Ordinary Impressions

The Climate Cops are Already in Your Home

2010-04-14T17:57:00.000-07:00

The tactic is simple: if they can’t get to you, they’ll get to your kids. The global warming kooks in the UK have begun a campaign to use children as “climate cops” in their homes and even their neighborhoods. Kids will be encouraged to enforce, and if necessary, issue citations for egregious “climate crimes” which include leaving televisions on stand-by mode, using a tumble dryer on a sunny day, failing to use CFL bulbs, leaving cell phone chargers plugged in when not in use, and so forth.

ClimateCops.com provides students and teachers with lesson plans and resources necessary to fully develop a “comprehensive framework and progressive approach to teaching the topic of energy and energy efficiency” in the elementary school classroom. Since you and I won’t buy this BS, we’re a lost cause, but our naive, impressionable, idealistic children will, via their hip, trendy, closet-radical teachers and green agenda. Students are encouraged to seek out inefficient uses of energy and inform (counsel) their parents (or neighbors) that such behavior is harmful to the environment and endangering the whole planet.

If counseling fails to correct the behavior, the greenie-in-training may issue a citation for the specific offense. For those of us God-fearing climate criminals, be advised that “we all know [it’s] a sin” to leave your cell phone charger plugged in when not in use, and you would do well to keep the police on speed dial in case your neighbors are peeping in on you to ensure you’re taking a shower instead of a bath. Although there are no punishments assigned to these offenses, we can be sure it’s up to the imagination of the “investigator”, or worse, their teachers. You can feel confident that your climate crimes will be discussed at length in the classroom the next morning.

Policing the family’s water and electricity use is just the beginning. Naturally, what we say in contrary to global warming will become blasphemy in the home. We’re already sure to be labelled as “flat-Earthers”, or worse for publicly denying man-made climate change, but what would be different if our kids began guilting us into changing every aspect of our modern, first-world lives for the sake of the polar bears? The creation of chaos and conflict in the home would be to the aid of the green push. It’s assumed that most parents will do little things to appease their kids to avoid tantrums, nagging, and the like. Changing light bulbs, unplugging everything not being used, and never taking a bath because it upsets your child, are ways the greenies can passively gain compliance.

Parents need to be aware of what’s happening in their children’s classrooms. It’s not up to the public school system or stylish, EU-grown websites to be the primary educators of our kids. Nor should we accept any attempts at indoctrination by anyone, especially those with a specific agenda which includes circumventing parents because they don’t share the same “natural instincts” regarding global warming.

-- This article was published in the April 2010 issue of the CABPRO News.

You Can Do It!

2009-11-24T22:43:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-10-22T21:19:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-23T17:36:00.002-07:00

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?

2009-09-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-24T10:31:00.001-07:00

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

2009-07-25T14:40:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-25T11:42:00.001-07:00

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.

Census Pinpoints Your Front Door via Satellites

2009-05-22T12:01:00.000-07:00

With the 2010 census coming up, I’ve heard numerous stories from concerned Americans who all have a similar story to tell. A US Census Bureau worker, armed with a handheld computer, showed up at my front door. The behavior of these workers ranges from making basic inquiries like “How many people live at this address?” to actually requesting entrance to the citizen’s private residence. These employees regularly drive past lawfully posted “No Trespassing” signs and have, on occasion, lingered about the property for an unusual amount of time.

Of course it’s probably not unusual to have a Census worker knock on your front door every 10 or so years, nor that employee to ask questions regarding how many people reside on that property. However, somewhere around 2002, the US Census has been planing the implementation of handheld GPS (global positioning system) devices to aid in the data collection specifically for the 2010 and all subsequent census’. You may ask, “So what? Upgrading traditional paper and pencil systems with computer systems always reduces cost, improves efficiency, and increases archival capabilities.” Increased archival capabilities (more storage space) is precisely what concerns me regarding this upcoming census.

According to a February 4th, 2002 US Census Bureau news bulletin, “An updated master address file (MAF) […] with GPS positional accuracy, will allow the Census Bureau to maintain the inventory and location of addresses…” This will allow anyone with access to this index and a GPS-enabled device (Garmin, TomTom, even a cell phone) to navigate to your home’s exact location. The bulletin also states that these new devices will allow the agency “...to find, interview and update data on persons and housing units…” for the 2010 census, and into the future for certain. Why is such precise information required for a simple “head count”? And why would such a huge increase in data storage capability be necessary for the census if the data points were not being expanded?

