CONSERVATIVE FREAK

                                                     -John Stuart Mill

 I was sitting at the bar in a local Irish pub in a suburb on the west side of Des Moines when I first realized that liberals were afraid of people like me. I was waiting for a couple of my friends to show up and decided to have a couple of beers and get a head start on them. Eventually, of couple of nicely dressed gentlemen walked in and sat down beside me. It wasn’t long before their conversation turned to politics and it became obvious that the gentleman sitting closest to me was running for some sort of political office.

At some point as they spoke the man beside me turned to me and asked, “Don’t you think that all Americans deserve the best healthcare coverage available?”

The poor fellow looked shocked and concerned as I answered simply, “No,” and returned to my beer. I had clearly left him wanting more as he felt compelled to follow up with, “Well, why not?”

The was the invitation that I had been waiting for. I explained to the man (we’ll call him Bob) that I worked in the corrections profession. I pointed out that I saw the people everyday that were responsible for some of the worst crimes in society. My new friend seemed enthralled as I explained that I eat my lunch surrounded by rapists, murderers, child molesters, and drug dealers everyday. I have heard stories that would make your blood boil and your stomach turn. Many of these fine gentleman are repeat offenders, meaning they chose to continue to commit more crimes once released. I told him Bob that he may think that the world is full of people who think, dress, and act like him, but that he was mistaken.

I assured Bob that our country is full of people, both men and women, who have done bad things and were not “deserving” of anything being handed to them. People who abused and neglected their children, people who were in their 40’s or 50’s and had never held a legitimate job.  

I remember Bob smiling and turning to me seeming extremely interested in my perspective on his question. His smiles of interest soon turned to grimaces of disgust as his questions continued and his liberal views were crushed. His friend smiled and nodded every time that I spoke. It was almost as if I was saying everything that Bob’s friend wanted to say but couldn’t. Probably because he felt his beliefs weren’t as important as Bob’s intellectual “feel good” philosophies.

It was beautiful to watch Bob’s metamorphosis from a arrogant liberal to the frustrated, flustered, coward that I had shown him to be. Because he was a typical liberal, Bob was easy to pummel in a debate. The typical liberal doesn’t want to debate actual facts or history. They like throwing out emotion provoking comments that can’t be countered without sounding mean spirited. For example, Bob’s first question was, “Don’t you think all American’s deserve the best healthcare possible?” This is typical of liberals. Other leading questions I’ve heard from liberals are:

“Does your child deserve cleaner drinking water?”

“Doesn’t your child deserve a world free of gun violence?”

“Don’t all Americans deserve a decent living wage?’

You don’t hear a liberal ask:

“Are you afraid to get your child a glass of water from the sink?”

“Don’t you think that people responsible for gun violence should be executed in the electric chair?”

“Don’t you think that there are a lot of freeloading, worthless, losers sucking up your hard earned tax dollars?” 

Again, liberals are sissies. They don’t want you to think, they want you to feel. While they love to characterize themselves as elite intellectuals that are smarter and better than the rest of us, the truth is that they are out of touch with history and common sense. Most of all, they are cowards and it’s easier to try to convince others to be cowards than it is to face their fears and confront truth, their enemies, or anything else. 

The sissification of our nation has been a process that has evolved for nearly fifty years. I believe that the cowardly Vietnam era protestors who dared spit on the soldiers returning from combat exemplified what was to become a nation of misguided freedom haters. Though the evolution of idiocy has taken place over a period of time, the results can be seen at a glance. 

Once the hardest working people on earth, many Americans now seem to be competing with the French (who have outlawed the forty-hour work week) for the laziest people on earth. From fraudulent workers compensation claims to FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) abuses. From declining work quality to frivolous union grievances, our society has gotten weak and lazy.

The unions that at one time fought for fair wages and better work conditions now fight for more money, more money, more money. They have to pick fights today, rather than having something legitimate and worthwhile to fight for. Unions once fought for laborers who worked terribly long hours under unsafe and harsh conditions. At one time unions fought for fair wage and fair treatment for workers. Today unions fight for more of what they already have.

Having come from a family that has had it’s fair share of union members I have had the opportunity to attend union meetings and rallies. I have experienced the “wanna-be Jimmy Hoffas” standing in front a group of followers yelling and shouting in a manner similar to southern Baptist minister. But instead of shouting about how to become better people and living a better life, the union leaders shout to their congregation about how “the man” is trying to keep them down. They run through a list of items that they are owed. They love to talk about things they feel they are entitled to. You will not hear union leaders speak issues that their predecessors spoke about. Thing like overtime pay and safer working conditions are issues of the past. The rhetoric now consists of more money and let’s see…oh yeah, more money.

I have been a union member and have the opportunity to belong to a union as a state employee, however I proudly decline. Though I do believe unions can still have a viable role in the workforce today. Unions and union members need to acknowledge the fact that the role of unions today has diminished. This is not the 1920’s anymore. Government intervention has remedied many of the problems of the past such as safety standards and working conditions.

Aside from fighting for more money, another duty of today’s unions is helping dirt bag employees keep their job. They blindly fight for jobs for individuals whether they were fairly or unfairly fired. Never mind the fact that an individual rarely showed up for work or had consistently poor performance. That doesn’t matter. The union will be there for you. All for one, one for all. Solidarity. Standing together as one. How about fighting for scum bags? Or maybe pricing businesses out of business.

A good friend of mine who has had the job confronting the union leadership as a supervisor has a motto that he often uses when describing his feelings about the union. “Union greed equals jobs over seas.”

When I first heard his saying I laughed thinking it was a cute, insightful, and incendiary phrase to use when I debated with union members. Over time I have discovered how insightful that little quote actually is.

Increasing wages have driven prices off the map from everything from a beer at the ballgame to houses. There is a direct relationship between inflated wages and inflated prices. Let’s look at the wages of professional athletes today.

