Smart Girls Are Armed, Conservative, and Fabulous: My “Youth in Action” Interview

smart girl

Teen conservative and Smart Girl Politics activist Bethany Bowra (@bethanybowra) interviewed me for the latest installment of Smart Girl Politics’ “Youth in Action” series profiling young conservative female activists. Those of you who know me are familiar with my hold-no-prisoners approach to conservative politics, anti-Communist tendencies, and desire to lure in more young people to our movement.

I hope my thoughts and sentiments in this interview inspire other freedom-loving youngsters to speak out and reject collectivism. Without a doubt, we must encourage more young conservatives…especially young conservative females.


While Planned Parenthood and Democrat women in Congress claim to speak for all women, these young women have something to say about that. Contrary to popular belief, those groups do not speak for all young women— many young women my age have views that are quite the opposite. Below is my interview with conservative activist, Gabriella Hoffman!

Why did you get involved in politics?

I got involved in conservative politics because of my parents. My mother and my father are Lithuanian immigrants who escaped from Soviet communism 27 years ago. The Left’s policies remind them too much of the Old Country, so conservatism came naturally to them. Their stories and perspective on life really brought me to conservatism. Both sides of my family suffered immensely in the former Soviet Union. I’m in this fight to honor their memories and remind people that freedom must be safeguarded for future generations to come.

How did you get involved?

In 2006 when I was 15, I started writing a column in a local Orange County, CA community paper, The Coto Voice, called “Teen Beat.” I maintained this column for three years. I primarily focused on topics ranging from volunteering in high school to upholding traditional values. After I graduated from high school and moved onto college, I began to write about politics for The California Review, the conservative paper at UC-San Diego. From there, I went onto running a YAF chapter and hosting David Horowitz on campus- an event which landed on national news. After the event garnered a lot of attention, I started working for The Rick Amato Show as an Executive Assistant and landed a coveted role at Eagle Forum of San Diego as the Director of Youth Outreach.  I also started blogging for various websites and publications.

What issues have you been focused on since you became active?

I’m a firm believer in sound conservatism (social and fiscal conservatism), and I also believe in strong national defense. During my time at UC-San Diego, I heavily focused on support for Israel (I have family there and support a healthy U.S.-Israel relationship) and exposing militant leftists on campus. I also exposed radical feminism and openly condemned the Vagina Monologues. Now, I concentrate on a plethora of issues ranging from traditional values to Israel advocacy to media/leftist/campus bias to free enterprise.

Continue reading at Smart Girl Politics Action.

“Big Business Monkeys” Are Coming to Take UCSD’s Books Away?! Not Quite

The war over budget cuts at the University of California–one between leftists in the administration/professors and the UC Regents–is getting heated.

Watch out, fellow Tritons! Big Business Monkeys are going after our books at UCSD.

What is a big business monkey, you might ask? Simply the invention of one student who is dismayed by capitalism and is looking to make a scapegoat out of it.

Understandably, the university has no right depriving us of books. School officials always talk about children and optimal education, but most fail to deliver providing such quality education.

Professors and administrative officials arguably make too much money, and leave us–the students–with limited resources.

This finding is confirmed by The California Review:

UC student costs 1997-2011 vs CA state funding
• Also: # of Faculty and # of Senior Administrators.
• Student Fee is full student fee. State Funding is CA funding to the UC General Fund. Both are adjusted for inflation to CPI-U.
• The # of Faculty is full-time-hours equivalent of regular ladder-based faculty (most common type of faculty).
• The # of Senior Management is full SMG (Senior Management Group) & MSP (Manager and Senior Professional) count.

Watch this video. Although it addresses the problem of library closures, it vilifies the privatization of education and is full of inaccuracies.

From the Facebook event:

Education should be a public resource. Don’t let the Big Business Monkeys cut such an important part of our education at UCSD. Prevent the sale of books by borrowing as many books as you possibly can. Exercise your right as a UCSD student! Borrow a shit ton of books. It’s all based on this complex logical system derived in the highest minds of this supposedly prestigious institution:

Libraries cannot sell books, that they do not have.

