Fresh Elephant

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happy Meals

2010-11-05T10:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Life Under Oath

2010-05-20T13:51:00.001-07:00

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.

A Really, Really Bad Case of the Mondays

2010-03-29T20:36:00.000-07:00

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.

CPAC: Concerned Plea for American Conservatism

2010-02-21T20:35:00.000-08:00

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.

Gluttony: It's Bad for Your Health

2010-01-19T22:43:00.001-08:00

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.

Here's the Kickoff

2009-12-08T14:02:00.000-08:00

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.

The Stealth of Oppression

2009-06-12T18:19:00.000-07:00

“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

2009-06-02T10:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-02T00:30:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-07T18:35:00.000-07:00

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

2009-04-29T17:19:00.000-07:00

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?

2009-04-07T10:49:00.000-07:00

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?

Better Death Than Taxes

2009-04-02T16:28:00.000-07:00

I haven’t written in over a month. While constraints of my time have been mostly to blame, I could also argue that it’s because I’ve been letting my irritation fester into a more and more severe infection of my political wound first opened on election night. And apparently it’s a highly infectious infection, because I can’t yank down our head honcho’s approval rating 25 percent all by my lonesome. But a lengthy list of enraging points has accumulated under my attention in recent weeks, and I think it’s time to discuss them. Consider this my linguistic hydrogen peroxide.

Since 2003, the liberals have been angry that their tax dollars have been going to fund a war they don’t support. Since January 20th, 2009, I have been getting gradually more angry about where my tax dollars will potentially be directed in the term to come. While the liberals have right to disagree with our war (despite, of course, our country’s unanimous favor of it at its commencement), and while they are more than welcome to dunk their W-2s in venom before sending them off to the IRS, I can’t help but take this opportunity, if for no reason other than to rub it in, to convince the Left that my party’s outrage is outstandingly more justified than theirs.

Let’s forget for a moment the underlying fact that, generally, conservatives are anti-tax and liberals love them like a premenstrual woman loves chocolate, so therefore all tax-related arguments between the sides could be boiled down to a quite simple broth. We’ll set aside the idea that any over-taxation receiving complaints from the whole of the Democratic Party is essentially its own fault due to the leftist origin of over-taxation, and we’ll let the hypocrisy of their tax protests silencing and somehow trumping ours go unnoticed. Maybe I’m taking too many liberties in forgetting all these little points, but it’s a strategy that’s been pretty popular lately, so I figured I’d give it a try.

The new administration hasn’t had control for more than three months yet, and their list of actions I disagree with already outnumbers that of the past 8 years (granted, I was 12 when Bush was first elected and admittedly paid little attention back then). I understand that our country is in major trouble, and that means our leaders have to take bold actions. But Obama and his crowd have taken all the wrong ones, and I hate that my tax dollars, already exorbitantly high, are going to be raised to pay for their unwise decisions. At least when the liberals begrudgingly shoved out cash for the war effort, it saved our freedom. I, on the other hand, fear that my taxes will go toward ensuring and expediting our elimination of freedom. That’s the difference.

When my taxes go toward paying back the billions upon billions of currently nonexistent dollars being used for corporate bailouts, I am funding the antithesis of free market capitalism. When I empty my wallet to the government for starting up extensive volunteer programs, I am stealing from private charities that do incredible work without DC’s help. When I find myself paying for former Guantanamo terrorists to apply for citizenship and welfare, I am handing cash to the mass murderers of our country’s September 11th victims.

A total of $800 billion has been either spent or budgeted for spending on the Iraq war. Yes, that’s a lot, and yes, I agree that a quick (but not hasty) exit strategy is needed. But when a good portion of this total is going to soldier salaries that I think we all agree are well earned, and when the first half of this budget was passed when both parties agreed that we had to take action post-attack, and when we notice that we’ve remained safe for the past six years because of this spending, I can justify it. How on earth can we justify the distribution of $825 billion in taxes to AIG execs and Nancy Pelosi’s city redecoration? There is no nobility hidden in those causes.

Our economy needs help. Ok. But printing money and accelerating inflation and increasing government spending by forcing every American citizen into inescapable red figures is the most counterproductive “fix-it” I’ve ever encountered. People keep talking about “our children’s debt.” But I’m young. This is my debt. Mine. And as someone who has thus far been very responsible with her personal credit, I’m not ok with that.

For being the party that’s supposedly against big business and the greed of the upper class, why are the Democrats being so quick to shove our money at them? At least when the Republicans overspent on war, it was for principals we believed in, not a complete doctrinal/pecuniary contradiction. Even the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that the choices Obama has made for the economy thus far will be worse in the long run than had he done nothing at all.

On the flip side, let’s think about where we’d be had we done nothing at all after September 11th.

You may push against us with all your sans-arms might, Democrats, but you can’t fool us into downright government theft just because you use terms like “bipartisan” and “reaching across the aisle.” We’re not as morally malleable as you. And keep in mind that we never had to shadily coerce you into war spending as you are trying to do to us now. Your persistence in pushing us beyond our dogmatic boundaries is just going to push the tea into the harbor.

Maybe this time it’ll be the Boston Tobacco Party.

You may want to come to terms with the idea of your taxes going to war causes, leftists, because you’re guiding us straight into a civil one.

That'll Be 36,000 Dollars, Please

2009-02-18T11:07:00.000-08:00

A busy schedule in tandem with my lack of sleep has silenced my political voice for the past month. While I have been irked by some newscast at least once per day, I have been unable to effectively articulate my opinions, as rage tends to cloud by vocabulary. But I just finished a midterm on the finer points of Machiavelli, and it seems to have cleared my brain and warmed up my thoughts to a free-flowing state. This mental stimulation set in just as I was logging in to check my email and saw, bright on the MSN newsfeed, an article entitled, “How the Stimulus Bill Affects You.” I read.

I could detect immediately, due to flowery word choice and overall syntax, that this article was written by someone who supports the bill. The first paragraph happily boasts that “millions of workers can expect to see about $13 extra in their weekly paychecks.” What joy! Thirteen whole dollars every week? That’s nearly two dollars every day! I can finally afford half a Starbucks!

Thirteen dollars is not going to stimulate our economy, folks. A $400 per person tax credit, spread out over an entire year, makes very little difference in how a person perceives his or her disposable income. And yet we’re spending billions on the initiative. Starting in 2010, the giant bonus drops from $13 to $7.70, an amount that is nearly undetectable unless your starting point is around ten cents. Sorry for the pessimism, but if this is Obama’s brilliant brainchild, I’m voting for intellectual infanticide.

A paragraph or so further in the article comes the statement that enrages me most: “a $1,000 child tax credit would be extended to more low-income families that don’t make enough money to pay income taxes.”

Hi. I’m basic logic. Nice to meet you.

Does it really sound fair to anyone that a person who doesn’t pay taxes should get a one-thousand dollar check from Uncle Sam while those of us who work hard and have giant chunks of our paychecks stolen by greedy Washington fingers have to stand idly by our mailboxes waiting for free money that will never come? It is wrong to punish the employed. God forbid anyone would make an honest living and get rewarded by the government for it. Bottom line: if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t get to drink from the money pool that everyone else’s taxes create. The redistribution of wealth is starting already, and I refuse to stay silent as America ushers in socialism.

While this MSN article is sunny and positive at the start, the final paragraph faces an FAQ that simply cannot be answered in a happy way: What does this bill do to the national debt? It’s no surprise. It jacks it up even higher. Something from the ’08 campaign trail keeps sounding in my head, and it sounds a little like Obama repeatedly promising to get us out of debt, with the background noise of criticizing Bush for driving the deficit up so high. In my iTunes it’s titled, “Hypocrisy,” but, hey, that could be a typo.

The current national debt totals $10.7 billion, rising each day by about $500 billion in new interest. With his first official act in office, Obama has added $1.6 trillion to that total. For every US citizen, that’s a $36,000 bill we’ve each got to pay.

I hope $13 a week is enough to make the payments.

Instead of giving everyone $400 dollars in the form of a tax credit, give us all $400 in tax cuts! Allow the capitalist system to balance the irresponsibility of banks and real estate rather than punishing their innocent consumers, create jobs for poor families instead of handing them unearned checks, and cut out the $700 billion of pork stuffed into the $785 billion plan! This could well prove to be the most fiscally irresponsible bill to ever happen to America. But what less could we expect from the most liberal President we’ve ever elected?

This bill is perfectly fitting for a Socialist. And my outrage is perfectly fitted for an American taxpayer.

Faster Than a Speeding Bullet...That Kills You

2009-01-24T14:00:00.000-08:00

Ok, I gave him three days of a clean slate, and it’s already caked over in the chalk of bad decisions. All the policies I opposed in his campaign platform are already in the works, threatening to pass, and the palpable arrogance I sensed all along is rearing its ugly, big-eared head like never before.

In a private meeting with select members of Congress yesterday, Obama and the team discussed the bail-out package, the stimulus plan, and Rush Limbaugh. When a philosophical debate over tax policy went on for what Obamessiah thought was too long, he settled it in a truly tasteless way. He said he was right because “I won,” referring to his electoral victory. Apparently, when you’re voted into office, everyone else forfeits the right to question your opinions. The comment came after a Republican Representative from Virginia conjectured that cutting income tax would do more good than sending home stimulus checks, and Obama, perhaps unable to muster a convincing argument against this, just said, “I won.” While this was a joke in the context of the meeting, his audacity still astounds me (and even IN the meeting, only the Democrats were laughing). By this token, every other idea Obama has for the next four years should also be praised and go untested because of this single victory.

That’s what our balance of powers is for, Obama: to keep you from becoming an egomaniacal dictator.

Later in the meeting, Obama commented that we’d all get more done if the Republicans would stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Funny, I think we’d all get more done if the Democrats would start being Republicans, but I’m not going to announce that in a congressional forum discussing the financial well-being of our country. It’s no secret that Obama would strip all conservative talk radio off the air if he could have his censorship-loving way, but to claim that one party’s chosen source of political entertainment is downright counter-productive is just silly. Really, Obama, you can do better than that. Maybe.

Aside from my qualms with Obama’s overall demeanor, when the meeting got down the discussing the more important issues on the agenda, Obama still let me down. He wants to start sending out stimulus money by February, eventually totally 825 billion dollars. The bail-out package is also working its way up, now estimated to cost more than 750 billion. Together, we’re already looking at 1.6 trillion dollars in new government spending, all coming out of our pockets. The stimulus plan will give $500 back to families making under $200,000 annually, but something tells me that it won’t quite feel even, and everyone making over 200k will be footing the bill for those who make and contribute nothing.

So even though Obama’s campaign promised to slash government spending, it looks like it’s the government spending that will actually be slashing us. What’s worse is that when a few Congressmen present at this meeting proposed a discussion about possible tax increases, Obama said it was “too soon” to talk about it. While I am in no way a proponent of increasing taxes, from the outside looking in, all I see is more than a trillion dollars going out, and no extra money coming in.

DOES THIS SOUND LIKE A DEFECIT-FIXING STRATEGY TO YOU?

Obama has already put into the works potential to ruin our country’s economy, to a point lower than it is right now. And he’s been in office for 72 hours. He’s got about 34,000 hours left in his first term.

May God help us all.

Not Empty or Full, Just Half

2009-01-20T19:59:00.001-08:00

I will not shout and stomp my feet. I will not blubber and moan and dab my eyes. I will not throw things at my TV set and threaten assassination. I will not stoop to the level that my opponents did four years ago. I will maintain my composure and respect the accomplishment of a man I do not trust, and although I am wary of his intentions, I will call him neither criminal nor foolish until his actions prove him to be so.

If you have been reading, you know I am afraid, and you know several reasons why. The inaugural speech this morning was beautifully written and orated, and our new President did his best at trying to fill Americans with hope, a reaffirmation of why many voted for him in November. And while I was momentarily caught up in the wave, I tasted in the water a sugary, diluted version of his typical socialism, and spat it out immediately.

While he speaks of remaining “faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents,” he threatens “to lay a new foundation for growth” and change the very framework of our country. While he says he wants to “proclaim an end to petty grievances and false promises,” he is found guilty of making both. While he says “the time has come to set aside childish things,” he acts as a proud proponent of jealousy-based tax policy and the condoning of both social and economic irresponsibility. While he acclaims the entrepreneurs, the “risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things,” he aims to quash ambition and punish success. While he mocks those whose “memories are short,” he seems to have forgotten the failed policies of one administration just thirty years ago, mimicked in many of his own proposals. And while he encourages all Americans to become “joined to a common purpose”, I cannot help but remember what he’s said in the past about redistributing wealth and socializing what is now private, and I think that his idea of a good “common purpose” is not mine.

And so I am waiting. He has done nothing wrong. Yet. But if all arranged in this first presidential speech comes to pass, I believe this nation will fall. I fear our oppression, our stagnancy, our poverty, our death of spirit. I fear that America, in all the glory it represents, will cease to be. We will become the United States in name only, a people bitter and divided. This man, who appeared on Sunday on the front page of the Denver Post sandwiched between Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, has some great expectations to live up to, and it concerns me that we’re awaiting such greatness from a man with such a short rap sheet.

I will be neither depressed nor optimistic as we proceed into the next four years. I will be open to being proven wrong or right (I will, however, be much less surprised by the latter). But we must be cautious in assuming that this rookie is going to fix everything in a snap. We cannot expect him to fill the shoes of our nation’s greatest leaders on his first day in office. If I can be big enough to allow him a clean slate from his term’s commencement, his supporters should also wait until he proves himself worthy of praise. Let us, from both sides of the fence, hold off on hatred or admiration until he actually does something.

“Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be based on fact, not fiction—faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.” –Thomas Edison

Food, Water, Shelter, Porn

2009-01-08T12:55:00.000-08:00

We are careening down the slipperiest of slopes.

It all started when some liberal in Congress said, “hey, let’s forget about that whole ‘capitalism’ thing and climb on into bed with business.” Now it’s taking the ballsy sarcasm of two porn kings to show the US Government how stupid they’ve been lately.

I thought the whole bailout package was a bad idea from the beginning. The American taxpayer should not have to eat the debt of corporations whose CEOs make bad decisions. In a free market system, those who act recklessly should have to deal with their own consequences, not pass them off onto the fiscally responsible, hardworking American. Not only does this plan place the cleaning supplies for this mess in the hands of the innocent, it sends a clear message to all big businesses for the future: go ahead and be careless, because the government will always show up to save you.

Hustler Magazine’s Larry Flint and Girls Gone Wild producer Joe Francis are right with me. They’re approaching Washington with a proposal to get 5 billion dollars to make up for their declining sales of 2008. When I first heard this story, I was outraged, thinking these guys were actually serious. The American taxpayers should foot the bill of smut? But after watching an interview with Francis on the subject, I now understand that they’re trying to make a statement. They think the bailouts are just as ridiculous as I do. “As long as the government is handing out money, we’ll be there to take it,” Joe said with a smile.

And what grounds does Congress have to deny them? They voted to give mortgage companies and the auto industry 700 billion dollars, so why not all other sects of the market? What makes the poor decision-making of one kind of businessman any more bail-worthy than another?

Granted, equating the foreclosure of people’s homes to the shutting down of a Fascinations sex shop is a stretch, but if Congress is to remain consistent in its legislative reasoning, and this first bailout plan is used as the precedent to which all other requests are compared, things could get out of hand very quickly. After all, would anyone really throw a fit if it became a 705 billion dollar check instead? Probably not. So it gets very easy to keep tacking on a few billion here and a few billion there. If 700 billion isn’t our breaking point, what will be?

Capitalism is dependent upon the absence of government. It is a system that balances itself over time and is incredibly successful when left alone, but has gotten way out of whack over the past few decades because Capitol Hill keeps trying to intersect with Wall Street. Now that we’ve started the ball rolling with the actual handing-off of tax dollars to corporate execs, we may never again get it stopped.