Mario Williams of the Houston Texans and first pick in the 2006 NFL draft recently signed a contract valued at $54 million over years. Regardless of his performance, Williams is guaranteed $26.5 million in his contract.

Major league baseball’s Alex Rodriguez pulls down a whopping $252 million over 10 years in his contract.

While these examples are classic reminders of the beauty of capitalism, they are also the results of unions gone mad. It is the salaries like these that have driven the price of a glass of beer to $5, $6, $7, and even higher and ticket prices out of reach for average Americans. At $51.63 the Washington Wizards boast the highest average ticket price in the NBA.

Salaries of athletes and salaries of union welders have a similar role in inflating costs. Even without unionization professional athletes would still be rich upon belief simply based on competition in the workplace. As long as a team views a particular athlete as a vehicle to large revenue, that team will be willing to pay the price to get him.

Let’s pretend that there were no unions or multimillion dollar contracts and an NFL team was be willing to pay the best quarterback in the league $50,000 a year for one year. Then let’s say that that quarterback leads his team to a Super Bowl. Then prior to the start of the next season that quarterback receives an offer from the last place team in the league for $60,000 and another offer from a team for $70,000. Very simply, that quarterback’s team had better be willing to pay him $71,000. Because there is a clear correlation between athletes’ successes monstrous revenues generated by the organization, they will continue to be paid higher salaries because they have value to the organization. These unbelievable athletes are hard to come by. Only a fraction of 1% of the society possess the athletic abilities of many these individuals.

The same is true for the salaries the CEO’s that unions are constantly complaining about. They get paid what the organization feels that they are worth. If a CEO can generate $100 million in profits then his $1 million salary can be justified. And rather than complaining that it’s not fair that the CEO makes $1 million dollars and the factory workers made $15 an hour, rejoice in the fact that your team made money and that you played a part in it. And if you feel that you are not getting paid what you’re worth…leave. Go find an employer that will be willing to pay you $16 an hour. Eventually, if employers want to keep workers they will pay a wage that is competitive in the market.

And to the factory workers that feel they are entitled to the same $1 million dollar salary as the CEO, I say go back to school and work your way into a CEO position. The great thing about the U.S.A is that anything is possible and you can do anything you want if you’re willing to work for it.

Unfortunately, for the union laborer they are one of millions and millions that can do their job. There a far fewer individuals qualified and able to run multi-million or multi-billion dollar corporation.

If every NFL quarterback had the skills of a Joe Montana then they would be a dime a dozen. Only a couple can stand out as the cream of the crop, therefore they get rewarded for their rare abilities.

And finally, to the whiny union members that often voice complaints about their wage verses the wage of the suits upstairs, I would first remind them that as a worker on an assembly line they are responsible for maintaining their individual goals and responsible for their own job. As a CEO you are responsible for everyone’s goal and everyone’s job.

Even with all of these issues that I have with unions, none of them is the reason that I choose not be associated with a union. My reasons are of more of a political nature. It is little secret that unions are a little democrat friendly. That would generally be fine. After all, there are other organizations that are republican friendly. The NRA, for example, often endorses republican candidates. But not always. Organizations like the NRA are based on principle and ideals rather than political identity. Whether a candidate is republican or democrat is inconsequential. If a candidate helps to further the agenda of the organization then you can bet a candidate will get the endorsement of the NRA. This can be seen the report card issued by the NRA which grades senators based on their willingness to support the second amendment.

Unions, on the other hand, are loyal to party not to principle. They continuously endorse democratic candidates that represent values inconsistent with those of many of their members. It is kind of like when you see individuals at political rallies with T-shirts that read “Gun owners for Gore,” or “Sportsmen for Kerry.” What is the deal with these people? Did someone sneak into their bedroom in the middle of the night and replace their brains with pudding. Do they really believe what is on their shirt or was it the only thing that they had that was clean. Whatever the case, union members are often the ones sporting those fancy duds.

Teacher’s unions may be the worst of all as far as putting the own interests first. While I do very much respect the role of educators, they need to understand their role. Their role is to educate our children and be accountable for their performance. Sounds simple but not when you listen to the rhetoric from teachers unions.

They hate No Child Left Behind because it holds teachers accountable for their performance. They argue that teachers only have to teach to the test. I say, “Who Cares?” Teach to the test. I want my child to know that two plus two equals four. If want put that on a test and beat in to their brain that two plus two equals four, go for it.

Another complaint that we hear from teacher’s unions is their lack of pay. Let’s first consider that they only work 6 months out of the year. Teachers enjoy a Christmas break (sorry, holiday break), Easter break (oops, spring break), and various other holidays and breaks. They have benefits and retirement plans and in most cases enjoy a rather pleasant working environment.

Let’s compare that to the average correctional officer who may work midnights, weekends, holidays, and works in a dangerous environment often without a weapon. I don’t hear politicians calling for more pay for correctional officers. Why? Because it doesn’t warm the heart like the “Feed the Teachers” vote getting campaign.

There are school districts whose teachers do deserve hazard pay. Schools located in dangerous areas, with dangerous students, whose parents have failed to teach the children the meaning of respect. The teachers unions need to be fighting for these teachers ability to suspend and expel students at will, fighting for enforcement of truancy laws, fighting for personal defense training. I would not be against allowing a properly trained teacher to be armed given the right circumstances.

We will not hear teacher’s unions fighting for any of these things because union leadership ultimately care more about furthering a political agenda than they do fighting for what is truly right.

Ultimately unionization has the same impact on the economy as minimum wage laws. The latest minimum wage law that impacted the wages of only an extremely small percentage of the workforce, impacted a larger percentage of employers and all consumers. Most of the businesses affected by minimum wage laws are small businesses that hire part-time workers. These part-time workers, quite often high school and college students, are usually working in entry level service occupations.

