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, thing 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 4^th, 2040. RSVP any time you like.

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.

Selective Diversity

In middle school, a couple of my teachers nominated me to be a part of a “diversity committee.” There were 20 or 30 of us selected, and they sent us to a day-long training seminar where we talked about hate crimes and activism, and at the end our motivational speaker-like leader gave us all “thimbles full of strength and self-confidence” so that we could go out into the world and spread the message of love we’d learned. I spent the following year conducting copycat seminars for the student body wherein I showed a graphic documentary about Matthew Shepherd, James Byrd, and other victims of heinous acts, and I mediated discussions between my peers about why hate was so dangerous.

In retrospect, this board was another public school attempt to liberalize me and leave my mind so open that my brain would fall out. Don’t get me wrong, hate crimes are absolutely terrible. There is no justification for race-based or heterosexist attacks, and I think the diversity committee was essentially a force for good in my middle school. However, were I to revamp the curriculum, I would have avoided demonizing all Christians and all white people as our training did. I would have addressed the idea that not all crimes that happen to be against minorities are, in fact, hate crimes. I would have driven home the point that part of tolerance is learning to tolerate the intolerant. As it turns out, the ideas we were trained to regurgitate as members of the diversity committee were not all that diverse.

There’s a new diversity committee at the FCC. It’s another one of Obama’s brainchildren, and it’s called the Advisory Committee on Diversity for Communications in the Digital Age. Its proclaimed intentions are to help women and minorities purchase a bigger share of radio and television stations by changing certain tax codes in their favor. But, seeing as the 31-member board doesn’t include a single Republican or moderate vote, we conservatives are skeptical.

It seems to me that rumors over the Fairness Doctrine coming back have already caused a stir, so Obama assembled this committee to achieve his agenda under the radar. This board will have the power to abuse the tax code so that many of the successful conservative talk radio hosts who currently own stations will lose them, and the only people who’d be allowed to buy them up would be liberals because, obviously, all women and all minorities are Democrats. In fact, all these posts you’ve been reading aren’t by Kelly Cole, they’re by a rich, 65-year old white guy from Texas. It makes perfect sense that conservatives wouldn’t be invited to the diversity committee because we hate diversity so much.

Actually, I think the membership roster of Obama’s committee shows which party is really more supportive of diversity. Hypocritical actions speak louder than guilt-ridden, sugar-coated words, Democrats.

So what is this board out to do? Really? They want to completely silence the conservative voice by ripping away the last form of media over which we have power, one that is already small and archaic. The Left wants no resistance, no opposition. The whole thing has a ring of totalitarianism, no?

When the Fairness Doctrine was our main censorship hurdle, there was some comfort in knowing that it had to be voted into effect. This “diversity committee” is already up and running, no vote required. The scariest thing about all of this is the reminder that Obama, whenever someone opposed him, has and abuses the power to do whatever he wants without checks or balances of any kind, and we don’t even have the power of representative vote.

We are no longer a democracy or a republic. We are a controlled people, and no matter your race, gender, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic group, or political party, that should scare everyone.

Now that’s a diversity committee I could get into.

Holding the Dustpan

My mother’s cat carted in a baby mole today. Usually his rodent friends are already dead when the indoor portion of the play date starts, but this blind fur ball was still squirming and squeaking when he crossed the threshold, and as soon as he was released from feline jaws, he booked it into a dark, furniture-crowded corner where we humans couldn’t hope to achieve the first step of catch and release. My mom and I armed ourselves with cups and dustpans and chased this sucker around gaps in our baseboards for three hours, unable to attain the unwanted houseguest. Admittedly, I jumped and let out an embarrassingly girlish scream when I felt it scurry across my bare foot, and it was ultimately my mom who had to trap it because I was found to be worthless as a mole hunter. Finally, though, we set it loose in the grass outside, and I now feel confident that we could remedy similar problems in the future much more quickly than we did today. We’ll call it a ridiculous learning experience.

While I shared this anecdote primarily for entertainment’s sake, I can’t help but make a connection to the political revelation I had this morning. I’d been chasing around an uninvited bother for some time, unable to really get my hands on the core problem. Although people were throwing around accusations of hypocrisy and communism and lies, all of which I do accept, I couldn’t pinpoint, on a personal level, why I was so perturbed about the GM buyout situation.