So let’s remind UCSD that such frivolous cuts in this vital student resource will not be tolerated by fucking with them during the first week of school.

Just check out books, you should check out books you’re interested in. Let your check outs be representative of the subjects you as a student are interested in. Don’t feel like you have to read all of them, but let it show that students from all majors love the library system and need such an institution to keep a diverse collection. Show that such budget cuts on student resources is an intolerable and irresponsible decision.

Let’s have fun with this, tell your friends, will improve description in due time.

“I can only speak for one of the libraries on campus, but while books are regularly churned out of the stacks, there is an equal amount that is constantly being pumped in to the stacks to compensate. I don’t think it is necessarily a cause for panic. Facilities and operation hours are in much more jeopardy, and should probably be the focus.”

-> On this note, let’s publicize these concerns as well. This is purely gonzo logic, symbolism over action since we’re all minions in the UC game after all. Use the system to bring this issue to the forefront, confront the Capitalist concerns for what they are, show how the UC system is becoming more privatized and putting the students and their resources on the back burner. Check out that copy of Rings of Saturn that you’ve been meaning to read ever since you got into the writings of Walter Benjamin, I don’t know, say more and add to the discussion! let’s make this a learning experience, since that’s what you’re here for other than that piece of shiny paper.

In these difficult times, it is not (ever) wise to blame capitalism for the UC system’s financial failures. Instead, look to the people in charge and the exorbitant costs they’ve generated. It’s time that the higher ups (professors, administration) sacrifice too. Stop wasting our tax dollars.

Dear GOP: Who will defeat Obama in 2012?

***Editors Note: This article was published in our May issue of the California Review.

Conservatives, Libertarians, Republicans, independents, and blue dog Democrats are coming to a consensus: American voters must oust President Obama from office in 2012.

With countless attacks on the Constitution, an exorbitant debt, a blatant disregard for laws in place, a third war in Libya, appeasement to our enemies, fabricated class warfare, posing roadblocks to fixing the budget, and prompting a host of other problems, Barack Obama has proven to be one of the worst Presidents in our nation’s history..

It is obvious that President Barack Obama has had his eyes glued to a second term from the beginning, so his bid for reelection was expected. However, rather than “hope and change,” he has arguably brought us “doom and gloom.” With this in mind, many signs point to Obama’s possible defeat in 2012.

In the coming months Republicans will have a pool of candidates to select from, but they must select one who will successfully challenge and defeat Obama.

A profile of prospective Republican candidates is outlined below:

Rick Santorum: A former Pennsylvania congressman and senator, Rick Santorum would be a candidate who brings legislative experience to the table. A strong fiscal and social conservative, Santorum would garner favorability among stalwarts on the Right. He is known for his opinionated and equally controversial remarks. Yet, his lack of name recognition could weaken his chances.

Newt Gingrich: As a former Speaker of the House, Gingrich has the political acumen to lead. He co-authored the Contract with America in 1994 during the Republican Revolution, and helped usher in a balanced budget amendment to the 1999 federal budget. Nevertheless, his three marriages, collaboration with Nancy Pelosi to combat climate change, and embrace of the Republican establishment will make it difficult for him to secure the nomination.

Sarah Palin: Former Alaska governor and 2008 Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin is slated to run for President. Her whit, beauty, and intelligence have resonated with conservatives and Tea Party activists. If she decides to run, she will have an advantage with her name, her likeability, and her firebrand speeches. Unfortunately, Palin will be scrutinized for her celebrity status and will be subject to vicious attacks from the liberal media if she decides to run.

Tim Pawlenty: As a popular two-term Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty has the executive experience needed in a candidate. He is a fiscal and social conservative liked by many. Unlike many prospective candidates in the GOP field, Pawlenty is adept in his extensive use of social media—a skill that is needed in order to win the White House in 2012. Challenges include his anonymity among Americans and his perceived blandness.

Mitt Romney: Dubbed the GOP “frontrunner”, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is undoubtedly running for President. Romney is known for his economic prowess and for managing the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Although he has a colorful record, Romney will have difficulty garnering the nomination due to RomneyCare, his religious affiliation, and his tendency to flip-flop on critical issues.