Minimum wages usually regulate themselves in a capitalist society. If an employer was to curb his attrition level he will pay his employees a competitive salary. If not it will be difficult to maintain staffing levels.

Blanket wage increases, like those sought by unions, are inevitably followed by product price increases. Minimum wage increases work in much the same way, only on a larger scale. The advocates fail to realize or understand that these wage increases are often negated by product price increases. These product price increases often leave the employee worse off than they were prior to the wage increase.

Many liberals that endorse these practices understand fully these facts. They continue to endorse them, however, because it continues to inch us closer to their idea of the American dream. The closer that they can get us to equal wages and wealth distribution, the closer they get to us to socialism. By making a company or corporation pay a greater salary, liberals have a greater salary base from which to take income tax dollars. Where can you find a better scam? Make someone else put more of their money on the table so you can take more of it to fund your failed and flawed policies. It’s genius!

Unions and union members often boast about their patriotism and love for America, but I had to chuckle in 2004 when the Communist Party endorsed John Kerry along with nearly every labor union in the country. Shouldn’t this send up red flags? Union members need to decide whether they are going to continue to be pawns of the liberals that many despise and disassociate themselves from or are they going to choose principle over party.  

Regardless of whether looking at the civil court proceedings or cases that interpret law, the courts are seemingly out of control. Worse yet is the perception that the court system has adopted some sort of agenda other than enforcing the rule of law. This new effort on the part of the courts contradicts the basic principles on which the country was founded.

For instance, many of our founding fathers either used tobacco or were in fact tobacco farmers, yet the tobacco industry has found itself the victim of a form of product discrimination.

When you look at what the tobacco industry has had to endure, you cannot deny that they have been singled out and targeted. From ridiculously high “sin” taxes placed on tobacco by some states, to the court’s preposterously high civil awards, the tobacco industry is truly a victim of the liberals hold on the media and the courts.

A man can only be tried for a murder one time, yet tobacco company’s are consistently defending themselves in court over the same matters. Okay, tobacco is bad for you. I get it. Fifty years ago Tobacco companies tried to conceal the fact that tobacco use was unhealthy. Fine. The tobacco companies have received repeated sanctions for their actions. When a person or group of people still try to hold the tobacco companies liable for hiding the dangers of tobacco it is like they are climbing a mountain and shouting to the world “I’m an idiot.” As a matter of fact, I can remember at about 4 or 5 years old trying to convince my mom to quit smoking because I knew it was bad for her. And that was nearly 30 years ago. It is insane that courts are continuing to hear cases from people suing the tobacco company’s because they have cancer or emphysema. If it is a surprise to someone that they became sick after 50 years of smoking then maybe they gracefully bow out of this life. It’s called natural selection. We already have enough stupid people walking around.

Tobacco industry opponents also like to hammer on the fact that tobacco is addictive and the tobacco companies know it or even thrive on it. In some cases the industry has been accused of even enhancing the product to be even more addictive. I say “So what?”

Casinos are addictive to some people and casinos thrive on people with gambling addictions. Casinos even enhance their product to be even more enticing, more appealing, and more… addictive.

How many casinos have you been in that do not have flashing lights, bells and whistles, and even free drinks while you gamble? I bet not many. And that is fine. I’m an adult. I’m responsible for my own actions. I understand that some people get hooked with the first pull of the slot handle. My decision. My choice. My consequences.

But why don’t liberals attack the casino industry? Because they are already sucking them dry for their tax dollars and the best thing they can do is leave the casinos alone and allow them to draw more people. More people means more revenue generated by the casino. This results in more tax revenue collected by the government and, most importantly, more money for more programs.

The liberal’s attack on the tobacco industry works just the opposite. With fewer people smoking they need to attack from a couple of different angles if they are going to get the blood that they need to survive. They attack through legislation and through the courts.

Remember, liberals love money, especially somebody else’s.

By catering to the liberals the courts have overlooked their obligation to ensure the basic freedoms provided to every law abiding American. The freedom of choice. It is a beautiful thing. The freedom to become whatever you want to be and to follow your heart, your dreams, and your interests.

I can become a skydiver, but I have to pay extra tax on a pack of cigarettes if I want to smoke. I can become an extreme downhill skier if I choose, but in California I can’t open a bar that allows smoking. My state of Iowa recently joined states such as California in banning smoking in businesses. Business owners have freedoms and rights just as consumers. They should have the right to open a privately owned business that allows or even endorses smoking, On the other hand they should also have the right to open a business that does not allow smoking. The consumer should have the freedom of choose which business they would want to patronize. Liberals should love this. They are pro-choice…aren’t they?

In the United States I could market a brand of ice cream on T.V using a beautiful blond modelin a thong bikini, but I can’t market a brand of cigarettes on T.V using a fully clothed cowboy.       Free love liberals would cry censorship if you tried to take away their bikini clad model. Are yousee any signs of hypocrisy?

The liberal courts would probably tell you that the health and well-being of the American people is their number one concern and first priority in defending their decisions against the tobacco industry. I would say that is a bunch of crap. I would say that ice cream and chocolate cake have killed more people than cigarettes. I see a hell of a lot more obese people walking around with “ice cream bellies” than I do people with oxygen tanks. If they’re truly concerned with Americans’ health and if that is their true motivation for trampling our freedoms, then I say let’s go all the way. Make every employer nationwide put every employee through a vigorous 1 hour calisthenics session prior to the start of each work day. Nothing says lower healthcare costs like a nice one mile jog prior to beginning your shift. This new health maintenance program would no doubt be followed by lower healthcare costs for employers and employees. This idea is no more outrageous than what has taken place with the assault on smoking. Americans have the right to be fat, skinny, healthy, or unhealthy.

