On March 13^th, 2013 there was a rally on campus to address supposed racisms at Binghamton University and in the SUNY system.  The rally was attended by undergraduates, graduates, and some faculty.  The goal of this article is not to discuss the premise behind the rally, but to discuss why some of the students that attended the rally were there.  I had an opportunity to speak with a few of the people that attended the rally and what they had to say was quite disturbing.  According to the students that I talked to, some of them were there not of their own free will.  They were forced to attend the rally by their professor and they did not have a choice.

I invited the students to sit down with me and tell me about their experiences at the rally and with their professor.  The students told me the professor was Reynaldo Ortiz of the Sociology department.  The picture is what Professor Ortiz posted on BlackBoard to one of his classes.  As you can see at the bottom of the screenshot it clearly states (in all caps): “I expect all of you present at the event.  It counts as class attendance.  No stories/excuses!”  The university’s policy on forced attendance at rallies and other political type events treads a very fine line.  The university policy basically states that a professor can require that students be present at a rally to observe.  So at first glance the forced attendance at the rally seems like it falls under what is allowed by the university.  BUT, there is more to the policy.

He also gave his students no adequate warning that they would have to attend the rally.  The rally was not in the syllabus and they where only told 2 days before the event that they were required to attend it.  The university policy states that the rally must be in the syllabus or the students must have ample time to get prepared.  The policy also states that students cannot be compelled to actually take part in the rally.  A student can be required to go if they have to write a paper, do a presentation, or the rally has something to do with the class.  According to the students I talked to, they were made to march around with the crowd not follow the crowd to experience and observe the rally.  Many of the students were also made to hold signs and chant along with the crowd.  The students were also intimidated if they refused to do the chants or hold the signs.  Many of the students felt uncomfortable at the rally due to the intimidation.  A student was also reprimanded when they smirked after one of the speakers make a comment.  Students were uncomfortable throughout almost the entire event.

A point in which many of the students were uncomfortable was when the rally moved in front of the Cooper Administration building.  When the rally moved to Cooper the crowd began to chant and demand that President Stenger come down and speak to them.  According to the students the crowd got a little railed up when President Stenger did not appear.  One of the students I spoke with commented that it seemed a little ridiculous that they expected the President to appear on command.  The students were also uneasy because they saw, what they claimed to be, members of the Black Panthers.  The students described a logo on their jackets as the clenched, socialist, fist and a panther on the wrist.  One might ask: If they were uncomfortable like they claim why didn’t they let their professor know and ask to leave?

While all of this was going on Professor Ortiz was nowhere to be found.  My sources tell me that Ortiz did not show up to the rally until the rally was almost over.  In Ortiz’s BlackBoard post, he said that the rally would be what they were doing in place of a normal class period, and he was late to it.  Because of Professor Ortiz’s tardiness his students were forced to take part in a rally that many of them felt uncomfortable at and felt threatened attending.  His absence meant that students could not bring their concerns to him and they were forced to stay.  They were forced to stay because they feared for their grades.  The BlackBoard post he made clearly states that there are no excuses for not being there, and his absence kept them of having any kind of legitimate route for being able to get excused from the rally.

I asked the students about what Professor Ortiz is like in class.  What they told me describes the typical leftist professor.  He shoots down their dissent to his opinions and does not allow for a proper discussion or debate to be had.  He also allows for other students to gang up and verbally attack other students in the class, just like the leftist professor in the original Destruction of the Liberal Arts article.

So basically Professor Reynaldo Ortiz forced his students to attend and participate in a rally that he ideologically agrees with, and did not allow his students to leave if they were uncomfortable.  He gave his students no ample warning that they had to take part in the rally.  His students were subjected to intimidation and harassment, and could not do anything about it.  I once sat down with Binghamton University President Harvey Stenger and I asked him about the university’s plan to weed out professors, which abuse their powers, hide behind tenure, and are all around terrible teachers.  He told me that there basically is nothing they can do or are willing to do to curb radical leftist professors.  Clearly something needs to be done.  A student should not have to stay in an uncomfortable situation for fear of failing a class or any penalty whatsoever, because their grade is being held hostage.

[Thank you for reading! Please follow me on Twitter @NickFondacaro.]

