It’s incredible how too much involvement in the election has put me into political hibernation. Although interning at a Victory office put me in closer quarters with candidates and their campaigns, and while this certainly helped me form strong opinions that guided my votes, I was far too tired to write an essay about it when I got home each night. I grew quiet and complacent over the last few months, so much so that I didn’t even notice my own sort of indifference.
But at 7:45am this Thursday, November 5th, 2010, I was rudely awakened from my intellectual slumber when the DJs on country radio told me that San Francisco had voted to ban Happy Meals. I was livid.
I don’t even like McDonald’s. I don’t remember the last time I set foot into a McDonald’s. It is not because of my secret affinity for McNuggets or McFlurries or McGrease that I grew so enraged as the report continued, but rather the way no one thought it was a big deal.
The government has literally begun telling us what we can and cannot eat, and no one cares. We used to use the “food choice” example as a ridiculous hyperbole of potential government control, but here it is, real and alive and being implemented in what I’m sure is just the first of many US cities. The DJs and their guest callers alike seemed to think it was great that the city was stepping in on behalf of our children, and it was about time someone called out the fast food industry on the criminal unhealthiness of their food for kids, and how noble of them to be watching out for the welfare of the youth of America.
Oh, but see, the last time I checked, all of that was supposed to be a parent’s job. If the government has to jump in and slap French fries out of your kid’s fat hand, there are probably some deeper parenting problems you need to deal with, and it’s time for some personal responsibility. Is there absolutely no accountability in the world anymore? And since when does the government have any right to infringe this heavily upon private industry? And it’s not as though we’re being mislead. Fast food moguls aren’t concocting magic fatty sodium juices to inject into apples and sell as organic produce that will stealthily clog our arteries. Consumers are perfectly aware that the food is not particularly good for them. It has been incredibly well publicized. But they’re choosing to eat it anyway, and why theirs may not be a lifestyle the legislators of San Francisco look too fondly upon, they have every right to live it.
The law states that any meal to be served with a toy must not have more than 600 calories, 640 milligrams of sodium, and no more than 35% of its calories may come from fat. The meal must also include at least half a cup of fruit or three quarters of a cup of vegetables.
I’m not disagreeing that kids should eat healthier food, but it’s not the government’s job to make them do so. And frankly, I’m not entirely convinced that some of the public school lunches I had as a kid would have met these standards, and those were government-funded. The issue here is bigger than Happy Meals, it’s about our freedom of choice, our right to live how we want to, and the government staying out of it. What I choose to feed myself is a pretty intimate decision, and, thanks but no thanks, I don’t want to live in such close quarters with my public officials.
Hey government! Get out of my drive-thru. You’re holding up the line.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Life Under Oath
Between packing, moving, summer classes, working, and an inability to overcome the intellectual lethargy that often accompanies the transition into warmer weather, I have regrettably allowed my presidential campaign to sit dormant on the back burner of my life. While 2040 seems far off, I understand the importance of diligence and fortitude, and I want to do my best to develop a flawless record of such traits for a solid thirty years. That said, I’m reviving my efforts and forging on starting today.
As sure as I am that I want to be President, I must admit that, even as recently as a few days ago, I have expressed doubts about my qualifications. I do not doubt my abilities as a leader or decision maker or executive; I feel I understand a great deal about the foundational principles of our country, the functions of national and local economies, basic maintenance of our foreign relations, and plain old human nature. I have developed a steady balance between those issues on which my views are strong and unchanging and those on which I am willing to be more lithe. My reasoning is sound. While I do not claim to know all, I assert that I have established a few simple rules of thumb that may be applied to any controversies I may face in the future, and I am eager to attain ever-progressing knowledge in the next three decades until my skills are most tryingly tested.
It is not my ability to thrive in the office of President that I doubt. But the other day, in discussing my post-graduate future with a few family members, I jested, “I don’t know if I’m dishonest enough to be a politician.”
A joke at the time, my own words later crawled under my skin and made me go clammy.
My honesty could truly be my downfall. I not only have trouble lying, I sometimes have trouble with simple omissions of just parts of the truth. Starting my political involvement on such a seemingly innocent level, speaking of just collegiate organizations, I have already found myself put into situations where dishonesty is made out to be the best policy. A telephone conversation will end with, “make sure you don’t tell anyone else I told you this,” and I suddenly feel dirty. Phrases like, “this stays between us,” whispered in secret after everyone else has left a meeting make me queasy. Schemes of mutiny and two-facedness creep black into my writhing conscience. And we’re just a bunch of students! How am I ever to combat the moral nausea of higher planes?
I pride myself on openness, and I seldom do things that I need to worry about hiding. Sure, I’ve got a blemish or two; it would be a most disappointing waste of the college experience if I didn’t. But there’s nothing devastating, and there’s nothing I wouldn’t fess up to my parents if they asked (just maybe not my grandparents). I lead a fairly pure lifestyle. My closet has neither skeletons nor homosexuality nor prostitutes nor cocaine in it, unlike many a politician’s closet has. And as great as it’ll be to not need to worry about my opponents digging up my dirt and slandering my name, has my life been too pure to now try and dive into the depths of the professional political underbelly?
Are politicians all crooked because that’s what it takes?
We say we want honesty. We’re sick of those darn politicians lying and cheating and stealing, and we’re fed up with all them Washington bureaucrats being downright criminals. We’re fixin’ to elect some good Christian folk next time, hear?
But clearly morality was the least of our priorities circa 2008.
As depressing a statement as it is about our populace, the slimy politicians keep winning because they’re better at duping us. Their substandard bar between right and wrong makes it easier to fund huge campaigns, finagle big endorsements, and essentially buy votes. They’ve got sweaty, hairy lackeys wringing their hands and chuckling maniacally in dark alleys all over the place, willing to bend rules and abuse loopholes at every opportunity. The honest guy finds himself trailing because he’s less cutthroat, less willing to throw person after person under bus after bus. Our system lends itself to handing victory to the shady, and unless this tendency changes, I’m screwed.
The best way to fix this would be if the whole of the voting American people would start doing their own research, getting more involved in their own political communities, and actively support the candidate they find to have the most integrity. This sort of drastic change, however, is about as likely as seeing Janet Reno on the cover of next month’s Playboy.
Sorry for the mental image I just gave you.
If someone as politically tuned-in as I try to be still finds herself distracted from current events for months at a time by sunshine, summertime, and shindigs, the likelihood of the average voter putting forth the effort to delve into a candidate’s past ethics is close to zip. So what’s our biggest hope for helping out the nice, truthful underdog? How could we possibly bleach the filth in Washington? How do we set up a political environment in which I could have any smidgeon of a chance to be President?
I suggest we begin with term limits. We’ve got career politicians who make their secret alliances with special interest groups and serve for decades, morality unchecked. Politicians are supposed to get in, fix what they promised to fix, and get out. Enticed to reign for as long as they want to, ushered in election after election per the ease of incumbency, Congressional seats become more like dynasties. And those in these powerful positions are unlikely to initiate a change in term policy because they alone are the beneficiaries. But there is a movement in the works; it is coming from the grassroots, gaining momentum, and popping up on ballots nationwide. This is our first step toward finally honoring honesty in politics, something we haven’t done once in my memory.
What a sad suggestion it is for our system that I doubted myself because of an overgrown candor. As voters, we should set the ethical standards for our representatives, and enforce the idea that they answer to us for their indiscretions. A starry-eyed kid with Oval Office dreams shouldn’t need to train himself to lie effectively in his concerted efforts upward; instead, we must better our bleak system and make way for a new breed of politician: the kind that has as of yet been unelectable, the sort that doesn’t pretend to be confused by what the meaning of “is” is, the variety whose appointments don’t all have to resign because of uncovered problems with the law, the type that swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and does so even outside his own criminal proceedings! That’s the kind of politician I want to elect, and that’s the kind of politician I’m going to be.