The bottom line for liberals (democrats) though isn’t about cigarettes or even tobacco. It is about the democrats’ love for money. They see tobacco as an excellent source of revenue and so it stays. If tomorrow the tobacco industry released a statement saying that all manufacturers were closing down, you would see democrats walking around the U.S Capital grounds with burning grits hanging from their lips.

As much as they profess a hatred for smoking and the tobacco industry…they love it, they need it, they’ve grown to depend on it. This is precisely why you don’t see them propose a $10 per pack tax. This truly would cause far fewer people to smoke, which is their alleged motivation for such legislation. This type of move would nearly eliminate smoking, we’d all live to be 150 years old and all would be great. Right? No, this would eliminate a huge tax base that they have used to fund many of their socialist programs.

My defense of the tobacco industry has nothing to do with my love of tobacco or the industry. It is about the right of every American to have the opportunity to live their lives in a free society that does not decide what is best for you. It’s about making your own choices. It is about maintaining capitalism and a free enterprise system by taking away government obstacles that impede that freedom. Tobacco is just the taste of the week. It will be something else tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow it will be ice cream or some other unhealthy food that the liberals will decide for you that you don’t need.

I can think of many things worse than engaging in a legal activity that “might” kill me in 35 years. 

By the way, I’m a non-smoker. 

In some recent cases the Supreme Court has declared itself the court of public opinion. In Roper v. Simmons the Supreme Court has

declared that a person who commits a crime as a juvenile cannot be subject to the death penalty. This judgment was based on a case where the defendant, who was soon to turn eighteen, committed the crime because he was a juvenile and did not think he would be held appropriately accountable. The individual persuaded other younger juveniles to join him in breaking into a home and kidnapping a woman while she slept. These mischievous youngsters then bound her arms and legs with duct tape and wire, put a towel over her head, and finally threw her over a bridge where she died of drowning. Boys will be boys.

In their decision the liberals in the court noted that the majority of states do not have the death penalty. They also pointed out that most countries in Europe no longer impose the death penalty as a sanction. The court determined that when looking at these factors it can appropriately assume that there has been an evolution of thinking that has taken place throughout our civilization. It was their determination that a majority of people have become more civilized about how they want punishments implemented.

So they delivered their opinion according to what they believe the majority of people would want? I don’t know about you but I was never contacted for the survey. God for bid the courts ever decide that the majority of people no longer believe in the freedom of religion.

Working in the criminal justice field I am constantly seeing the results of liberal courts. Judgments from America hating liberal judges are handcuffing law enforcement and corrections officers across the country. From excessive force claims to claims of illegal search and seizure democrat appointed liberal judges are siding with the bad guys with greater frequency. If the trend is not stopped we will continue to see a trend that benefits the criminal population while punishing the victims.

Prisons are seeing their security compromised by the widening scope of “rights” that inmates are found to be entitled to. Obviously, as a humane people, we do not want to see criminals viciously beaten without cause. We do, however, need to give our police and corrections officers the authority to use that force which is necessary in order to protect the public and themselves. We also need to make sure that prison time is a punishment to offenders rather than just a minor inconvenience. In my experience I have had inmates tell me that they live far better in prison than on the streets. With three square meals, commissary, air conditioning, and tennis courts it is often difficult to see the deterrent.

As a correctional officer I have been constantly reminded that, “we are not here to punish.” And while I believe this is true, the incarceration needs to be a punishment rather than a “timeout.”

The only solution to the judicial catastrophe that is taking place around the country is to continue putting a band aid on the problem. Each time we go to the polls we need to make sure that we are going to vote for a President that is going to appoint judges who represent our ideas and most importantly interpret the law.

With the appointment of Justices Alito and Roberts, our country took an initial step in strengthening the Supreme Court, but again this is just a band-aid. The liberals will keep coming every election marching on like annoying little ants coming to ruin the picnic. That is exactly why we, as Americans who love our country, must step on those ants every chance we get.

So many liberal federal judges have infiltrated their way onto the stand that it would literally take an entire generation to see them all gone. Unfortunately, I do not see that happening. It is especially sad when considering the fact that our nation’s security may depend on it.

When Jimmy Carter appointee U.S District Judge Ann Diggs Taylor recently ruled in favor of the ACLU and declared the domestic surveillance program unconstitutional, she stripped our nation of an essential tool against terrorism. With her decision she told the world that an individuals’ phone calls to terror suspects in Saudi Arabia are more important than American lives.

Sadly though, when another terror attack arrives on our soil those who have endorsed such anti-American opinions will ask, “Why did our government let this happen?” And when they ask I will be there with a clinched fist prepared to knock their teeth down their throat. 

With the expansion of the Family Medical Leave Act (F.M.L.A) under the Clinton administration, American workers have essentially been given the green light to call in sick anytime without consequence. Unbelievably, nothing has been said by politicians or reported by the media about anchor that this must be putting on the economy.

As a state employee, I have watched over the last 10 years as some employees have robbed the tax payers of my state by manipulating the medical system and the Family Medical Leave Act. Essentially, workers only need what amounts to a doctors excuse in order to get out of work whenever they wish without consequence. The solution to this growing problem obviously begins first with an overhaul of F.M.L.A. The F.M.L.A in it’s current condition could be greatly improved with legislation geared toward reducing the burden that frivolous medical malpractice suits are placing on healthcare providers.

Doctors are afraid to send employees back to work even if they

are unable to find an actual problem with the patient. Reducing doctors’ liabilities would also allow them to send many individuals back to work who are collecting on frivolous medical disability benefits.

As it stands now employees can have various injuries and ailments for which they are claiming a need for F.M.L.A benefits. They can call in to their employer and tell them simply, “I’m not going to be in today F.M.L.A.” Depending on the number a ailments that they have coverage for, they can miss several months of work and the employer can do nothing about it, even if they suspect that the employee is faking or embellishing a medical problem.