Paper forms are restricted in their content by their size -- what you can fit on a page. This limits the amount of data that can be recorded both practically and efficiently. The new computer-based system would expand the data collection possibilities almost endlessly, giving the agency the opportunity to gather even more data than ever before. It is possible that since the Census Bureau was moved from the Department of Commerce to the White House, census workers have been tasked with gathering new information about persons and property which had not been collected before. Perhaps potential resources on properties in rural areas are being logged, or information regarding the independence potential of such properties. Think of things like water storage, off-grid electricity options, geographical location and surrounding topographical features, potential for outbuilding/storage construction, etc. Who has resources and who does not? Something to think about.

The bottom line here is, what business does the government have in collecting personal and private information about me and my property? An expanse in data storage capability is never implemented if the intent is other than to fill it up. I have always supported replacing slow, inefficient systems with new, tested and proven methods to increase productivity and reduce cost. However, I do not see the need for plotting every American’s home on a government map. We are being stripped of our privacy little by little and those of us who are informed need to educate others if we are to preserve our liberty.

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

Book Review: "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse"

2009-05-14T14:48:00.000-07:00

If you've ever wondered just how to prepare for a social/economic collapse of the United States, this book is the manual. Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse can best be described as a survival manual dressed as a novel. Not only does it tell you how to prepare, but also how to survive during such a crisis.

James Wesley, Rawles describes in minute detail the planning, equipment, organization, tactics and mindset necessary to ready oneself and their family for chaos on a national scale. Everything from food storage, retreat fortification, to weapons is discussed and experienced by the books characters.

I found this novel to be extremely relevant given the political and social atmosphere of today. It is a must-read for anyone interested in self-reliance and survival, and should give a layperson (such as myself) a bit more confidence in planning for their family's future in uncertain times.

I understand the newest edition has an index and glossary, two updates which greatly improve the utility value of the book. This will definitely make finding specifics on desired topics much quicker and simpler to locate.

Please check out the author's website www.SurvivalBlog.com to get an idea about his qualifications and links to other resources.

The Liberals Preach Tolerance

2009-04-23T09:50:00.000-07:00

I apologize for posting on such a seeming trivial issue, but the underlying point here is anything but trivial. The Liberals drone on and on about being infinitely tolerant of anything and anyone, but for some reason, I wasn't shocked by what Mr. Perez Hilton said the other night. Mr. Hilton's video blog statement is his reaction to Miss California finalist Carrie Prejean answer to his loaded question.

This is the face of tolerance.

Cyber Security, the Internet and Obama

2009-04-21T12:05:00.000-07:00

Whether or not you believe the Internet was “invented” by an individual back in the 1980s, we can all agree that the World Wide Web has become an integral part of everyday life for all of us in developed nations around the globe. It has changed in scope, and no longer just available to government and large businesses. It has become a worldwide marketplace, entertainment venue, social rally point, and media and private communications tool. There is no doubt that the Internet is something we have all come to rely upon in some form or another. It has given us in America unprecedented freedom to exercise our First Amendment rights, and to grow our capitalist system.

There are those in today’s United States who have recognized the importance of the Internet, and acknowledge just how necessary it has become for many of us to function day-to-day. Two bills that have been proposed in Congress may give President Obama sweeping power over private computer networks connected to the Internet in the US. One, S. 778 will create the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor (hereafter referred to as the NCA) within the Executive Office. The NCA will be the sole advisor to the President on cyber-security issues, and “shall, notwithstanding any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy to the contrary, have full access to all Federal cyber-compartmented or special access programs;” This will indirectly give the President access to systems and networks otherwise separate from the Executive Office, and provide him power over cyber monitoring and surveillance activities.