Do I think Flint and Francis should get the 5 billion they’re asking for? Goodness, no. But I didn’t think the first plan should’ve gone through, either, and look what happened. I can’t wait to see what further tax commitments we’re subjected to under the next few years of a totally leftist Congress.

So, men, ask your local Congressman: do I get to write-off my Playboys?

What to Expect When You're Expecting

2009-01-06T13:51:00.000-08:00

“Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking."

We all heard it. It was all over the news for a few days, this statement Joe Biden made at a pre-election rally in Seattle. It scared a lot of people. At least briefly, it had voters questioning the experience and wherewithal of Barack Obama and his potential ability to deal with an international crisis. But the press, acting totally out of character, quickly quieted this piece of bad publicity for their little cherub, and America was able to abandon all doubts surrounding the Senator.

An elephant never forgets. Biden’s warning is still fresh in my head, and I’m anxiously awaiting this impending catastrophe. Counting from Inauguration Day and using Joe’s time table, we’ve got until no later than July 20th to prepare, including determining where it’s coming from.

Biden went on in his speech to mention some of the possible threats: “They may emanate from the Middle East. They may emanate from the sub-continent. They may emanate from Russia's newly-emboldened position because they're floating in a sea of oil." He fails to mention, I think out of fear, the foremost threat to our power and freedom. While I’m not usually one for prediction, I want to throw my idea out there so that if, God forbid, it should come to pass, I can say I told you so. And if I’m proven to have this precognizant gift for international affairs, election in 2040 should be no problem.

It’s Red China. For decades, we’ve feigned blindness toward their obvious violations of basic human rights and pretended to be unaware of their tyrannical, communist regime for the sake of commerce. We cut off trade with Cuba for much less sadistic behavior and slapped sanctions on South Africa under apartheid, but because there are over a billion customers and billions of dollars up for grabs in China, alongside slave labor and cheap imports, we allow greed to take precedent over principle. We don’t stand up to China because of their economic weight, and it’s proving America to be a country run by money-hungry hypocrites.

Many members of Congress have been trying to justify our relationship with China by using the “Engagement Theory”, an idea that suggests that we can lead communist countries into freedom and democracy by continuing to do business with them, as if our dollars carry capitalist germs into the country and infect oppression’s very immune system. China is proof that this theory is bogus. In fact, our capitalist dollars are fueling their system and pushing China closer and closer to beating the United States out for #1 on the economic powerhouse list.

We even went so far in condoning China’s actions that we, under the Clinton administration, gave up top-secret information that has led to China’s advancement in their weapons technology. Now, if they so desired, the Chinese could take out all of our communication satellites in a matter of minutes.

China is even reported to be helping out in al Qaida’s efforts to snuff out the American flame, donating huge quantities of ammunition that we found stashed in bin Laden’s caves in early 2002. Even though in 2001 we made a promise to retaliate against anyone who aided or harbored terrorists, China seems to have a whole deck of get-out-of-jail-free cards. And we keep letting them pass Go.

So here’s my prediction: China is going to try to take back Taiwan. Violently. And according to the Taiwan Relations Act, passed in 1979 when we first entered our trading relationship with China, our first commitment is to Taiwan. The Act outlines that “the United States’ decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.” So if China’s means are anything but peaceful, the United States should, as promised, cease her diplomacy with China.

If I were China, I would not be afraid of America. From all other aspects, I am amazed at America's strength and integrity and principle, but when it comes to China, for the past thirty years, we’ve done nothing but show them the liquidity of our backbone. The Clinton administration already reneged on the Taiwan Relations Act once, and I’m sure China expects our incoming administration to do the same if tested.

If tested. According to Joe Biden there’s no if, only when. So IF this is the test awaiting Obama, WHEN it happens, I’ll be ready for disappointment. After all, he’s filling his cabinet with nothing but Clintonites. Why should he behave any better than his mentor? China will attack Taiwan, and Obama will do very little about it. And thus, communism will take back one of its former victims.

Hey, does anyone remember the Domino Theory?

But It's No Fair!

2008-12-26T20:16:00.000-08:00

I am flying from Denver to Tampa today, a four hour flight with a low-budget in-flight movie and no food that doesn’t cost limbs. I brought a new book with me, The Conservative’s Handbook, to pass the time, but as I made my way through the foreword, I had to stop and promptly put it back in my carry-on. It wasn’t because the book was terrible; quite the contrary. So far, the book is incredible, and I look forward to making my way through the next 500 or so pages of it, as I anticipate it to be extremely insightful and enlightening. But I felt myself getting more and more sad as the foreword went on, because it was authored by Sean Hannity, one of my favorite TV and radio personalities of the political media realm and one of Obama’s biggest campaign enemies, and the idea that such a brilliant voice might soon be silenced had me too devastated to keep reading without first writing on the infuriating issue of the Fairness Doctrine.

First, let me say that I am all for fairness. That’s why I’m a Republican. But this proposed doctrine, despite its title, has nothing to do with fairness. This is a law that would undermine our essential liberties of free speech and free inquiry, as well as institute undue censorship, which is something I thought the liberals agreed was objectionable.

If you haven’t heard, the Fairness Doctrine is a piece of legislation first introduced in 1949 that has come in cycles of hot contestation since. The “FAIR” stands for Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. It requires the address of controversial issues of public concern from contrasting, but not necessarily opposing, viewpoints. If reinstituted today, its main purpose would be to require talk radio to be divided evenly between liberal and conservative hosts, working in tandem with media-ownership caps and, if Obama gets his way, a greater portion reserved for minority ownership.

Right now, conservatives dominate AM radio, with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Dennis Miller, and numerous others all hosting highly-rated, nationally-syndicated shows. Liberals have tried in the past to start up their own shows, but no one listened to them because, frankly, they were boring. So now the liberals are whining and throwing fits about “not getting their voices heard,” and they want to pass the “Fairness” Doctrine to forbid the success of articulate Republicans and halt the flow of conservative ideas.

It is when the opposition to any idea is silenced that balance goes down the drain and a one-sided, totalitarian-style government has the opportunity to rule. We in the minority call that a regime.

But wait, Kelly, aren’t you contradicting yourself? You’re saying we have to have a balance of ideas, and the Fairness Doctrine would ensure a 50/50 split of radio time between both sides. Sounds like balance to me!

Wrong, hypothetical arguer. Maybe this would be the case if we were going to apply the rule to ALL forms of media (you know, TV, movies, books, newspapers, magazines, advertisements, music, and everything else controlled 99:1 by liberals), but instead, the plan is to only apply the law to radio, which is currently the one and only medium we conservatives have to ourselves. By talking our lasts means of intra-party communication away from us, the Democrat-dominated government is trying to duct tape the mouths of those who disagree and solidify their eternal power. After all, if the conservatives can’t speak via any form of mass media, how would we ever organize en masse and revolt against our oppressors? We couldn’t. We’d be stuck.

Furthermore, the “Fairness” Doctrine completely undermines capitalism. I don’t think the government should ever really get into bed with the media, just like I don’t think it should be in cahoots with business. This is a similar function. Liberals have tried and failed to hold talk radio slots, which is no one’s fault but their own. If a mom-and-pop coffee shop closes after a Starbucks moves in across the street, that sucks, but should the government have the right to come in and divide the successful coffee shop in half, leaving one side for the failed business? And would they have to split tips at the end of the night, even though the Starbucks jar was five times as full? No. It’s ludicrous.

I’m sorry, Liberals, that the radio audience has shunned you. Maybe you should’ve tried being less monotone or something. But, even though it’s the way your party tries to do everything, you can’t have Daddy Government come out and make the mean ol’ neighbor kids let you play with them.

Grow up. And let us keep talking.

The People Speak, the Rainbow Wheel Squeaks

2008-12-19T16:52:00.000-08:00

I was torn for a while. I’m a person who has thought through and made up her mind about almost every issue, from abortion to taxation, but I’d been on the fence about gay marriage for a long time. I couldn’t figure out which side of the argument better lined up with my political philosophies. On the one hand, I believe that people should be granted every right as long as it doesn’t begin to infringe upon the rights of others. Gay marriage, despite anyone’s moral qualms with it, has no detrimental effect on anyone outside the same-sex couple, and therefore should be allowed. But I’m also a big supporter of democracy in as pure a form as is logistically possible, and I therefore think that “majority rules” is a vital ideology for keeping people happiest and for ensuring fairness. And for the time being, the overwhelming majority of the American populace wants to keep marriage between one man and one woman, and therefore gay marriage should not be allowed.

That’s what I’ve been churning over for years. And today, as I wait for the California Supreme Court to come out with its decision on Proposition 8, I have come to a conclusion: this is not about gay marriage. This is not about human rights. This is not about Christianity or morality or the ick factor. This boils down to our essential form of government, and what the Robes of California decide on this issue will make a huge statement about what America is becoming. This ruling will show us if democracy still reigns or if we are swiftly slipping into the dangerous bounds of totalitarianism. I cannot help but ask: are We the People in charge or not?

The people of California have voted, and 52% of them supported an addition to their state Constitution affirming that marriage would only be recognized between one man and one woman. Not only would this ban same-sex marriage, it would ban polygamy, which a much bigger majority agrees on. The people have spoken. That should be the end of it. But instead, the state Supreme Court is in session, talking about whether or not they should, for a second time, disregard the voice of the citizens and do what they want. We have given one small group, just seven people, the power to throw out the decision of 6.9 million ballots. They hold the power to silence the public.

Whether or not I have made up my mind about the legalization of gay marriage is irrelevant at this point. What matters in the here and now is that the majority vote opposes it, and I’m not about to say that we should start legalizing things to please a whiny minority.

Allow me to put on my radical hat for a moment and be harsh: I don’t care what you believe. If your idea is in the minority, tough cookies. You’re going to have to wait until more people begin to side with you, and then maybe things’ll go your way. But for now? Sit tight and quit complaining. We are supposed to be a democracy, which means that the majority vote has the power. We are not functioning under Squeaky Wheel legislation here. It is not the fractional vote that gets to control what governs the whole.

Maybe in a decade or so, when the first generation of the victims of public education’s brainwashing liberalization makes up a bigger chunk of voters, gay marriage will fly. But we have to respect the rights of those who oppose just as much as we respect those of the people who favor. We cannot tantrum in the aisles of our governmental grocery store for Daddy to buy us the constitutional amendments we want for breakfast. The 47.7% of Californians who voted down Prop 8 need to pick themselves up by their Pull-Ups and understand that politics are not about appeasement or coddling or giving in to feet-stomping brats. You lost. Too bad.

I’m still unable to say definitively if I’m for or against gay marriage. My party says one thing, the libertarian side of me says another, the “theatre kid” half of me is totally confused, and my faith throws a huge monkey wrench into the whole thing. I’ll admit it: I just don’t know. But I do know I believe in democracy, and this isn’t it.

After all, the McCainiacs had 46% of the popular vote. Does that mean we get to bitch and moan until the Supreme Court kicks Obama out of office?

Here He Is, Mr. America

2008-11-30T11:09:00.000-08:00

In the 1960 Presidential election, a huge factor in Kennedy’s victory over Nixon was the introduction of televised debates. Kennedy was young and beautiful and had a campaign team with the foresight to slap some camera-friendly makeup on him before they went live. Nixon, by comparison, was old and sweaty and sick-looking. He came across as shifty and nervous, even if his answers were right on the money. People who listened to the debate on the radio called it a draw, maybe even a Nixon win, but the TV audience handed it to the calm, dashing JFK without question.

And politics haven’t been the same since.

I couldn’t help but notice, ever since his 2004 DNC address, that Barack Obama has a very JFK-esque quality about him. Both are young and handsome, articulate and inspiring. Obama’s look, his persona, no doubt helped him win election. Looking back at all the races since 1960, the better looking man has been the victor (maybe with the exception of Jimmy Carter). And as someone who wants to run for President someday, this concerns me.

I do not want our electoral process to be manipulated by the same superficial judgments as a Hollywood movie casting. I’m not saying Obama won only because of good looks, but I would conjecture that it played a huge role. I can’t imagine a man with the same platform and same past winning if he had had a pizza face and a squeak toy voice. And so much of what I heard against John McCain was about his age, his swollen jaw, his stiff arms. I witnessed two guys on election night being so tasteless as to mock McCain’s waving style, laughing as they feigned shoulder paralysis. I turned to them and, unable to filter the disgust out of my voice, asked, “do you know why his arms are like that?” They sheepishly told me they did and stopped the joke.

For a man to be mocked over his battle wounds, ones he earned as a POW fighting for our freedom and being tortured daily, goes to show just how shallow we, as voters, have become. It doesn’t matter why a man is disfigured, the bottom line is that he’s ugly and won’t win. On TV, McCain looked like a senile weakling next to the regal Obama. How much did the answers matter? Would the meat of each argument have tasted different if it had some on a prettier plate?

More important than looking back on the “what if” is looking forward to how this obsession with the visual is going to doom us in the future.

I can’t count how many beautiful people are talentless and famous. But in Hollywood, bad acting from a pretty face does no damage other that a waste of an $8 movie ticket. In the White House, bad leadership from a pretty face causes the downfall of the most powerful country in the world.

Will we ever again be willing to elect a Roosevelt, who rode to his inauguration in a wheelchair? Would we be willing to vote for a William Howard Taft, an overweight man with an incredible mind and gift for diplomacy? People criticized Sarah Palin for her beauty contest history, unaware that every Presidential election in the last 50 years has been a pageant. And if you flipped through People magazine, you’d have seen that this time around Barack even competed in the swimsuit round.

I’ve been talking lately about getting back to the roots of conservatism, but that’s for my party. For my country, all of us together, I propose that we get back to electoral politics as an intellectual process rather than a hit new reality show: White House’s Next Top Model.

But if we continue to vote with superficial reasoning, I say Palin/Romney in 2012, because in the Republican Party, we’ve got people with beauty AND brains.

Mercy Takes Many Forms

2008-11-19T14:13:00.000-08:00

I think, overall, the preconceived difference of mercifulness between the two political parties is that Democrats have it and Republicans don’t. We’re the ruthless ones, only looking out for Number One, and pretending we can’t see the street urchins’ pain below us as we climb the ladder of success. I was subconsciously aware of this stereotype already, but I came face to face with it a few nights ago in the dining hall.

Our conversation had drifted somehow to the subject of court cases, the famous innocent-even-though- he’s-totally-guilty verdicts, the most heinous crimes ever committed, and some of the most ridiculous sentencing we’d ever heard of. One person brought up a court case that, adding up his numerous convictions, ended with a 300 year sentence for a guy. I said that was stupid. Just kill him, I said. It’s a waste of my tax money to keep a criminal alive for decades in prison before he kicks the bucket naturally, so we might as well just end it. A friend next to me freaked out at my perceived coldness, saying, “Oh my gosh, that’s like the most Republican thing ever!”

After he showed his disapproval, it turned out that all the other people at the table actually agreed with me, something that doesn’t happen very often when we’re discussing political matters. But what struck me about this one friend’s astonishment over my views on the death penalty is that, when you really think about it, my way is far more merciful than it is brutal.

On the surface, yes, killing a prisoner seems far more inhumane than letting him live. But when a man has been sentenced to three centuries of life behind bars with no hope of overturning the verdict or getting out on parole, isn’t it kinder to relieve him of all the suffering he would endure? Granted, my own reasoning for supporting the death penalty is a selfish, economic one over the distribution of my tax dollar, but it works inadvertently to help rapists and murders everywhere. If we’re aiming for the government to solve all of our problems and make everyone happy, the death penalty makes more sense, right?

Note that I do not think it is the government’s job or purpose to solve our problems and make us happy. I do, however, think that many Democrats think this way. And I’m trying to tell you that your logic may be flawed.