I’m Kelly Cole, and I approve this message.
As sure as I am that I want to be President, I must admit that, even as recently as a few days ago, I have expressed doubts about my qualifications. I do not doubt my abilities as a leader or decision maker or executive; I feel I understand a great deal about the foundational principles of our country, the functions of national and local economies, basic maintenance of our foreign relations, and plain old human nature. I have developed a steady balance between those issues on which my views are strong and unchanging and those on which I am willing to be more lithe. My reasoning is sound. While I do not claim to know all, I assert that I have established a few simple rules of thumb that may be applied to any controversies I may face in the future, and I am eager to attain ever-progressing knowledge in the next three decades until my skills are most tryingly tested.
It is not my ability to thrive in the office of President that I doubt. But the other day, in discussing my post-graduate future with a few family members, I jested, “I don’t know if I’m dishonest enough to be a politician.”
A joke at the time, my own words later crawled under my skin and made me go clammy.
My honesty could truly be my downfall. I not only have trouble lying, I sometimes have trouble with simple omissions of just parts of the truth. Starting my political involvement on such a seemingly innocent level, speaking of just collegiate organizations, I have already found myself put into situations where dishonesty is made out to be the best policy. A telephone conversation will end with, “make sure you don’t tell anyone else I told you this,” and I suddenly feel dirty. Phrases like, “this stays between us,” whispered in secret after everyone else has left a meeting make me queasy. Schemes of mutiny and two-facedness creep black into my writhing conscience. And we’re just a bunch of students! How am I ever to combat the moral nausea of higher planes?
I pride myself on openness, and I seldom do things that I need to worry about hiding. Sure, I’ve got a blemish or two; it would be a most disappointing waste of the college experience if I didn’t. But there’s nothing devastating, and there’s nothing I wouldn’t fess up to my parents if they asked (just maybe not my grandparents). I lead a fairly pure lifestyle. My closet has neither skeletons nor homosexuality nor prostitutes nor cocaine in it, unlike many a politician’s closet has. And as great as it’ll be to not need to worry about my opponents digging up my dirt and slandering my name, has my life been too pure to now try and dive into the depths of the professional political underbelly?
Are politicians all crooked because that’s what it takes?
We say we want honesty. We’re sick of those darn politicians lying and cheating and stealing, and we’re fed up with all them Washington bureaucrats being downright criminals. We’re fixin’ to elect some good Christian folk next time, hear?
But clearly morality was the least of our priorities circa 2008.
As depressing a statement as it is about our populace, the slimy politicians keep winning because they’re better at duping us. Their substandard bar between right and wrong makes it easier to fund huge campaigns, finagle big endorsements, and essentially buy votes. They’ve got sweaty, hairy lackeys wringing their hands and chuckling maniacally in dark alleys all over the place, willing to bend rules and abuse loopholes at every opportunity. The honest guy finds himself trailing because he’s less cutthroat, less willing to throw person after person under bus after bus. Our system lends itself to handing victory to the shady, and unless this tendency changes, I’m screwed.
The best way to fix this would be if the whole of the voting American people would start doing their own research, getting more involved in their own political communities, and actively support the candidate they find to have the most integrity. This sort of drastic change, however, is about as likely as seeing Janet Reno on the cover of next month’s Playboy.
Sorry for the mental image I just gave you.
If someone as politically tuned-in as I try to be still finds herself distracted from current events for months at a time by sunshine, summertime, and shindigs, the likelihood of the average voter putting forth the effort to delve into a candidate’s past ethics is close to zip. So what’s our biggest hope for helping out the nice, truthful underdog? How could we possibly bleach the filth in Washington? How do we set up a political environment in which I could have any smidgeon of a chance to be President?
I suggest we begin with term limits. We’ve got career politicians who make their secret alliances with special interest groups and serve for decades, morality unchecked. Politicians are supposed to get in, fix what they promised to fix, and get out. Enticed to reign for as long as they want to, ushered in election after election per the ease of incumbency, Congressional seats become more like dynasties. And those in these powerful positions are unlikely to initiate a change in term policy because they alone are the beneficiaries. But there is a movement in the works; it is coming from the grassroots, gaining momentum, and popping up on ballots nationwide. This is our first step toward finally honoring honesty in politics, something we haven’t done once in my memory.
What a sad suggestion it is for our system that I doubted myself because of an overgrown candor. As voters, we should set the ethical standards for our representatives, and enforce the idea that they answer to us for their indiscretions. A starry-eyed kid with Oval Office dreams shouldn’t need to train himself to lie effectively in his concerted efforts upward; instead, we must better our bleak system and make way for a new breed of politician: the kind that has as of yet been unelectable, the sort that doesn’t pretend to be confused by what the meaning of “is” is, the variety whose appointments don’t all have to resign because of uncovered problems with the law, the type that swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and does so even outside his own criminal proceedings! That’s the kind of politician I want to elect, and that’s the kind of politician I’m going to be.
I’m Kelly Cole, and I approve this message.
Monday, March 29, 2010
A Really, Really Bad Case of the Mondays
I woke up to a legislatively post-apocalyptic America last Monday morning. The boundaries of federal jurisdiction as I knew them had dissolved and were quickly redrawn to include my liver, lungs, and spleen. Our President, a man working under oath to uphold our foundational documents, had effectively bitch-slapped the Constitution with his boastfully scrolled John Hancock atop the 2,700-page health care reform bill, a moment the lovely Nancy “Comically-Huge-Gavel” Pelosi boldly dubbed one of the nation’s “most historic.” A jolly photograph of the scene at the bill’s signing filled my internet homepage, and I couldn’t help but sense how much the American flag in the background wanted to vomit. Reports surfaced of seismic activity at Arlington as all the dead Presidents and fallen heroes turned over in their graves. The cross-section of citizens who both a) pay income tax and b) have brains collectively groaned, and, despite the incredible volume, the agitation fell on deaf ears in Washington.
It was the dawning of a new era in the ol’ US of A, a phrase usually said with hope and doe-eyes. But this new era is horrifying. My doe-eyes are bleeding. Never has a Congressional vote been had with such bald-faced corruption and coercion as this. The final seven votes that were responsible for the bill’s victory were cast purely out of bribery per unsubstantiated Executive Order, and I cannot fathom the outrage of their constituents. The moral malleability of our representatives is disgusting; in this place and time, it has singlehandedly caused the unraveling of the red, white, and blue tapestry that is liberty. While those in the high ranks of Washington bureaucracy have been increasingly shady over the past few decades, I rank the current hoard at the utmost pinnacle of crookedness, and I pray that the hundreds of lawsuits currently being cooked up by the masses of enraged civilians like me effectually repeal the snot out of this disgraceful piece of over-arching, anti-American legislation.
That said, I don’t really want to talk about health care right now. I have already made plain exactly what I think we should do to reform an admittedly flawed insurance system, and I have prattled at length about why the Obamacare plan is so inescapably god awful. While that horse is still very much alive, I don’t want to beat it anymore. It borders on metaphorical animal cruelty, and PETA already hates Republicans enough, even if just in rhetoric. So instead, I’m going to talk about the attitude with which this abomination was rammed through and how similar acts of blatant arrogance spewing out of our Commander in Chief at rates that are simultaneously impressive and revolting have caused America’s reputation and global fortitude to crumble around our increasingly bony ankles.
If there was anything that put some sweet in my bitter upon seeing the results of the final vote, it was the unity of the Republican Party in its unfaltering opposition to the bill. With all the under-the-table deals that happened leading up to the decision, I was happy to see that not one single Representative from our side of the aisle succumbed to the Dem’s mob-like coercion. Even a couple dozen Democrats abandoned party politics and voted, as they all should have, in accord with their people’s will. That left just 219 socialists in sheep’s clothing responsible for passage. But, boy, were they self-satisfied. Even after protests in the streets grew so impassioned that armored cars and police escorts were required for these Congressmen to escape from the Capitol, they had the audacity to claim that they had done “the will of the people.” Obama spoke the next day and said, “we listened to America.”