Liberals do not have any intention of giving up using fiery rhetoric or their demonization of conservatives.  They are actually intensifying their assaults on conservatives and they are taking no prisoners.  Lately their attacks have been more than just on television or in the pages of periodicals.  Liberals have taken to using tactics designed to intimidate and terrorize their political opponents.  The tactic they have started using is known as “swatting.”  No it does not entail a flyswatter.  It is a very terrible and dangerous action that puts the victim in danger.  I myself have recently become a victim of swatting.

Before going into my story I want to inform people on what swatting is.  As I stated above swatting is meant to intimidate and terrorize the victim.  It does this by using the police as their tool.  A swatting usually starts with the perpetrator placing an anonymous call to the police.  Often the caller uses a Skype like program that masks the original IP address.  The caller sometimes masks the number being used as the victim’s home phone or cell phone.  The caller then claims to be the intended victim and claiming they have hostages or just killed a love one.  The call is intended to provoke a response from police and have them mobilize a SWAT team, hence the term “swatting.”  Being that police think they are moving into and active shooter/hostage situation they are on edge.  It is very terrifying when cops surround your home decked out in full combat gear.  And being that cops are on edge going into the situation there is a possibility that the victim of the swatting may be shot in the confusion.

Lately this tactic has been used against prominent conservative bloggers.  The victims of these swatting incidences are not bloggers in their mother’s basement.  They are very active people in everyday life and the conservative movement.  Editor-in-chief of RedState.com and CNN’s own conservative, Erik Erickson was swatted in May of 2012.  A lawyer and blogger, from Virginia, Aaron Walker, aka @AaronWorthing , was swatted in June of 2012.  Deputy District Attorney and blogger Patrick “@Patterico” Frey was also swatted last year.  In these cases the swatter, who is suspected to be the same person, pretended to be the victim and told police he just shot his wife.  Conservative actor Clint Eastwood was also swatted in February of this year (2013).

As anyone that knows me, or is friends with me on Facebook, is aware of; I am very outspoken about my political opinions.  I am also very active on Twitter (@NickFondacaro) and I post articles on RedState.com.  I often infuriate the liberals I am friends with or encounter on twitter when I present  them with the facts in our argument.  Lately I have been posting a lot of memes and articles about guns and the 2^nd Amendment.  I shared a meme that had a picture of bullets and said something to the affect of “Invest in precious metals, buy lead.”  I also commented that I recently bought 180 shares.  Someone decided that that was a good enough motive and good enough evidence to call Binghamton University Police and claim I was storing the ammunition on campus.

On Tuesday 2/12/13, campus police (1 Officer) came to my, on campus, apartment and said they got an anonymous call claiming I had bought ammunition and that it might be in my apartment.  I told them that yes I did by ammo, I had it shipped to a friend’s house in Pennsylvania, and it is now at my house (which is over 25 miles away from the campus).  All of which is the truth.  He asked where I lived and I said Afton (NY) and he said “OH, Afton” which I took to mean that he knew I live locally.  He asked me the caliber and I said 5.56.  He responded with “so you have a .223 at home?” and I said yes.  He then said “It’s one of those ‘assault weapons’.”  He used his fingers to quote the words ‘assault weapons’ and used a sarcastic tone of voice.  At one point he said something to the effect of “with the way things are now I just have to check into all claims.”  He ask if I had anything to prove it was shipped to my friend’s house so I showed him the confirmation email from CheaperThanDirt.com showing where it was shipped to. He asked that I forward him the email to help “calm people down” and I did. He then asked a final time if I had any ammo or weapons, I said no, he said fine, and then he left.  At no point was I ever under arrest.

I then took to the internet to inform all of my friends and others in the conservative movement that I was just swatted.  I am very thankful for the overwhelming support I received from friends and strangers.  I also contacted, swatting victim, Aaron Walker on twitter and asked him what his opinion is about what just transpired.  He responded to me saying “IMHO an attempted swatting.”  I agree with him.  I am thankful that the officers on our campus are reasonable and level headed.  I also contacted the head of the Office of Student Conduct, who I know from my work in our student government.  He assured me that nothing would come of it and if anything did come up, to call him.