Don’t think that I’m saying we should kill all the criminals on their way out of the courtroom, and don’t think that I want to prematurely kill someone who may be proven innocent a month down the road. But we’re paying to sustain the lives of far too many people who have admittedly committed violent crimes or have undeniable evidence against them and are just sitting in a cell, awaiting death. People who don’t support the war say that they hate their taxes going to the military; I hate my taxes going to homicidal lowlifes. That’s why I support the death penalty. And if that doesn’t work for you, your reason can be that whole mercy paragraph.

So I say let’s get a little more liberal with death sentences.

First Act in Office: Historical Revenge

2008-11-09T13:48:00.000-08:00

I never thought our first African American President would be the one to bring back slavery. But obviously I’m no psychic.

In a hideously underpublicized clause of Barack Obama’s plans for his first term, one I wasn’t even aware of until yesterday, there is word of a mandatory service initiative, a “calling on” of all American citizens to donate a certain amount of time per year to community projects. Every middle and high school student will be required to do 50 hours, and every college student will be required to do 100 hours per year of enrollment. Retiring citizens, age 55 and over, will be “encouraged” to serve in programs appropriate for their age group, and all other citizens will be pushed to join one of the many programs Obama wants to either grow or start up, namely the Peace Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veteran Corps, Head Start, and Youth Build.

Note that I am not anti-community service. I have done a decent share of it throughout my life, starting with making layettes in my dad’s Crisis Pregnancy Center office to participating in Walk for Life to giving 17 inches of my hair to Locks of Love to tutoring, and I don’t plan on being an stingy, uncharitable adult in the years between now and my death. Charity is good. Community service is good. People should do it.

But requirement? Not only does this completely contradict the very heart of charity, it is borderline slavery. The government cannot control our time and our good deeds. We are not indentured by our citizenship. If a legal adult does not want to do community service, that’s a legitimate choice. It is none of anyone else’s business. We’re being treated like criminals, but instead of a court-ordered service to compensate for a misdemeanor, it’s a government mandate to further a socialist, false utopian agenda.

Did I mention the bribery involved? Obama is offering a $4,000 tax credit to be applied directly to a college student’s tuition should he or she complete the 100 annual hours of community service (overall, $1,000 per year for the average student). This promise 1) negates the term “charity” and 2) forces American taxpayers to shove out payment for work that would have otherwise been done by true volunteers at no cost. Even as a college student who could certainly use an extra 4k in my UNC account, I think this idea is ludicrous and backwards.

While change.gov has made some slight alterations to the careful wording of the “Service” paragraph, eliminating the word “require” that appeared frequently in the first published draft, the principle is the same, as is the underlying problem: we are being turned into the government’s slaves.

Time to re-excavate the Underground Railroad, huh?

My Why

2008-11-08T11:59:00.000-08:00

Some negative connotations come along with the word “Republican.” That’s the party who loves big business, who doesn’t care about the common man, who bathes in oil and loves war, who drinks it up when the impoverished suffer, and who is only out to pad its members’ already hefty pockets. I think it’s sad that there’s so much bad blood between our two major parties that people have actually been convinced that a whole half of our country is this evil and inhuman. I feel sorry for any liberal who is truly that pessimistic. If you know me, I hope you have come to learn that I am a compassionate, kindhearted, sensitive person. You also know that I am a Republican. I ought to be living proof that Republicans are not bad people. I do not want to kill minorities or squash the poor, and neither does my party.

But it’s easier to argue with wrong assumptions than it is to replace them with the truth. Allow me to try:

I am a Republican because I believe in the American people. We are the most capable, determined, tenacious of all the earth’s populations, and there is nothing we cannot achieve. Every single one of us can succeed if we try. Even when we’re pressing through unbelievable adversity, trying to squirm our ways out of dire circumstances, or overcoming an endless series of obstacles, we do it. America has always been able to recover from tragedy. Our unity in the days after September 11th, 2001, demonstrates our patriotism and character. The way we have defended our allies throughout strenuous world wars proves our courage and strength. Our ability to bounce back from such domestic hardships as the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina are testaments to our resolve.

I am a Republican because I know all of this. I have seen the American people get up from the hardest falls, and I know that we are able to make each of our own ways in the world. We do not need free handouts or government coddling or legislative handholding. Republicans expect the best from our people and do not preemptively offer assistance before it’s asked for. I know that each one of us can succeed independently, but if effort is no longer a requirement, we won’t try. Nothing is worth having if it’s easy to get. America is good at working for what it gets, truly earning it, and I think every one of us deserves the chance to rise to that challenge. That is a core Republican value.

I am a Republican because I do not think anyone should be punished for success. When a person has aimed for greatness and hit the target dead center, that’s a time for celebration, not a slap on the wrist. It is not right to get angry at someone because he or she was able to do what someone else would or could not. Competition is part of human nature, and when we stifle the competitive spirit for the sake of sameness, we are abandoning what has made mankind successful. The rich are not evil. They are not crooks or thieves or murderers any more than any other sect of our society, and their vilification comes of nothing but jealousy. The rich have worked hard and made good decisions to earn their pennies, and nothing is stopping a member of the lower class from doing the same. But when, instead of encouraging entrepreneurship or dedication or diligence, we offer to redistribute a rich man’s money into a poor man’s pocket, we have become accessories to criminal action. We have allowed the government to steal from its people and punish the innocent. To each his own, and only that. Another Republican value.

I am a Republican because I believe in freedom. I think that each one of us should be granted the right to make all of our own decisions so long as our choices do not infringe upon others. For instance, you have the right to own a gun so long as you don’t use it to kill another man. Over the past two centuries since our founding fathers established American government, it has grown to sizes that were never meant to be. We, the electing public, should control the government. They now control us. That is not democracy. When your government even has the option to propose a 700 billion dollar corporate bailout, your government is too big. The government is now trying to tell us what we can say and hear via the Fairness Doctrine, limiting what healthcare options we’re allowed to get via the universal system, and controlling exactly where our hard-earned money goes and how much of it we can bring home. We are losing our freedoms, and it’s as though people have stopped caring. It’s as though we’ve forgotten what true freedom feels like and why it’s so great. Elephants never forget. So freedom has remained a Republican value.

I am a Republican because I am an American, through and through. Awaiting election results a few days ago, people on both sides were swearing to move to Canada if things didn’t go a certain way. I couldn’t even fathom. I could never move to Canada because I could never leave America. I know that we are the greatest nation on earth and it is vital, not only for ourselves, but for everyone in the world who depends on our prosperity for their own, that we remain strong and free. We were founded by rebels who revolted against oppression, and I fear that we are becoming the kind of country we first left. But because I am an American, because I am a Republican, I will fight against this again. If we start to slip back into limited speech, religious persecution, socialism or monarchy or tyranny, I will plant my feet in American soil, remembering the solid grounds on which we built this country, and what we once believed in.

I am a Republican because I want to be, and true Republicans will always stand for choice. Every American can make his or her political distinction out of pure, free, unadulterated choice, and this is the one I’ve made. Maybe someday I’ll take a different path, but I wouldn’t count on it; I am a Republican because I was born that way, in my very heart and soul. And no one can tell me that that’s not who I am.

Preventative Maintenance

2008-11-06T16:42:00.000-08:00

I anticipated a lot of difficulty in the days after the election. I thought Obama’s supporters would be rubbing their triumph in my face, celebrating nonstop, and making sure I was aware that my guy had failed. After all, the months leading up to Election Day had us pitted against one another and had us ignoring all rules of social etiquette, so I had no reason to believe that either party, no matter which one swept the Electoral College, would be gracious in victory.

This has not been my experience. Maybe it’s because I was so vocal beforehand that everyone was afraid of my head exploding or my temper catching on fire or my sobs overtaking my body into compulsions that no one tried to push my buttons. Everyone, with very few exceptions, was very sensitive of my feelings after the results came in. Any partying they did was kept out of my sensory radius, and I got a lot of “I’m sorry” and “how are you doing?”

In the dorm hallway on November 5th, I crossed paths with a kid who campaigned for Betsy Markey and has made his liberal ideas known to me as I have done to him with my conservative beliefs. He told me he respected my loyalty to John McCain throughout the election season and shook my hand for a race well run. He said that McCain was a good man, and he was sorry our team didn’t win. I congratulated him on his candidate’s historical achievement and told him how impressed I was about Markey’s margin in our county. We didn’t yell or throw any punches or insult one another. We didn’t even ignore each other, which can be just as bad sometimes.

This is how it should go. While there is a time and place for passionate debate, there has to be a mutual respect, or nothing will get done. As McCain said in his speech after he’d learned of his defeat, the most important bond that holds us all together is our shared identity as Americans. For the most part, we all want America to succeed and thrive. Our arguments come out of how this is all executed. We think one set of ideas will better American life, they think an opposite set of ideas will. In this election season, we stopped looking at political ideas and started to attack individuals. But when we start throwing around low-brow slurs and ignorant assumptions, nothing gets solved. We don’t even get around to talking about the issues because we’re beating one another up.

In case no one got it before, this is why I had been so frustrated in the months leading up to the big vote. I was trying so hard to present the facts of issues and show everyone how I interpreted them and why that had led me to think a certain way. Most of what I got back was the typical “you’re stupid” or “no third term” crap. I’ve built up so much hostility toward Democrats because none of them presented a real counterargument to any of mine. I know that there are informed, articulate Democrats in the world who can discuss politics with a Republican and maintain a certain level of civility. I have met some of you in the two days since the election. I’m hoping to meet more.

What I have learned, and what I hope I can pass on to all of you, if that there are morons everywhere. There will always be members of some political party that give his or her comrades a bad name. For some reason, these people have gravitated toward me and given me a perhaps skewed perception of the rest of you. I’d really like to remedy this.

So now that the election is over, now that we don’t have to debate over the what-ifs or the who-to-vote-fors, I’d like to talk to some informed Democrats. If you’d like to be a representative for your party and try to show someone from the other side why you all believe what you do, I’d absolutely love to hear from you. I have made this offer before and gotten no responses; I don’t want to be led into believing that there are none of you out there. Likewise, I’d like the chance to clear up any misconceptions I may have given any of you about conservatives, so feel free to ask away. Ask about my core ideals, specific arguments I’ve made in past posts, what I thought about seeing Sarah Palin live, whatever.

The next four years could either lead us into a civil war or unite us. The outcome is in no way controlled by who our President is, but by how we interact with one another. Let us start off on the right foot.

Hi, I’m Kelly, and I’m a Republican.

Planted by the Water

2008-11-05T12:08:00.000-08:00

I’ve been trying to find the right message for my first post-election essay. Looking for the perfect words, the most moving theme, what people need to hear. I’ve been riding on a seismograph of emotion, up from crying on the phone with my mom to angry debating with a stranger in the dorm lounge, down to denial and shock, and finally finding a positive medium where I can find contentedness in my faith in America’s resilience. My father encouraged me with a reminder of my own strength and that of my political brethren. We have been hurt, there’s no doubt, but we’re not dead.

I know that my party is not done. While we’re going to have it rough for a few years, fighting to balance seemingly unchecked liberal control in all three branches of the government, we can do it. We should’ve known all along that we’d never go down without a fight; this election was just one round in a series of many matches to come. Let’s call it a warm-up. We are going to regroup after this loss, pick up our things, center ourselves, and move on. We will use this defeat as a wakeup call, alerting our members with a call of duty. We have a job to do now, and it’s time to get to work.

All we need is a strong leader to emerge. That has been our downfall over the past few years, no impressive orator, no head honcho, no Reagans or Buckleys or Lincolns. I don’t know who it will be or where the person will come from, but I’ll be looking. Maybe Palin, maybe someone we haven’t heard from yet, maybe someone we won’t expect. No matter who it is, the bottom line is that this person needs to make him or herself known soon. In the meantime, the rest of us need to man up, get together in our towns, and prepare our revolution.

If you’re a conservative reading this, you know exactly what I’m talking about and you’re with me. If you’re a liberal reading this, you think I’m crazy. But you’re not my audience right now, so that’s ok. This is a message to Sean Hannity’s “Conservative Underground.” We’re in it together, and we’re going to win. It has started already. Walking to my first class this morning, I had an unspoken bond with everyone I passed wearing black. We’d nod a somber nod to one another, and no one else seemed to see it. If secrecy and stealth missions are the future of the Republican Party, so be it. We’re good at stuff like that.

As scared as I am for the future of our country and of our party, I am hopeful, because I know how strong we are. We have stood against evil before and won, and those are the battles that trained us. Our courage has been fortified in the fires of war, our faith is founded in God’s will, and our characters have been tested, more tryingly in recent months than perhaps ever before, and have passed with flying colors. Our patriotism is not this easily snuffed, and we know that America is the greatest nation on earth, one well worth the battle ahead of us. We have fought for Her glory before. We will do it again, starting today.

Do not be discouraged. Instead, take this as a warning of things to come if we continue to do nothing. If we all still want prosperity and peace and reform, failure is not an option at this point. Dress your wounds and come with me.

While we’ve still got the right to bear them, I’m bellowing a call to arms. Republicans of America: It’s go time.

My Mini-Great Depression

2008-10-31T17:20:00.000-07:00

This is the third shift in a row that I've spent hours sitting at our customer kiosk with absolutely nothing to do. There are no customers now, there haven't been since I got here two hours ago, and there probably won't be for the next two hours I have to stay awake through before I go home. I'm bored out of my mind.

So I took the opportunity to think. And if you know me at all, you know my mind wandered to politics. With only four days until the election, this whole economic recession thing is just now hitting me. I knew it was bad, but I didn't see it affecting me too strongly. After all, I'm poor, I have no stock or investments, no 401K, no business ownership in jeopardy, and I'm just a kid. I thought I'd be immune from the aftermath of an economy gone sour, but the silence in this empty Best Buy is screaming otherwise.

If we fall into recession, it's affecting every single one of us. Companies, even huge ones like the one I work for, will have to budget labor hours into such scarcity as to lay off employees left and right. I'm new at this store, so if my department needs to trim the fat, I'm the first to go. I wouldn't be able to find another job because no one would be hiring. I'd run out of money fast. I wouldn't be able to buy food for myself or help pay my college bills or put gas in my car. I would have no idea what to do.

What about everyone else? The people who have to pay rent every month and feed their kids and keep the electricity on? Their collectors will come to call much faster than mine if their money runs out. The pending recession became a frightening reality to me tonight. And what is further frightening is the idea that this recession is signed, sealed, and delivered if Obama wins on Tuesday.

Every other time in history that the U.S. has neared recession and subsequently raised taxes, economic doom has followed. Obama has been pressed on this and has stuttered nonesense about how this time it won't happen. Because he's just awesome enough to defy historical fact.

Here's the bottom line: When Obama's tax promises go into effect, any hope of economic well being plummets. It goes right down the drain. Unemployment will skyrocket. My own might contribute to that figure, as might yours. So on Tuesday, please vote McCain, and then come buy a cell phone from Best Buy. I'll thank you twice for double-insuring my job security.

I Don't Need Prozac, I'm a Republican

2008-10-31T12:42:00.000-07:00

At the KNUS News/Talk Rally I attended last Monday, Dennis Prager cited a research study that found out some interesting things about the correlation between political affiliation and self-rated happiness. The Pew Research Center performed an objective survey of just over 3,000 Americans, 34% of which rated themselves as very happy. Regular churchgoers ranked happier than non-churchgoers, dog and cat owners rated the same, African Americans were the least happy race of all minorities, and married people were surprisingly happier than the single. But what I found most interesting as I looked closely into this study was the difference between Republican and Democrat happiness.

Only 30% of Democrats called themselves very happy, compared to 45% of Republicans.
Statistically, we’re the more joyful party. A Democrat may accuse that that’s because we’re the ones swimming around in our pools of blood and oil money or that we feel euphoric stomping our big, greedy feet all over the impoverished or that ignorance really is bliss.