Um, hi, you’re delusional. Pollsters from all over the ideological spectrum have been unable to collect any data landing at less than a 67% disapproval rating of the bill and the way it was dealt with.
Is this or is this not still a representative rather than a dictatorial system of government? If we’ve changed structures, I missed the memo. And now it looks like an individual mandate is the newly required cover sheet for all my TPS reports, and my fifteen pieces of flair will have to include an increase in deficit, higher taxation, and less personal choice. I refuse to be governed by Bill Lumbergh!
Red Swingline aside, this is serious stuff. Even if I were a flaming liberal who loved Barack’s bill and frequented Lilith Fair and sported an I Heart Commies t-shirt, I would still have to acknowledge that the tactics of our politicians over the past few months in regards to this reform have been questionable at best. Their refusal to compromise with any of the Right’s proposed amendments or revisions demonstrates an elitism that denies the purpose of the American structure. The “we know what’s best for you” smugness was palpably patronizing, and I am truly insulted by both the legislation and its creators. What’s worse is that this attitude is transferring to other aspects of political interactions, some seriously jeopardizing our standings with our foreign allies.
Nothing about Barack Obama’s recent meeting with Israeli minister Benjamin Netanyahu went well. As our closest, strongest, and really only ally in the Middle East, our relationship with Israel deserves to be handled with great care. While Obama’s conversations with other Middle Eastern leaders have been borderline brotherly, the incredible disrespect he showed for Netanyahu, not only on a political level but in terms of basic human decency, indicated a personal hatred for and an unharnessed eagerness to break ties with Israel. It seemed to be a purposeful destruction of American loyalties teetering on treasonous.
If you haven’t heard the well-quieted reports, here’s what happened: Netanyahu came for a visit. Obama denied all opportunities for photo ops, then got up and walked out mid-meeting, simply saying, “let me know if there is anything new.” And that was that. An absolute snub.
I knew from the beginning that having such an outrageously megalomaniacal President would come with problems, but I never dreamed they’d be this vast and immediate. With forced passage of the health care bill, dissolving alliances all over the place, and a baffling unawareness of what the people actually want, it isn’t too farfetched to accuse the man of deliberately ruining our nation. Rather than be so bold, I will simply accuse him of trying to cripple the American people into absolute, irreversible dependence on the government.
On second thought, maybe both of those accusations are the same. My bad.
So whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, I think it’s high time to take an objective look at just how we’re being governed. We the People are no longer in charge, and we’re slipping into a dangerous zone of minoritarianism. The beauty of the United States is our balance of powers, our checks and balances, our minimal but effective bureaucracy whose intent is to dilute and tailor prior to drastic policy changes; this system fails when abused. The same man who preached transparency and bipartisanship for the whole of his campaign has shown blatant disregard for both and is leading the march for a complete reversal of our hard-earned American exceptionalism. Between the forcefulness of his party in their overly-aggressive legislation and Obama’s own shameful behavior toward world leaders, we will be dangling by fingernails as we await the 2010 election season.
Cling with me.
It was the dawning of a new era in the ol’ US of A, a phrase usually said with hope and doe-eyes. But this new era is horrifying. My doe-eyes are bleeding. Never has a Congressional vote been had with such bald-faced corruption and coercion as this. The final seven votes that were responsible for the bill’s victory were cast purely out of bribery per unsubstantiated Executive Order, and I cannot fathom the outrage of their constituents. The moral malleability of our representatives is disgusting; in this place and time, it has singlehandedly caused the unraveling of the red, white, and blue tapestry that is liberty. While those in the high ranks of Washington bureaucracy have been increasingly shady over the past few decades, I rank the current hoard at the utmost pinnacle of crookedness, and I pray that the hundreds of lawsuits currently being cooked up by the masses of enraged civilians like me effectually repeal the snot out of this disgraceful piece of over-arching, anti-American legislation.
That said, I don’t really want to talk about health care right now. I have already made plain exactly what I think we should do to reform an admittedly flawed insurance system, and I have prattled at length about why the Obamacare plan is so inescapably god awful. While that horse is still very much alive, I don’t want to beat it anymore. It borders on metaphorical animal cruelty, and PETA already hates Republicans enough, even if just in rhetoric. So instead, I’m going to talk about the attitude with which this abomination was rammed through and how similar acts of blatant arrogance spewing out of our Commander in Chief at rates that are simultaneously impressive and revolting have caused America’s reputation and global fortitude to crumble around our increasingly bony ankles.
If there was anything that put some sweet in my bitter upon seeing the results of the final vote, it was the unity of the Republican Party in its unfaltering opposition to the bill. With all the under-the-table deals that happened leading up to the decision, I was happy to see that not one single Representative from our side of the aisle succumbed to the Dem’s mob-like coercion. Even a couple dozen Democrats abandoned party politics and voted, as they all should have, in accord with their people’s will. That left just 219 socialists in sheep’s clothing responsible for passage. But, boy, were they self-satisfied. Even after protests in the streets grew so impassioned that armored cars and police escorts were required for these Congressmen to escape from the Capitol, they had the audacity to claim that they had done “the will of the people.” Obama spoke the next day and said, “we listened to America.”
Um, hi, you’re delusional. Pollsters from all over the ideological spectrum have been unable to collect any data landing at less than a 67% disapproval rating of the bill and the way it was dealt with.
Is this or is this not still a representative rather than a dictatorial system of government? If we’ve changed structures, I missed the memo. And now it looks like an individual mandate is the newly required cover sheet for all my TPS reports, and my fifteen pieces of flair will have to include an increase in deficit, higher taxation, and less personal choice. I refuse to be governed by Bill Lumbergh!
Red Swingline aside, this is serious stuff. Even if I were a flaming liberal who loved Barack’s bill and frequented Lilith Fair and sported an I Heart Commies t-shirt, I would still have to acknowledge that the tactics of our politicians over the past few months in regards to this reform have been questionable at best. Their refusal to compromise with any of the Right’s proposed amendments or revisions demonstrates an elitism that denies the purpose of the American structure. The “we know what’s best for you” smugness was palpably patronizing, and I am truly insulted by both the legislation and its creators. What’s worse is that this attitude is transferring to other aspects of political interactions, some seriously jeopardizing our standings with our foreign allies.
Nothing about Barack Obama’s recent meeting with Israeli minister Benjamin Netanyahu went well. As our closest, strongest, and really only ally in the Middle East, our relationship with Israel deserves to be handled with great care. While Obama’s conversations with other Middle Eastern leaders have been borderline brotherly, the incredible disrespect he showed for Netanyahu, not only on a political level but in terms of basic human decency, indicated a personal hatred for and an unharnessed eagerness to break ties with Israel. It seemed to be a purposeful destruction of American loyalties teetering on treasonous.
If you haven’t heard the well-quieted reports, here’s what happened: Netanyahu came for a visit. Obama denied all opportunities for photo ops, then got up and walked out mid-meeting, simply saying, “let me know if there is anything new.” And that was that. An absolute snub.
I knew from the beginning that having such an outrageously megalomaniacal President would come with problems, but I never dreamed they’d be this vast and immediate. With forced passage of the health care bill, dissolving alliances all over the place, and a baffling unawareness of what the people actually want, it isn’t too farfetched to accuse the man of deliberately ruining our nation. Rather than be so bold, I will simply accuse him of trying to cripple the American people into absolute, irreversible dependence on the government.
On second thought, maybe both of those accusations are the same. My bad.
So whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, I think it’s high time to take an objective look at just how we’re being governed. We the People are no longer in charge, and we’re slipping into a dangerous zone of minoritarianism. The beauty of the United States is our balance of powers, our checks and balances, our minimal but effective bureaucracy whose intent is to dilute and tailor prior to drastic policy changes; this system fails when abused. The same man who preached transparency and bipartisanship for the whole of his campaign has shown blatant disregard for both and is leading the march for a complete reversal of our hard-earned American exceptionalism. Between the forcefulness of his party in their overly-aggressive legislation and Obama’s own shameful behavior toward world leaders, we will be dangling by fingernails as we await the 2010 election season.
Cling with me.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
CPAC: Concerned Plea for American Conservatism
I deviate shortly from the campaign trail to discuss my reactions to CPAC. Enjoy:
While I thoroughly enjoyed my trip to our nation’s capitol for the Conservative Political Action Conference over the weekend, I am finding that my in-flight, post-event reflection is being had with a much different attitude than I anticipated. I expected to be fired up, ignited by impassioned speakers of like minds, and inspired to take action for a massive Republican movement as soon as I stepped back on campus. I was going to feel an overwhelming sense of party unity, and have eliminated all fears I’d had for the future with a new knowledge of pending revolution. This weekend was supposed to have been a go-team, hell yeah, conservative pride rally where we looked forward with a collective focus and unfaltering determination. This weekend was supposed to be our Woodstock.
Instead, CPAC brought into view the flashing caution lights of a matter of grave concern. There is an ever-spreading rift within our party, and if we continue to fail to address it, we will collapse.
Almost one quarter of the 10,000 conference attendees participated in a straw poll, the results of which were announced upon the weekend’s adjournment. Just over half of the people there fell into the 18-25 age group. This considered, Ron Paul won the “who should run in 2012” poll by a ten-point margin. When this was announced, those who had voted for him cheered wildly, but, instead of conceding the results respectfully, the other, older half of the audience booed with childish malice. I was stunned.
I understand that Ron Paul has some unconventional ideas, many of which I myself have yet to get wholeheartedly onboard with. But he and his platform have accumulated a dedicated following of conservative youth the likes of which no other Republican candidate has seen in recent history. Ron Paul has young people charged with the same kind of fervor that allegedly won Barack Obama the 2008 election. For the first time in decades, there is a significant student movement right of center, and our party should be excited about it, embracing and supporting it so as to not let it burn out.
But for some reason, the party elders have failed to acknowledge the importance of my generation. Their disgusting reaction to Paul’s well-earned poll victory indicated to me that the stubborn, neoconservative, good ol’ boys of the GOP have learned nothing from the major political setbacks of the past few years. They are forging onward with closed eyes and plugged ears, unable and unwilling to regard any fault in their increasingly hypocritical, archaic rhetoric.
This conference was an opportunity for the frustrated conservative youth of America, thus far ignored by the whole of our party, to illuminate our goals for the future, and in a combination of provocative poll results, strategically-placed crowd reactions, and liberty-based student groups cropping up all over the place, I think we did so quite effectively. But instead of pausing to engage in dialogue with us in an attempt to better understand, the elders just booed.
The Republican Party has had trouble maintaining its youth of late, and it doesn’t even seem to care. We have a strong base of Millenials ripe for harvest, but our numbers are rapidly dwindling. With liberal indoctrination undermining our public education system and leftist agenda puppeteering a hoard of ubiquitous media lackeys all over our plastic culture, the Republican Party needs to be clinging for dear life onto the younger crowd it has, not further alienating us by denying our hopeful aspirations of pure, unadulterated liberty under the United States Constitution.
So when we chant “End the Fed!” on repeat, do not accuse us of being radicals, but open your eyes to the manifestation of an actual plan rooted in the fiscal conservatism you’ve always preached but failed to practice all along. When we openly welcome GOProud to co-sponsor our convention and audibly disapprove of an anti-gay speaker who amplified his homophobic epithets to the crowd awaiting Paul’s address, do not assume that we have lost all morality or sense of upright family values; rather, we have just found federally mandated marriage laws to be horribly unconstitutional and refuse to deny any American, regardless of sexual preference, the liberty God granted them. When we conjecture about a noninterventionist foreign policy, listen! We do not do so because of a peace-loving hippie mentality, but because of a philosophical continuity between our domestic policy and international affairs.
If we mean to have a strong future as Republicans, we have got to open up to this new wave of conservatism. 2008 was a major blow not only to our party, but to our country, and 2010 presents an incredible opportunity for us to get back on track. But we will make no progress and gain back no lost ground if, instead of admitting to our past wrongs, we continue to nominate the John McCains of the GOP. Our nation is in trouble, and if this bickering between our young and old does not cease and desist immediately, we are paving the way for liberals to maneuver an easy takeover of all the things that make America great.
Do not fear the youth movement. I am not yet endorsing a Ron Paul presidential campaign, mostly because I think the guy might kick the bucket soon, but that does not mean I don’t endorse the liberty movement he has so effectively driven. Our passion is not fading. Our tenacity is not crumbling. Our salivation over the decadent helping of freedom within our nation’s grasp is not drying out, and the Republican who wishes to further his party and usher in the next generation of political heroes needs to hand us the fork, not strap bibs on us and wait for the hunger to subside. It won’t. We are not going away.
I know that there is an invincible arrogance present in most youth, and my message here does little to deviate from that stereotype. For that, I apologize. But for the message itself, I have no remorse. I am not expecting an instant, complete, mass overhaul of the Republican philosophy; all I ask is to be heard and considered. I speak on behalf of my generation, my party, and my nation: divided, we cannot stand.
While I thoroughly enjoyed my trip to our nation’s capitol for the Conservative Political Action Conference over the weekend, I am finding that my in-flight, post-event reflection is being had with a much different attitude than I anticipated. I expected to be fired up, ignited by impassioned speakers of like minds, and inspired to take action for a massive Republican movement as soon as I stepped back on campus. I was going to feel an overwhelming sense of party unity, and have eliminated all fears I’d had for the future with a new knowledge of pending revolution. This weekend was supposed to have been a go-team, hell yeah, conservative pride rally where we looked forward with a collective focus and unfaltering determination. This weekend was supposed to be our Woodstock.
Instead, CPAC brought into view the flashing caution lights of a matter of grave concern. There is an ever-spreading rift within our party, and if we continue to fail to address it, we will collapse.
Almost one quarter of the 10,000 conference attendees participated in a straw poll, the results of which were announced upon the weekend’s adjournment. Just over half of the people there fell into the 18-25 age group. This considered, Ron Paul won the “who should run in 2012” poll by a ten-point margin. When this was announced, those who had voted for him cheered wildly, but, instead of conceding the results respectfully, the other, older half of the audience booed with childish malice. I was stunned.
I understand that Ron Paul has some unconventional ideas, many of which I myself have yet to get wholeheartedly onboard with. But he and his platform have accumulated a dedicated following of conservative youth the likes of which no other Republican candidate has seen in recent history. Ron Paul has young people charged with the same kind of fervor that allegedly won Barack Obama the 2008 election. For the first time in decades, there is a significant student movement right of center, and our party should be excited about it, embracing and supporting it so as to not let it burn out.
But for some reason, the party elders have failed to acknowledge the importance of my generation. Their disgusting reaction to Paul’s well-earned poll victory indicated to me that the stubborn, neoconservative, good ol’ boys of the GOP have learned nothing from the major political setbacks of the past few years. They are forging onward with closed eyes and plugged ears, unable and unwilling to regard any fault in their increasingly hypocritical, archaic rhetoric.
This conference was an opportunity for the frustrated conservative youth of America, thus far ignored by the whole of our party, to illuminate our goals for the future, and in a combination of provocative poll results, strategically-placed crowd reactions, and liberty-based student groups cropping up all over the place, I think we did so quite effectively. But instead of pausing to engage in dialogue with us in an attempt to better understand, the elders just booed.