The idea that someone would stoop so low as to use swatting to try and shut me up is disturbing.  Shutting up your opposition is not how one conducts a civil conversation.  I do not know who it was that swatted me but I have my suspicions.  No matter who is responsible it is despicable.  I am saddened to think that someone would use such a terrible tactic.  No matter the reason; the ends do not justify the means.  Liberals claim that want a raise political discussions to a higher level.  Using tactics like swatting is evidence that they do not.  Until liberals stop using terrorist tactics like swatting there is no hope for a change in the discussion.

[Please follow me on Twitter @NickFondacaro, thanks for reading!]

In today’s society people seem to be more driven by the wild fluctuations of their emotions and passions.  With being driven by emotion and passion comes the abandonment reason and being about track actions past the immediate effect.  Often in modern political policy making lawmakers and other political elites do not think about the consequences of the policies they pass, past what the policy is meant to do.  They are often blind the effect it would have on the people that are actually paying for the policies they enact.  These politicians and their supporter prefer to feel like they are doing good than actually doing good.  This is all known as the “broken window fallacy.”

This paper will review healthcare legislation in the United States of America and apply the broken window fallacy to them.  The Obamacare law is the law that will be reviewed.  I will then be looking at how these policies that are meant to “do good” are actually hurting many people and our economy.  I will also cover how the broken window fallacy is not taken into account by politicians that are just out to boost themselves and not doing what is best for the nation.

The Broken Window Fallacy

Before there can be an analysis of the healthcare policies stated above and have the broken window fallacy applied to them one must understand what the fallacy is.  The broken window fallacy was first created by world renowned economist Frédéric Bastiat.

The fallacy basically describes what is known in modern economics as opportunity cost.  Opportunity cost is the cost one pays to something that could have been used to pay to do something else.  The broken window fallacy is often told through a story and the story usually goes like this:

“A young hoodlum, say, heaves a break through the window of a baker’s shop… It will make business for some glazier… The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum… But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit… instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit… The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier.  They had forgotten the potential third party involved the tailor… They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.” (Hazlitt, 23-24)

In Henry Hazlitt’s book Economics in One Lesson he talks about how this fallacy can be applied to many economic situations.  Healthcare policies are not immune from the broken window fallacy.  What may seem like a very helpful policy may actually be doing harm that is unseen to someone else.

Unseen Problems with Obamacare

Before the passage of Obamacare Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying “Trust me, we need to pass it to find what’s in it;” (www.Breitbart.com).  A comment like that should be unsettling for anybody, no matter their political affiliations.  It begs to have the broken window fallacy applied to it to see what is really going on.  The Obamacare bill was over 2,000 pages long and had many people adding their own parts to it.  The idea that Obamacare can be smoothly implicated with no parts contradicting and there being no unintended consequences is foolish.

Obamacare may be able to help some people but it hurts many more.  President Obama and Congressional Democrats sold Obamacare as not a tax hike but a fee.  In the early summer of 2012 the country learned that the bill was exactly that, a tax hike.  The lawyers hired to argue in favor of the bill in the Supreme Court of the United States said that it was a tax and not a fee.  The Supreme Court agreed with them that it was a tax.  Since Obamacare is now ‘Obamatax’, what exactly is being taxed?

In Obamacare there is a huge tax increase on small businesses.  “In addition, the tax rate on… Subchapter S Corporation[s] (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%.” (www.breitbart.com).  That tax is huge to small businesses and they are afraid of what it will mean to their businesses.  My family will personally be negatively affected by this tax hike on small businesses.

My mother owns a small variety store in a small village in upstate New York.  The store is lucky if it makes over hundred thousand dollars before taxes and other expenses.  The business is a Subchapter S Corporation which means that the business is open to the tax hike.  A tax, like the one Obamacare imposes, on a business as small as my mother’s can put it out of business.  If the business goes under than the two employees my mother hires will be out of work.

In order to have the opportunity to buy the business my family had to make great sacrifices.  My parents had almost no money after my father lost his job and we lost our house in Pennsylvania.  We moved into New York to be closer to family try to start over.  My father’s new job was not good enough so my mother got a job in the store.  Their savings started dwindling fast so in a last ditch effort to create an income my parents opened my father’s Individual Retirement Account.  They used the money to buy the store my mother worked in and the merchandise in it.  The store is everything my family has.