Then, in a startling, clarifying moment, much like the shock of direct foot-skin-to-mole-fur contact, I saw an auto commercial that acted as the water glass cage around my evasive irritation.

It was a GM/Chrysler ad about some great deals they were cutting on brand new cars. They were encouraging me to come in and buy a vehicle on the grounds that they were rebuilding and were going to be a better company, one to which I could confidently give my business. And as added incentive, they would take $3,000 off of any purchase. But $3,000, I thought, was not nearly enough. In fact, I immediately felt as though I had already purchased a car. GM already owed it to me. They were in my debt.

Herein lies my problem with the intertwining of government and business. Now, because my tax dollars have gone to fund GM’s Chapter 11 catastrophe, I feel I own the company. I should be a stockholder, because they have taken and used my hard-earned money. I shouldn’t have to buy a car from them because, in essence, I already have. We all have. They should be handing over keys to a motorcade of Yukons and Envoys because they’d be high and dry were it not for the taxation of US citizens. If the government owns them, we own them. Or so it would seem.

But I’m not getting a shiny new Sierra 1500; I’m just getting the bill.

Obama says he has no intention of running GM, and yet he fires a CEO who shows resistance to his business plan. He claims that the billions we’re giving to save the corporation from failure will be greatly effective, and yet he says that we can expect many more factory and dealership closures resulting in massive lay-offs. He is the President of the United States, and yet he’s running the place as though he’s governing communists instead of capitalists.

Although it would seem fitting that the people indirectly own whatever the government owns, the terrifying reverse is true: when the government owns business, the government owns the business’s people. The government is buying out its citizens. Barack Obama, as much as he says he’s going to stay out of it, is the new boss to everyone at GM. And for every company that accepts his “rescue,” there is a new staff of Americans being sold to Washington. It has started with the automotive industry, but in this cloud of liberal-perpetuated economic fear, other sectors are bound to follow. “Buy American” is quickly becoming “Buy America.”

So perhaps I can’t catch rodents, but I can trace and cage a devastating political move when it’s on the run. But in this case, there is no yard for release. I’m stuck with a mole in a dustpan, and although I’ve caught it and identified the problem, there is nothing I can do. I am as helpless in this as I was in the actual vermin hunt.

So where’s the government equivalent of my mom?

The Ants Go Marching

For the whole of the spring semester, my room has been the primary setting of almost all social gatherings my group of friends has had. There has been a pretty constant stream of people in and out of my dorm door since January, and while I embraced and whole-heartedly enjoyed the good company, boundaries and general decorum quickly grew lax, and my roommate and I gradually started to get frustrated with the incredible messiness and inconsideration of our friends. Our snack drawer suddenly became public domain, and no one even offered to contribute to our growing grocery bill. People dirtied our dishes and left them scattered around the room, caked with Ramen noodles and popcorn butter. Every once in a while they’d be so kind as to set a used glass next to the sink, but a lather and rinse was out of the question. When there was no food, people got upset. When we asked for financial assistance, people got stingy. When we threatened to stop sharing, people got irate. It daily baffled me that these people, my close friends who I otherwise adore, had somehow developed such strong feelings of entitlement when they had done nothing to deserve my generosity.

But I let it slide. My roommate and I complained to one another about it before bed pretty much every night, but after each vent session, we went back to our passive hospitality. Part of me thought that maybe it just came with the territory; we had made our room very homey and relaxed and welcoming, and because we wanted our friends to enjoy the time they spent there, that meant mandatory giving.

Today, however, as we cleaned up the filth of everyone’s socializing for what I pray will be the final time, we found a colony of ants in the corner. And I hit the roof.

The ants aren’t even by the fridge or the fruit basket or the food drawer, they’re in the corner between our couch and chair, behind a lamp and a fountain. But, alas, there were plenty of crumbs for them to feast on! If you’re familiar with this corner of my room, you understand how absurd it is that there are chunks of food back there. And yet it looks like someone literally threw pieces of some unidentified cracker onto the floor. I was simultaneously enraged and disgusted. Because of my foolish kindheartedness, I have been living in a bug-infested room for who knows how long, and, to top it all off, I had to go spend more of my own money on a can of Raid to remedy a problem that I didn’t even cause.