S. 778 doesn’t sound too radical on it’s own, but once paired with S. 773 the President will have unprecedented power over the Internet. S. 773 will identify “critical infrastructures” to include “public and private” agriculture, food, water, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, and banking networks. Section 18 of S. 773 states: the President “may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;” And after an attack on any such networks, the President also has the authority to appoint “an agency” to coordinate “the response and restoration of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network affected by a cybersecurity emergency […]”

The bottom line here is that S. 773 and S. 778 will give President Obama the authority not only to limit or completely shut down internet traffic to any public (or private) network he sees fit, but to place any authority he wishes in charge of such private network declared “critical” to infrastructure. I believe the most likely targets will be banking institutions, which happen to fit the (broad) description of “critical” networks. Such a freeze on internet communications with banks would literally suspend customers’ online access to their money, and possibly even ATM transactions (which operate via computer networks) indefinitely. The next most likely targets would be energy production facilities and grids throughout the country. An attack on the nation’s power grid would very likely result in the Office of the NCA recommending a Federal takeover of energy providers. I believe such a takeover would result in energy “rationing” far beyond what these Google SmartMeters are intended to accomplish.

These two bills, S. 773 and S. 778 will give the Feds more authority over the private sector than ever before. These networks are fundamental to our economy and deeply embedded in our everyday lives. Our private information and communications are under attack, and will be cut off completely if we allow these bills to pass.

-- I urge you to read the texts of S. 773 and S. 778. This article was published in the May 2009 issue of the CABPRO News.

Sacramento Tax Day Tea Party

2009-04-09T14:14:00.000-07:00

As many of you may already know, a Tax Day Tea Party has been scheduled to take place at noon on the 15th of this month at the California State Capitol in Sacramento. The purpose of this gathering is to protest the recent outrageous spending by our government in Washington DC.

If you believe in capitalism, free markets, and the might of the individual citizen, I urge you to attend. This is a non-partisan event that has been getting little to no attention in the mainstream media, and it's time our voices are heard.

Check out the Sacramento Tea Party website at: http://www.site.sacteaparty.com/
or if you've got a Facebook account, here.

Amendment II

2009-03-23T14:39:00.000-07:00

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to keep the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The above is by far one of the most contentious areas of our Constitution, and has been for some time. I fall short of suggesting that the Second Amendment has been debatable since the words were written by the Founders, because I don’t believe it has. Ambiguity surrounding this Amendment is a modern phenomenon, and has allowed for legislation restricting the people’s right to defend themselves from a tyrannical government.

I include the text of the Amendment because I feel one particular part is consistently left out of discussions and conveniently ignored by gun control advocates. Unless you’ve read the text of the Amendment, it would never be clear what it was written for, and I think many young people today really have no clue what the Founders intentions were. It’s obvious that many people see the right to “bear arms” as a protection for hunters and sport shooters, and having nothing to do with a method of guaranteeing the people’s liberty. To make permanent the right of the people to maintain their liberty when the government seeks to take it away by force was precisely what the Founders intended, and it is clear in the text: “...being necessary to keep the security of a free State…” I see no ambiguity here.

Infringements on this right have already taken place under the guise of public safety. Violent crimes are blamed on the availability of firearms instead of on the criminal who committed them, the media stigmatizes semi-automatic rifles at every opportunity, and one gets the impression that every elementary and high school child has immediate access to a handgun. While gun control aims to protect the majority from an irresponsible minority, it in fact puts the majority at greater risk. Simply put, if guns are hard for responsible, law-abiding citizens to obtain, it’s that much more difficult for them to protect themselves and their families from opportunist criminals. Guns are not the problem, it’s the irresponsible user. Why don’t we start controlling automobile sales to reduce the number of car accident deaths?

The Constitution was written so long ago that it’s easy for activists to blur the original meaning behind the document. We must remember the circumstances under which it was written, the people who wrote it, and what the authors’ goals were for the new country. Some wish to make changes to our fundamental rights, citing the fact that we’ve evolved as a society and less skepticism of the government is necessary. This mindset is fatal and will only end in the dissolution of our free State and individual liberty.

In order to maintain the ultimate check-and-balance for our government, we must keep the Founder’s intentions in focus and not loose sight of what the right to keep and bear arms is really about. It’s a belief that the people are who really run things here, and we won’t tolerate returning to the very place the Founders sought to escape forever.

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

The Spending Package

2009-02-22T11:38:00.000-08:00

After taking a look at the now passed $789B “Stimulus” package, I have come across more grants and loans for renewable energy and “green” research than anything resembling “shovel-ready” projects.