I don’t particularly like any of those theories. Prager summed it up nicely: Republicans, he said, are happier because we feel we are in control of our own lives. We are not the puppets of big government or the victims of too much control. Democrats feel that their happiness is out of their own hands. They vote for over-taxation and restrictions on the market and less choice in health care and education and don’t realize that these are the things that contribute feeling like nothing but a passenger. Republicans are in the drivers’ seats. We vote against giving the government the final word on everything, and thus, we know that destiny is ours to create. It’s extremely liberating.

I know in past posts I’ve come across as angry. But that’s when I think about becoming a liberal nation. Just the thought of liberalism ticks me off, and I can see why only 30% of you can find elation in your lives. When I think about my own views, I’m satisfied. I can honestly say that I’m among that 45% of very happy Republicans. I have a bright plan for my future and, should the government not interfere, it will be actualized, and I will be genuinely happy for the rest of my life. I like the person I am and have a great group of friends who accept me, Democrats among them. My family is great, and, as Republicans, I think they’re all really happy, too. I don’t know a lot of people who can say that.

Even now, when the Democrats are supposedly on the brink of presidential victory, they’re angry. All I hear from them is irate screaming whenever McCain shows up on TV or the scribbles of nasty vandalism on the other side of my door. They can’t stand that anyone disagrees with them, and instead of trying to rationalize with us or being civil, they just yell. You’d think they’d be happy that Obama is doing so well, but instead they’re angry that he’s not winning over all 100% of us.

I’m a Republican and I’m happy. I’m not saying if you’re a Democrat you’re unhappy; you could well be in that 30%. But if you’re feeling blue, maybe you should consider going red.

Some Anonymous Mouth

2008-10-31T10:08:00.001-07:00

I think it’s the most cowardly cop-out anyone can pull in politics to say that anyone who disagrees with you is just “closed-minded.” And that’s what I have been accused of. What makes my accuser all the more cowardly was her decision to insult me in front of a large group when I wasn’t even present to defend myself. The way she handled this situation has made me lose a great deal of respect for her, and I want to take this opportunity to set a few things straight.

My loyal insider at my old high school reported to me today that in the middle of a Social Studies class, both he and I were said to be “so closed-minded when it comes to politics” (now, I don’t want to be immature, so I’ll just say this was Some Anonymous Mouth. We’ll call her S.A.M. for short). While SAM has every right to disagree with me, I think it’s pretty lame to bring up my name post-graduation when I’m a) not in the room and b) not even in the building. My insider calmly said, under the piercing stares of everyone else in the room, that she was mistaken.

The truth is, we are both very open, accepting people. I think it’s detestable that SAM says, just because I have strong convictions and logical arguments that don’t line up with her own emotion-driven politics, that I’m cemented against everything else. If someone were to approach me with a solid reason as to why my beliefs were wrong, I would listen to it, digest it, and consider rethinking my stance. The thing is, no one has ever done this. In all this time that I’ve been writing this stuff and posting these rants, not a single intelligent person has ever shown me why I should consider a party switch. Two or three people have tried, and while I do hear their arguments out, I am always able to find further justification for my initial position that, in my head, trumps theirs.

Do not stoop so low as to ignore my arguments and those of half of your country in saying that we’re all just blind. It’s so incredibly patronizing and superior for you to rule out all contrary thought as ignorant and closed-minded, and it has no positive effect whatsoever on those you’re arguing against. Not to mention your enormous hypocrisy. If you'd like to regain any sort of decent standing in my book, I invite you to come to be with a thought-out, well-presented case that either defends your statement about my closed-mindedness or convinces me that you have any idea whatsoever that you know what you're talking about in this whole politics game.

Thanks for the low-blow. You’re a pal, SAM.

Big Skinny Liar

2008-10-30T19:39:00.000-07:00

I don’t like to be lied to. I think that’s a trait I share with just about 100% of all Americans. We like to be in the know, we don’t like it when people patronize us or pull the wool over our eyes, and when others lie, we typically get angry. There was that Clinton fallatio business, accusations over Bush’s WMD statements, and that whole Watergate thing. Presidents lie. And we don’t like it.

But usually the lies come post-election. Seldom are lies told during campaign season, because we’d never voluntarily elect a liar, right?

Yeah, if that were the case, McCain would be creaming B.O. instead of clawing his way to a tie. America has been bamboozled into electing a man who is engaging in blatant lies before even being inaugurated.

I’m not talking about the birth certificate rumors or the “Muslim” school accusations or even his ridiculously shady campaign finance (although I can’t promise I won’t harp on that some other time). I’m talking about his economic plan.

You make less than $250,000 a year, right? So you’re among that 95% Obama keeps talking
about, right? The 95% that he promises won’t see any increase whatsoever in taxes? The only people getting taxed are those evil corporate executives, the ones who have the audacity to employ millions of people and stimulate the economy and donate exorbitant amounts to charity. The tax hikes are just for the multi-millionaire professional athletes and movie stars and talk show hosts. And they all seem to be ready and willing to redistribute their wealth. So for the Left and the middle class, Obama’s tax plan is utopian.

If only. Here’s the truth: Obama is not going to raise taxes. Technically. But he is going to allow Bush’s tax cuts to lapse, returning everyone’s tax rates to their 2000 levels, an increase on all 100% of the American people, no matter the income. And that’s an increase you’ll see, even if you’re in that 95% he keeps babbling about. It’s a flat out lie.

Small business owner and political analyst Ned Barnett* did the math for us by taking his 2007 income figures and plugging them into the pre-Bush tax plan, the same state Obama would allow us to return to under his economic “wisdom.” The difference? An increase of $3,824. And he’s a regular, middle-class guy making way under $250k.

So how much will your taxes go up? How much will the single mother’s taxes go up? The schoolteacher’s? The just plain poor? Everyone’s taxes are going up with Barack Obama’s plan, and that’s the truth. While the Obama campaign keeps harping on McCain for his tax cuts for the wealthy, a larger scope reveals that McCain is cutting taxes for everyone. Not a single person will see an increase in their taxes, including the 5% that Obama wants to tax into bitterness. McCain will make Bush’s tax cuts permanent as well as instate his own. He’s going to cut taxes and cut spending, whereas Obama is secretly going to increase both. Do you really think this is the kind of economic irresponsibility we need at the brink of a recession?

ATTENTION HALF OF AMERICA: YOU’RE BEING LIED TO. Wake up and vote for John.

* Check my sources at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

I Am (Going to Be) Legend

2008-10-29T14:27:00.000-07:00

I’m waiting for the doors to open at a KNUS News/Talk rally in Denver. I’m thankful for my wisdom to show up three hours early because the line is already long and predictions say the 1,300 seat room will fill up in a snap. While I’m thrilled to be in a convention center that’s busting at the seams with Republicans after my own heart, I can’t help but notice the common demographic in this audience: middle-aged white folks. Some are elderly, some are minorities, but at first glance all you see is a cross-section of Dick-and-Jane vanilla couples. They don’t look anything like the crowds I’ve seen at Obama rallies. Those crowds are full of teenagers and college kids and urban trendsetters. They’re hip and current. And I’m starting to fear: Is my party dying out?

Well, yes.

We are a dying breed. The ratio of conservatives to liberals in my generation is a frighteningly steep depletion compared to our parents’ generation, and if this trend continues we’ll be a one-party country in no time. This cannot happen.

While I sometimes joke about seceding from the Union or shipping all the Democrats I hate to a quarantined Long Island, I do, deep down, acknowledge our need for Leftists. Both parties work a sensitive teeter-totter of keeping the other in check, making sure we don’t move too far to either extreme. As much as we might loathe one another from time to time, we’ve been doing a decent job of working in tandem thus far.

Right now, we’re on the brink of a four year stint of pure liberalism. If Obama is elected, all three branches of our government will be controlled by the same party, allowing one mindset to run rampant until 2012. And there are certain things they’re planning to do that could never be undone.

The biggest question as to the decrease in young Republicans is not in any way quantitative, but rather a resounding, “Why?” As my sister asked me once, “why is our generation so blind?”
I have developed one major theory and, ergo, have pinpointed the underlying thesis of a book I plan to write in the next year or so. Our generation has been tainted against conservatism in several ways, from enduring eight years of Bush, a poor representation of our party’s values and yet still far too severely crucified, journalistic bias from Katie Couric to SNL to Jon Stewart, and an adoption of the idea that celebrities are qualified to give endorsements worthy of mimicking.

But the foremost reason liberalism is running rampant among youth? It’s got a head start.

I am a member of the first generation to be directly affected by purposeful liberal indoctrination. I didn’t know it was happening back then, but in retrospect, I can see instances as early as Kindergarten that required me to use fundamental principles of the Democrat party, and had I not had parents who actively showed me the other side, I’d be voting for Obama this election just like the majority of my peers.

I’m not saying you’re all brainwashed. But if you’ve never been exposed to my side, or dissected the inner workings of your side, maybe you are. I have done my damnedest to observe both parties objectively and I have come to my own conclusions, many of which I’ve made very clear to all of you over the past months. Even though my past thirteen years of public school have taught me that humans are evil, that evolution is truth, that we need to help those who won’t help themselves, that English alone isn’t sufficient, that we have to love everyone, that no opinion but the common one is wrong, that God is dead, that free speech is reserved only for some, that violence is never, ever an answer, and that superior intellect should be ignored and quashed so that we may focus all of our energy on dragging up the slow, I have clawed my way across the aisle into conservatism. I have had to fight so hard for my right to be a Republican, and you better believe that I struggle every day to maintain the pride I have in my party. Even I, the one you all think is the strongest conservative on campus, have trouble standing up to the constant pelting of liberal ideas, and I can’t imagine anyone who’s starting their search for political identity on the fence to have any opportunity to get to the Right side.

I already know that my beliefs are worth fighting for. That’s why I do it so hard. But if the Left keeps making it this impossible for the Right to live and breathe and speak, I will end up being the last one standing when our generation comes of age and into power.

Look for my book. It’ll be called Through the Cracks: A Memoir of One Student Liberal Education Missed.

Back in the Saddle. And Galloping.

2008-10-23T21:04:00.000-07:00

It’s not over yet.

I thought it was a done deal. I thought Obama had it in the bag, I thought McCain WAS an old bag, and I thought I’d have to move overseas. But a Republican victory could still happen, and I’m going to do everything in my power to assist it.

It took the comment of the stranger to alert me as to how negative and embittered I’ve become in my posts lately. (S)He said something about how I couldn’t be surprised that people in my dorm were lashing out against me when I was sending out so much anger myself. While I am still angry, and very much afraid, I’m starting to see the light at the end of a formerly closed tunnel, and from here on out, my message will be one of hope. Not in the smarmy Barack way, but in a genuine, starry-eyed youth sort of way. If elementary school fluff taught me anything, it’s that dreams are possible, and I can be and do whatever my heart desires. And what I desire now is a McCain triumph, an Obama annihilation, and proof that our country still has two brain cells to bang together.

But Kelly, you might say, I thought you’d given up! After all, the polls show Obama leading, you’re surrounded by his followers everywhere you go, and there’s less than two weeks left ‘til election day!

Maybe this is what the news media, a source that has been unashamedly vocal in their one-sided support, would like everyone to believe, because if our competitiveness gets choked, we’ll give up and hand the crown over to their golden boy. Their sneaky tactics worked well, even fooling me into a temporary, premature defeat. But let us not forget that polls have lied before. If polls were always right, Carter would’ve beaten Reagan, and both Kerry and Gore would’ve beaten Bush Jr. The Electoral College predictions are too close to call right now, and the polls are slowly but surely swaying away from Obama, even if it’s only a percent or two. The race isn’t over.

So to my fellow McCain supporters: don’t shut up and don’t lose faith. Keep campaigning and spreading the word, and don’t you dare stay home and opt out of voting because you think it’ll do no good. And heck, even if we lose, we’ll still know we were right. We’ll all get those bumper stickers that say, “don’t blame me, I voted for McCain,” and everyone else will watch us drive by as they’re waiting in line at public hospitals for hours upon hours or pawning off their jewelry to pay exorbitant taxes or holding their breaths for that first time Obama gets “tested.” We’ll probably be miserable, sure, but we’ll have been right, and that might be all it takes to get us through four years of hell.

Stay strong. I’ll see you at the booths.

Vote Robin Hood '08!

2008-10-23T10:23:00.001-07:00

While I always pictured Robin Hood as a cartoon fox in a jaunty green number, he is, apparently, a 47-year old Senator of Kenyan/Caucasian birth sporting everything but a flag pin. I had no idea.

But perhaps you’d say that Robin Hood was a good guy. Someone you’d like to vote for. He helped the poor and stuck it to that evil King Richard and made everything better for the whole land. And maybe this was a legitimate cause under a stagnant English monarchy wherein the poor were truly unable to thrive. But this is America, and that’s just not the way we do things.

A friend of mine told me about one of her coworkers, a guy who is fully aware of Obama’s socialist tendencies but doesn’t seem to mind. “What’s wrong with that?” he asked my conservative compadre, baffled that her opposition to socialism was her main argument against Barack. I guess on the surface, a socialist nation doesn’t look so bad. Everyone has the same amount of money so no one feels inferior or is destitute, and all the people start and stay on the same class level. It’s like a private school with uniforms: if we all look the same, no one will be jealous or distracted or slutty.

I went to a private school one year. I hated those plaid skirts and cardigans more than anything in my life.

Barack Obama’s agenda to “spread the wealth around” is frightening. What’s more frightening is how he thinks it’s N.B.D. He’s been talking about a socialized economy (and socialized health care, but I’ll rip on that some other day) since this whole thing started, and people have been going right along with it. The way Obama explains his system, with his taxation of big corporations and tax credits to middle and lower class families, sounds just like President Robin Hood, only in Obama’s case it’s the rich stealing from the rich and giving to the less rich (because let’s face it, America, no one here is truly impoverished by international standards).

I know the story has been harped on endlessly since the last debate, but I feel it’s relevant here, so here’s my comparison using Joe the Plummer:
Obama’s new tax policies would discourage success. Joe wants to better himself by buying a company, something he has worked very hard to be able to do, but once he does so, he’ll be taxed into the poor house and have to close his brand new business. And Obama’s claim that only a “small percentage” of small businesses will be affected by his tax reform is crap; the average small business is making $3.6 million per year, and Obama’s plan would tax them almost $230,000 per year more than they’re paying now. I don’t know about you or your small business, but I say 230k is a decent chunk of change, one I’d rather not see spread into a socialist system that provides cash for the undeserving.

Allow me to make my last statement clear: NOT EVERYONE DESERVES GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE. There are some people in America who do absolutely nothing for themselves. Spoiled brat princess girls, drug addicts who make no attempt to quit, the just plain lazy. I will not pad their pockets, understand? I work hard for the money I earn, and if I continue to work hard and someday become wealthy, I should not be penalized for it, and those who have not worked hard should not be rewarded for it. America is a land of opportunity. The American Dream is achieving enormous success from humble beginnings, and when we begin to cut down those who make it to the top, people will stop aiming for it. Why should Joe the Plummer be motivated to buy the company he wants when it’s a guaranteed tax hike? He might as well stay where he is because it’s less stress, less responsibility, and essentially more pay.

So if no one is willing to take on the stress and responsibility and voluntary pay cuts, who’s going to lead us? Who’s going to shoot for the stars and start the small businesses and further our economy and participate in capitalism and stimulate ingenuity? When Obama’s in charge? No one.

Funny how a man who is running under a guise of hope is proposing legislation that quashes optimism. Enjoy turning into Cuba, people. I’ll be the one saying I told you so.

Get the Fog Outta Here

2008-10-21T22:27:00.000-07:00

I have become this morning’s weather.

When I woke up, I looked out my window to see what our Colorado climate had come up with for the day. There was a low-hanging fog on the grass, floating and swaying and swelling and churning. It was beautiful for some, eerie for others. By the time I stepped out of the building to make my trek to West Campus, the fog had risen and traveled on, but it had left a chill behind, one that sunk into my skin and slowed my heartbeat and set a perfect tone for the encounters I’d have on my way.