While there should be some protection for employees in the event they suffer an injury and illness or if the must care for a family member, it is clear there are citizens who are costing the government and businesses millions or even billions of dollars every year.

Even some of the legitimate medical ailments that employees claim have an unscrupulous motive behind them. In 2006 workers can claim F.M.L.A protection for headaches, carpel tunnel, and even P.M.S. In 1950 citizens would go to work with a headache, sore wrists, and feeling a little bloated and edgy.

Unfortunately, little if anything will change with F.M.L.A legislation any time soon. The first thing that would have to happen isthat some politician somewhere would have to have the balls to admit that there is even a problem. This individual would be destroyed by the media before he could even finish his first sentence. Remember, when people are constantly given to they learn to expect it. When you take it away it is not looked at as though they are no longer being given to; it is looked at as something is being taken away from them.

Finally, can you imagine the spectacle that would be created in Washington D.C as F.M.L.A beneficiaries would be paraded in front of Senate committees. Each would have a heart warming tale of their medical ailments and how the Family Medical Leave Act had saved their career by allowing them to miss work in order to accommodate their infirmity.

The evil CEO’s would be brought in as well. They would speak of the many millions of dollars that frivolous F.M.L.A claims were costing their organization each year. They would then be destroyed by the press and the liberals in the Senate.

I strongly doubt that many of the individuals who use and abuse F.M.L.A laws would be willing to stand in front of legislators and tell them how they were able to con doctors and manipulate the system.

Times have changed. Fewer people have a strong character and work ethic and more people have a desire to sit home and do nothing. Terms like loyalty, integrity, and dedication have been replaced with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. 

Regardless of political affiliation, government responses to problems are often a knee jerk reaction. This quite apparent with liberals especially in the aftermath of any gun related tragedy. Their initial reaction in the wake of tragic school shootings or workplace shootings is to immediately call for stricter gun laws.

The liberal response to the Supreme Court’s recent decision supporting the rights of individuals to own guns in Washington D.C and limiting the district’s ability to restrict gun ownership is a classic example of flawed liberal thinking. Liberals, including Barrack Obama, have been quoted as saying that they support the second amendment but they also support the state and local government’s ability to place restrictions on gun ownership to combat violence in certain areas. So are they saying that they support the right of individuals to bear arms and the right of governments to take away that right? That is exactly what they’re saying.

Obama has said that he believes cities like Washington D.C should have the right to deal with their unique problems of violence. The D.C gun ban was put in to effect 32 years ago. For 32 years gun violence in the district has increased consistently since the ban.

Liberals never consider that it is their own social ideals that have helped to spawn the violent culture in America today. They, of course, will simply say the second amendment needs to be rewritten or deleted as it is out of date. They call their proposals on gun laws “common sense” legislation. When it is “common sense” that they are obviously lacking.

When one attempts to point out to liberal law makers the result of violence in movies, music, and video games they immediately go on the defensive. They immediately start crying out about first amendment protection and accusations of censorship. Liberals simply refuse to admit that it is their friends in Hollywood that are at least partially responsible for the level of violence in our society.

Liberals get defensive when you point to the breakdown in the family as a contributing factor to increasing violence. With an ever increasing number of boys growing up without male roles models, they never learn the basic lessons about being a man. Without a responsible role model boys do not learn how to harness that male anger that so many of us have felt in our youth.

Responsibility itself is a missing character trait of many of today’s youth. They never learn to take care of their responsibilities such as: bills, job, school, and family.

Most of all, kids today are missing respect. Their idea of respect is people fearing them. I cannot tell you how many times that I have had young inmates tell me, “You better treat me with respect,” in response to my telling them to do something. Because I dared to tell them to do something and did not exhibit a fear of them, they perceive this as disrespect.

Without an understanding of the meaning of respect these troubled young men and growing number of young women do not have the necessary tools to function in a lawful society. They are unable to properly respect laws, law enforcement, or other people’s rights. The mentality that exists today is one that says a person being held up at gun point shows respect to the perpetrator by showing fear and giving up his money. The perpetrator of the crime never takes into account that by pointing a gun at an innocent person and taking his money that he is depriving the victim of respect.

This lack of respect is a deadly result of the breakdown in society that has taken place gradually over the last 30 years.

While shootings such as the horrible tragedy at Columbine High School in Colorado grasp the majority of attention, these situations are still relatively isolated. Forgotten are the daily acts of violence that happen in our towns and city’s everyday across America. Most of these violent acts take place with hands and feet or other weapons, but it is guns that grab the spotlight of the media. 

Democrats often look to find a quick fix to the problem of violence in the country. Ban guns, tougher gun legislation, more laws. This is their solution. Is it because they do not understand that there is no quick fix or is it that they just don’t want to admit it? It does not grab voters’ attention to say that we are in need of a complete overhaul of society. It does not make Hollywood liberals happy to say that they need to take responsibility for the products that they put on the market. It is far to easy to say to the voters, “This is the problem…and this is the answer. Vote for me today and I’ll make it all better tomorrow.”

There is no quick fix. There are no easy answers. More laws, stricter legislation, or even gun bans are not going to remedy the culture of violence. Censorship, parental advisories, and movie ratings are not going to remedy the culture of violence.

I enjoy a good shoot’em up bang’em up movie as much as the next guy. I even enjoy some rap music on occasion. While I think that at some point the entertainment industry should pull in the reigns on themselves, I don’t think that it is the government’s job to do it.

The solutions to the problems start at home. It may start by limiting individual’s access to entitlements and forcing parents to be parents and do the things that parents do. Go to work, pay the bills, provide for the family. Reform may start by keeping God in the pledge of allegiance, allowing prayer in schools, and other basic elements that initially made our country great.

The one area where legislation could actually be effective is unthinkable for most democrats.