One might argue that these “green” energy grants would free up dollars to employ workers who will actually perform the labor. Well, until the project is actually in the construction phase, the research will be conducted by a small fraction of workers who have the specific education and experience qualifications to be best suited for a research position.

Once these “green” projects are complete, aren’t they designed to simply run themselves? Much like the several “paperless” upgrades slated for implementation in the package, once the new system is put in place, where do the workers go? Technology actually reduces the number of jobs needed in just about any sector, right? So are these state-of-the-art technologies job stimulus, or simply spending? I don’t think it’s coincidental that these high-tech projects happen to serve a “sustainable” end.

As for the billions of dollars allocated for construction of roads, government buildings, etc., how long is it gonna take to get through all the research (EIRs) and planning? It seems there will be somewhat of a wait before these projects actually break-ground.

The High Speed Rail Corridor Program, which will serve those who do not have their own means of transportation to southern California, will cost the rest of us billions. And just think of how quickly illegals could get from the border to San Diego, board one of these high speed trains, and get to the “sanctuary” of San Francisco. Kinda scary.

Once again, those who are doing the right thing: getting an education, working hard, saving money, etc., are getting screwed by programs that serve those who may choose not to be productive and self-reliant.

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

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

2009-02-17T16:28:00.000-08:00

I am currently in the process of identifying the "pork" in the ARRA signed into law today by Obama. I'll try to get a summary of my findings posted sometime soon.

-- You can download both the ARRA '09 and ARRTA (American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of ) '09 from the Library of Congress website. Both Division A and Division B documents are in PDF format and are fully searchable.

UPDATE as of 2/18/09:
The two documents above are no longer available at the link I provided. There is, however, a GPO PDF (Government Printing Office PDF) that can be downloaded to your computer after clicking on the "H.Rept. 111-16" link.

It's All Emotional

2009-02-12T11:52:00.000-08:00

As I sat here this morning, listening to my favorite talk radio program, a caller telephoned into the show and said some things that really confirmed exactly what the liberal mindset is.

The host of the show was talking about how much grief Congress was giving corporate CEOs about their use of private jets, while the President takes two (2) full-sized passenger jet aircraft whenever he travels a long distance. (I guess one of the jets is flown as a decoy to thwart assassination attempts). The caller was trying to convince the host that there was no way to compare the security of the President with private companies spending money on their executives.

What really frosted me was the callers response to this question proposed by the host: If the CEOs private jets are taken away by the government, how will your life be affected? The caller responded with: My life won't be affected, but my perception of greed in these corporations will be lessened.

So there you have it. The caller could not have stated it any clearer, much like Obama did with Joe the Plumber when he talked about "spreading the wealth". Liberals are driven by emotion, not by facts or logic. Forget that the coporate executives need rapid, on-demand transportation in order to make their companies function in this instant-gratification world of today. Or all the industries linked to manufacturing, maintaining, staffing, inspecting, and regulating these airplanes and all the poeple who have jobs therein.

I recently had a dear friend of mine over for dinner. As the night progressed, we began talking politics -- a subject we try to avoid becasue we're nearly polar opposites, and both stubborn as hell. I was disappointed by some statements he made when it came to above mentioned "spreading the wealth". He is of the belief that no matter how hard you work, or how fortunate you are, you shouldn't have a problem with the government taking some of the money that "you'll never use, because you've got so much" and giving it to people who have chosen to be a drain on the system. When I spoke of the "American Dream" and how I would like to be able to build my own dream without the government interfering, he said that many people will never achieve such status, and why shouldn't the government simply give it to them.

The above paragraph just illustrates my point further. Liberals believe that people are inherently stupid and completely incapable of taking care of themselves or achieving prosperity, and thus, the government must give everything to us. Because of this false perception of the American people, Liberals believe everyone should be guaranteed the right to happiness, instead of the pursuit of happiness. Rewarding people for producing nothing, or the bare minimum will only harm our nation further. It will result in more government involvement in private industry, perpetuating our already existing "nanny-state", and bring us closer to socialism.

Divided Attention, or Big Bucks for Cell Phone Companies

2009-01-30T12:40:00.000-08:00

As we all should be aware by now, it is unlawful for any person to be on a cell phone while driving unless a hands-free device is being used. It is my understanding that the laws were enacted for the purpose of reducing traffic collisions related to "divided attention" caused by talking on a telephone, but I'm still confused...