As Joe Biden is here this morning, political minds are tinkling all about campus. Such were the conversations I overheard during the, say, fifteen minutes I was outside. For my first few steps from Wiebking Hall to the 10th Avenue intersection, I was in a fine mood, optimistic for the day and delighted that my first class had been canceled in honor of the VP candidate’s presence. Then I got to the curb. A kid was talking to his friend, a girl with big earrings and a puffy coat. He had one white earbud in his ear, the other hanging to the side to share his blaring rap music with the world. The tongues of his sneakers were enormous and free-flopping, and I could’ve de-pants’d the kid right then and there. I didn’t. The girl didn’t say an audible word the whole time we stood waiting for the little white man to illuminate and tell us the coast was clear to cross, but the guy monologued nonstop for the solid two minutes we lingered. He called his female friend a “huge douche bag,” said his weekend was “off the chain,” and dropped at least 20 F-bombs. I tried to zone him out, a tactic I often use when obnoxious people interfere with my joy, but I couldn’t help but overhear one thing he said in a most serious tone: “In Obama we trust.”

My jaw and stomach dropped in tandem. Here everyone is making jokes about how the media thinks Obama is Messiah, how deified this man has been in recent months, and this kid goes and proves everyone right. He took an American motto, extracted God, and put Barack Obama in his place. The issue here is not of Obama’s trustworthiness, but of his mortality. He is not God. He is not a god. Neither he himself nor his congregation should paint him as such. I’ve seen bumper stickers reading, “I already have a Savior, I’m looking for a President.” Is that what some Obama voters are? Lost souls in need of a Messiah, unable to differentiate between running for office and being almighty? And what I worry is that if people exalt this man, they will be able to see no fault in him. He will be free to do whatever he chooses, because God will never choose unwisely. This is a frightening, uncontrolled government.

I shook off this feeling as I climbed up and down the hill by the UC. I went down the stairs into what I fondly refer to as the Rape Tunnel and, as I walked alone, I was free to observe all the messy graffiti therein. The white wall to my left read “Obama,” then further down, “Hope.” Great, I thought, I want to elect the man supported by vandals. But I lived with it. I looked to my right, though, and saw that someone had written “Fear” exactly opposite “Hope,” and it got me to thinking: We are in the middle of something huge.

This is a pivotal election for the future of my country. The same man who inspires hope in the hearts of half the nation evokes fear in the others’ guts. At a time when I thought we were all looking for unity, we are instead going to swear in a guy whose policies alienate 150 million people. No one is listening to each other, our ideas have become more polarized than ever, and there is hatred flying back and forth all the time. Because this man we’re electing (yes, I have accepted McCain’s defeat) is so one-sided, I predict he will only further this rift. We are going to stop allowing coexistence. We are going to reach civil war.

You may not fear Obama’s platform as I do, but I would think you might at least fear this division. United we stand, divided we fall, right? So why are you aiding the wedge?

America is in a fog. It’s not affecting any one particular party or set of beliefs; we are all being consumed by it. The chill has slowed all of our heart rates, and we’re reacting at a snail’s pace to things that should be slapping us to attention. Maybe it’s too late to change the vote, but I can still aim to make sure everyone is awake and observant for the next four years. If we keep sleeping through the static here, we’re going to wake up to our ruin.

Hateful, Mindless Psycho-Babble

2008-10-19T09:11:00.000-07:00

This title, of course, refers to my own work. I am a moron. I am closed-minded and arrogant. My ideas are the only ones that matter, and they often involve the encouragement of violence, are littered with baseless insults, and are communicated with ghastly diction and syntax. I can’t believe anyone in his or her right mind would consider for one moment that I have anything worthwhile to say, and I am further astounded that there is a single Republican left in the world because everything on the right of the political spectrum is obvious crap.

Not.

But someone in my dorm hall feels this way. He (I’m assuming a male did this based on a simple handwriting analysis) came by my door sometime between 10:30pm and 5:00am last night and wrote on my whiteboard, “Your misguided Republican mindless hate mongering is what is wrong with America. Meaning this,” which he followed up with an arrow pointing down to my Fresh Elephant advertisement. This guy is more than welcome to disagree with my conservative epithets. But the adjectives used to describe his disgust with me (none of which were separated
by their necessitated commas, by the way) are beyond inaccurate.

“MISGUIDED”
Wow, you’re a humble son of a gun, ain’t ya? To say that someone else is mentally blind and deranged solely on the grounds that their ideas differ from yours is incredibly elitist, and if we’re all so concerned about global warming, our first order of business should be to suffocate your monstrously huge head as I’m sure it produces an enormous amount of waste. You, sir, are arrogant, and I am sorry that you find yourself incapable of having the single iota of tolerance it takes to recognize that not everyone who disagrees with you is just plain unhinged. To sum up, I’m not MISguided. I’m just guided on a path that you haven’t yet explored. Join me anytime you want, and feel free to show me yours.

“REPUBLICAN”
Ok.

“MINDLESS”
Looking back at my posts in summation, I can give myself high marks for information and education. I use actual citations from accredited sources left and right, base most of my remarks off of legitimate newsletters I get and study on a daily basis, and I articulate my arguments beautifully, if I do say so myself. I have college professors, high school principals, English teachers, business executives, and former political officials reading what I write, and while some don’t agree with me, they all support my efforts and acknowledge that my logic and writing skills are superb. I am never one to get on my high horse. In fact, I don’t even have a high horse to mount. But when someone questions my intelligence, I will respond with full confidence that they are mistaken, because, if there is one thing I know infallibly about myself, it is that my intellect is strong. Do not discount my brainpower just because it produces different results than yours.

“HATE MONGERING”
I’m not 100% sure who exactly it is I’m being accused of hating, but no matter who this guy thinks it is, he’s wrong. I do not hate any single demographic, nor do I feel I convey hatred for any individual, idea, or political party. I state (with acumen!) that I think certain ideas or candidates are wrong, and I give fully substantiated reasons as to why, and I claim my own views with resilience. Hatred is never a factor. Granted, I often use a biting or sarcastic tone, either because I’m peeved when I write or I think it’ll make it more fun to read, but I try very hard to not alienate or insult anyone, except for maybe the candidates themselves (but if SNL does it, so can I). I can’t count how many times I have said something along the lines of, “it’s ok if you disagree with me” or “tell me I’m wrong,” but apparently this is not sufficient compensation for all the other times I go off on tyrannical monologues wherein I discuss the bloody holocaust of all things liberal, right? Your previous use of “misguided” and “mindless” tells me that you’re far more “hate mongering” than I am.

In fact, all of your words indicate to me that you never even read the stuff you’re criticizing. Maybe you saw the Republican elephant logo in the background and assumed my writing would be something disdainful, but I’m afraid, sir, that you’re sorely mistaken, and I’d appreciate it if you’d reread (or just read) my stuff. After that, I give you full amnesty in your judgment, so long as you don’t succumb to further hate-mongering.

Aside from your adjectives, I take umbrage with your haughty generalization that I am “what is wrong with America.” Firstly, I can think of a whole lot of things that are wrong with America, and freedom of expression and competition of ideas never come up on my list. I could so easily take this one statement you’ve made on my little whiteboard and tell you what’s really wrong with America: we don’t listen to one another. We’re all so stuck in what we believe, even when we have no idea why we believe it, that all things unfamiliar are automatically filed as evil. Your snap judgment of me is what is wrong with America. Your superiority and hardheadedness are what is wrong with America. Your grammatical ineptitude is what is wrong with America!

I am so sick of all this! I see the looks people give me when they see me unlocking a door decorated with John McCain merchandise. Do you think I’m blind? Republicans have been blacklisted, for crying out loud, and we do not deserve the rap we’ve been getting. Right across the hall from me is girl with an Obama sticker on her door. Have I ever vandalized it or challenged her intelligence via her whiteboard? No, because I respect her freedom to say whatever she wants to say. And until people start granting Republicans this same respect, we will be fully founded in our assumption that we’re just bigger, more adult people than they are. Please, prove us wrong.

Fear and Loathing in a Dorm Room

2008-10-06T19:48:00.000-07:00

Usually when I write about my politics, it comes out a place of agitation or fire or frustration. Today, it’s because I’m scared. I’m starting to get genuinely terrified for the future of our country, and it’s making me sick to my stomach. I’ve got a lump in my throat like I swallowed a tennis ball, I’m shivering under my fleece hoodie, and my hands are almost too cold to type. Physiological fear over US politics. Maybe I’m just obsessing too much over this election, or maybe, just maybe, it really is this bad.

I think it’s really this bad.

I just looked up the current poll numbers from Gallup, and Obama is leading McCain overall by 50 to 42%, well outside the 4% margin of error. Right after McCain announced Palin as his running mate, I felt a surge of confidence that he had victory in the bag, but her freshness wore off far too quickly, and now, as the McCain ticket continues to run an unaggressive campaign, I’m starting to think it’s too late. We’re going to lose. And I feel utterly helpless.

I don’t know what else to do. I’ve been screaming at the top of my lungs for months, but the world has gone deaf, and I am going hoarse. Why doesn’t anyone get it? He’s bad. He’s dangerous. He’s going to be our demise.

It’s not enough that he refuses to salute our flag or wear its pin. It’s not enough that he is the least experienced presidential candidate ever put up for office. It’s not enough that, in a time when I thought we all agreed we needed to start working across the aisle, that he’s the most liberal member of Senate we’ve got. It’s not enough that his long-time mentor repeatedly expressed anti-American and racist, Black Supremacist views. It’s not enough that his very campaign began at a backyard barbeque at the home of a radical 1960s terrorist who still stands by his murderous actions. It’s not enough that he’s gotten generous campaign contributions from a prominent Chicago business criminal. It’s not enough that he vocally supports the banning and censorship of television advertisements and radio programs, solely on the grounds that he disagrees with them. It’s not enough that his economic plan closely resembles one that, less than thirty years ago, proved to be detrimental to America and its citizens. It’s not enough that he openly supports socialist ideals over democratic fundamentals, and it’s certainly not enough that he shares circumstances, slogans, and character traits with the same kinds of men who came to power in places like Germany, fascist Italy, and Cuba.

To those who support this man: what is enough? What else could I possibly tell you to open your eyes? Obama leads 2 to 1 among young voters, and I feel that as a young voter, I’m at liberty to say that this is because, as a whole, we’re naïve and impressionable. We’re jumping on his bandwagon because he’s got hype, he’s got excitement, and he’s got the media’s blessing. But if our generation is the one looking toward the future, trying to make sure things are still good for our children and grandchildren, claiming to be informed and intellectual, then this man is not the one to represent us.

I know I’m just one voice. And I know that I’ve been using my one voice this whole election season and changed a grand total of 5 minds. But I can’t stop trying. My fear won’t let me. So if you’re with me, pass it on. If the McCain campaign won’t get aggressive, we have to. There’s still a solid 28 days until the votes are counted, and until then, I will be writing, talking, and, most of all, praying for a shift in the wind.

Don’t let me do it by myself.

Paying Attention: Bad for Obama/Biden

2008-10-05T20:26:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine asked me to put together an educational “seminar” for her about politics. She wanted a nonpartisan presentation of all the major issues and where the candidates stood on them so that she’d be ready to make an informed decision come time to cast her vote. I began preparing for this “seminar” tonight by going to each candidate’s website and reading what they had to say in the Issues sections. I began with Defense. And as I began to copy and paste key passages from barackobama.com to a Word document for later reference, I started to think that something was off.

Until tonight, I was under the impression that Obama wanted to cut defense spending. I got under this impression because that’s what he’s said. One video clip I saw on YouTube captured him saying “I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems.”

But then his website says things like, “we must build up our special operations forces, civil affairs, information operations, and other units and capabilities that remain in chronic short supply; invest in foreign language training, cultural awareness, and human intelligence and other needed counterinsurgency and stabilization skill sets.” He says he wants to increase the size of our military, taking the Army to 65,000 troops and the Marines to 27,000 troops. He even wants to further fund weapons research, making sure that we’re keeping up with the 21st Century in terms of naval ships, missile defense, and armor. His website would have me believe that he’s totally pro-military. And that’s a Barack Obama I could support.

So where did the other guy go? The guy that who wanted to save us tons of money by jeopardizing our safety? Because it looks to me like that guy done and turned into John McCain.

The Defense plans on both the Obama and McCain websites are almost identical now. While they still disagree on the Middle East exit strategy, their general military attitudes are the same: more troops, better weapons. So I guess Obama has changed his mind again.

Oh, is THAT what Obama’s always talking about when he says, “change, change, change”? Changing his MIND? I get it now!

But seriously. While I’m not angry that Obama realized he was wrong and switched his stance, I do wonder what effect, if any, this is going to have on his economic plan. As Obama has been criticized for his proposed increases in government spending, he has been able to justify them because of what cuts he also says he’ll make. Several billion dollars of these so-called cuts were supposed to come from the defense budget. Now they’re not. So it’s a whole lot of spending and not a whole lot of cuts. Sound wise to you?

It looks to me like Obama’s got to change something. Again. Whether he returns to his anti-military ways or revokes his proposals for more and more spending, his platform as it stands now is imbalanced. If a candidate keeps trying to switch things up to make people happy, he’s got to make sure none of those people are paying close attention when he starts to spout off non-sequiturs.

Sorry, Obama. I am.

Reentering the Church of Palintology

2008-10-02T21:08:00.000-07:00

This week, while Joe Biden was wandering around Home Depot, mumbling to himself in the third person, Sarah Palin must’ve been cracking the books, running through flash cards with a campaign adviser, and trying out some of Ron Burgundy’s articulation warm-ups, because she gave a stellar performance in tonight’s Vice Presidential Debate. It was undeniably clear to me which candidate won this one, and I think tomorrow’s headlines will agree with me (unless Katie Couric writes them).

While Biden didn’t give a laughable performance, I was taking notes, and I found numerous arguments whose holes I could walk through. And I’m a big gal. For instance, one of the moments that will perhaps be reported as Biden’s strongest, was when he spoke of his family’s financial struggles in his childhood and gave a quick synopsis of his rags-to-riches story. I don’t deny his sincerity. But what baffles me is that he can use this history as justification for his policies when, in actuality, it is a perfect example of what the Republicans stand for: you can make success out of any circumstances. Even in his closing statement, Biden quoted his father saying, “Champ, when you get knocked down, get up.” But according to Biden’s party, the anecdote should go: if you get knocked down, stay there whining until the government comes and gives you soup and a band-aid. It’s backwards.

I also failed to see the difference between Biden’s pride and go-getter attitude when questioned about being “an interventionist” and the sole purpose of what we’ve been doing in the Middle East. He wants to save people and bring freedom to Darfur, but as his current outlook on Iraq and Afghanistan would lead us to believe, he’ll probably lead us in (as he did with his vote in favor of the War on Terror) and lead us out prematurely (as he’s trying so hard to do now).

On the other hand, Sarah Palin brought back the fire we all saw in her when she spoke at the RNC. Over the last couple of weeks, I was starting to lose my infatuation with her because she had some poor interviews, first with Charlie Gibson and then with Katie Couric. I thought that Sarah was fading, fumbling. But tonight in her closing statement, she commented on how she was happy to one again be able to talk to the American people “without the filter of mainstream media.” It occurred to me that that was the problem. She, in and of herself, is wonderful, and has gotten a bad rap from liberal media, tainting even initially strong supporters like me against her.

It’s easy for a Republican candidate to play the Victim of Media Bias card, but this argument, in Sarah’s case, was legitimized when the first reaction from Katie Couric on CBS was, “at least she didn’t embarrass herself.”