Enforce existing gun laws and increase penalties for crimes where a gun was used. 

If an individual is accused of attempted murder with a firearm, lock him up for 25, 50, or 100 years. If he commits murder with a firearm execute him. Execution, by the way, is the only 100% effective way of eliminating recidivism.

You will not hear any democrats present these ideas in any campaign speeches any time soon. If there are still one or two left that would support these ideas, they wouldn’t dare upset the powerful liberals on which they depend.

Common sense gun laws should actually be formulated out of common sense. If a person convicted of a firearm related crime is confined to prison for decades, the chance of them re-offending with a firearm is greatly reduced. If a person convicted of a firearm related death is executed the chance of them re-offending is even more greatly reduced. If a person sells a firearm to a minor or a felon lock them up and throw away the key.

As a gun owner and gun advocate nothing is more abhorred than seeing gun tragedies on the evening news. Not only do I feel the sense of loss that gun tragedies bring, but I also know there will be an onslaught on my second amendment rights by gun grabbing America haters.

The purpose of the second amendment was to insure that the people had a means of protecting themselves against an oppressive government. The founding fathers viewed an individual’s right to defend himself as an inalienable right. The government that would dare take away their citizens right to bear arms could only be characterized as an oppressive tyrannical government.

Democrats are usually at the root of gun legislation that benefit’s the criminal element in our society. Criminals are criminals because they fail to obey the laws of society. Banning guns only affects those who follow and obey the laws of the land.

I am very much a proponent of not only of the right to bear arms, but the right of citizens to carry concealed weapons. I know that this idea seems “wild west” to many, but few understand how many individuals carry concealed weapons daily either legally or illegally. Off duty police officers often carry their weapons while in plain clothes as do many other citizens whose communities have concealed carry laws. There is also the criminal element in society that carry guns illegally as well as generally law abiding citizens that carry concealed guns as a means of self defense. These usually law abiding citizens often harbor the feeling that they would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six should the event arise that they may have to use their weapon to defend themselves.

Concealed carry permits should obviously not be given out arbitrarily, but they should be allowed. How can any person tell another that they do not have the right to defend himself or herself? I, as a human being, have the right to defend my life and the life of my family. If it is okay for a police officer to carry a weapon to serve and protect then the same should go for other concerned responsible citizens that do something else for a living.

If a citizen is subjected to the same standards and qualifications that a potential police officer candidate is subjected, then they too should be given consideration for the right to carry a firearm. I would have no problem subjecting myself to background checks, psychological evaluations, gun courses, and proficiency tests in order to demonstrate that I am responsible to carry a firearm. For many in society the only thing that separates them from the police officers that carry firearms everyday is the person who issues them their paycheck. Character, integrity, and courage are traits reserved for a majority of Americans, not just a limited few.

The founding fathers believed that all citizens had the inalienable right to self-protection. The right to protect yourself from government oppression and a basic fundamental right to protect yourself and your family from other is not something that should be legislated by any government. Until there is some other advancement in technology, a firearm is the most efficient and effective means of self-protection.

As is the case with many of our rights, this right should be limited in the event a citizen shows that they are unable to adhere to the laws that govern our society. But for those responsible law abiding citizens who wish to have some say in their own personal well being, there is no man who should deny them that right.

Many of the anti-gun advocates who long for the day when the average citizen is stripped of his or her right to bear arms need to recognize that there are millions like me who take that freedom very seriously. I would want them to consider the following. I am willing to die to protect my right to bear arms. Are you willing to die to take it?  

As sad as it is that this fact must be pointed out…it must be pointed out. While the blind ignorant democrats continue to blame the Republicans and their “Big Oil” cohorts for the rising gas prices, they are the ones ultimately to blame.

There are a couple of obvious reasons that the country has seen an increase in oil prices. Most can be directly or indirectly attributed to the Democrats energy policy. The fact that oil prices have not adjusted accordingly with inflation over time and basic laws of supply and demand seem at first glance beyond our control. This is, however, until you look at the Democrats unwillingness to take control.

Environmentalist whacko lobbyists have been successful in convincing their liberal whacko representatives to continue to slap down attempts to drill for oil in the United States. They cite environmental issues for failing to drill in such areas as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Alaska. Obviously these environmentalist idiot have not thought about the counter productivity of their actions.

Oil is going to get drilled. Whether it is in the United States or in some third world country. The only question is whether you want to get your oil from countries without environmental restrictions and regulations or from the United States where strict restrictions are put in place, monitored, and enforced. While some politicians work to reduce the 60% of our oil that is imported, others try to hinder their work. Still, those obstructionists are touted as being the ones that care most about the common man and about the environment. They’re wrong. They’re idiots. That’s it. End of discussion.

The blind democrats continue to blast the republicans and, as always, the Bush administration for their unfriendly environmental practices even as Bush pledged $1.7 billion in pollution-free hydrogen fuel cell research that was initially detailed in 2003. Whether it is funding hydrogen fuel cell research or ethanol based fuels, it is clear which party has done the most for energy development and the environment. The Bush administration replaced the previous administrations rhetoric and inaction with money and action. Were you one of the fools duped by the media into thinking that the democrats were the environmentally friendly party? It’s okay. I won’t tell. 

If liberals’ views on the interrogation and handling of terrorist combatants were not so scary they would actually be hilarious. They are without a doubt, ridiculous. Federal prisoners are held under many of the same guidelines as the inmates within the state prisons that I have had the opportunity to visit and work in. 

 In my experience, the treatment of inmates in the U.S greatly exceeds the perception of prisons and prisoner treatment held my most citizens. Visitors to prisons are often shocked to see inmates sunbathing, playing basketball, volleyball, and tennis. They are shocked to see the radios, C.D. players, television sets, and clothes that inmates are allowed to purchase.