One might be wondering, how does the broken window fallacy play into your family’s store?  The broken window fallacy can be applied to my family’s business in a very simple way.  The seen in this scenario is that the money being taxed away from my family’s store is going to fund Obamacare.  The unseen in this scenario is what my family could be doing with the money being taxed.

There are numerous things that could be purchased or things the money could be put towards.  The nature of the unseen is that you do not know with certainty what the money can be used for so any assertion is guess an assumption.

The money being taxed from my family’s store could be used to fix up the store.  The building the store is in is around a hundred years old.  There are some renovations that could be done.  The taxed money could be used to buy merchandise for the store.  My mother has to travel to vendor shows to meet vendors and buy products.  The last time she went she bought thirty thousand dollars in merchandise.  The tax money could go to purchases like that or buying new products to experiment and see how they sell in the store.  There is something the money could have gone towards that I know my mother was planning on buying.

The building my mother’s store is in does not belong to her.  The building is owned by the previous owner of the store and my mother rents out the space.  My mother’s goal was/is to save up enough money to buy the building.  She wanted to buy the building show she can be the sole owner of the whole facility and so that is one less expense she needs to pay out.  She also wanted the building so that we can have the income from the rent from the apartment above the store.

Obamacare does more than threaten to sink my mother’s business in threatens many small businesses.  It also threatens one entire industry arguably more than any other industry.  The industry that is threatened most by Obamacare in the trucking industry.

[All the numbers and statistics that are going to be presented on the trucking industry were obtained from www.truckinfo.net.] 

In the United States there are 3.5 million truck drivers and many of those truck drivers are what are known as ‘owner operators.’  Owner operators are drivers that own a truck or trucking company and drive a truck as a worker.  In the United States there are 1.2 million trucking companies.  Out of those 1.2 million trucking companies 90 percent of them operate 6 or fewer trucks.

Those numbers show that the trucking industry is dominated by very small operations that operate locally, and if they are lucky regionally.  Many of those small operations are small businesses.  As with many small businesses those trucking companies file as Subchapter S Corporations.  Their filing as Subchapter S Corporations means they are subject to the Obamacare tax hike.  So the question that must be asked; can a trucking company pay for the tax hike?

Truck drivers get paid for every mile they drive, which makes them unique compared to other businesses that pay per hour.  The average pay per mile for truck drivers is about 30.3 cents.  At the rate of 30.3 cents per mile the average truck driver makes about thirty two thousand per year.  The reason for such a low salary is because how expensive it is to own a truck.  The cost to keep up on the maintenance and the other operating costs for a truck are astronomical.  For every dollar in revenue a trucking company makes 95.2 cents are used for the maintenance and upkeep for the truck itself.  With an operation cost of 95.2 cents of every dollar that leaves only a profit 4.8 cents.

Being that the profit for truck drivers and trucking companies are so low they will have a very hard time dealing with the Obamacare tax hikes.  This will lead to many trucking companies and truck drivers going out of business.  The negative effects on the trucking industry will be felt through all the other industries in our economy.

By applying the broken window fallacy to the situation with the trucking industry we can understand how other industries might be affected.  A number of things can happen because of the Obamacare tax hikes on the industry.  One of the things that could happen is that trucking companies may have to raise their prices for shipping, transport, and freight.  By the trucking companies raising their prices, to pay for the taxes, they put the burden on to the businesses they serve.  Now because of the increase in the price, for shipping and freight, businesses not need to charge more for their goods and services.  So, now the burden of the tax increase on the trucking industry is now put on the shoulders of the consumer, which hearkens back to the old saying “No business pays taxes.”  That old saying comes from the fact that businesses past the cost off to the consumer.  But, what happens if the increase in prices by the trucking company or store does not fly with consumers?

In order to try and pay for the tax hike trucking companies may try to raise their prices, as stated above.  In some parts for the county that may not be a viable solution to the tax hike problem.  In those areas businesses and consumers may not be able or willing to pay the higher prices demanded by the trucking companies or the drivers.  The businesses’ and consumers’ unwillingness to pay the price means that the trucking companies will be pricing themselves out of the market.

The idea that the trucking companies will price themselves out of the market does not only apply to the trucking industry.  Any business affected by Obamacare runs the risk of pricing themselves out of the market.