And as I grimaced and pushed the blue plastic button to shoot the stream of white, foamy poison into the crack from which the insects crept, it occurred to me: what will be the metaphorical ants for our country? It sounds ridiculous, I know, but this situation in my dorm room this semester is analogous proof of the numerous failings of socialism, and we’re headed right for infestation.

When no one is held accountable for his own behavior, when no one has to clean up his own messes, when everything is always passed off as someone else’s responsibility, things fall apart. The government (or in this case, my roommate and I) has to go around and tidy up after everyone, and finds itself being incapable of keeping up. Further, everyone else falls into a pattern of lethargy and unaccountability, and the population becomes a helpless, insouciant leech.

I look at my friends and get so frustrated because I know that each one of them is completely capable of rinsing a bowl or vacuuming up their dropped crumbs or buying their own food, and they choose not to because I’ve been doing it for them.

Socialism stifles effort. It discourages hard work and self-sufficiency, and it breeds a stagnant economy. We will stop achieving the great things for which America is known, and our government will begin to spoon feed us because they’ll think we need them to.

Maybe my friends were happy contributing nothing in exchange for their own comfort and satiation. Maybe that’s because the dorm room government didn’t demand taxation from them as payment for its services. Therein lies the difference between this small-scale socialist system and the potential United States of America. In my room, my roommate and I resented our friends’ dependence; the current administration longs for ours. They want us to need them. They want us to be controllable, and they want to take everything we have as payment for their so-called generosity.

Instead of free food and dishwashing, it’s health care and subpar education. Instead of bickering before bed, it’s increased legislation and control. Instead of ants, it’s the disintegration of freedom and the dimming light of the shining city on a hill.

The ants are marching one by one. Hoorah, hoorah. Fairness Doctrine. Health care reform. Tax hikes. Enormous spending. Defense cuts. Immigration lenience. Revoking the 2nd Amendment. Buying up mortgages. Cap and trade. Upsetting our allies. Embracing our enemies. Earmarks. Pork. Deficits. Corruption. The death of bipartisanship. The promotion of fear.

Hoorah.

If ants were mine, what will be the country’s last straw? I saw and hated the direction in which my room’s politics were moving but did nothing to stop it. But we who acknowledge the looming plunge into socialist dependence must stand and fight. We must demonstrate our ability to live well, to live better, without governmental help, and we must spray the preemptive Raid all over those who try to usurp our inalienable rights as humans

A Traitor's Memo

Turncoat. Traitor. RINO.

The flip-flop of Senator Arlen Specter has caused quite a stir the past few days. Not only does this decision risk giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority, provided Franken ultimately takes Minnesota, it indicates a dangerous attitude forming in regards to the Republican party.

As recently as the 2000 Republican National Convention, Colin Powell called our party a “big tent,” capable and willing to encompass a wide range of conflicting ideas, united by just a few underlying principles. Powell, just 8 years ago, publically proclaimed that he was pro-choice, in favor of affirmative action policies, and supported socialized healthcare for youth, and that he was still a Republican. It was OK. It was welcomed. It was embraced.

Now, Specter has abandoned ship because he feels, in terms of ideological base, we’re sinking. He doesn’t think he’d be able to win in Pennsylvania in 2010 with an R behind his name. So he switched. My beef with Specter is that, instead of acknowledging this issue and aiming to change the tarnished image of our party, he just ditched, and left us almost entirely powerless in Washington.

But this is not a time to split up our party or begin to lose people. And when our leaders react to this bold act of betrayal with nothing but a bitter “good riddance,” it indicates that we are missing the point. The current state of our country is too precarious, too teetering to start yanking over the balance. If we Republicans are willing to squeeze out our moderates by narrowing our platform, we are then willing to sacrifice our position as a major political entity. It is our former “big tent” identity to which we must return if we are going to bulk our membership and defeat our opposition in the 2010 and 2012 election seasons.