Mike Huckabee: A popular favorite among conservatives, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is likely to run in 2012. Huckabee could easily succeed with appeal from social and fiscal conservatives. He is an ardent supporter of Israel, and maintains the Fox News Channel Show Huckabee each weekend. Nevertheless, he will be challenged on his record for giving clemency to criminals during his tenure as Governor.
Mike Huckabee has decided he will not run for president in 2012.

Herman Cain: A popular radio talk show host and well-known businessman, Herman Cain is seen as a “wild card” candidate. Cain is a straight forward, yet equally polished orator. He is a popular speaker at events nationwide. He previously served in the Federal Reserve and ran for the Georgia U.S. Senate race in 2004.

Donald Trump: Real estate tycoon and Celebrity Apprentice star Donald Trump is expected to run in 2012. Lately, Trump openly challenged Obama over his birthplace. However President Obama discredited The Donald’s attack when Obama released his long form birth certificate in late April. In addition, there is substantial evidence to discredit his conservatism: exorbitant donations to Democrats, praise of universal healthcare, and his three marriages.
Donald Trump has decided he will not run for president in 2012.

Ron Paul: Seasoned Texas Congressman Ron Paul is a perennial candidate known for his libertarian beliefs. His most notable positions include disbanding the Federal Reserve and ending American occupation abroad. Paul is also an important Tea Party favorite. His shortcomings rest in his age and his remarks on a non-interventionist foreign policy that have irritated some Republicans and conservatives.

Michele Bachmann: House Tea Party Caucus founder and lawyer Michele Bachmann has expressed interest in running in 2012. She has already traveled to many key states, including Iowa and New Hampshire, which hints a likely presidential run. Additionally, Bachmann is very conservative in her beliefs and has served as a foster parent.

Mitch Daniels: Hailing from the Hooiser state, Governor Mitch Daniels is considering a bid for the presidency. He is responsible for balancing Indiana’s budget and has been praised as a fiscal hawk. This trait will be attractive to Republicans, with the deficit being the most pressing issue today. Nevertheless, his “truce” on social issues will possibly turn off some social conservative voters.

Gary Johnson: Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is slated to jump into the 2012 race. Like Ron Paul, Johnson has a pronounced libertarian streak. He is a proponent of marijuana decriminalization and school voucher programs. During his tenure as governor, Johnson slashed the size of New Mexico’s government and produced a budget surplus estimated at $1 billion dollars.

Gabriella is a junior in Eleanor Roosevelt College majoring in political science.

UCSD Guardian Fails to Uphold Principles of Unbiased Journalism

Cross-posted from the California Review blog on April 4th, 2011.  It is also featured in the April 2011 print edition:

Once championed as the “marketplace of ideas,” American universities are now overrun by liberal, anti-American, and anti-Semitic bias. Campus Reform reports, “According to campaign finance data from the Huffington Post, of the UCSD faculty and staff who contributed to 2008 presidential campaigns, 96% gave to Democratic candidates and just 4% to Republicans. In total, UCSD donated $48,966 to Democrats and $2,192 to Republicans.”

UCSD is allegedly mired by “political apathy” according to students. This phenomenon is rooted in the idea that political activities on campus are minimal and that students are too focused on consolidating their careers to be involved. With the intent of combatting this “challenge,” the “official” newspaper at UCSD, the Guardian, seeks to fill this void.

While the Guardian is typically seen as UCSD’s official paper, it is not representative of all student viewpoints. Leftist, anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-alternative lifestyle, pro-illegal immigration, and pro–big government biases comprise many of the published articles. As UCSD students routinely hide from politics on campus—unless they are personally afflicted by Associated Student (AS) rulings or campus incidents—the Guardian should uphold its journalistic integrity and maintain neutrality in its reporting.

Nevertheless, statistics compiled from articles printed Winter Quarter 2011 debunk assertions that the paper upholds journalistic principles of fact-based reporting and neutrality. Our analysis found that the Guardian’s six sections (opinion, news, Hiatus, Focus, sports, and Letter to the Editor) are all infested with some type of bias—particularly a leftist bias.