All of the examples of businesses and industries affected by Obamacare in this paper are examples of what is known as the “Crowding Out Effect.”  The crowing out effect is a simple economic principle.

“An economic concept where increased public sector spending replaces, or drives down, private sector spending. Crowding out refers to when government must finance its spending with taxes and/or with deficit spending, leaving businesses with less money and effectively “crowding them out.” One explanation of why crowding out occurs is government financing of projects with deficit spending through the use of borrowed money. Because the government borrows such large amounts of capital, its activities can increase interest rates. Higher interest rates discourage individuals and businesses from borrowing money, which reduces their spending and investment activities.” (www.investopedia.com)

The crowding out affect is a very big and unseen effect of Obamacare.  As stated above, Obamacare is meant to help people get healthcare coverage, which is the ‘seen’ of the policy.  The effects of the legislation, i.e. the crowding out effect, are a massive ‘unseen’ consequence of the law.  It is a consequence that has huge implications for many small businesses and whole industries.  These are a prime example of the broken window fallacy in action.  It is clear that there may have been little thought into the policy beyond ‘seen’ of helping people get healthcare coverage.

Seeing the Unseen

Through this paper’s analysis of the Obamacare law one thing has become really clear.  What has become clear is that there was very little thought about the effects the law.  The negative effects on businesses and industries are deep and expansive.  The implications of the law are broader than this paper can encompass.  The politicians that passed the law did not look beyond what the main effect of the law.

With the broken window fallacy we were able to see passed the main effect of the Obamacare law.  We were able to see how the law puts a huge burden on small businesses all around the country.  An example of the burden put small businesses is my mother’s small business.  Because of Obamacare the opportunity cost for my mother’s business is really high and can really hurt the business.  The money being taxed can be used as capital to buy new merchandise or to buy the building the store is in.  We also saw how other industries are affected by Obamacare.

The paper went over how Obamacare negatively affects the trucking industry, an industry many do not think about.  It was reviewed how Obamacare effects owner operators and other trucking companies and drivers.  It also covered how the negative effect on the trucking industry will be felt my other businesses and consumers.

With my analysis it is clear that the politicians and supporters of Obamacare did not think of the implications for the law.  It is also clear that they were thinking about how they can feel good but were not doing good.

Work Cited

Hazlitt, Henry; Economics in One Lesson; Three Rivers Press, New York; Copyright © 1962 and 1979 by Henry Hazlitt

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/27/words-matter

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/these-are-the-top-5-worst-taxes-obamacare-will-impose-in-2013/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes

http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp#axzz2EVd48Xcx

[Please follow me on Twitter at @NickFondacaro]

To put it bluntly, I blame liberals for destroying the liberal arts.  The liberal arts are meant to help facilitate the marketplace of ideas.  They’re meant to be a place where we can have honest discussions about, among other things, philosophy and real world applications of our studies, but liberals have turned their backs on that ideal.  Professors demonize, condemn, and lie about conservative arguments, and actively assault and diminish conservative thought.  College conservatives are forced to supplicate to their professors for fear of retribution in the form of poor grades.  What liberals have done to the liberal arts is disgusting, turning them into the liberal art of indoctrination.

This is my fifth year here at Binghamton, and never in my distinguished academic career have I ever witnessed ferocious assaults on conservative students like I have recently.  Perhaps it is the tension caused by the election season or maybe they sense the rest of America turning away from their failing ideology. But what I do know is that what they are doing is wrong.  Not only have I been on the receiving end of attacks by my professors, but so have many of my conservative friends.  The language used against me and my fellow conservatives by our professors is vile and has no place in an institution of higher education.  I am writing this to help tell our story.

Recently, a liberal friend of mine told me the story of a professor that verbally assaulted a conservative student during class. Apparently, the professor made an inquiry to the class wondering what campus organization was responsible for the annual 9/11 Memorial Flag Garden.  One of the few conservative students in the class raised their hand and said it was the College Republicans. The professor proceeded to rant about how the event was insulting to the memories of the victims, and chastised conservatives for what she believed was a disgraceful use of individual American flags to represent the roughly 3,000 Americans that died during the attacks of 9/11/01. According to her, it was insulting to use flags because those that died in the 9/11 attacks were not soldiers and subsequently did not actually die for their country.  The professor insisted that if the memorial garden’s organizers wanted to use flags then they should write the names of victims on them.

