You Can Do It!

Liberals preach all the time about the “moral high road” and their unique ability to sympathize with those they determine to be underprivileged and held down by “the system”. They see certain groups of people as incapable of making positive change in their circumstances or for their community. It’s because of a perceived imbalance of resources and an obviously slanted judicial system that causes a sharp divide between the Haves and Have-Nots.

Conservatives are blamed as the primary culprits in this cycle of modern-day oppression and segregation. We are considered primarily as white, bigoted, uneducated, rednecks who don’t care about anyone but ourselves, our guns and our God. I find these stereotypes to be entirely false, having no more ground in reality than a Saturday Night Live sketch. Conservatives statistically give more to charity than liberals, are more likely to teach their children strong values and discipline, and are probably more happy with life in general.

How could Conservatives be more happy in life? The answer lies in the distinction between two words which are misused on a regular basis by many of us (myself included). Liberalism sees only victims, while Conservatism sees potential in every individual despite their social or economic circumstances. It’s this difference which allows the distinction between sympathy and empathy to become more clear.

Sympathy is the feeling of pity and sorrow for someone else’s misfortune. Pity is the key to liberal thinking. It’s what drives the emotional mechanism in people, which in turn becomes the excuse for disempowerment of individuals. Conversely, empathy is the ability to understand the feelings of another. Notice the key word is missing from this definition. Empathy allows the Conservative to recognize another’s circumstances, but does not shift the responsibility to correct those circumstances onto another person or the government.

Feeling empathy toward someone does not suggest that that person is incapable of creating a better life for themselves and their family. There are countless examples of people (including immigrants who came here with literally nothing more than the clothes they wore that day) who used the tools inherent to all people to achieve the “American Dream”. Feeling sympathetic toward someone adds that additional emotional component which leads to government coddling, setting precedent for the future, and creating more entitlement programs.

We can feel for another’s misfortunes, undesirable situations and circumstances, for it’s inhuman not to. Understanding is important and is what leads to charity and volunteerism. However, we cannot disempower those in crisis even for a moment. They have the tools necessary and after applying them may feel a boost of self-confidence, furthering their ambition and success.

Who’s Looking Out for Us?

Is our government really looking out for us, or has it become all about them? Politicians meet behind closed doors, draft up legislation without our knowledge, then railroad it through. If shoving it down our throats won’t work, then maybe a little misdirection is all that’s needed to keep us from noticing what’s actually going on. It’s amazing how far we’ve strayed from where the Founders started, and where we seem to be headed is frightening.

Those in power no longer see themselves as responsible to the people. I wouldn’t say that we are at the point of being responsible to our law-makers, but it looks like that’s where things are going if left unchecked. I haven’t been politically aware for very long, but recent events have really opened my eyes to the hypocrisy and seeming endless cycle of double-speak, smoke and mirrors tactics and elitism. My feeling is that our law-makers only see as far as the next round of elections, when they will make more wild promises with no intention to make good on them. As long as we buy the latest plate of hot, fresh BS they’ll make it back into office where they’re accountable to no one.

There are many of us (the people) who are responsible for perpetuating this cycle of unproductiveness. A segment of society has allowed themselves to be sucked into the excitement of election time, voting for whoever has the sexiest promises, then forgetting about what really matters: results. If we can’t expect these people to follow through with all that hot air, then we need to up the ante. We “hired” them to do a job which they themselves defined during their respective campaigns. It’s pretty simple, do what you said you were going to do, and if things aren’t working out, explain exactly the reasons why, and what your plans are to fix the problem. If this is too complex for our political leaders, they should be looking for a new job on the next go-round.

We’re on a path to allowing (through apathy) our leaders to govern indefinitely, unchecked and become that which we’ll be expected to serve. We need to put our elected officials in fear of the people, which will be one of the first steps in returning to the original intent of the Constitution. Those in power need to be reminded that the Constitution defines what the government cannot do, not what it may (or shall) do. At least those who served in the early stages of our government were aware that they could be out of a job in a heartbeat if their constituency became dissatisfied with their representation, or they were dangerously close to circumventing the Constitution. That humility is gone now, which means we’ve lost a crucial virtue in our leadership. That virtue must be restored if we mean to survive as a free people.