Of approximately 307 articles printed from January to March 2011, almost one-third displayed some form of bias. Of those biased articles, 78 percent boasted a left-leaning bias compared to 22 percent with a right-leaning bias. The least leftist section was Sports, which had only one politically biased article out of 67 they published. On the other hand, both the letter-to-the-editor and opinion sections were tied with 75 percent total bias and 75 percent leftist bias, respectively, but this is to be expected.

However, it is their news section that bears the most disheartening “news.” Of the 107 articles published, one-third displayed the slant of the Guardian staff and the abandonment of their principles of neutrality and unbiased reporting. Many of their news articles paint a picture specifically designed to generate support for a certain perspective. They also often focus only on one side of a news story, while completely ignoring possible alternatives or opposition.

Some of the most egregiously biased articles were “Chicano Mural Will Become Permanent Mosaic in April,” “Students Rally Against Prop 23 Supporters in Rancho Mirage,” “UC Students Campaign for D.R.E.A.M. Act,” and “New Diversity G.E. Approved for Fall.” This leftist slant is also reflected in the number of articles covering the same topics. Five news articles cover the UAW 5810 union and the deportation of postdoctoral researcher Wilda Helen, three news articles cover support for the D.R.E.A.M Act, and eight news articles advocate for increased spending and for fighting the budget cuts. In all of these articles, they present one-sided portrayals of the story they are covering.

In their article regarding the Chicano Mural on Peterson Hall, the Guardian ignores the blatantly political bias presented within the mural and possible critiques of the administration’s decision. Instead, however, it features glowing statements of support by the UCSD administration, the artist, and a member of MEChA.

Similarly, in an attempt to cast the Koch Brothers as evil billionaires, in “Students Rally Against Prop 23 Supporters in Rancho Mirage,” the writer wrote that the prominent conservative-libertarian donors secretly met with others to set aside “hundreds of millions of dollars” to take over elections. According to Open, Koch Industries only invested $11,002,235 dollars into campaigns from 1989-2010 and ranked number 83 of 140 “Heavy Hitters.” Nevertheless, Open reveals that Democrats—who are so-called champions against “evil billionaires” and “greedy rich folks”—ironically got the most donations from 1989-2010. Most pointedly, this “news article” also lacks any quotes or statements to balance the 8 anti-Koch quotes by the Director of the California Student Sustainability Coalition and the Director of the UCSD Student Sustainability Collective.

In all three of their articles about the D.R.E.A.M. Act, no arguments are presented or sought by students who do not support California tax dollars to go to illegal immigrants. Rather, they solely present quotes in support of the D.R.E.A.M Act. Then in their article, “New Diversity G.E. Approved for Fall,” they discuss the additional diversity requirement being added at UCSD, and they continue the trend of bias by only citing sympathizers and supporters of these new requirements. Most outrageously of all, they cite that “The new requirement has generally garnered a positive response from students” without providing any evidence to support their claim. At least we at the California Review have the decency to admit our political point of view

As is to be expected from their opinion section, the Guardian doesn’t even pretend to be unbiased most of the time. From editorial board statements such as “Moving Back the Goalposts” and “Growing Diversity,” to “point/counterpoints” which present sham defenses for the controversial topics they address, such as “Chick-Fil-A Anti-Gay Support,” “Arizona Immigration Crackdown,” and “South Carolina’s New Currency,” the Guardian penchant for leftist ideology runs rampant. Also, in the “Props and Flops” section of the opinion section, they give Obama “props” for not enforcing DOMA and they give the TSA “props” for their enhanced body scanners (i.e. pornoscanners). At the same time, they give “flops” to Republicans for repealing Obamacare and to Gov. Rick Perry (TX) for supporting students in their right tocarry concealed weapons on campus.

In “Moving Back the Goalposts” the Guardian laments that even though holistic review is “big step toward leveling the playing field and acknowledging applicants’ privilege” it does not do enough for affirmative action, and does not do enough to increase UC diversity based on skin color.