The Republican Party has had trouble maintaining its youth of late, and it doesn’t even seem to care. We have a strong base of Millenials ripe for harvest, but our numbers are rapidly dwindling. With liberal indoctrination undermining our public education system and leftist agenda puppeteering a hoard of ubiquitous media lackeys all over our plastic culture, the Republican Party needs to be clinging for dear life onto the younger crowd it has, not further alienating us by denying our hopeful aspirations of pure, unadulterated liberty under the United States Constitution.
So when we chant “End the Fed!” on repeat, do not accuse us of being radicals, but open your eyes to the manifestation of an actual plan rooted in the fiscal conservatism you’ve always preached but failed to practice all along. When we openly welcome GOProud to co-sponsor our convention and audibly disapprove of an anti-gay speaker who amplified his homophobic epithets to the crowd awaiting Paul’s address, do not assume that we have lost all morality or sense of upright family values; rather, we have just found federally mandated marriage laws to be horribly unconstitutional and refuse to deny any American, regardless of sexual preference, the liberty God granted them. When we conjecture about a noninterventionist foreign policy, listen! We do not do so because of a peace-loving hippie mentality, but because of a philosophical continuity between our domestic policy and international affairs.
If we mean to have a strong future as Republicans, we have got to open up to this new wave of conservatism. 2008 was a major blow not only to our party, but to our country, and 2010 presents an incredible opportunity for us to get back on track. But we will make no progress and gain back no lost ground if, instead of admitting to our past wrongs, we continue to nominate the John McCains of the GOP. Our nation is in trouble, and if this bickering between our young and old does not cease and desist immediately, we are paving the way for liberals to maneuver an easy takeover of all the things that make America great.
Do not fear the youth movement. I am not yet endorsing a Ron Paul presidential campaign, mostly because I think the guy might kick the bucket soon, but that does not mean I don’t endorse the liberty movement he has so effectively driven. Our passion is not fading. Our tenacity is not crumbling. Our salivation over the decadent helping of freedom within our nation’s grasp is not drying out, and the Republican who wishes to further his party and usher in the next generation of political heroes needs to hand us the fork, not strap bibs on us and wait for the hunger to subside. It won’t. We are not going away.
I know that there is an invincible arrogance present in most youth, and my message here does little to deviate from that stereotype. For that, I apologize. But for the message itself, I have no remorse. I am not expecting an instant, complete, mass overhaul of the Republican philosophy; all I ask is to be heard and considered. I speak on behalf of my generation, my party, and my nation: divided, we cannot stand.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Gluttony: It's Bad for Your Health
A month of lackadaisical Christmas-breakery has left me renewed and revived for what I’m sure will be a strenuous presidential race. I have gotten the go-ahead from my Vice Presidential candidate, Catherine Herrell (D-Colorado) to run on whatever principles I see fit with little regard for the bipartisanship of our ticket, so long as my arguments are sound, which, by my objective judgment, they always are. So without much further ado, I embark upon my journey toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the strength and fortitude of my valiant predecessors, but with hope for 30-year stamina to carry me the distance.
I judge myself thus far a failure for having not yet touched upon the lengthy and heated process that has been the health care debate. While I have participated in a formal Republicans vs. Democrats forum on the issue, written a detailed email about my stance per request to a curious friend on the East coast, and had many an irate conversation on the subject with my equally impassioned mother, I have had difficulty formulating a clarifying essay covering not only my reasons for opposition to the pending Obama plan, but also my solutions for an admittedly flawed existing system. I feared it too ambitious, being that it’s such a large, complex idea. But now that I’m running for President, I have to aim for the balls-out assertiveness voters expect of such an office. Fear is no longer a viable cop-out. So here goes:
If we move forward as intended by Barack Obama in terms of health insurance reform, the United States economy will cease to exist as we know it, and all potential to regain and maximize the powerhouse status of the US marketplace will be lost. Call this an over-dramatization, but seeing as the health care industry represents a full one sixth of our financial livelihood in this country, its downfall would undoubtedly be really stinking dramatic.
But why is Obama’s plan so bad? Good question, Electing Public. There are truly infinite flaws in the bill’s now 2100 pages, but I break the core problems into four primary points:
First, it is a downright lie that the government will be able to maintain the proposed system without a ridiculous hike in our taxes. This cannot possible be “budget-neutral.” Other nations with public care have at minimum a 30% income tax, and most teeter on 50%. Further, no other nation in the world has ever attempted to support socialized health care AND a welfare state as vast as ours. Its expense would be astronomical. If we think health care is expensive for consumers now, imagine losing an entire half of your income for it. Does that sound like a more affordable option to you? Washington is able to fool us into thinking their programs aren’t costing us anything because we never see the money leaving our pockets. In truth, we’re paying through the nose for irresponsible legislation without our hard-earned dollars even passing through our hands first. This is no longer just taxation, but wage garnishment. What’s frightening is that the crippling financial effect on Americans due to this plan would likely lead to such pathetic dependence on the government that socializing health care would lead to socializing everything. When America turns wholly to socialism, the world market will fail.
Secondly, and interlaced with the problems raised by my first point, this plan runs counteractive to the core functionality of capitalism. If we offer up the health care industry to government hands, we lose our right to consumer choice over something as personal as our own bodies. As a population based in individuality, multiculturalism, and freedom, the government cannot and should not be expected to establish an overlay for health care that will satisfactorily cover each one of us. It is the price vs. quality competition between health care corporations that would, if left free of political interference, lower costs and provide policy options as diverse as the consumer base. It is through capitalism that American citizens will truly be best cared for.
Thirdly, universal health care clogs the medical system, drags down quality, and delays care. When we compare wait times for vital operations between, for example, the United States and socialized Canada, the average difference is 6 months. Canadians, whose health care policy Obama is trying to most closely emulate, are fleeing south of their border to benefit from our superior system. When an illness is life-threatening, waiting around at length for subpar care is not usually a great option, unless, of course, you’re some sort of near-death adrenaline junkie. In that case, by all means, move to Canada. I hear it’s wild. I, for one, would prefer to keep the US system freed up and functioning well so I can, you know, live better.
Fourth, last, and without question the most important point I have to make is this: this legislation is downright unconstitutional. Not only does the Constitution fail to grant the federal government any right to attempt to develop such an overarching system within the outline of enumerated powers, many of the bill’s mandates are in plain, bold violation of excessive powers the Constitution explicitly forbids. The portion of the bill threatening to charge the uninsured with civil or criminal offenses is light-years outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction, and has a look and feel of coercion that makes me a little uncomfortable. It’s like when your great-uncle has had too much to drink at the family reunion and starts to get a little handsy. Really, someone should have cut him off several drinks ago, but no one ever speaks up until he gets completely out of control. The difference, however, between awkward family gatherings and the US government is the Constitution, which seems, at this point, to be Uncle Sam’s only glint of sobriety. Democrats will try to stretch and abuse wide interpretations of the Constitution to better suit their questionable agendas, in this case calling to their aid the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause, but neither of these provides sufficient justification for the federal intrusiveness implicated by such a massive bill. It’s just too much.
Now, with the Democratic supermajority victoriously snatched from Pelosi’s witchlike claws by Massachusetts stud Scott Brown, the Obama administration and its incredible, shrinking flock of Finding-Nemo-like seagulls are shrieking about the potential loss of health care reform forever. But maybe Barack should’ve titled his book, “The Audacity of Thinking No One Else Has Any Ideas that Could Possibly Be Better than Mine.” We Republicans are not averse to change. We understand and acknowledge the dire need for reform of our health care system and want to fix things, but in a much different way.