Palin was real. She was relatable and honest, and even as Biden tried to convince us that McCain was the out-of-touch candidate, next to Palin, he looked just like the old-school, white-haired, nothing-new Senator he was degrading. Whatever Palin may lack in government experience she more than makes up for in Middle-American life experience. If the everyman is who we’re after, she’s the pony to bet on.

My favorite differentiation between the overall statements of each candidate was the line between past and future, and who was on which side. Claiming to be the ticket of change, all Biden did was criticize Bush policies. The party’s only claim to the White House this time around in one man’s past blunders. Palin made it clear exactly what she and McCain want to do to initiate changes in our country, and she was able to make the distinction between their ticket and the Bush/Cheney regime without stepping on any Republican toes. In each of their last words, Palin looked forward, and Biden was still looking back. And at his age, necks don’t turn so easily.

Whenever given the opportunity, Palin had a beautiful rebuttal to whatever Biden had to spit out. My favorite was when, after Joe discussed the 16-month removal plan, Palin took a moment, breathed, smiled and shook her head, and said so matter-of-factly, “your ‘plan’ is a white flag of surrender.” The Republicans watching in our dorm’s basement lounge cheered for her, already knowing at this mid-point of the debate, that she was the victor.

I could divulge further into an answer-by-answer recap of what each person said and why Sarah’s was consistently superior, but you can watch the debate and have Palin do that for herself. I’m just so tremendously overjoyed that our girl’s back and, with her, our party’s hope for electoral victory.

But I’d like to end with a yarn about two of my friends and their post-debate reception. They traveled up from the basement to the first floor lounge, where the Democrats had gathered to watch the debate. When they walked in—silently—someone asked, “So, do you guys think Sarah won?” They nodded, and out flooded attacks and venom from several persons present. One girl went so far as to say, “I can’t even be in the same room as them,” and she walked out, mumbling something about closed-mindedness. Now, I’m not upset that they thought Biden won. Maybe he did. But they failed to provide any concrete and relevant evidence, and they dismissed all rules of common courtesy. So I’m giving you all this chance: if you thought Biden won, don’t yell at me for thinking the contrary, tell me why. And, if you know some of the attackers from the lounge I’m talking about, consider passing your information onto them so that they don’t make such fools of your party again.

On a possibly unrelated side note, someone keeps drawing (and labeling) vomit on my dorm door’s whiteboard. If this is in reference to my political swag, again I say hats off to another well thought-out argument. Thank you.

Two Birds, One Stone: How I Can Hate Obama Twice for the Same Thing

2008-09-28T13:15:00.001-07:00

My post-debate reactions were unimpassioned; I felt each candidate gave a mediocre performance. Obama seemed more smooth, of course, and McCain seemed more relatable, but neither gave overly convincing arguments or seemed to capture and quell the underlying frustrations of either party. If I were an independent voter who, as of Friday night, had no idea who to vote for, I would still have no idea who to vote for.

So I’m calling it a draw.

But because most political media is still focused on trying to decide which man was the victor, it has been easy for Obama to sweep some bad press under the rug as he proves himself to be a proponent for censorship and the revocation of essential, long-standing rights.

Yesterday, Obama’s campaign caught wind of some NRA-PVF (that’s the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund) ads that were set to air in the coming weeks. The ads dug into Obama’s longstanding anti-gun voting record, which he apparently wants to keep a secret.

While I’m not wildly dedicated to maintaining the 2nd Amendment, I support it. I have an NRA sticker on the back of my car from the previous owner, and, if I’m being honest, I keep it there because it kind of makes me feel cool. I’ve always thought that if we outlaw guns, we’ll just find guns in the hands of outlaws. And then the responsible citizens who use them wisely won’t have them when they need them. The right to bear arms is one of the originals, something our founding fathers thought was absolutely essential, and I think it ill-advised to go questioning the wisdom of these men.

I think, though, that when most people debate this issue, their minds are primarily on handguns. But Obama is so liberal, so extreme, that he has voted to ban nearly all guns, including rifles, shotguns, and all the ammunition most common for hunting. My dad, my grandpa, and all my uncles hunted regularly when I was growing up, and not a single one of them ever got shot. This is in part because to obtain a hunting license, you’re required to take a gun safety course. But it’s also because hunters don’t typically use their rifles for murder. A 2006 study showed that 9 in 10 crimes involving a firearm were committed with handguns, not with hunting rifles.

So I’m not sure what Obama’s justification for his many anti-rifle votes is. Other than furthering the government’s control over our lives.

But I’m not sure what irks me more: Obama’s voting record, or his new-found love of censorship. His campaign is doing everything in its power to make sure no one ever sees these NRA ads, including threatening TV and radio stations who are considering airing them (if you want to see the most controversial, go here: http://election.newsmax.com/nra_Hunter.html). I understand that sometimes campaigns get down and dirty, divulging personal secrets or attacking a candidate’s family members or bringing up irrelevant issues just for shock value. But this series of ads is legitimate, and I see this issue as fair game. America households, nearly 40% of which report owning at least one gun, need to know about this candidate’s leftist past (and present and future) in order to cast an informed vote. And unless Obama is, for some reason, ashamed of or embarrassed by this record, he should be just fine with letting these ads air and showing the voting public where he stands.

But instead, he’s trying to control what our media is allowed to show us. He’s trying to limit free speech. He’s trying to keep us blind and defenseless.

But who knows? Maybe I’ll just ask George Orwell who I should vote for.

Whether or not you agree with or oppose extensive gun control legislation, I think we can all agree that we’d like to keep one right, that of our First Amendment, intact. And I’d like a president who’ll fight for that, not quash it. If you think I’m taking this too far, look up some of Obama’s comments about Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. You might start to understand that this is a man who digs censorship in many forms.

I pray that none of you vote oral duct tape into our White House. Just something to think about.

If He Did It (OJ Reference Unintentional)

2008-09-24T12:57:00.000-07:00

It seems strange that there has been so little campaign activity in the past few weeks. I haven’t seen any outlandish breaking news or scandals, no badmouthing from one side the other, no venomous ads, not even any vandalism on my door. It’s as though we’re in this eerie calm before the political storm, and I’m not sure if I should wait it out or start stocking up on canned goods.

I claim not to be a prophet, but I feel like, just maybe, I might know what’s coming. This idea isn’t purely of my own premonition, mind you; many strategists have been musing over this quiet possibility since the RNC and are just holding their breaths for the moment it actually happens. Predictions say: Biden is stepping down, Hillary is swooping in.

This notion terrifies some people. It encourages some others. I’m not sure how I feel about it. My first assumption is that it would backfire. Everyone would be able to see (because the transparency is atrocious) that it’s out of pure strategy and is a lame, copycat move because Sarah Palin has shaken poll numbers like crazy since her debut. Replacing Biden with Hillary would put another tick mark under the already crowded “Obama Copies McCain Whenever Popular” column, and maybe, finally, people would start to see that the self-proclaimed catalyst of change really isn’t much of a free thinker.

The Republican ticket is getting more female support than ever. Obama, assuming his studliness would woo every woman’s vote (a tactic that was actually working for a while), is a little T.O.’ed that Palin has teetered her gender’s opinion. His vengeance may come in the form of the thing closest to a woman the Democrats have to offer: Hillary Clinton. Would it work? Would the women return to the Blue camps because Hillary, their heroin, came back as a second-best to the party’s golden boy?

Or would her supporters still feel shafted?

And would Hillary even be willing?

Or, the scenario I see as the most likely, everything might just even out, and this whole upheaval will have been for not. Some Hillary supporters will be happy to see their girl’s name under VP, and they’ll vote with the Democrats. Some Hillary supporters will be disgusted to see their girl’s name under anything but President, and they’ll vote with the Republicans as a silent protest. Women on the fence will be split down the middle, some thinking that Obama finally came to his feminist senses, and some thinking that making such a drastic change this late in the game is a foreshadow to how erratic his presidency would be. Polls will rise, fall, and readjust to approximately right where they are now.

And right now, McCain is owning. So do it, Obama. I really don’t mind.

Two Different Hand Gestures

2008-09-23T16:02:00.000-07:00

When I first came to college, I kept my mouth generally shut whenever someone brought up politics, mostly because I could tell that the speakers who initiated such discussions were the overly-vocal, stubborn, uninformed members of their respective parties, and whatever I had to say, be it in support or opposition, would be discounted. I then quietly staked my claim as a proud Republican, and, as many of you know, I got a decent amount of flack for it (on a side note, my beliefs remain unaffected).

Things quieted down after people started to realize that—what a shocker—I might actually know what I’m talking about. They didn’t start agreeing with me, and I didn’t expect them to, but they at least respected my opinions and noted that they were all backed with factual support and logic. But I am not by any means the only Republican in history to have substantiated my platform. For some reason, though, we have been conditioned to think that we’re wrong, to think that we should be ashamed of ourselves for sporting elephants and red, to think that we shouldn’t speak because someone else will attack. We have, therefore, been silenced, and have thus lost touch with our comrades.

But we are not rare. We are not the minority. We are equally numbered and equally strong. We’re just not as damn loud about it.

I have two bumper stickers on my car, one that states simply “McCain for President 2008” and another that subtly reads, “No thanks, keep the change.” Driving to Boulder this past weekend, I stopped at a red light and noticed in my rear-view mirror a man and his wife reading the back of my car. They chuckled, saw that I saw them, and gave me a thumbs-up. Later, the same stickers got me flipped off, but I was still so happy about the first reaction that I didn’t care. I was glad to be a lifeline for one conservative couple stuck in a liberal town. I was glad to be a ray of hope that told them, “no, you’re not alone.”

I know you think I’m overdramatizing this, but until you’ve had your political identity stifled into a coma, you can’t understand. And in the past two days since the thumbs-up incident, I have had a girl stop by my dorm to thank me for being her fellow Republican, and another message left on my whiteboard saying, “Yay McCain! Finally!” These people have been so starved for allies, fighting so hard not to be force-fed false hope and loose change, that something as simple as a sticker can create a haven for them.

If you’re preaching coexistence, practice it. Let the Republicans of the world thrive, too, and don’t try to shame us for thinking our thoughts. We might not be the media’s favorite children or live beneath rainbows or really, really hate guns, but we have the same liberties as the Democrats next door. Grant us our rightful speaking privileges, if you would be so kind.

And, to the Republicans in the audience, quit shutting up.

Both Vilified and Victimized

2008-09-13T07:18:00.000-07:00

Eighteen hours ago, I was the victim of a hate crime.

Ok, that’s a little extreme, but my dorm room door WAS vandalized because of my proudly displayed, conservative ideals. They weren’t obnoxious adornments or anything offensive, just a Fresh Elephant advertisement and a John McCain sticker. I’ve been choking on Obama merchandise since I got here, so I figured I’d be allowed my drop in the political bucket. But evidently contrary opinions are not entitled to free speech. As it turns out, basic courtesy and first amendment rights are reserved exclusively for people who have identical thoughts, and if anyone with ideas outside your comfort zone rears his head, it’s fully justified to lash out in irate attacks, stomping the stranger to death until he curls up like a wounded spider, spasmodically twitching his daddy-longish legs.

Sarcasm.

So here’s what happened: I’ve had my Fresh Elephant blog (freshelephant.blogspot.com, if you haven’t visited yet) advertised on my door for about a week now, but the Republican elephant symbol on it is subtle and faded, so no one really paid attention. Yesterday, my roommate stuck a John McCain sticker (a little one, mind you) below our peephole. That’s it. I strolled back from the dining hall in the evening and saw that someone had scribbled “REPUBLICANS SUCK” over our whiteboard messages and had also used the dry-erase marker to cross out McCain’s name.

Sure, whiteboards are fair game. Everyone has them hanging up and anyone can write whatever they’re motivated to. I didn’t much care for the message, but it wouldn’t have hacked me off too bad. The sticker, however, is now forever smudged with slander, and no matter how much I rub it or how much Windex I use, there is the faint outline of a thick, black squiggle through the name of a man I respect and support very much.

I do not expect everyone in this building to honor John McCain as I do. I’m in the Performing Arts hall, for crying out loud, I know we’ve got Democrats. And I’m ok with it. But if they run all over the place preaching a message of love and tolerance, they cannot turn around and alienate anyone dissimilar. I am also a believer in an almost universal acceptance, but I make an effort to practice such theories as well. If I went door-to-door down these hallways and tried to vandalize every liberal token, I would run out of ink. So I guess it’s a good thing I’m not that insolent and closed-minded.

Disagree with me; I encourage it. But have the balls to approach me, not a sticker, about it, and be prepared to show me that you know what you’re talking about. Because if your vocal arguments are as cowardly and hot-headed as your marker demonstration, you’re not going to win with me. Say it’s an oxymoron, but I am an informed Republican, and I am ready and willing to articulate my support for my party sans name-calling and defacement.

Bring it.

University of Propaganda

2008-09-11T00:08:00.000-07:00

I can’t believe I’m being charged tuition for Indoctrination 101. Every Tuesday and Thursday at 11 AM, I sit in a stiff classroom on the outskirts of campus and wait for my professor, an au-natural hippie aged approximately one half-century, to arrive. She enters alongside her pet student, candidly engaged in a merciless bash session of our current U.S. government and throws out some violent fantasy about a bloody decapitation in the oval office (even though she grimaces whenever a novel discusses animal slaughter or non-human blood of any kind). I can deal with the idea that she has opinions, and I truly don’t mind that we disagree. It is when her politics interfere with my learning environment that we develop a problem.

Although I could conjecture as to my professor’s political stance after just a first glance (sometimes surface judgments are spot-on), I figured, “hey, we’re in British Literature. How often will US politics be relevant?” Well, the answer is never, but somehow it’s still shown up daily. It’s as though my teacher has set out on a mission to bend every student she encounters against conservatism. She makes an effort to connect the evils of the Republican Party to everything.

For example, when on the subject of King Henry VI, the professor commented on his age and poor political judgment. “It’s like electing a baby George Bush and having a hundred Dick Cheneys running around,” she laughed. I decided not to point out that if Bush and Cheney are in fact the blood-thirsty, war-loving men she thinks they are, they may have actually done quite well for themselves in Medieval England. She went on to discuss how dreadful life was during this Henry’s reign, all the while making correlations to Bush’s incompetence. She then said, “really, would you elect a baby to be president of the United States?” I also decided not to point out that the biggest political baby we’ve ever seen up for high public election is Barack Obama, her Messiah. Later, when commenting on author Sir Thomas Malory, she poignantly stated, “one group of people might call him a criminal, and another group might call him a great guerilla fighter, a soldier.” I made a final decision not to point out the argument that Bush the Evil is in the same reputational limbo.

I made the decisions to bite my tongue for fear that my opinions could jeopardize my grade. I thought college was supposed to encourage free thought and provide a backboard off of which to bounce uncommon ideas. This professor quickly extinguished my hopeful, intellectual flame.

Higher education has become an institution for initiating government agendas and social change. No matter which party is pushing the agenda or what the intended changes are, this is wrong. The job of a teacher is to spark original and innovative thoughts. Students should be learning to develop their own logic, to become quality thinkers, not robots who regurgitate a professor’s policies on cue. The classroom should stimulate thoughts, not provide them.

Thankfully, my mother, a middle-school teacher well acquainted with such school-board intentions, raised me with immunity to these underhanded tactics. And I feel my thoughts have potential to be more organic because of this. All minds deserve a like opportunity. Education should not taint us. I have watched my mother forced to implement teachings that directly contradict her morality, such as bribery systems for mediocre deeds, over-testing her kids to meet standards (note that I do NOT agree with Bush’s NCLB legislation), and the elimination of failure.

Whether or not you agree with the current agendas being pushed, I think we can all see that pushing any agenda at all is detrimental to our nation’s future. If we want to continue to be a nation of bright inspirations and pioneering, we cannot allow our educational system to cut out an overlay of which thoughts are acceptable. Our generation is all about fighting against the mainstream, right? Let’s fight.

Liberal Hypocrisy? But That's an Oxymoron!