More shocking is to hear the way many inmates lie and distort the truth that they are being mistreated or abused. I have personally been on the receiving end of inmate allegations that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

Having heard terrorist detainee allegations and the subsequent federal government responses, I am left with the belief that the detainee is lying. I have gone down the same road with individuals with the same type of criminal mentality and have had a nearly identical experience. The terrorist detainees are given daily exercise and access to the outdoors. They are given the time and opportunity for prayer or other religious practice. They have their nutritional guidelines met, even special accommodations dictated by their individual religion. They are allowed to shower. They are given, given, given.

In fact, generally during incarceration in the United States or by the United States the worst thing that will happen to an inmate is the result of other inmates. This too is an area where prison officials bend over backwards to insure the safety of the prisoner. When prison officials have a reasonable belief that a prisoners life or safety is in jeopardy, they take necessary precautions to protect the individual.

It is a lose lose situation for people who work in the prisons. They can’t win. They are falsely accused by the individuals that they take care not to harm or offend, then they are attacked by human rights groups who have no concept of reality, and then the media takes their turn to twist the knife.

The interrogation practices are an area where there is a obvious difference in philosophy between the democrats and republicans. This controversy is generally not even the result of false allegations made by some dirt bag. The worst part of it is, the actual practices admitted by the federal government are the same practices criticized by most democrats and a couple of “politically correct” republicans.

The democrats have attempted to rewrite the definition of torture to include sleep deprivation, loud rock music, and uncomfortably cool or warm rooms. Wow, I did not realize how many times during my life I have been the victim of torture. Surely there is some type of recourse that I should have. Oh wait, I guess I have usually been the one to stay out too late, crank my radio, and forget to pay my heating bill. My bad.

Seriously though, even the despicable actions of some unsupervised midnight shift staff at the Abu Ghraib prison hardly amount to torture. The situation was a national embarrassment, humiliating for the prisoners, highly inappropriate, and behavior that should be punished. But torture? Come on.

If what amounts to a naked game of Twister is considered torture I say, “Torture me please!” I just ask that you let me pick who plays with me.

For those that would call the Abu Ghraib shenanigans torture, I would like to present this question:

Would you rather be forced to get in a naked pyramid and have your picture taken or have your head sawed off with a rusty knife while your hands and feet are bound as was the case with Nick Berg? 

Exactly.  

There is a new philosophy that has permeated our conscience. One that says if its uncomfortable it’s torture and that quite simply is not true. If depriving an individual of sleep for five days is going to get information that may save one of my loved ones, then it’s worth it. And quite frankly, if it were my loved one whose life was at stake I could personally go to far greater lengths to obtain information.

Recently while reading about the battle of Iwo Jima, there was an account by one former U.S soldier who talked about taking prisoners interrogating them and then in some cases having to execute their prisoners so they could continue on with their mission. They were in a battle for their lives and for the freedom of their country and the mission was paramount. The soldier stated that they shot them when they could, but sometimes they did not want to alert the enemy of their location and had to cut the throats of their prisoner. This is difficult to imagine but one must consider the larger picture. These soldiers did what they had to do.

There is a tremendous difference between a situation like this and one where a terrorist takes a contractor hostage and executes him. There is a tremendous difference between the soldiers story of the battle of Iwo Jima and terrorist combatants going out of their way to take U.S soldiers hostage and torturing and murdering them.

The rules of combat have changed and even our soldiers are now asked to fight a kindler gentler war. When a marine shot a wounded terrorist combatant in Iraq during a battle and a news camera was there to capture the footage there was a public outcry. The soldier was engaged in a battle at the time, the wounded combatant was still alive and able to kill, and it was unrealistic to retrieve the combatant without endangering the lives of soldiers.

I have personally been a victim of one of the same organizations that have ridiculed and inaccurately portrayed the Bush administration’s and the military treatment of federal terrorist detainees.

The human rights group Human Rights Watch recently released a national report outlining the use of attack dogs in prisons. My state of Iowa, along with Connecticut, was portrayed as the worst of the worst human rights violators in terms of the use of attack dogs on prisoners.

The report was not a report but was a fictional depiction of how Human Rights Watch (HRW) would like the story to be told. The report inaccurately suggested that when inmates in Iowa are disruptive and fail to come out of their cells, that trained attack dogs are sent in to attack the poor helpless inmate. This was simply not true.

The K-9’s in Iowa prisons have been used in a manner that is more humane than the manner of cell extractions used without a dog. Typically an inmate in prison systems that do not use K-9’s will assemble a team of 4 or 5 officers to extract an unruly inmate from his cell. Often times a chemical agent such a pepper gas will be introduced into the cell prior to the team enters. This is done to attempt to get the inmate to comply. When the chemical agent is introduced into the cell it is recorded as a use of force statistic, which prisons and law enforcement agencies are constantly trying to reduce and avoid.

If the inmate still fails to comply, the team enters the cell in a dynamic fashion to pin and restrain the inmate. Teams usually have a shield in front of them which is often electrified. The entry of the team is usually considered another use of force because of the dynamic fashion.

Since 1999 the Iowa prisons have been using trained police K-9 in cell entries to reduce the need to use force on inmates, consequently reducing the risk of injury to both inmates and staff. When the decision is finally made to enter a cell, the inmate is told by the handler that the handler would be entering the cell with the dog to cuff him. The inmate is told that the K-9 is there for the protection of staff and that any attempt to show aggression towards the K-9 or staff would result in the inmate getting bit. The handler and K-9 then enter the cell and the handler continues to direct the inmate to lie down with his hands behind his back. In the great majority of situations the inmate complies without incident. In the event that the inmate is bitten it is the result of the inmates active aggression towards either the dog or staff.

Contrary to the HRW report, the dogs used in the Iowa Department of Corrections are not attack dogs. The dogs are highly trained police dogs. They are protection dogs.