My approach is less tangible than the liberal reform and therefore may read as ineffectual. Instead of injecting the disgustingly addictive substance that is government assistance into the veins of perfectly capable Americans, I would like to wean. We need to gradually eliminate the existing stranglehold of government regulation on medicine that is, in truth, the reasons costs skyrocketed in the first place. Health care was not unaffordable until 1965 when Medicaid was first introduced; prices have not dipped since. To fix a problem, we must first identify its cause, and in this case and many others, that’s big government.
If elected in 2040, assuming a similar political landscape faces me, my plans for health care would be quite simple:
1) Immediately lift all regulations and limits, both in minimum and maximum costs, that the government currently imposes on health insurance companies and allow the free market to work its magic.
2) Make significant tort reforms. Limit the number of frivolous, unfounded malpractice lawsuits doctors face whose costs are directly reflected in the prices we consumers pay.
3) Create a medical environment in which holding a health insurance policy is highly optional. When a physician’s administrative fees and malpractice insurance costs are lowered, the bottom line costs for procedures goes down as well, and consumers would realistically be able to afford basic care out of pocket. This principle is already at work in the plastic surgery industry, where insurance isn’t typically a factor. People grab rhinoplasty and silicon for the same price as a strep test because of the extreme differences in bureaucratic nonsense involved. Let’s pay for just the care we need and the care we get, plain and simple.
4) Offer tax incentives to companies that take on the expensive liabilities pre-existing conditions and less-than-profitable clients.
5) Allow states, as many have already done quite successfully, to set up their own programs for low-income citizens and those with pre-existing conditions, but still keep the dirty Feds out. This is a state issue.
And that’s essentially it. I know governmental minimalism might seem like an ancient notion, seeing as it’s been a precious rarity in our recent history, but I’ve always been a firm believer in a classic, less-is-more mentality. Instead of Hope and Change, I think my 2040 platform would read something like, “Cole for President. She’ll stay the hell out of your business.”
I’m Kelly Cole, and I approve this message.
I judge myself thus far a failure for having not yet touched upon the lengthy and heated process that has been the health care debate. While I have participated in a formal Republicans vs. Democrats forum on the issue, written a detailed email about my stance per request to a curious friend on the East coast, and had many an irate conversation on the subject with my equally impassioned mother, I have had difficulty formulating a clarifying essay covering not only my reasons for opposition to the pending Obama plan, but also my solutions for an admittedly flawed existing system. I feared it too ambitious, being that it’s such a large, complex idea. But now that I’m running for President, I have to aim for the balls-out assertiveness voters expect of such an office. Fear is no longer a viable cop-out. So here goes:
If we move forward as intended by Barack Obama in terms of health insurance reform, the United States economy will cease to exist as we know it, and all potential to regain and maximize the powerhouse status of the US marketplace will be lost. Call this an over-dramatization, but seeing as the health care industry represents a full one sixth of our financial livelihood in this country, its downfall would undoubtedly be really stinking dramatic.
But why is Obama’s plan so bad? Good question, Electing Public. There are truly infinite flaws in the bill’s now 2100 pages, but I break the core problems into four primary points:
First, it is a downright lie that the government will be able to maintain the proposed system without a ridiculous hike in our taxes. This cannot possible be “budget-neutral.” Other nations with public care have at minimum a 30% income tax, and most teeter on 50%. Further, no other nation in the world has ever attempted to support socialized health care AND a welfare state as vast as ours. Its expense would be astronomical. If we think health care is expensive for consumers now, imagine losing an entire half of your income for it. Does that sound like a more affordable option to you? Washington is able to fool us into thinking their programs aren’t costing us anything because we never see the money leaving our pockets. In truth, we’re paying through the nose for irresponsible legislation without our hard-earned dollars even passing through our hands first. This is no longer just taxation, but wage garnishment. What’s frightening is that the crippling financial effect on Americans due to this plan would likely lead to such pathetic dependence on the government that socializing health care would lead to socializing everything. When America turns wholly to socialism, the world market will fail.
Secondly, and interlaced with the problems raised by my first point, this plan runs counteractive to the core functionality of capitalism. If we offer up the health care industry to government hands, we lose our right to consumer choice over something as personal as our own bodies. As a population based in individuality, multiculturalism, and freedom, the government cannot and should not be expected to establish an overlay for health care that will satisfactorily cover each one of us. It is the price vs. quality competition between health care corporations that would, if left free of political interference, lower costs and provide policy options as diverse as the consumer base. It is through capitalism that American citizens will truly be best cared for.
Thirdly, universal health care clogs the medical system, drags down quality, and delays care. When we compare wait times for vital operations between, for example, the United States and socialized Canada, the average difference is 6 months. Canadians, whose health care policy Obama is trying to most closely emulate, are fleeing south of their border to benefit from our superior system. When an illness is life-threatening, waiting around at length for subpar care is not usually a great option, unless, of course, you’re some sort of near-death adrenaline junkie. In that case, by all means, move to Canada. I hear it’s wild. I, for one, would prefer to keep the US system freed up and functioning well so I can, you know, live better.
Fourth, last, and without question the most important point I have to make is this: this legislation is downright unconstitutional. Not only does the Constitution fail to grant the federal government any right to attempt to develop such an overarching system within the outline of enumerated powers, many of the bill’s mandates are in plain, bold violation of excessive powers the Constitution explicitly forbids. The portion of the bill threatening to charge the uninsured with civil or criminal offenses is light-years outside of the federal government’s jurisdiction, and has a look and feel of coercion that makes me a little uncomfortable. It’s like when your great-uncle has had too much to drink at the family reunion and starts to get a little handsy. Really, someone should have cut him off several drinks ago, but no one ever speaks up until he gets completely out of control. The difference, however, between awkward family gatherings and the US government is the Constitution, which seems, at this point, to be Uncle Sam’s only glint of sobriety. Democrats will try to stretch and abuse wide interpretations of the Constitution to better suit their questionable agendas, in this case calling to their aid the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause, but neither of these provides sufficient justification for the federal intrusiveness implicated by such a massive bill. It’s just too much.
Now, with the Democratic supermajority victoriously snatched from Pelosi’s witchlike claws by Massachusetts stud Scott Brown, the Obama administration and its incredible, shrinking flock of Finding-Nemo-like seagulls are shrieking about the potential loss of health care reform forever. But maybe Barack should’ve titled his book, “The Audacity of Thinking No One Else Has Any Ideas that Could Possibly Be Better than Mine.” We Republicans are not averse to change. We understand and acknowledge the dire need for reform of our health care system and want to fix things, but in a much different way.
My approach is less tangible than the liberal reform and therefore may read as ineffectual. Instead of injecting the disgustingly addictive substance that is government assistance into the veins of perfectly capable Americans, I would like to wean. We need to gradually eliminate the existing stranglehold of government regulation on medicine that is, in truth, the reasons costs skyrocketed in the first place. Health care was not unaffordable until 1965 when Medicaid was first introduced; prices have not dipped since. To fix a problem, we must first identify its cause, and in this case and many others, that’s big government.
If elected in 2040, assuming a similar political landscape faces me, my plans for health care would be quite simple:
1) Immediately lift all regulations and limits, both in minimum and maximum costs, that the government currently imposes on health insurance companies and allow the free market to work its magic.
2) Make significant tort reforms. Limit the number of frivolous, unfounded malpractice lawsuits doctors face whose costs are directly reflected in the prices we consumers pay.
3) Create a medical environment in which holding a health insurance policy is highly optional. When a physician’s administrative fees and malpractice insurance costs are lowered, the bottom line costs for procedures goes down as well, and consumers would realistically be able to afford basic care out of pocket. This principle is already at work in the plastic surgery industry, where insurance isn’t typically a factor. People grab rhinoplasty and silicon for the same price as a strep test because of the extreme differences in bureaucratic nonsense involved. Let’s pay for just the care we need and the care we get, plain and simple.