2008-09-04T13:45:00.000-07:00

I was half-heartedly watching some late-night television before bed when everyone started insulting Sarah Palin, her pregnant daughter, and the family’s very lifestyle. Conan O’Brien, pretending to quote the governor, said “everyone knows marriage isn’t for gay people—it’s for pregnant teenagers!” He also said that as Palin is a member of the NRA, she must be in favor of “shotgun weddings.” Craig Ferguson, in reference to McCain’s recent endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans, said, “Here’s a group that won’t embarrass (him) with any surprise pregnancies!” Finally, Jimmy Kimmel jested that Palin’s main campaign promise was to put “a walrus in every igloo and a whale tooth in every papoose.”

Now, I understand that these men make jokes for a living and I’m not to take these words as venomous or hateful or serious in any way. But the above words of these men are simply humorous retellings of actual arguments brought up by the media and the Democrat party. These most recent slams are utterly dripping with hypocrisy and mixed messages, and it’s all leaking in and oozing out from every imaginable angle. I’m appalled that that party hasn’t yet registered some of this double-talk and tried to bathe away the shame. If you haven’t yet figured it out, allow me to enlighten:

The situation with Palin’s daughter is not only a living testament to the ticket’s strong pro-life backbone, but an embodiment of a class of women that the Democrat party says it fully supports. One major demographic for liberals, now and in past elections, has been single mothers. They struggle to make ends meet, they are sacrificial and selfless, and they deserve a leg up from the government (although Obama seems to think otherwise, if you’d like to reference http://freshelephant.blogspot.com/2008/08/fillet-mignon-and-fatherhood.html). Bristol Palin could be one of these single mothers, should her boyfriend flake out, and she’s having her baby anyway. She is going to face extreme emotional hardship, as all teen mothers do, and, if they are to be true to what they’ve always said, the Democrats should be eager to help her and all those like her.

Instead, they say that she’s proof of Palin’s irresponsible parenting (because all the Democrat kids I know obey their parent’s moral code 100%), and rumors have arisen, tabloid fire and TMZ igniting, that Palin’s youngest son, Trig, is secretly Bristol’s.

This isn’t The Young and the Restless, people, it’s a presidential election. Can we grow up, please?

Furthermore, people seem to discredit Palin because she’s from Alaska. It’s a small population, it’s separate from the rest of our states, so she’s obviously out of touch with everyone else (wait, isn’t Obama from Hawaii? Interesting…). This is another major flaw in the Democrat’s logic: Palin is a middle-class, hard-working woman, and her family is completely average. She has both been and lived with lower and middle-class Americans, just your typical blue-collar men and women, all just making a living. The people Palin governed were our bread-and-butter citizens.

Aren’t these the people the Democrats say they want to help? They’re going to get tax cuts, they’re going to get affordable health care. They’re our focus, our drive, our neighbors. They love them! But when a real, live member of the average American populace shows up, she is not in for love, but for criticism and disdain. Sure, maybe the Democrats want to help these people, they just want to keep them at arm’s length while they’re doing it. They’re fine giving them handouts, but not allowing actual success.

So Palin’s government experience isn’t good enough because it was “just Alaska.” Well, hell, at least it’s experience.

Palin has agreed to put herself up for public office and, therefore, we’re all entitled to poke and prod at her life and figure out if she’s up to par. Feel free to criticize. Just make sure that the things you chose to hate about her aren’t things your party stands to support.

Parenting and the Presidential Ticket

2008-09-03T21:03:00.000-07:00

Women’s liberation. It was about more than just burning your bras, letting your pits get furry, and shouting “down with makeup and panty hose!” It was about equal pay, divorce initiation rights, suffrage, access to higher education, and the opportunity to reach ambitious career goals. The huge feminist movement of the 1960s said, “I am woman, hear me roar!” The major accomplishments made therein were due in large part to Democrats, and they have since been seen as the party that fully supports a woman through all her endeavors.

Unless she threatens victory for the golden boy.

Since the announcement of McCain’s running mate, the prominent story the media has sunk its teeth into is whether or not Palin can be both a tenacious VP and a dedicated mother. “She’s got a child with special needs,” they’ve repeated, or “it looks like she has her priorities backwards.”

Funny how dedication to fatherhood has never been a factor when electing a male president with kids. I guess we all just figure the First Lady will keep the home going. She’ll wear the clean, white apron and bake gooey, chocolate cookies and shuttle the soccer team around and rub Mr. President’s tired feet and appear in a Hoover commercial, looking beautiful all the while, of course. Daddy’s busy running the country, so he’s excused from his fatherly duties.

This is disgusting. If a father can juggle a high political office and a family, so can a mother. Watching Palin’s children at the RNC tonight, it looks to me like the family is in full support of their matron, and that she’ll be able to stay fully involved in their lives while she pursues an important career goal. And her husband, the father of the house, will do just fine supplementing as the hockey team’s escort.

I hope Obama’s daughters don’t get neglected by Daddy while he’s in the Oval Office. But I guess Michelle alone is sufficient parental attention. Gag.

How dare the Democrats call themselves women’s liberators and simultaneously doubt the power of one of womanhood’s best representatives. Sarah Palin is intelligent, articulate, poised, strong, and capable. After seeing her speak tonight, I have no doubt that she will make a superb Vice President and maintain her standing as an involved mother.

Attention Democrats: cut the hypocrisy and quit doubting the power of a woman.

The Right This Woman Wants

2008-08-28T13:58:00.001-07:00

Alright, I'm touching it. The untouchable issue. It's such a dirty word: abortion. And it should be a dirty word. It's a terrible thing. And anyone who says it's not is sick. I don't care if I offend you by saying it or if you think i shouldn't be so blunt with my language, that's the way it is.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest:

I've developed an intolerance for the term "women's rights". It's a phrase that has become synonymous to abortion rights (because obviously that's all we women care about), and it therefore seems to follow that unless you're pro-choice, you're anti-woman. I am neither. I am a woman, and I am proud to be such. I feel as though I have every right I could ever long for, and I humbly thank every woman who came before me and fought for each one of those rights. I can walk around in pants because of them. I can earn just as much money as a man because of them. I will vote in November because of their effort and their pain. Women are powerful, and we deserve nothing but freedom.

But if someone were to take away my right to an abortion, I would not lose this pride. In fact, I think it would grow. My pride in my feminity reminds me not just that we are equals to men, but that we are vessels. We are the only half of our species with the right to bring forth life. We have a priviledge that no other can match. We women are the sustainers of mankind, and without this sacred right, we would all cease to exist.

Abortion cheapens us. It underminds the sanctity of birthing human life. It allows us to discard our most powerful and unique right. We fight for the right to do it, and yet, when the battle was won, we were lost. Women have stopped cherishing themselves for the veins of essence they are. We are limp, we are void, we are masculine, and those are not the rights our foremothers fought for.

We have the right to preserve our virginities. We have the right to be selective with our mates. We have the right to buy rubbers and pills so we don't "use our gift" when we don't want to. But if, instead, we sacrifice all those rights and opt to settle for just one, the right to an abortion, we have the right to go back to square one.

If you ask me if I support women's rights, I will tell you with full enthusiasm, "yes, yes I do." But I am not pro-choice. I am pro-life to my very core, because my core is where I keep my right to reach my full womanly potential, and that is the right I fight for. Give me the right to bear life; allow not abortion to usurp me.

The Core Difference

2008-08-27T13:30:00.000-07:00

It’s easy to confuse liberalism with freedom because it initiates change, and the idea that nothing is concrete opens doors and therefore lifts any feelings of entrapment one might have. Conservatism works to keep things the same. While this may come across as stagnancy or limitation, if the thing being preserved is freedom, permanence is good.

Thus is the core difference between the two ideals: remember the anecdote, “don’t fix it if it ain’t broken”? Conservatives noted the lesson; liberals did not. Barack Obama is the poster child for this bought of liberal blindness. His campaign has been built on the basis of change, and because everyone seems to hate the way things are right now, change sounds like what we need. Change sounds like liberation. It sounds like sunshine. It makes us feel warm and fuzzy.

But I’d rather watch a Disney movie if that’s the outcome I’m shooting for, not elect a Socialist. On the surface, Obama’s big changes make us want to stutter along with David Bowie lyrics, but when we listen to the record backward we hear the hidden messages, much like Satan left behind rock and roll in the 70s. The specific changes Obama wants to make will take us further from real freedom than we’ve ever been. If we need change, this isn’t it.

At this point, the conservative candidate is also proposing change, but in a much more positive way. McCain wants to return the core philosophies of the United States, the roots out of which we grew into such a strong establishment.

No one is satisfied with the way things are now. Everyone wants a change. But if we chomp at the bit at the mention of the word before we look into things more meticulously, we’re going to trip mid-race and get shipped to the glue factory. All I’m asking is that we vote with care. Study, divulge, scrutinize both candidates from home life to social ideas to moral codes to their whereabouts at the time of Nicole Simpson’s murder. If none of us can be open-minded enough to consider all the points on the table, we’ve become what we despise about our opposition.

Please, at least smell the Kool-Aid first.

Voting for Humans

2008-08-26T15:14:00.001-07:00

I just registered to vote. And in the boxes open for Affiliation, I proudly sketched, in blue ink and all-block letter, R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-A-N, a word that has had me vilified more pungently than usual since I got to college. It seems everyone here is a Democrat. There are people on street corners with clipboards and forms, asking if I’ve registered to vote. And, in their O-“bomb symbol”-A t-shirts, they’re not subtle about how or why they want you to register.

So much for anonymity and objectivity.

I’m all for supporting your party. I’ve been a Republican since I started thinking about politics (and, truly, before I even acknowledged it), and I don’t plan on changing that. That’s not to say that I’m stubborn or closed-minded, it’s just that I’ve thoroughly and legitimately thought about what I believe is Truth and have come out on the right side (you can interpret “right” however you desire). If you’re a Democrat, I don’t expect you to have some major epiphany and start agreeing with me (but if you want to, I’m totally down with that). We are all, as citizens of arguably the freest country in the world, entitled to hold and voice our political ideals to the world regardless of reciprocation.

But this is not the election to blindly trust party lines. I know far too many voters that are basing their ballots on nothing more than the D or the R behind a man’s name, but on the November ticket, those letters are so skewed, so faded, or just so seriously jacked up that using them as credible indications of presidential merit is beyond unwise.

Trusting the center line in this election doesn’t work because neither candidate can even see it. Obama is so far left, the line is a dot to him, and McCain can’t see the line to either side because he’s sitting right on top of it as he tried to get everyone to hold hands and bridge the aisle. So this election comes down to the man himself. McCain or Obama. I’ve already looked at things issue by issue and made a semi-decision (I say “semi” because I’m not satisfactorily pleased with either platform 100%). But to further convince myself so that I may be proud to cast my vote, I have begun to examine these men as people. I have read books, watched interviews, watched debates, and looked into the eyes of these people to see whose character I’m drawn to, who I can trust. Here’s the way I see it:

John McCain is old. He seems like a wise, jolly grandfather to me. I can imagine knocking on his front door (probably oak with a brass knocker) and having him and dear ol’ Cindy open their home to me, waving me inside and inviting me to have a seat on their overstuffed, floral-patterned couch. There would already be a litter of grandchildren inside, gathered on the floor around John’s plush recliner. He’d resume the war story he’d been telling about some valiant battle or the guidance of a brilliant general. They’d, of course, ooh and ah. Upon finishing, he’d go to the kitchen and help Cindy make a pot of coffee which he’d offer to me alongside a tray of peanut brittle or some such homemade sweet treat. While we munched, he’s ask me how my life was, what I’d been doing, what I’ll be doing. He wouldn’t ask out of burden or courtesy, but because he had a genuine interest. When our conversation was over, he’d ask if I wanted to stay for dinner, and if I had to go he’d tell me to stop by again any time.

It would be a lovely afternoon.

Across town, I’d step up to a wrought iron gate and push a button next to an intercom. A voice would come across saying “Obama residence, do you have an appointment?” And I’d say “no, just visiting,” and they’d send me away. But for the sake of my story, let’s pretend the gate opened. I’d walk up a path with luscious green grass to either side. The front door, as well as the whole house, would be a bright white, adorned with pillars. The gold knocker would be hanging out of the mouth of a medieval-looking lion’s head, and I’d nervously bang it a few times. Michelle would answer the door and ask me to take my shoes off, and I would. We’d go into the living room, which has been meticulously cleaned, and I’d sit on the plastic-covered couch that squeaked like a fart every time I moved. “What can I do for you?” she’d ask me. I’d tell her I just wanted to chat. “We’ve been very busy lately, as I’m sure you can imagine,” she’d say. About then is when Barack walks in from the other room, reading a book through half-lens glasses. He’d say hello in a way that indicated his confusion as to my presence, but he’d shut the book and sit down in a chair across the mahogany coffee table. I’d ask him about, say, the situation in the Middle East, and he’d make a statement full of “uh” and “umm” and “well” and I’d become unenlightened. I’d say thank you for the visit and the couple would walk me to the door, watching silently while I put my shoes back on, and shutting the door behind me.

I’m uncomfortable just writing about it.

Call them judgments or preconceptions or stereotypes or whatever you’d like, these are the scenarios I see when I look into the eyes of the two men. Political affiliations completely aside, when I comes to which human being I’d rather vote for, I’m still checking Johnny’s box.

Keep Trying, Mr. Democrat

2008-08-26T15:09:00.000-07:00

This is something I wrote as a rebuttal to some debates going on elsewhere. It addresses several misconceptions I hear about Obama on an almost daily basis.

Firstly, I will address your statements about Reverend Wright. While it is true that Obama is in no way expected to share 100% of his beliefs with any one other person (on a side note, you're misusing the word "inhuman"), it is disheartening to me that Obama would, on several occasions, refer to Wright as his mentor or his guide. These are terms that indicate at least some common ground between the two men's belief systems and show that Obama has a great deal of trust and respect for Wright. And because Wright has such deep-seated and passionate hatred for Caucasians and America alike, it worries me that a US Presidential candidate would hold this man in such a high regard. I'm not saying that Reverend Wright is evil to his core and I do not discredit all the good work he and his church have done. I do, however, question Obama's judgment of character and intentions for our country.

Secondly, I think you have a much different idea of helpfulness than I do, or perhaps you're just unfamiliar with the way our economy and foreign affairs function. When you cite Obama's positive platform with his intentions to "lower taxes on struggling families, make college more affordable, pull out of Iraq, etc" I can't help but shake my head and mutter something about ignorance. While Obama wants to lower taxes on struggling families, he also has several plans that would increase government spending, i.e. green projects, health care reformation, etc. So if the government is spending more and there are less taxes coming in, what happens? They hike up the taxes on different classes of citizens. The middle class would be further taxed, possibly to the point of them becoming the lower class. The upper class would be taxed to death, and these are the men and women who run companies that provide jobs for millions, stimulate the economy with their disposable income and employee pay days, and if we begin to tax them to offset everyone else's tax cuts, they stop spending and our economy becomes stagnant.

Furthermore on Obama's brilliant economic strategies, he's planning on raising the capital gains tax, which, as history proves, causes frenzy of stock selling all on the same day (because people try to avoid the tax on their profits) and we thus plummet into a second Great Depression. If history fails to teach us, we become the definition of insanity.Obama's plan to make college affordable is bogus. College is already affordable if you put forth effort (i.e. merit-based scholarships, grants, financial aid, stipends), and several of the more expensive colleges have already set up programs wherein lower-income families pay only a fraction of the tuition cost. Actually, as a member of a low-income family and a first-year college student myself, I looked into it, and I could've attended Harvard for just under 4,000 a year. So unless Obama wants to make college a purely charity-based institution, I think it's fine. I think what he's actually talking about is spreading the outdated and widely loathed policy of affirmative action over into financial matters as well instead of doing away with it altogether as he should.

