paid the big bucks to make tough decisions. UNLV head honcho Smatresk makes $25k/year less than President Obama – and I don’t hear Obama complaining about how stressful his days are.

Ultimately, the budget cuts are a matter of simple math. The cuts are $162 million, and the total NSHE budget is $1.7 billion. Do the math. Its 9%.

$1.7 billion – $162 million = a 9% cut.

9%.

Not 17%, not 22%, not 29%, not 36%.

9%.

Neal Smatresk: “I estimate we lose a third to up to half of our whole programs if that cut actually goes through.”

9%.

Point that out, and you’re called a liar – or worse. They can spin it all they want, but it is still 9%.

Meanwhile, Nevada leads the nation in bankruptcies, foreclosures, and unemployment, and has the worst graduation rates in the nation.

The 200,000 unemployed Nevadans saw their income decrease by 100%.

The NSHE will see a 9% cut.

It’s 9%.

(updated from a previously published article)

Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40^th President of the United States a month before my sixth birthday. I was more concerned with how Scooby-Doo and the Super Friends were going to save the day than how our president was going to save our country. Reagan entered office at a critical time in our nation’s history. The economy was bad, inflation at record highs, we were at the height of the Cold War and Americans were being held hostage in Iran. While I didn’t consciously experience these issues myself, I can only imagine what our nation was going through at the time.

By the time Reagan won re-election in 1984, in a 49-state landslide, I was nine years old. I would watch the news regularly with my family and even though I didn’t understand everything, I absorbed all I could. I still remember watching news coverage of the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. I had graduated to watching The Smurfs and The Snorks, although I couldn’t figure out what was so special about Cabbage Patch Kids. Even though I was young, I recognized that there was evil in the world. The terrorists that bombed our barracks and hijacked planes and the constant media reports on Soviet Russia were stark reminders that the world was a dangerous place.

Then it happened.

The Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on classroom televisions across the country, including mine. The build-up was so grand, as this would be the first time a civilian would be joining the flight crew – a teacher. We watched with eager anticipation, only to stare in confused horror as the sky filled with sparks and smoke. As powerful an image as this was, permanently embedded in my brain, I remember our president’s response just as vividly. Ronald Reagan addressed the American people, paid homage to the men and women who lost their lives and he even addressed the schoolchildren watching:

“And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle’s take-off. I know it’s hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It’s all part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.”

There was no partisanship in his speech, zero politics, just pure unfiltered sympathy and empathy as he mourned this “national loss” alongside the rest of the country.

Reagan would go on to stand strong against the Soviets and Mid-East terrorists, deliver his famous “Tear Down This Wall” speech and exit politics with all the grace and respect expected of a statesman of his caliber.

Ronald Reagan was strong, yet compassionate; firm, yet diplomatic; powerful, yet comforting; patriotic, yet worldly; confident, yet humble. He was a true leader, in every sense of the word. He inherited a mess and fixed it. He made tough decisions and stuck by his principles. He not only restored America, he restored the American spirit. He reassured us that while sometimes bad things happen, we still live in the greatest nation on Earth. He let us know that everything would be just fine, and we believed him because we knew he was in charge.

Tomorrow would be Ronald Reagan’s 100^th birthday. His legacy is cemented in the history of our nation as one of unparalleled leadership and determination. He brought our country out of the darkness and into a new era of prosperity. He ended the Cold War and refused to bend under the threat of terrorism. And when this five year old, who is now well into his thirties, thinks of the phrase “American President,” only one name comes to mind:

Ronald Wilson Reagan.