4) Offer tax incentives to companies that take on the expensive liabilities pre-existing conditions and less-than-profitable clients.
5) Allow states, as many have already done quite successfully, to set up their own programs for low-income citizens and those with pre-existing conditions, but still keep the dirty Feds out. This is a state issue.
And that’s essentially it. I know governmental minimalism might seem like an ancient notion, seeing as it’s been a precious rarity in our recent history, but I’ve always been a firm believer in a classic, less-is-more mentality. Instead of Hope and Change, I think my 2040 platform would read something like, “Cole for President. She’ll stay the hell out of your business.”
I’m Kelly Cole, and I approve this message.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Here's the Kickoff
As enthused as I initially was about being enrolled in a course dedicated to the study of US Government, the semester failed to live up to my expectations. While I thought we’d be delving into the depths of the Constitution and weighing the effectiveness of Congress, the Electoral College, and the two-party system, instead we skimmed over the shallow surfaces of such clichéd issues as check and balances and how separation of powers works. Important? Sure. New and challenging? Absolutely not. And with my professor’s humorously thick German accent getting in the way of terms like “woter turnout” and “diwersity” and “vorking clahss,”my concentration has been anything but consistent.
On our final day of class, however, things got interesting. We finally got around to discussing (a term I use loosely) the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats. After a few common-sense contributions from students, Captain Germany decided to summarize: “Conserwatiwes vant to keep evwyting ze same, but Democwats are villing to twy new tings and make pvogvess.” Oh, is that the difference? Is that the pure, unbiased, professorially-determined difference? Silly me, I thought it was something else.
I understand what he was trying to say. Republicans are typically more “traditional,” and Democrats are typically more “progressive.” But that doesn’t exactly translate into what my professor said. Left to the interpretation of the politically vacant minds of my classmates, he might as well have said, “Democrats good, Republicans bad.” And such a bold statement after an entire semester of gradually less impartial teaching was the motivational icing on the catalyst cake behind this return from my writing hiatus. Spending all of my collegiate time surrounded by people who know nothing about Republicans but the slander spread by Women Studies banshees or disgruntled hippies on MSNBC has led me to realize that my greatest enemy is not the true liberal platform but the false conservative one. It is in my attempt to destroy the latter and rebuild that I take on the following mission:
Kelly Cole for President in 2040.
The core political issues have changed very little over the past few decades. The same programs that needed reformed thirty years ago still need reformed today, our role in foreign affairs is the same with just a few names changed, and the debate over fiscal policy has had cyclical results that show no sign of a permanent fix. Therefore I feel confident that if I develop my Presidential platform now, it will function effectively in 2040 as well. This will also give me the rare opportunity to clear up the mountains of misconceptions held about Republicans in a clear cut, issue-by-issue sort of way. And I vill do it visout a weediculous Cherman ahccent.
If you thought and were relieved that I was finished or had changed my philosophy or had surrendered from the fight for maintaining America, I am sorry to disappoint you. I apologize for remaining quiet long enough for you to develop such notions. I assure you it won’t happen again.
In weeks to come, I will make clearer than ever exactly what it is I believe, and if you feel me, I invite you to the polls on November 4th, 2040. RSVP any time you like.
On our final day of class, however, things got interesting. We finally got around to discussing (a term I use loosely) the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats. After a few common-sense contributions from students, Captain Germany decided to summarize: “Conserwatiwes vant to keep evwyting ze same, but Democwats are villing to twy new tings and make pvogvess.” Oh, is that the difference? Is that the pure, unbiased, professorially-determined difference? Silly me, I thought it was something else.
I understand what he was trying to say. Republicans are typically more “traditional,” and Democrats are typically more “progressive.” But that doesn’t exactly translate into what my professor said. Left to the interpretation of the politically vacant minds of my classmates, he might as well have said, “Democrats good, Republicans bad.” And such a bold statement after an entire semester of gradually less impartial teaching was the motivational icing on the catalyst cake behind this return from my writing hiatus. Spending all of my collegiate time surrounded by people who know nothing about Republicans but the slander spread by Women Studies banshees or disgruntled hippies on MSNBC has led me to realize that my greatest enemy is not the true liberal platform but the false conservative one. It is in my attempt to destroy the latter and rebuild that I take on the following mission:
Kelly Cole for President in 2040.
The core political issues have changed very little over the past few decades. The same programs that needed reformed thirty years ago still need reformed today, our role in foreign affairs is the same with just a few names changed, and the debate over fiscal policy has had cyclical results that show no sign of a permanent fix. Therefore I feel confident that if I develop my Presidential platform now, it will function effectively in 2040 as well. This will also give me the rare opportunity to clear up the mountains of misconceptions held about Republicans in a clear cut, issue-by-issue sort of way. And I vill do it visout a weediculous Cherman ahccent.
If you thought and were relieved that I was finished or had changed my philosophy or had surrendered from the fight for maintaining America, I am sorry to disappoint you. I apologize for remaining quiet long enough for you to develop such notions. I assure you it won’t happen again.
In weeks to come, I will make clearer than ever exactly what it is I believe, and if you feel me, I invite you to the polls on November 4th, 2040. RSVP any time you like.
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Stealth of Oppression
“Oppressors can tyrannize only when they have achieved a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.” – James Madison
I stumbled upon this statement a while ago when doing research for an essay and noticed immediately the words’ incredible timeliness. I analyzed the three listed requirements for a tyrannized people and saw that the current United States administration is stealthily pursuing them all. But whenever I shared this jarring discovery with someone, they didn’t seem to find is as frightening as I did. Here we’re talking about domination and despotism, and they’d just say, “yeah, weird coincidence.”
I understand that as Republicans we’re hesitant to use scare tactics because that’s typically a strategy reserved for the Left (i.e. global warming, economic recession), but when the fear is merited, I feel it is vital that we spread it to provoke movement. Allow me to speak plainly: Barack Obama is stealing and usurping our rights for the purpose of eventual tyranny. We have been forewarned by one of the most brilliant men in history, a true Founding Father, that certain things must align to make way for oppression, and we cannot ignore his immortal words as we begin to see these things come to pass.
His standing army will come in the form of the Obama Youth Camps. Not unlike the Hitler’s camps pre-Nazi Germany, Obama’s camps would rally highly impressionable youth into advocating radical social change via threats, pressure, and confrontations, all of which are tactics used by Obama’s old community organizing pal, Saul Alinsky. Plans for these camps contain such baffling doublespeak phrases as “universally voluntary,” and, of course, are to be paid for with our tax dollars to the effect of $500 billion annually. Perks for the youth include but are not limited to college grants, health care, child care, and a monthly stipend currently estimated at just under two grand. And because these camps are paid for and run by the government, their missions will all fall under the category of furthering the government’s agenda, whatever it may be. But considering these are the same sorts of camps used to enforce the rules of past dictators such as Mussolini and Mao, I’m going to go ahead and put my money on “less than favorable.”
These youth camps lead to tyranny by brainwashing generations so that only one extremity of political thought is ever in power. A mild case of this has already overtaken big chunks of the public school system, but these camps would perpetuate and fertilize the effects tenfold. If you think I’m exaggerating the framework or purpose of these programs, take a look at the propaganda footage from 1930s Germany, then compare blueprints between now and then. It’s absolutely terrifying.
In terms of Obama’s achievement of enslaving the press, I really don’t think there’s any dispute. I’ve already spoken at length about the Fairness Doctrine and Obama’s underlying goal to silence all conservative thought, and his new Diversity Committee is only helping him get it done faster. The mainstream media has been involved in a torrid love affair with the man since day one of campaign season and is quick to hide any of his wrongdoings. And every journalist knows that he who speaks out against Obamessiah is instantly shunned and discredited just like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. So they don’t. They are already slaves. The other ingredients for tyranny pie have yet to be sufficiently mixed, but this necessity of media enslavement is oven ready.