Unfortunately, the Iowa Department of Corrections officials did not stand up to HRW and set the record straight. Instead, they appeased the organization by immediately restricting the use of K-9’s in cell extractions within their prisons. Unlike the Bush administration that took the criticisms and inaccurate portrayals and continued to do the right thing. State of Iowa officials appeased the organization by succumbing to the strong arm blackmail tactics of a liberal organization. By allowing HRW to dictate policy not only did the state of Iowa increase the chances of staff and inmates being hurt, but they essentially admitted guilt and allowed their officers to be negatively portrayed.

Prior to being on the receiving end of a false liberal attack, I had assumed that any allegations made by HRW and other human rights organizations, were lies. I assumed that 90% of what they said was a lie and the other 10% was not true. This skepticism is something that I have had for many years and has only been reinforced through my personal experiences. The American public, on the other hand, does not utilize the same skepticism when watching the news or being told of reports made by such liberal organizations.  

I know what you are thinking. You are thinking I’m some kind of pro-life abortion clinic protester that chains myself to other protesters while we chant some goofy phrase over and over.

Not true. 

I do believe that abortion is inherently wrong, but it is not an issue that I’m extremely passionate about. I would say that I’m personally pro-life but pro-choice for everyone else. I think that the question of abortion should be left up to the states to decide. Without a doubt though, I believe that there should be a time limit on abortions. Late term abortions should be out of the question. I do understand that my view is hypocritical to an extent. If life is life it shouldn’t matter whether the abortion takes place at 9 weeks or at 9 months.

I guess it’s just easier for me to accept the elimination of something that is not viable.

By taking the position (or not taking a position) that I do on abortion I do not think that I am in any way hypocritical when it comes to my stance on the death penalty. Liberals on the other hand are the model for hypocrisy in this instance. Most champion abortion like blood thirsty lunatics. They almost seem to derive some sort of high knowing that abortions are taking place. As vicious as they are about wanting to kill fetuses they are equally as spineless when it comes to executing murderers.

One could say that some conservatives are hypocrites as they advocate the death penalty while detesting abortion because it is the taking of a life. A liberal might ask if life is life isn’t all murder wrong? The simple answer to that would be: The taking of innocent life is wrong but the execution of a murderer is justice.

We must draw the distinction between murder and killing. A serial killer murders a child. A police officer kills a subject to defend the public. That’s the difference. 

Global warming is killing us. I should say the hysteria around global warming is killing us. The “go green” initiatives are damaging our economy and creating the false belief that humans can now control the weather. Legislation is constantly being created at the state and federal levels that is putting unnecessary restrictions and financial burdens on businesses. The push for ethanol, which creates as much energy and pollution to produce than it saves, has driven up demand for corn and soybeans which is reflected at the grocery store.

More corn and soy means more land. Land that may have previously been used to raise cattle is turning to crop production. Fewer cattle means higher beef prices. Higher corn feed prices for livestock means higher beef, pork, and poultry prices. And for what? So we can help control the climate?

Like anyone else I would love to see alternative fuels. Renewable and cleaner burning fuels are definitely a need for the future. That is why incentives should be given to companies for technological development. The knee jerk reaction associated with the “climate crisis” has upset the natural development of viable fuel resources. We need to allow these technologies the opportunity to develop through good old fashioned creative ingenuity. Not mandates. Ethanol will prove to be a bust. Electric cars are inefficient and unrealistic for many forms of transportation. The truth is that the future fuel selections are probably going to have to resemble a grocery store breakfast cereal isle. There are only a few breakfast cereals to choose from when I was child. If you go to the grocery store today you will find a hundred different choices. Eventually, I see our alternative fuel selections the same way. Shopping for a car may mean choosing between gas, electric, hydrogen, bio-diesel, etc. The demand certainly exists and money talks. If companies think that they can make a buck, they will find ways to bring these fuels to fruition. Until then, the sky is not falling.

By now most people have been duped into thinking the climate is changing and humans are the reason. Anyone stating anything to the contrary is thought to be ignorant, uninformed, or just plain stubborn. This is not the case however. We are thinking, rather than drinking the poison cool-aid. The average ignorant sheep knows only what they are told. When challenged about the facts regarding global warming the average fool can only say: "But the ice caps are melting."

Maybe the ice caps are melting and maybe they're not. Maybe the ice caps are supposed to be melting. Maybe the ice age was supposed to happen, maybe the Bering Strait land bridge was supposed to disappear. Maybe these changes and the hundreds or thousands of other changes that have occurred in earth's history are part of the natural course in the earth's cycle.

While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 - before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Common sense goes a long way. There is 100% agreement among scientists that the earth’s climate has changed constantly for hundreds of millions of years. It will change for another hundred million years. You will not find 100% agreement among scientists that humans are responsible for climate change or if, in fact, the climate is changing at all.

An April 28, 1975 article in Newsweek claimed that a major challenge facing the earth at the time was the threat of global…cooling. The article stated that the earth had been cooling steadily since 1940. The 1940 decrease followed a steady increase in global temperature beginning in the 1880’s. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979 that the temperature reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880’s, bringing us back to around 1940 levels. Was that in Al Gore’s movie?

Recently, while at a dinosaur exhibit with my kids, I was reading some of the information posted beside one of the exhibits. The sign said something like: “This dinosaur lived millions of years ago when the earth was a much warmer tropical place.” Wow! I didn’t know that dinosaurs even had SUV’s.

While I have pointed out a several areas where America’s liberal parasite has infected much of our lives during this chapter there are dozens or perhaps even hundreds of more examples. In fact, as you go about your daily life you will see them if you begin to look. Pretty soon you do not even have to try to look to see the insane liberal influence in every aspect of your life stands out like an anorexic at an all you can eat buffet.