What exactly is the difference between talking on a cell phone while using a headset (Bluetooth or otherwise) and holding the phone up to your ear with one hand? If the law's purpose was to reduce instances of driving with less than 100% focus on driving, why didn't the legislature ban using cell phone use in vehicles on public roads entirely? I thought "attention" was something that occured in the brain, and indepentent of what your hands were doing. A divide in focus occurs whenever you're performing more than one task at a time.

The only thing this law has accomplished is exponentially increasing the number of hands-free device sales for the wireless service providers.

If the other morons on the road can still read the newspaper, put on makeup, eat a Big Mac, and have their corgi on their lap while doing 80 MPH on the freeway, then I can still hold my phone up to my ear while I drive.

-- If you're interested in reading the actual text of the laws, check out www.leginfo.ca.gov and search the CA Vehicle Code for sections 23123 (talking), 23123.5 (texting), 23124 (minors), and 23125 (public transit).

The Enlightened Are Benighted

2009-01-21T11:46:00.000-08:00

I wish I could say that I remember the time when young people possessed humility, and appreciated the things they had in this country. The reality is that I was not around during those times, but I have heard tales that have roots in those days. I accept those stories as truth for two reasons: 1) I have heard similar accounts from many different people who actually experienced such times, and 2) because I’m not so arrogant as to believe that my vast life-experience amounting to nearly twenty-four years somehow carries more validity than my seniors’ because I have lived in more “enlightened” times.

Unfortunately, many of those in my peer group have been convinced that they are both superior to their parent’s (and grandparent’s) generation, and guilty of all the “wrongs” done by America to the rest of the world. This air of snobbishness is the result of a deliberate sheltering from the realities of the world, committed by many of todays parents. Values, integrity, and work ethic no longer appear at the top of the syllabus in Life 101, but instead, my generation has been unduly catered to. Every wish, want and fleeting interest granted by Mom and Dad (or just Dad, but in most cases, just Mom), at no cost to the child. Now it’s easy to understand why nothing has value anymore.

I find the latter conviction, citing America as the supreme evil force in the world, to be the most frightening. Because my peers have attained a much higher state of consciousness (through a movie which ought to have been called Several Convenient Lies, MTV, and Michael Moore), they believe that we should not be imposing our capitalism and democracy upon the rest of the world. They claim that America is not only the biggest polluter of the atmosphere, but that we bring the most death and destruction upon otherwise peaceful nations on a regular basis. This occurs when we force our way of life on other people who seem to be doing just fine without us. Well, this response is half-correct. A war will likely break out when one government, reluctant to give up its brutal and oppressive grip on its people is threatened by the very real possibility that its term of fear, genocide, structured poverty and famine will end.

I’m not sure there is hope for those who have already been guilt-tripped and convinced that they must stop breathing to save the world from CO2, but there is for those who are still impressionable. Young people in middle-school on up to the early years of high-school are typically still dependent upon their parents (and grandparents) for just about everything. The exception is that instead of getting their history lessons from those who actually lived the history, they get it from socialist teachers, censored and rearranged “history” textbooks, and one-sided media sources. Maybe history lessons should be conducted in the home and under the instruction of those who know what war, democracy, and evil really are.

-- This article was published in the November 1 ~ February 2009 issue of the CABPRO News.

Presidential Election 2008

2008-11-05T10:41:00.000-08:00

As I sat and watched Obama give his victory speech to the thousands at Grant Park in Chicago last night, I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

I never really thought - seriously - that so many Obama supporters saw him as The Messiah, Savior, Black Jesus, etc. I thought for sure it was a small percentage of his supporters, until it was right before my eyes. As the news cameras panned across the crowd in Grant Park, I was frightened by the countless crying faces and quivering voices mindlessly parroting “Yes we can!” As The Messiah spoke, the crowd became increasingly more weepy and weak in the knees. Rev. Jesse Jackson and Oprah Winfrey took their share of camera time, both were shedding tears as well. It was as if Jesus Christ himself was speaking from behind that podium.