It was today as I shopped online in preparation for my very first firearm purchase that I was reminded of this James Madison quote. H.R. 45, recently introduced in the House by Blair Holt, is a big step toward Obama’s final tyrannical frontier, a disarmed populace. A large-print warning about the bill’s loom haunted the top of the Rocky Mountain Guns & Ammo website as I clicked through thumbnails of handguns, and upon further investigation I discovered that this particular piece of legislation revokes not just our second, but our fourth amendment rights as well. This law would essentially outlaw all guns, from 9mm to hunting rifles to shotguns, unless every gun owner adheres to a strict list of unreasonable rules and submits to random, unprompted search and seizure.
Upon purchasing the weapon, one would have to provide a driver’s license, social security number, and fingerprints. Alright, fine. But then things start getting out of hand. The purchaser would also have to agree to undergo physical and mental evaluations by law enforcement or government officials at any given moment, and would have to open his or her doors to random home inspection to ensure that the gun is being stored safely at all times. Failure to do so would result in one to five years in prison and the permanent revocation of firearm ownership rights. A quote directly from Obama’s transition website reads, “weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.”
I know that in recent years we’ve been programmed to fear and hate all guns and their owners. I even remember an episode of Boy Meets World I saw as an intellectually pliable youth that taught me how bad guns were, and I see the horror in my friends’ eyes whenever I mention my intended gun purchase. But the stories of guns saving rather than taking lives are seldom published even though they far outweigh the tragedies. We aren’t told about the Oklahoma pharmacists who take down violent robbers with the help of a pistol. We don’t hear about fathers who were able to defend their families against murderous stalkers because they kept a rifle by the door. No one reports on the valiant strangers who rescue mothers and children from carjacking. I have to seek out these stories because they’re not as sensational or angering as the young-boy-shoots-brother stories they tell us. But they’re everywhere. And they’re incredible. They’re beautiful.
Many people have come to think that the 2nd amendment is outdated and was only applicable when Madison and his comrades first wrote it. But nothing else these brilliant men wrote for us has been proven outdated, and for us to pick and choose which of the original, essential American rights is or is not current is dangerous. The Founding Fathers thought the right to bear arms was absolutely vital, and it takes a disgusting amount of ego to challenge their cumulative intellect.
And when we sacrifice this right, we usher in the tyrant. We will no longer have the option to protect ourselves if and when we need to. We will stand defenseless against any political movement, be it foreign or domestic, and we will fall victim to the obvious, inevitable result that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
I hear you, James. And I will do my damnedest to spread the word before it’s too late.
I stumbled upon this statement a while ago when doing research for an essay and noticed immediately the words’ incredible timeliness. I analyzed the three listed requirements for a tyrannized people and saw that the current United States administration is stealthily pursuing them all. But whenever I shared this jarring discovery with someone, they didn’t seem to find is as frightening as I did. Here we’re talking about domination and despotism, and they’d just say, “yeah, weird coincidence.”
I understand that as Republicans we’re hesitant to use scare tactics because that’s typically a strategy reserved for the Left (i.e. global warming, economic recession), but when the fear is merited, I feel it is vital that we spread it to provoke movement. Allow me to speak plainly: Barack Obama is stealing and usurping our rights for the purpose of eventual tyranny. We have been forewarned by one of the most brilliant men in history, a true Founding Father, that certain things must align to make way for oppression, and we cannot ignore his immortal words as we begin to see these things come to pass.
His standing army will come in the form of the Obama Youth Camps. Not unlike the Hitler’s camps pre-Nazi Germany, Obama’s camps would rally highly impressionable youth into advocating radical social change via threats, pressure, and confrontations, all of which are tactics used by Obama’s old community organizing pal, Saul Alinsky. Plans for these camps contain such baffling doublespeak phrases as “universally voluntary,” and, of course, are to be paid for with our tax dollars to the effect of $500 billion annually. Perks for the youth include but are not limited to college grants, health care, child care, and a monthly stipend currently estimated at just under two grand. And because these camps are paid for and run by the government, their missions will all fall under the category of furthering the government’s agenda, whatever it may be. But considering these are the same sorts of camps used to enforce the rules of past dictators such as Mussolini and Mao, I’m going to go ahead and put my money on “less than favorable.”
These youth camps lead to tyranny by brainwashing generations so that only one extremity of political thought is ever in power. A mild case of this has already overtaken big chunks of the public school system, but these camps would perpetuate and fertilize the effects tenfold. If you think I’m exaggerating the framework or purpose of these programs, take a look at the propaganda footage from 1930s Germany, then compare blueprints between now and then. It’s absolutely terrifying.
In terms of Obama’s achievement of enslaving the press, I really don’t think there’s any dispute. I’ve already spoken at length about the Fairness Doctrine and Obama’s underlying goal to silence all conservative thought, and his new Diversity Committee is only helping him get it done faster. The mainstream media has been involved in a torrid love affair with the man since day one of campaign season and is quick to hide any of his wrongdoings. And every journalist knows that he who speaks out against Obamessiah is instantly shunned and discredited just like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. So they don’t. They are already slaves. The other ingredients for tyranny pie have yet to be sufficiently mixed, but this necessity of media enslavement is oven ready.
It was today as I shopped online in preparation for my very first firearm purchase that I was reminded of this James Madison quote. H.R. 45, recently introduced in the House by Blair Holt, is a big step toward Obama’s final tyrannical frontier, a disarmed populace. A large-print warning about the bill’s loom haunted the top of the Rocky Mountain Guns & Ammo website as I clicked through thumbnails of handguns, and upon further investigation I discovered that this particular piece of legislation revokes not just our second, but our fourth amendment rights as well. This law would essentially outlaw all guns, from 9mm to hunting rifles to shotguns, unless every gun owner adheres to a strict list of unreasonable rules and submits to random, unprompted search and seizure.
Upon purchasing the weapon, one would have to provide a driver’s license, social security number, and fingerprints. Alright, fine. But then things start getting out of hand. The purchaser would also have to agree to undergo physical and mental evaluations by law enforcement or government officials at any given moment, and would have to open his or her doors to random home inspection to ensure that the gun is being stored safely at all times. Failure to do so would result in one to five years in prison and the permanent revocation of firearm ownership rights. A quote directly from Obama’s transition website reads, “weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.”
I know that in recent years we’ve been programmed to fear and hate all guns and their owners. I even remember an episode of Boy Meets World I saw as an intellectually pliable youth that taught me how bad guns were, and I see the horror in my friends’ eyes whenever I mention my intended gun purchase. But the stories of guns saving rather than taking lives are seldom published even though they far outweigh the tragedies. We aren’t told about the Oklahoma pharmacists who take down violent robbers with the help of a pistol. We don’t hear about fathers who were able to defend their families against murderous stalkers because they kept a rifle by the door. No one reports on the valiant strangers who rescue mothers and children from carjacking. I have to seek out these stories because they’re not as sensational or angering as the young-boy-shoots-brother stories they tell us. But they’re everywhere. And they’re incredible. They’re beautiful.
Many people have come to think that the 2nd amendment is outdated and was only applicable when Madison and his comrades first wrote it. But nothing else these brilliant men wrote for us has been proven outdated, and for us to pick and choose which of the original, essential American rights is or is not current is dangerous. The Founding Fathers thought the right to bear arms was absolutely vital, and it takes a disgusting amount of ego to challenge their cumulative intellect.
And when we sacrifice this right, we usher in the tyrant. We will no longer have the option to protect ourselves if and when we need to. We will stand defenseless against any political movement, be it foreign or domestic, and we will fall victim to the obvious, inevitable result that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.
I hear you, James. And I will do my damnedest to spread the word before it’s too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