In their point/counterpoint segment, the Guardian ignores the common sense defense for controversial topics and instead presents students with straw man arguments. In their discussion of Chick-Fil-A’s decision to offer free catering to a Traditional Marriage conference, the Guardian presents their choice as either bigoted, or as a choice by wealthy executives out of touch with society. If the Guardian wants to bash Chick-Fil-A’s decision to support traditional marriage they have that right, but they should at least present a legitimate counterpoint. The same situation occurs in their discussion of the Arizona bill to repeal birthright citizenship. Two of the three arguments presented cast this bill in a negative light, while the third offers a weak defense of it. The only valid point made is that this bill likely violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and one of the arguments even calls this bill “a regressive step in the direction of a pre-Civil Rights era.” Sadly, the pro argument portrays the bill as a step toward a solution while simultaneously bashing opposition to illegal immigration, incorporating language into their discussion such as when they write “children of undocumented immigrants, [are] pejoratively called ‘anchor babies’.” Then, both arguments about South Carolina’s desire for an alternative currency support the Federal Reserve and bash the idea of competing state currencies (even though these were the norm prior to the establishment of the IRS and the income tax).

Finally, in “Growing Diversity,” the Editorial Board asserts that engineering diversity through General Education (GE) requirements is the only means to combat “racism” on campus. The article unabashedly claims that UCSD is racist, stating, “…it’s important to remember the root of this proposal: irrefutable evidence that our campus is not nearly welcoming enough to minority students.” The Editorial Board ignores the idea that intellectual diversity—rather than reverse discrimination— is what should be encouraged on a college campus, and it is the merit of a student that should be rewarded rather than the color of their skin or their gender.

Although the Guardian claims to be UCSD’s student voice, it is merely an outlet that trashes any viewpoints that do not fit into their “politically correct” worldview. This paper tramples over “unpopular” beliefs, providing both misinformation and the narrow range of opinions representated by the Guardian. It is imperative to write Letters to the Editor and challenge the Guardian whenever they violate their own principles of neutrality.

Gabriella is a sophomore in Eleanor Roosevelt College majoring in political science.

Guardian Investigation Chart

UCSD Prospect Calls Guardian “Right-Wing,” Spews Lies

In response to my article in the California Review, UCSD’s Prospect has attempted to prove me wrong in my analysis and debunk my assertion that the Guardian is liberal. The Prospect is, “the international studies journal at University of California, San Diego. News, politics, and culture from the US and around the world.” I’d love to see them try. Get ready for some chuckles.

From the Prospect on April 4th:

Adventures in Journalistic Rigor with “The California Review”

By admin in Culture, Politics, United States

By Taylor Marvin

UCSD’s The California Review has an article that discovers- surprise- that UCSD’s campus newspaper The Guardian leans left. In pretty unconvinced by the basic metric of the article- attempting to score Guardian articles by their political bias is inherently subjective and dependent on the author’s definition of conservatism, and I’m confident that I could repeat author Gabriella Hoffman’s methods and prove The Guardian to be a mildly right-wing paper. Also, the revelation that the student-run paper of a caucasian-minority, University of California campus that draw most of its students from Democratic counties leans editorially left isn’t exactly worthy of a Pulitzer. Most politically-active UCSD students tend to the left, so it isn’t surprising that The Guardian’s writers do as well. If The California Review’s editors want to advance a conservative perspective within The Guardian’s editorial content, they should join The Guardian. Given the UCSD student body’s appreciation for on-campus publications, I’m sure The Guardian could use the enthusiasm.

The California Review’s metric for ranking left vs. right leaning articles is particularly ridiculous. Since when do conservatives have a monopoly on “fiscal responsibility?”  Has Ms. Hoffman never heard of the Reagan or second Bush administrations? Couldn’t I claim that, given the mainstream and throughly disproven Republican position that national tax-cuts raise revenue, that pro-fiscal responsibility editorials lean left? It gets worse. An “anti-Islam” slant is conservative, rather than just bigoted? Being “pro-military” is ranked as conservative, which probably explains all the Democrats in Congress who don’t support the troops. And I’m sorry, if you disparage “alternative lifestyles” in 2011 you look like a bigot, and also someone who doesn’t realize it’s 2011. Please. The phrase “alternative lifestyles” is only acceptable if you’re a mid-1960s parent worried about your son becoming a hippie. The best part? The sample size: “At least 305.” That’s statistical rigor.