The student correctly responded by reminding the professor that the College Republicans always conduct a lengthy name-reading ceremony in front of the flag garden each year. Despite the absurdity of the professor’s argument and the mounting evidence that the College Republicans go to great length to remember every individual that died in the attacks, the verbal assault on conservatives did not stop there. Like sharks that smell blood in the water, the professor and the liberal students proceeded to let loose their unbridled left-wing, anti-American bigotry for the rest of the class to endure in horror.

The professor and some students said it was wrong that the garden was put up to honor the death of Americans.  They said flags should be put up, and names should be read, for non-American victims of 9/11.  Like a high schooler that had just read Noam Chomsky for the first time, the professor yelled at the student that 9/11 was not an attack on America but an attack on the world.  Even my liberal friend was shaken up, not only by the verbal abuse that this conservative student took in front of the class, but also by the absurdity of the textbook, far-left arguments that spat on all common sense and logic.

As I mentioned earlier, conservative students are always hesitant to speak out for fear that their grades and future will suffer because of professors that cannot distinguish between personal disagreements and honest academic work. Because of this, I will be keeping names, dates, and certain events confidential to protect those students that want their story told in the Review.  However, I want to make clear that I am not intimidated by my professors; I will be exposing them for the hateful leftists they are.

This semester I am enrolled in a class called “Comparative Politics of Healthcare.”  The class is taught by Professor Olga Shvetsova, who claims that her class is designed to foster a healthy debate and discussion about the different aspects and philosophies surrounding the healthcare issue.  I quickly came to understand that by “debate” and “discussion” she meant “accept that the things I tell you are facts.”  This claim is backed up by a statement she made in class on September 20th, in which she informed us that she would be working to make us think the way she thinks.

This is how I recall the events of our second class, while we were discussing the services provided by medical professionals and insurance companies:

Student: “Insurance companies have no interest in letting people know about other companies that will provide them better, cheaper services.”

Me: “You’re right, if you look at Congressman Paul Ryan’s ‘Path to Prosperity,’ the plan will give people who are looking for insurance a list of insurance companies that would cover them.”

Prof. Shvetsova: (aggressively) “What would happen if no companies would cover those people?”

Me: “The plan would give the person the best options available to them.”

Prof. Shvetsova: (even more aggressive) “What if the person still could not afford the insurance?”

Me: “Well then…”

Prof. Shvetsova: (aggressively interrupted and then preceded to change the subject and moved the class along)

At first I was shocked by her yelling, but then I realized she simply did not like what I was saying, and could not react professionally.

The suppression of my conservative thoughts did not stop there.  Later that class period we spoke about the nature of charity.  The discussion proceeded to turn towards what charity really was:

Prof. Shvetsova: “When people pay taxes, that is a form of charity.”

Me: (disturbed) “I think charity is when someone voluntarily chooses to give their money away, while paying taxes is when the government forces people to give their money away.”

Prof. Shvetsova: (raising her voice) “People do willingly pay taxes.”

Me: “No, the government makes people pay taxes, they don’t have a choice.”

She raised her voice again, and a back and forth ensued.  Each time she would speak her tone of voice was louder.  It got to the point where she was literally screaming at me and a fellow conservative in the class.  As I began to respond to something she said, she yelled over me:

Prof. Shvetsova: “You are going to stop speaking, because I am speaking now!”

Me: “but I was speaking first…”

Prof. Shvetsova: “You were, but now I am.”

My fellow conservative and I looked at each other in complete disbelief of what just transpired.  The way she acted, after claiming to want a healthy discussion and debate, is not only unnecessary but completely unprofessional and wrong. After this brief exchange, the professor could clearly see that I was in disbelief about how our debate had transpired. She told me that if I didn’t like it, I should write about it. I was all too happy to oblige.