-- This article was published in the November 2009 issue of the CABPRO News.

Right's Czar Mania Is a Distraction by CATO Institute's Gene Healy

Below is a link to an excellent article clarifying what the Conservative focus should be regarding Obama's "Czars".

Check it out!

Why So Many Czars?

With all these “Czars” surrounding the President, you have to wonder who is really running things there at the White House. I’m no expert, but I was under the impression that cabinet members were the ones charged with advising the Commander in Chief. Supposedly, these cabinet members go through a vetting process which examines the applicant’s background, current/past associations, loyalties, et cetera. Why wouldn’t we want the President’s right (and left) hand people investigated to confirm where their loyalties really lie? Each czar is hand selected by the President, and is exempt from any formal vetting procedures. It seems that Obama is creating a second advisory body made up of people so radical they would never have a chance of appointment if put through a normal hearing or public interview process.

I take the appointment of so many unconfirmed advisors as deliberate circumvention of our checks and balances system, with the aim of achieving a specific agenda. Recently, some of the more radical czars have had their questionable backgrounds outed by a small number of news sources. Anyone who believes the personal histories of these people were unknown to Obama, or that they’ve somehow changed their tunes since being appointed probably also believed Bill Clinton back in 1998.

Here are a couple of my favorite picks from Obama’s long list of czars:

Cass Sunstein - Regulatory Czar
I’ve mentioned Mr. Sunstein in past articles, and I list him here as well because I find him to be one of the more dangerous advisors. Along with advocating the reinstitution of the “fairness doctrine” and moderation of internet content, Sunstein has also expressed the need to change the interpretation of the Bill of Rights by the year 2020. The Second Bill of Rights, as he calls it, would provide: the right to a job, the right to earn a wage providing clothing, food and recreation, the right to sell products at a return sufficient to provide a decent living, the right to compete in a market free from unfair competition, the right to a home, the right to medical care and good health, the right to protection from the economic hardships of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment, and finally, the right to an education.

John Holdren - Science Czar
Suggests that forced sterilization and abortion would be acceptable under national crisis circumstances. Assuming that “global warming” grows to a level where it threatens the nations population, Holdren states the Constitution supports the above under the guise of a sustainable well-being of the population. Again, humans are guilty of destroying Earth and we must sacrifice ourselves to… sustain ourselves…?

These two are just an example of the radicalism which is growing in our government. Barack Obama said himself during the 2008 presidential campaign, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself with.” Coincidence, or did he know all along?

-- This article was published in the October 2009 issue of the CABPRO News.

Inmate Release Will Affect Public Safety Twofold

The release of 27,000 California prison inmates not only increases safety risks to civilians and public safety personnel, but will also contribute to a reduction in service to communities from public safety agencies. Supporters say that only non-violent, low-risk offenders will be released as part of this plan to cut costs within CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), but another important issue is not addressed. While it may be true that many of the inmates slated to be released have been incarcerated for non-violent or “petty” crimes, public safety personnel will be required to handle that many more calls for service. How will this affect you?

It may seem on the surface that law enforcement agencies are among the last government services cut during a budget mess. Politicians risk retaliation by public safety unions and constituents who are upset about their safety being compromised if police, fire and emergency medical services are reduced. However, police officers in particular are routinely asked to provide the same (or higher) quality of service with less tools, equipment and time. An increase in criminals on the street will increase the amount of time it takes police officers to arrive at your home to help you. An increase in calls for service will result in more reports taken by officers. More reports taken means less time for proactive policing, which results in an increase in crimes committed which otherwise could have been crimes attempted.