Update: Ms. Hoffman’s response can be found here. What’s unfortunate is that while I don’t dispute her core thesis that the Guardian tends to the left, her method of demonstrating this is entirely unconvincing. Editorial slants and political beliefs in general are so hard to quantify that bias is extremely difficult to demonstrate in anything by the most obvious cases, which, combined with her loose definition of a liberal bias, substantially weakens The California Review’s argument.

Update II: And wait, I call The Guardian “right-wing?” I though it was obvious I was arguing that Ms. Hoffman’s method was subjective enough that another author using the same procedure could claim The Guardian is a conservative paper, not that The Guardian is actually right-wing. I’m also going to steal the name “The Prospect,” it’s much more important sounding than what we have now.

Update III: Interesting. When I first viewed the California Review piece last night at about 10:00pm, it prominently displayed a disclaimer by the editor reiterating the author’s views were her own and not necessarily those of the publication as a whole. As of 8:00am this morning this disclaimer has been taken down.

UCSD Will Take Your Freedoms Away with New Policy

From The California Review on February 1st, 2011:

Alec Weisman, Editor-in-Chief

The UCSD administration is at it again, preemptively seeking to serve as thought police to reduce hate, bias, harassment and discrimination from existence by asking YOU to report on your fellow students. (Even though often UCSD is often the biggest offender, for example: HDH serving food which could be perceived as racist for Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Black history month)

This email was sent out minutes ago…

From: “Chancellor Fox”
Date: February 1, 2011 12:02:31 PM PST
To: “UCSD All Academics and Staff”
Subject: Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination

University of California, San Diego

February 1, 2011


SUBJECT: Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination

I am pleased to announce that the Office of Sexual Harassment Prevention and Policy has agreed to take on the role of a centralized bias reporting office, effective February 1, 2011. The new office, the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD), is intended to supplement existing systems to respond to complaints about bias, discrimination or harassment, to coordinate resources, and to provide a central point of contact for faculty, students or staff. It will be responsible for the following:

* Providing a place where any member of the University community can submit a complaint of alleged bias, harassment or discrimination;

* Working with complainants, either directly or by referring them to other UC San Diego offices, to resolve complaints informally; and

* Conducting fair and impartial formal investigations if informal resolution efforts are unsuccessful.

OPHD will continue to oversee UC San Diego’s responsibilities for addressing complaints of sexual harassment, and will also provide a place where students and faculty can bring alleged complaints of other types of discrimination or harassment. It will work collaboratively with Equal Opportunity/Staff Affirmative Action in responding to staff complaints of discrimination and in providing training on these important issues. OPHD will also work with the Intergroup Relations Program and many other UC San Diego offices that play important roles in addressing bias and discrimination.

You may contact OPHD at (858) 534-8298 or via email at

You may also visit the website at OPHD will also host UC San Diego’s online bias reporting website,

The University’s Nondiscrimination Policies represent a fundamental commitment to equal opportunity that the University must rigorously enforce. An office focused on resolving complaints of bias, harassment or discrimination will help us both fulfill our policy obligations and foster a safe, tolerant and respectful campus climate.

Marye Anne Fox

Sign Petition for Ronald Reagan Memorial Bridge in San Diego

Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan.

Image via Wikipedia

In conjunction with Reagan’s Centennial birthday celebration, it is imperative to honor the greatest president in modern history with a namesake bridge.

Please spread the word to friends, sign the petition, and vouch for a Reagan bridge in San Diego. Imagine if this succeeds in commie California!

One of our former editors of the California Review, Vince Vasquez, is spearheading  the Ronald Reagan Memorial  Bridge Project. Sign the petition here.

Visit the website in order to find out more about the project. Contact Vince if you have any further questions.