Her disdain for conservatives did not stop there.  The following week we discussed the reasons healthcare costs are so high in the United States.  I quoted a CBS article about a recent report issued by the Institute of Medicine covering the cost of healthcare.  The report found that in 2009 $750 billion went towards unnecessary services, administrative costs, and fraud.  The report was released the morning of our class discussion and, judging by her response, she had not read it.  She latched on to  the “unnecessary services” part, and used that against me, putting words in my mouth to claim that I do not care about preventative care and women’s health.  She said “people like Nick do not view breast cancer screenings as necessary.”  She made this statement when all I did was quote CBS, saying nothing about preventative care or women’s health.  Her method of assault was to ignore the substance of my statement, and attack me and conservatives.  No professor should be doing what she is doing, and this kind of assault goes way beyond the classroom.

Students should be able to expect that their university will be a place where they can safely express their beliefs.  Students expect that they will not be persecuted or assaulted for those beliefs, and especially not from professors.  As a member of a political and ideological minority on campus I expect to have respectful debates and discussions with my professors, and to have mature discussions without being talked down to or screamed at.  It is also expected that professors in the liberal arts would try to preserve what the liberal arts stands for, and foster a marketplace of ideas.  It has become painfully clear that our professors here at Binghamton University have no such intentions for the liberal arts.  These professors are actively suppressing conservatives on campus and making a mockery of the liberal arts.

[Thank you for reading! Please follow me @NickFondacaro]

A little past midnight on Thursday March 1st, an idol to me and many others, Andrew Breitbart, passed away.  He was walking home with his Father-in-Law when he collapsed.  Paramedics were called but could not revive him.  He had a history of heart problems.  Breitbart was 43; he is survived by his wife and four children.  Andrew Breitbart was a man of great courage.  He loved to fight with his political opposition and always met them on their own turf.  He was known for re-tweeting all of the hateful tweets that were sent to him.  His professed goal was the destruction of the institutional left by reporting on the stories the left wind media would not, and in most cases cover up.  He is known for releasing the photos that led to Rep. Anthony Weiner’s resignation.  He also helped release the damaging video taken by James O’Keefe that led to the fall of ACORN.  His latest accomplishment occurred a few weeks before his death.  At CPAC he had a confrontation with Occupy CPAC that led to the media reporting on the numerous rapes that occurred at occupy camps.  He staged the confrontation because left wing media outlets were ignoring the rapes and the occupy cover up of them.

The favorite target for his attacks was the left wing media complex.  He was tired of how the left controlled the media, the narrative, and the imagery.  He saw how the media was set up to protect and promote Democrats.  He saw how the media vilified the Tea Party yet praised the riots of Occupy.  When the left was calling the Tea Party racist he stepped up to protect us.  He would go around with his famous rollerblades and video take the real violence and Astroturf rallies of the left.  When the left accused the Tea Party of spitting on black members of congress he proved the accusations false and a sham.  He called the media out on their hypocrisy and their one sided attacks.  His efforts helped the Tea Party get a breath.

His book Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World is a great motivational source for myself and many other conservatives.  In it he talks about how the early internet was a place for conservatives while the main stream media was and still is for the left.  In the early internet Matt Drudge was the number one source for conservative news; that’s where Breitbart first made his stand on the internet.  His influence grew and he helped pioneer the new media on the internet.  He created numerous websites for conservatives like BigGovernment.com, BigJournalism.com, and Breitbart.tv.  Through these websites he was able to call out the left media, liberal progressives, and occupy defenders.

As a result of his efforts against the left he became the largest target for their hate and vitriol.  Because of his courage and his strength in facing the hatred from the people who want to “Stop the Hate”, he gave the rest of us the courage and strength to do the same.  He gave me the courage to walk up to the people that call myself and people like me, ‘racist’, ‘uneducated’, ‘insane’, ‘hick’, ‘evil’ and say “FUCK YOU!”  Andrew Breitbart may no longer be with us but the effect he had will stay and grow.  Conservatives will no longer sit by and be the target of left wing media attacks.  We will no longer curtail our beliefs to fit the left’s view of the world.  We will be calling the left out like never before.

We will be pulling them into the light to show who they really are to the public.  You call us racist for wanting all people to be equal in the eyes of the law.  You call us anti-immigrant for wanting to secure our borders.  You call us war mongers for wanting to have a military that could actually defend us.  You call us heartless for wanting to cut the size of government.  You call us anti-intellectual for not wanting our kids to be taught to worship the government.  You call us evil for wanting to make sure the future is bright for our children.  You call us backwards for believing in Nature’s God, who gave us our unalienable rights.  We will not take it any longer.  We will shed the lies placed on us. We will no longer let the left wing media define who we are.