I am by no stretch condoning Specter’s decision. I find it detestable. But as angry as we are, we must recognize this blow as a wakeup call: our party is not what it once was or what we want it to be, and now is not only the perfect opportunity but the pivotal moment, the possible last chance to change our unfavorable reputation. We need a movement so large and effective that Specter regrets his alternative affiliation. We have to target the minority sects within the Republican Party and remind them that we have a doctrine worth clinging to, that our principles are better for our country and its people. We have to seek out the one-issue voters who don’t understand that, despite their single point of variance, they may still hold generally conservative values. And while we cannot be so moderate that we become liberal, we cannot afford to alienate anyone. Every vote we lose is a step closer to socialism, tyranny, and oppression.

Call that an overstatement. I see it coming.

So do not stop being angry with Specter. He deserves it. But heed his betrayal as a warning of things to come if we do not unite and focus. The current administration has too many dangerous intentions to have this much power, but it’s as if we’re relinquishing it without much fight. If others on the border between party territories follow Specter’s lead, we’re done for.

How Do You Say "Moron" in Korean?

I’m a poor college student and I donate plasma. But I wouldn’t go down to the plasma bank and donate if I, say, felt a bad cold coming on. It would be unwise. When I feel sickness brewing, I’m not going to voluntarily extract my immunities. I say, “hey, plasma, you’re staying put because I’m going to need you soon.” And I probably pop a couple of extra vitamins, too. Maybe eat an orange, stay ridiculously hydrated. I do not ignore my symptoms and pray that they’ll subside, and I certainly don’t make unhealthy decisions that welcome the illness. I prepare.

Apparently this brand of common sense is lost on our president, because if North Korea’s nuclear weapon system is a bad cold, and the United States military is our immune system, Barack Obama just hooked us up to the plasma pump. He’s watching, and even squeezing a little rubber ball to expedite, as our blood gushes through a tube and into a machine that he thinks will spin miraculous diplomacy out of our fluids. But as the nurse removes the needle and sends him on his way, Barack, weak and voluntarily defenseless, will faint. And he’s bringing all of America down with him.

Just one day after a hostile nation launches a rocket that they were warned not to launch, the President of the United States announces that he’ll cut defense spending, primarily taking money from a weapons development program that specializes in bringing down nuclear weapons post-launch. He spoke in Prague on Sunday about the matter and said that he wanted America to lead by example, hoping that if we cut our nuclear development, so will the rest of the world, and then no one has to live in fear of global nuclear war. He said that instead of strengthening our disarmament systems, we should aim to halt the proliferation of all nuclear weaponry.

Utopian, no? Barack O-Flower Child has frolicked over to North Korea and stuck a daisy in the barrel of Kim Jong Il’s gun. It’s absolutely asinine to think that because we halt our nuclear development systems, so will everyone else. North Korea didn’t stop when we bluntly told them to, and they certainly won’t under the power of suggestion. And when we stand behind microphones and proudly project to our enemies that we’re cutting defenses, it’s just a matter of time until one of them strikes us down. We are begging for an attack.

Not only is this decision dangerous in terms of national security, it’s an outstanding economic mistake. The department Obama plans to cut currently employs around 90,000 people. But maybe all those eliminated jobs can transfer to a crew of painters who’ll slap a big red target on us.

This is what happens when we elect a megalomaniac. First, he assumes that the people of Iran will embrace him if he uploads a YouTube video, then he gives the British Prime Minister a box of DVDs as a gift and assumes he’ll think they’re great because they’ve got Obama cooties on them, and he presupposes that the Queen will want to listen to his speeches over and over again through white earbuds. Now, he thinks that if it’s him calling the shots instead of all the great presidents before him, the irate dictators of the world will put down their metaphorical swords and shields and give us a big, white-flagged hug. Not everyone loves you yet, Barack. You have to earn the right to be tacky and naive.

As we sneeze and cough and run a fever, don’t expect Dayquil from Dr. President. He’ll be the one depriving you of sleep and locking you outside in the cold and draining you of any strength your body may have had left to fight off the pending sickness.

How many wŏn do we get for a pint of American plasma?