And pulling out of Iraq. We need an exit strategy, not just an exit. Obama wants to pull out without a second thought, without thinking of the side effects. He is being irrational as an appeal to America's impatience and sentiment and it would result in the absolute waste of millions of dollars and six years of noble work. Do not deny the progress we've made so far. We're almost done. And there's a big difference between leaving and finishing. The one candidate I trust to wisely, quickly, and safely get us out of the Middle East is John McCain. In fact, he's the one candidate I trust at all.

The Olympics and Patriotism

2008-08-19T22:05:00.000-07:00

The Olympics. The world comes together every four years to pit our strongest, fastest, lithest, most tenacious athletes against each other to see which country’s youth is truly golden. Although we are in competition, no other event seems to breed as much international unity as these games. Individual patriotism, however deep-seated, does not overpower camaraderie between mismatched flags. For just a few days, we do not see other countries as debt collectors or political allies or roadblocks of our affairs. We are all just humans, rooting for our teams and experiencing every loss, victory, injury, and fairy tale in tandem.

But every night, after I turn off the instant replays and national anthems, I remember that everyone hates America. Isn’t that right? We’re the international bad guys, the global heavy-weights of idiocy and pollution and general pig-headedness? That’s the impression I get from many politicians and average members of the US populace alike. And whenever I speak of my own devotion to the stars and stripes, it automatically makes me a conductor of the machine that is American Evil.

Since when did it become an American trait to hate America? We’re all so ashamed of our nation, taught to ignore anything good we do. Our schools sucks, we love war, we’re nuclear energy hypocrites, we stick our big, democratic nose where it’s said to be unwelcome, and we’re a bunch of fatties. Focusing on the things previously listed, I’d hate us, too. But this is not the definition of America.

I’ve always considered myself a mild patriot. While I’d like to claim that I’m whole-heartedly proud of my country, almost to the point of nationalism, and that I wear my passion on my red, white, and blue sleeve, my patriotism has been blasted by the anti-American epithets and bitter cynicism that fly under the name of liberal media, and it has been a struggle to keep my grip on it. My mother, moved to tears by the words of a Frenchman, seemed to have forgotten, or tucked so deeply away, her love for her country that a foreigner had to remind her that we do good things. While this new French president’s speech was incredible, my mother’s reaction to it made me sad, because the duty of inspiring patriotism in US citizens’ hearts should not fall in the hands of anyone who does not reside within our own borders. Instead of beaming with pride, we tear down our nation from within. How might we stand when we don’t even support ourselves?

It should not come just once every four years that we feel something besides hatred for our great land. Call us what you will, but our country is a source of hope for the rest of the world, a powerhouse of opportunity, and a safeguard for anyone pledging allegiance. I don’t claim American flawlessness, but we are not the soul of blackness our own people make us out to be. And what saddens me most is that this reputation is one we have created ourselves. And only we can undo it.

I am not ashamed that I well up whenever our anthem plays for a gold medalist our flag has bred. I am not ashamed that we are more fortunate than anyone else in the world. I am not ashamed that we are strong. I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to have such pride.

Stop letting shame define Americanism. It is the antithesis of our foundation, and a return to our roots is apparently long overdue.

The Obama Rights

2008-08-07T19:18:00.000-07:00

Because of German-made mechanical difficulties concerning a BMW, I spent a lot of time today in the car with my sister on several fix-it missions around the city. On one of our conversational tangents, the sis devised a scheme to go downtown during the DNC and slap McCain stickers on everyone's cars. I was an enthused proponent of this suggested vandalism until we both realized security personel would be out in packs, sniffing around for Republican blood and ready to read us our rights.

That's when my sister joked, "once Obama's president, it'll go 'you have the right to a baby daddy. You have the right to welfare'" and so forth. What started as witticism soon began to churn thicker in my head, and it really sunk in just how much things would change in our country if Obama were elected. This huge campaign of CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE! What does it really mean? What will our nation look like afterward? Here's my prediction:

THE OBAMA RIGHTS

You have the right to remain complacent. Anything you earn can and will be taxed to within an inch of its existence. You have the right to speak to foreign predators, but never to use defensive force against them, no matter their threat. If you cannot or will not afford your own living expenses, they will be provided for you under the guise of government expense, which truly comes from garnishing the wages of hardworking citizens. You have the right to discard all American values established by our forefathers and turn to socialism, injustice, and the oppression of differing ideas.

So, officers of the law, memorize the above in preparation for the looming change.

Environmentalists, Oil, and the Sanctity of Life

2008-08-06T22:59:00.000-07:00

The Democrats are ticked off that McCain keeps campaigning for drilling in ANWR. The Republicans are ticked off that Obama won't campaign for drilling in ANWR. Bush totally stuck it to Congress with his lift on the ban, ticking off his opposition once again. And moreover, several liberals and environmentalists are ticked off that anyone is even considering drilling for oil in, around, or of an area that shares air with some animal's natural habitat.

Let me start by saying I don't hate animals. I don't want to see any species suffer or go extinct or depleat in population or start growing extras heads because of radioactive pollution, ok? But I don't think drilling for oil will do any of these things. Once the pipelines are in, I'm pretty sure no animal, even one with wicked-awesome spidey sense, will notice any difference. Actually, one study that I read about caribou populations before and after the installation of an oil line reported an INCREASE in numbers because the ground was a little warmer and they liked it better. As long as it is done cleanly and securely, drilling for oil in Alaska will have no negative effect on the nature reserve, and it will have a positive effect on our economy and America's independence.

I have always wondered how extreme environmentalists can believe in a certain few ideas all at once, even though many of them directly contradict one another. Allow me to specify: humans are evil, and evolution is truth. I think it's safe to say that as a whole environmentalists are also evolutionists. This doesn't fit. To put it into a syllogism, if "survival of the fittest" is an evolutionary law and humans are surviving (at the top of the chain, mind you), any choice we make that affects a lower species is our right, and if they can't survive, too bad. They're not the fittest.

Second non-sequiter: humans need to leave the nature alone, and we need to save beached whales. Sometimes animals die. It's nature. If we're supposed to keep our filthy hands out of it, we need to do so altogether. We cannot pick and choose when we hurt or help the environment. Either we're in or we're out.

Third: save the animals. They're innocent, helpless, and precious. But it's woman's right to choose to abort her innocent, helpless, precious child, right? As far as I'm concerned, human life is immensely more important than that of a bird or a fish or a deer. The idea that a population of caribou needs extra protection from harmless oil lines and 42 million abortions are performed annually without nearly as much protest from activists makes me sick. It should make everyone sick.

I say drill the oil and outlaw abortion. According to the logic of environmentalists, that's what they should believe, too. I don't know why I'm ever surprised at the amount of insane hypocrisy that calls liberal mentalities home, but somehow it makes my jaw drop every time.

Fillet Mignon and Fatherhood

2008-08-06T22:45:00.000-07:00

Also a post written a while ago, but current and true nonetheless:

I've watched Obama's Fathers Day speech three times now, trying to pinpoint why it irks me so much. The meat of what he's saying is good, but when I chew it, it gets stuck in between my teeth and has my tonguing it until the entire inside of my mouth is raw. It bothers me. And, as I hit the YouTube play button a 4th time, I finally understand why.

Obama's overall message was that there are too many men who think "fatherhood ends at conception." This I do not dispute. I think it's detestable that some men will knock a woman up and run along freely. I think there should be a much more strict requirement of paternal responsibility. On these points, I think Obama is right (a combination of words I never thought I'd say).

And that's when the meat gets wedged in. He goes on to talk about how fathers who step up to the plate should be rewarded. Men who pay child support should get monetary benefits from the federal government. Umm, why? Why do these men deserve accolades for doing the right thing? For doing what they're responsible for? This is a behavior that should be expected. It is not an above-and-beyond feat or an outstanding accomplishment of moral cahones for a man to do what he is supposed to do, or what a court would tell him he has to do. And might I add, while a father who pays child support is far better than one who refuses, a monthly donation is still not parenting. If we're going to reward anyone, reward the dads who play, teach, discipline, feed, clean, and actively love their children. In this same speech, Obama refers to an 8th grade graduation ceremony that he said was far too big a celebration for an accomplishment that should just be an expectation. "You know, this is just the 8th grade...let's just give 'em a hand shake...don't get carried away with this 8th grade graduation. You're supposed to graduate the 8th grade." Apply this same logic to the legislation you're proposing here, Barack. It's the same thing. Do not reward the mediocre or the expected or the commonplace; a man-up approach to fatherhood falls into this category.

And on a brief aside, Obama, where will we be getting the money to reward this money-sending fathers? Is it from-- hey, where'd my paycheck go?! Yes, it's from your numerous tax increases, thank you very much.

Anyway.

Going further, Obama's message seemed to lack mention of mothers, other than to say they "need help." I'm not going to be so butch and feminist as to say that mothers don't need help (they totally do), but should they not be "rewarded" as well? If the single mother is the parent raising the child, bending over backwards, juggling work and her family, scraping to make rent every month, and all the biological father of her kid does is send an envelope every thirty days, HE should be the one to get the governmental pat on the back? Gag me!

This speech and the general mood of its reception also reminded me of how invincible this man has become. His message is not a new one. Not too long ago, Bill Cosby criticized AWOL fathers in his community and he was beaten to a pulp for it. People called him a traitor to his race, an Uncle Tom. But when Obama says the exact same words, he is praised for it. He is Messiah. And I'm still trying to figure out why.

So I guess I'm asking someone to explain it to me. To my friends who are Obama supporters, I am genuinely curious as to the origin of your love for this man. I have consistently provided reasons to vote against him and have stumbled upon very few reasons for vote for him, and yet he's roped in almost half of the country. Help me understand the fad.

I'm at a loss. And I need a toothpick.

The Gay Marraige Debate

2008-08-06T22:39:00.000-07:00

I would like to preface the following statements by saying plainly that I am not against gay marriage. I see little justification outside of religious beliefs to outlaw it, and these arguments, because we are technically a heathen nation free of the moral boundaries of any one faith, should not be considered. That all being said:

I've been reading more polls today, as I like to keep tabs on the common opinions of the people I share a country with, and I saw one that ranked the most important issues to voters for Election 2008. They were as follows:

1. The War in Iraq
2. Foreign Policy
3. Health Care Reform
4. Gay Marriage
5. Tax Policies

It seems to me like one of these things doesn't fit. Remember that Sesame Street game? One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Can you tell me which thing is not like the others by the time I finish my song?

It's Gay Marriage. While I acknowledge that it's an issue that affects a lot of people, and one that does so on a much more personal level than other issues do, I don't think it belongs at the forefront of presidential debates. It does not hold life and death in a balance like the War in Iraq does. It does not affect the daily lives of the 6.6 billion people that inhabit our planet as Foreign Policy does. It does not decide whether sick mothers and children can get treatment or not as Health Care Reform does. It does not tell citizens how much money they have to give to the government or what programs get sufficiently funded as Tax Policies do. Gay marriage is not as important an issue as everyone seems to think.

I think the legislation on the issue should be left up to each individual state. All other marriage rights, i.e. common-law marriage, divorce stipulations, etc., are all handled by states on an individual basis, and I don't think the gay marriage issue should be treated any differently. I think we should add an amendment neither for nor against same-sex marriage at this time.
It doesn't seem fair to me that we can ask the Federal Government to define marriage and force an acceptance of homosexuality on the entire country when at the same time we are outraged whenever they try to influence our beliefs in any other way. They cannot be expected, nor would we want them, to control any of our other feelings or behaviors. The Gay Marriage issue is not immune from this distinction.

And to all Obama supporters who think he'll change everything for us: He is not for gay marriage. Here is direct quote from his lips: "Marriage connotes to so many people a religious and not just civil element…It's going to be hard to build consensus around the idea of extending marriage… to all people including those who are same-sex...The bottom line is this: I'm for civil unions and I'm not for gay marriage." If you don't trust my quoting, here's a link to the video:
http://www.cnn.com/video//video/politics/2008/01/25/sot.obama.gay.marriage.wls

On the flipside, here's what McCain said: "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans… It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed." McCain, like I do, believes this is a decision that should be left in the hands of the states. He also said, "I strongly feel that as long the states are able to regulate or determine the status of marriage within those states and it is not overturned by the courts, then I will support the states' right to do that because I'm a Federalist."

McCain at least leaves a window open for the opportunity to legalize full-fledged, same-sex marriage in whatever states see fit. Obama seems to have ruled it out all together, maintaining that those who seek a same-sex marriage should be content with a civil union (that's not assumption; it's paraphrasing from the video linked above). I just wanted to clear up this misconception about Barack OChrist-Figure.

So leave it to the states, end of story. And as far as using it to select a presidential candidate, we need to realize that he alone does not make decisions on this legislation, and if he did, neither of our nominees would pass it. It has to go through all three branches of our government, and currently the majority of the people in those seats are against it. So focus on the bigger issues when casting your vote in November.

The Role of Race in the 2008 Election

2008-08-06T22:35:00.001-07:00

I just got my daily email from newsmax.com informing me that Obama has won the delegates and will be the official Democratic nominee for the 2008 presidential campaign. Half of me is happy it's not Hillary (one, because I'm not exactly a fan of hers and, two, because I think she would've had a better chance at beating McCain), and the other half is shriveling up into a terrified little rat fetus thinking about Obama winning in November.

I know that a huge number of Americans support Barack Obama, and I do not think any less of them as human beings because of that choice. I am able to distinguish someone's political views from their moral cores, from their personalities and souls. It is because of the distinction that I think a good chunk of these Obama fans could still be saved. There is hope that their characters will be empowered enough to beat the hell out of the political counterpart with which it shares a body (my sincerest apologies to any of you who sensed that condescention).

I never thought it was a big deal that I didn't like Obama. I thought, silly me, that it was my right as an American and, moreover, as a Republican. But evidently democracy is a bit more about face value and popularity these days. I once got the opportunity to explain to a friend, a tried and true blue-stater, exactly why I didn't like Obama. It's about his platform, I told him, and his background and his beliefs and the way that his stances on issues are polar opposites to mine. "Oh," he said back to me, "I thought it was just because he was black."

Now, I don't know if he was serious or not, because you never really can tell with him, but I know it's an assumption Democrats are making about Republicans on a daily basis: we're all just a bunch of redneck racists with active NRA memberships and moose heads mounted above our mantles. I call mine Morton. Wrong! It seems to me that in this election, race, a thing that many thought would work against Obama, will, in fact, work in his favor as a subliminal guilt tactic. Thanks to the blind blissfulness that the backwards logic of affirmative action has induced in us Americans, we will vote for Obama not because he's black, but because he's not white. Because if we don't vote for him, we're racists.

Funny, I thought I was supposed to be colorblind.

The way I see it: He's inexperienced. He's unqualified. He has skeletons being dragged out his closet at a rate I can only compare to watching bunnies mate, but no one seems to care. He's developed some sort of Messiah aura, and no matter what he says or does wrong, he is forgiven. I saw a poll today on Fox News (which is obviously an incredibly biased source because sometimes they present a story from the sides of both parties. What jackasses.) that said the 48% of Democrats thought it was likely that Obama shared anti-American and racist views with his pastor, Reverend Wright. It's pretty intense that almost half of his own party thinks he might be a racist. But what shocked me most was that of this 48%, only 26% would question voting for him because of it. They've acknowledged his racist tendencies, and they'd still put him in office. I'm a little dumbstruck.

Whenever I tell someone I'm voting for McCain, the first thing they throw in my face is how he voted against MLK Day, saying he's some kind of white supremacist. So, fine, it looks like we have two racists pitted against each other. Why is mine somehow worse than yours?
I can honestly state that race is not a factor for me in this election. And I'd appreciate it if you'd all allow me my free speech (even though that's a right typically reserved for Democrats, I know) in supporting the candidate I see fit, even if he's just an old white guy. Thank you.