Also strange, I found Obama’s speech to have a different tone than anything I heard during the campaign. It seemed that he was deliberately trying to lower the expectations he had built up so high during his campaign. This only supports the fact that Obama won the election through charisma alone.

Liberals fear Christianity

2008-10-14T21:58:00.000-07:00

This may not shock you, but the truth of the matter had never been so clear to me until recently. Here’s how it happened:

While wandering the internet in search of the late George Carlin's stand-up routines, I came across a website called WhyWontGodHealAmputees.com (WWGHA). The question proposed by the URL peaked my curiosity, as I believe it would anyone else who is still spiritually undecided. The website is comprised of nothing but questions and statements aimed at disproving the existence of God. The site is extensive, containing links to general anti-God editorials, a forum, a blog, a sister website, and videos. The catchline "The most important question that we can ask about God" has somewhat of a sophomoric tone to it. You can visit the site for the full flavor.

It didn't take long after beginning to read the repetitive explanations as to why God is "imaginary" (one of many buzz words used extensively throughout the site) and the many thousands of threads on the forum (which contained nothing more than bickering) before I realized what the true agenda was behind the whole website. It became obvious to me that someone (or some group of people) spent a considerable amount of time compiling such a wealth of dissent, thus showing their true passion for the topic. I ask, why feel the need to question anothers’ faith, much less attempt to convince them their faith is false? What business is it of yours?

WWGHA claims Christians are “delusional” (another buzz word) making belief in God seem more like a disease or ailment. Such ferocious angst toward something which has little or nothing to do with them is typical of liberals today. It reminds me of my high school days when I and many of my peers would take a contrary position on any topic, simply to resist the single greatest evil: Conformity. This incessant and unjustified dissent stems from arrogance, satisfying nothing more than the ego of a person who is convinced they play some kind of significant role in the universe. No matter the topic, liberals must make their disagreement known instead of focusing that energy on things that really effect their own day-to-day lives. This preoccupation with other people’s affairs is really something I will never understand.

I think what liberals are really trying to say when they get on the “God is imaginary” subject is that they’re in fear. Perhaps they don’t fear God, but maybe the fact that many conservatives, in fact, do. It’s this deep seated belief in something mysterious shared by Christians that puts fear in the hearts of many liberals. These mysterious beliefs are made up of morals and values that are common among many conservatives, giving them a solid base on which to build their political principles. This foundation is something liberals lack, and it makes them fearful of the power conservatives have when we come together.

The extent of the WWGHA website is only proof that these people want very much to weaken our foundation and put us into a state of free-floating disorganization, leveling the playing field. Liberals know they’re disorganized and the only common belief they share is they all hate the Bush Administration. Why else would so much time and effort be put into attempting to disprove something that has nothing to do with them? Because it’s a threat that must be dealt with.

The conservative value set is so much more solid than anything the liberals have, and they know they’re incapable of coming up with something comparable. Their only alternative is to attack the Christians and attempt to invalidate conservative morals and values in hopes of attaining victory.

Greetings

2008-10-01T23:02:00.000-07:00

As this is my first post, I shall introduce myself as simply an ordinary man living in this anything-but-ordinary world. I think a lot about things I see and hear from day to day and questions inevitably arise, mostly centered around one word: Why.

I am often presented with scenarios and circumstances that appear odd or ill conceived. Critical thinking is one of my strengths (not the kind that keeps me in a constant state of indecision) and I like to exercise it whenever possible. I also like to believe that I possess an open mind and am proud of the fact that I made it through the California "higher education" system with all of my brains still intact: not forced out of my head in the name of limitless acceptance and understanding.

I have already anticipated that some readers may misinterpret my commentary as complaining about things of which I know nothing about. I try very hard to inform myself on a topic before I begin speaking about it (don't we all...?), but sometimes there can be an automatic reaction to that which is in direct contradiction to my soul. My advise to the above mentioned: look up "commentary" in the dictionary.

I make no claims of absolute expertise (unless I possess some sort of real, measurable experience in an area, then I'll claim some kind of above-average knowledge) nor will I accept any other's claims of such. This simply means that I want to see credentials before I go jumping off a cliff with the rest of the lemmings. Not an unreasonable request, right? Riiiiiiiiiight.

What can you expect from this blog? Just about anything. Really.