In order for a police department to handle all the calls for service they receive in a day, a prioritization method must be used. Basically, crimes that involve immanent threats to life and/or property are placed high on the list and thus receive police service sooner than, say, a report for a burglary which has already taken place. With this proposed inmate release, violent crimes may increase, but petty “low priority” crimes and their reports will surely increase. This is just another example of our public safety services being stretched ever thinner.

Public safety personnel are routinely taken advantage of by our politicians. It is believed that those who serve in police, fire and emergency medical services do so because it’s more than a job to them; It’s said to be a “calling”. This makes politicians comfortable enough to make sweeping decisions that negatively affect public safety because they know cops, firefighters and paramedics are very unlikely to quit en masse.

The policy-makers in California are out of touch with what their constituents want. How about instead of releasing criminals into our communities, try reducing administrative overhead and frivolous litigation? Try canceling the cable TV services and changing out bench-presses and dumbbells for picks and shovels. Try putting the safety of law-abiding citizens first and stop rewarding those who make life difficult for us.

-- This article was published in the September 2009 issue of the CABPRO News.

Online Freedom of Speech Under Attack

As addressed in my May 2009 article, the Obama administration has been taking major steps toward sweeping control over internet communications with S. 773 and S. 778. Public and private sector networks are in danger of being limited or shut down entirely at the will of the President. It now seems that some corporate internet giants have been making it difficult for alternative news sources to get their information to web surfers. If the White House can’t regulate freedom of speech (yet), why not let their corporate comrades take care of that?

World Net Daily (WND.com) has reported that Google along with Microsoft’s new Bing.com web search engines have been pushing WND articles (specifically those regarding BHO’s birth certificate) further back in search results. Why is this a big deal? Most people in this high-speed information age don’t bother looking beyond the first couple pages of search results before either giving up, or refining their search terms (keywords). Burying search results many pages deep effectively makes those web sites nonexistent. WND also claimed that their articles would often appear on the first page of results prior to “the birth certificate” coming into question.

This is not the first time Google has been accused of censorship. Around the middle of 2008, the well known Pamela Geller who runs an extensive conservative blog called Atlas Shrugs saw her daily blog visits plummet, overnight. After communicating with Google, she discovered that her blog had been “sandboxed”, or stripped from Google’s searchable database. It was also revealed that several other anti-Obama blogs on Google’s Blogger system had been frozen as well. Later, Google would confirm that they do, in fact “pick and choose” what content is returned by searches on their website. Geller has since moved her blog to another provider, and can be found at AtlasShrugs2000.typepad.com. Curious how all of these “NObama” information sources were effectively shut down just months before the election.

Of course private companies have the right to choose what content is made available on their websites, but what makes this behavior disturbing is the relationship that exists between Google and the Obama administration. Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt has been a longtime supporter of BHO and provided considerable aid to his campaign before the election. Google has also been contracted to aid in the development of SmartMeters which are likely to aid the government in regulating or rationing energy use in private homes.

Cass Sunstein, who has been tagged by Obama to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has some big ideas for the future of online information. He would like to see what is called a “notice and take down” law which would regulate information posted on websites. The law would require website owners to remove information deemed false or untrue by a government review entity. Just what will qualify information as “destructive falsehoods”? Obama has shown us that what is good or bad for the country is a subjective matter, and he has mastered the art of making destructive policy appear innocuous.

We would never allow the government to regulate our free speech, and we shouldn’t allow it to do the same through private entities. No Amendment to the Constitution is more important than the First, and if it goes, all others will surely fall as well. Obama and his anti-American policies must be stopped, and in order to do so, young people must be inspired to recognize what makes this country great. As many young people were directly involved in getting BHO into the White House, they are likely to aid greatly in getting him out in 2012.

-- This article was published in the August 2009 issue of the CABPRO News.

Memorial Day 2009

Today I would like to send a sincere thanks to all the service men and women who have served and are serving this great nation. We owe our veterans huge appreciation for everything they've given and sacrificed.

Those of us who are old enough to truly understand where our liberty and freedom come from must help younger people understand as well. If you have veterans in your family, make a point of sharing their stories with youngsters.