The effect of Andrew Breitbart’s life will forever be felt in the conservative movement.  In the coming months a documentary made by Breitbart unmasking the true Occupy, will be released.  Another film titled “Hating Breitbart” will be released this spring, showing all of the hate and vitriol Andrew Breitbart took from the left.  He gave our movement a chance and he gave our movement new life.  We will carry on, push forward, and push back.  His fight will continue on.  We will pick up his flag and go to war.

[Please follow me on twitter @NickFondacaro, Thanks for reading!]

In high school I called myself a Republican, but I was more of a right leaning moderate.  I was very naïve about politics.  I didn’t know much about the constitution, the effects of liberal policies, and corruption in the system.  I thought government had the ability to solve our problems and for the most part only did good deeds.  I was oblivious to what progressivism was founded on and negative effects it has had on our country.  I put too much faith in what my liberal teachers were telling me.  There were conservative teachers in the school but not as many as liberal ones.  Conservative ideas made more sense to me then some of the stuff my teachers said but I lacked a proficient ability or knowledge base to question or rebut them.

When I was a freshman in college (2008-2009) I still was very naïve about politics.  When I talked politics with some liberal students I would try to hear them out and remain civil.  They on the other hand would be little my views my views and generally not as open mined as they claimed to be.  During that spring Obama administration policies showed me what liberalism and big government were all about.  Late in that spring semester there was a new political movement started helping me articulate what I knew made sense to me (Hint: it starts with a T and ends in Party).  It wasn’t until my sophomore year (2009-2010) that I learned what it really meant to be a conservative.

That year was a very important year in my development as a conservative warrior in our movement.  From its first rally on tax day that year I was drawn to the Tea Party.  To me what they were saying made sense, one would say it was common sense.  An influence on me at the time was Glenn Beck.  I would watch his show on Fox News whenever I could.  I would go out and by some of the books he would recommend.  I also read almost all of Glenn’s books and listened to his radio show.  From there I started reading any conservative book I could get my hands on.  I started listening to Rush Limbaugh and a little bit of Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.  I could not better articulate and debate my conservative point of view.  I would often get into long argumentative debates with my roommate who, I found out through our debates, is one of the left’s useful idiots.  As the year progressed I became more entrenched in the Tea Party.

I became so entrenched in the Tea Party that, when I was a Junior, I tried to start a Tea Party chapter on campus, as a student group.  To get the group started I needed to collect 100 signatures.  So to get them I went to a meeting of our campus’ college Republicans.  It was the first time I attended one of their meetings.  At the time they had a pretty good following and they were pretty open to Tea Party ideals, naturally.  At the time I also started writing for the Binghamton Review where I became their Tea Party liaison.  Between these two student groups and the fight I would have to go through for our share of the limited student funding, I decided to not create the group.  Instead I decided to utilize both groups for Tea Party ends, I have been pretty successful.

Finding all this other conservatives on this liberal campus filled me with a new zeal.  The new zeal found its way into my classes.  I would call out my liberal professors for their blatant idiocy and their hypocrisy.  I had a professor named Patrick Regan (look him up), for a Issues in World Politics class, I would sit in class with my laptop calling him out on nearly everything he said.  At the end of the class he said to me “Because of you I will no longer allow laptops in my class.”  During the class I got him to admit how bogus a lot of academia is.  He said “I’m in academia I don’t need to worry about real world application.”  With another professor who is a self proclaimed communist I was able to talk her in a circle and agree with Tea Party ideals.  I challenge all my professors to this day.

What helps fuel this resistance is a book I read.  The book is Righteous Indignation by Andrew Breitbart.  His book motivated me like no other book had before.  It spurred me to more actively combat the left where ever it is.  I was motivated to become a part of the new media movement.  I got a twitter account and apply to get this diary.  Andrew Breitbart helped me find a direction I want to go with my degree.  He played a huge role in shaping who I am today and what I want to do in the future.  I have one more year of college and I hope to leave in a blaze of political glory.

You can follow me on twitter @NickFondacaro, the Binghamton Review @binghamtonrev, and the Binghamton University College Republicans @BingRepublicans.  Thank you for reading!