Conservatives Are In Danger Of Committing Suicide

An image posted on a conservative page during this past general election. It's evidence of the fear some conservative elements are succumbing to; their willingness to abandon principle for hollow victory.

An image posted on a conservative page during this past general election. It’s evidence of the fear some conservative elements are succumbing to; their willingness to abandon principle for hollow victory.

This is a transcript from The Midnight Ride podcast (April 2015):

“How then shall we perform it?–At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?– Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” — Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address, 1838

His words prove true every day. We’ve seen it. Those outside our nation can declare war on us, bomb one of our naval bases in Hawaii, threaten to bury us on the floor of the U.N., they can bomb our people and fly planes into our buildings, but they don’t have the power to destroy us. The only power they really have is to hurt us and then they harvest the consequences of attacking America.

The real threat that we face comes from ourselves. Many of us see it and recognize it for what it is: Suicidal acts that, instead of ending us in one quick action, just weaken our nation and nudge us closer to the proverbial grave. We accept small doses of socialism and, as we build up something of a tolerance, we accept more and more. We devalue human life a little at a time until we look in a mirror one day and see monsters staring back with blood on our hands and a reluctance to speak out about the wholesale killing of the unborn. We spend ourselves into oblivion and dive head first into enormous amounts of debt. We voluntarily put on the chains of entitlement and government dependency, we surrender our power and liberties in exchange for greater government control, we trade education for indoctrination, we trade knowledge and information for political agendas and voluntary misinformation from our media. This is nothing new and I won’t stop speaking out against this sort of thing, but it’s something that most conservatives are able to see clearly on their own. When I’m speaking along these lines to other conservatives, I’m basically preaching to the choir. Most of us see it and understand it. We get that the worst damage that’s been done to America has come at the hands of Americans, not from external enemies.

But we, as conservatives and especially as Republicans, have another problem, and it’s one that so many of us don’t seem capable of seeing. It’s one that’s becoming more out of control with every year; every election. The concept of demise by suicide that Lincoln addressed is a universal concept and it’s relevant, not only to our country, but also to smaller groups inside America, like the Republican Party. The GOP used to be the home for conservatives; those who believed in conserving our liberties, in keeping the encroachment of government in our lives to a minimum, in living by the principles laid out in our founding documents. These days? Not so much. The GOP has fractured badly. So many people have run to other so-called third parties, have just become independents or have given up on altogether.

Our nation has turned into a place where people, at best, vote for the lesser of two evils in most elections. Our Party has turned into something where, for the most part, we’re more about compromise and trying not to alienate voters; about getting elected and staying in office instead of standing on principles and being true to our convictions. When we have some like Ted Cruz or Mike Lee or Trey Gowdy or Sarah Palin or even Rand Paul step up and stand on principles instead of taking the stereotypical position of the Republican Party to not rock the boat; to not risk upsetting people, the Party then turns on them, attacks them; tries to ruin their reputations or turn them into scapegoats.

But as bad as it is at those higher levels of government and in the GOP, the worst of it is what we as individuals buy into as well. We trade conviction for ‘compromise’. We trade principles for the chance to win an election. We squeeze our eyes shut and sing the praises of candidates who don’t embody what’s important to us, who don’t offer to strive to be any better than any other career politician that we’re already fed up with. We’re nauseated by business as usual in the political arena, but we then willingly…actively…throw our support to more of the same…people whose only claim to our vote is that they filled out a voter registration form at some point and wrote in the letter ‘R’, yet come Election Day, nothing changes. We continue to throw our votes at the same people who are setting off our gag reflexes.

I believed for a long time that the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat and, for the most part, that still tends to be true. But it also begs the question: Why are we so willing to support the worst Republicans…and do it while publicly expressing absolutely no reservations about them? It’s supposed to be the Democrats that glorify and sing the praises of the untarnished virtues of their candidates, no matter how crooked or corrupt they actually are. Look at Hillary Clinton, Wendy Davis, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid. No matter how many lies, underhanded dealings or even outright corruption they get tangled up in, liberals just stick their fingers in their ears and act like none of it ever happens. The thing that’s disappointing me, is that conservatives are starting to do that more and more, too.

Do we seriously believe that it’s a good idea to be silent on the negatives of the candidates we support? Like their opponents aren’t capable of digging up that kind of information and using it like a weapon against them? All that ends up happening is that we look like hypocrites…small wonder when that’s actually the way we’re behaving.


To give you an idea what I’m talking about, let me share an experience I had this past year. Shortly before the first Republican candidate for the Senate here in New Mexico declared his candidacy, I joined an statewide organization that was focussed on promoting conservatism and conservative candidates in New Mexico. The state director of that group was a great guy, who I’m still friends with today and the members were some of the most passionate and active conservatives I’ve ever come across. I was named a vice-director of the group and served in that position throughout the primaries. The national leadership pretty much left us to our own devices; in large part, I believe, because we were being very effective, picking the candidates we believed in and chose to support. We were so effective because our membership was able to get behind candidates they were proud of; good people who stood for values that our members could identify with. If someone wanted to support a different conservative candidate than who we had decided to endorse, that was fine. We supported their ability to make their own decisions and follow their convictions and it worked amazingly well. Then, the primaries ended and the majority of the candidates we’d supported had won, with the major exception being our choice for U.S. Senate. It happens and the truth is that losing a vote doesn’t always equal defeat and this was definitely the case in this race. I was so proud of every one of our members who stood up, many moving so far outside of their comfort zone in order to make a difference and, win or lose, they really did make a huge difference. Now, that’s all background so I can tell you what happened next.

After the primaries, when the candidates for the general election had been decided, our group’s director had stepped down to do other things and I was approached to be the new director. I was happy to do so, but then, the actual day that I was publicly named as director, I ended up resigning. Here’s the deal: I received a message from the national director of the group. It said,

“Hi, Randy…please request your members right now…to stop bashing Republicans…we all know that there are no good ones and that the party is in alignment with the DEMs in many areas…but we need to concentrate on voting numbers this November…in other words, we cannot say we are going to sit this one out because our candidate didn’t win…we MUST take the Senate away from the Democrats…”

What she was referring to was the fact that a large number of people in the group were disgusted with the man who did win the Republican Senate primary, Allen Weh, myself actually included. At the beginning of the primary season, some of us had discussed what we were going to do if the candidate we’d chosen to support, David Clements, lost. At the time we were all pretty much in agreement that we would gladly support the other guy if that happened. I think I even uttered the words, “The worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat.” The problem is, over the next several months, I had my nose rubbed in those words like a bad puppy. We got to see firsthand, since we were so involved in the campaign process this time around, the true colors of the candidates. It became glaringly clear to me that we’d lucked out in finding a candidate to support who we could truly be proud of. Weh, on the other hand, we got to see more and more of what kind of a man he is, how he treats people, especially those who aren’t on his little team; what he’s willing to stand on and what he’s much happier to avoid even dealing with. Now, this isn’t an attack piece on anyone, so I’m not going to go into a bunch of specifics and spiral off into some out of control tangent.

There were a lot of group members who weren’t happy with the idea of having to support Allen Weh and some of them were vocal about why they wouldn’t. Now, realize, they weren’t being abusive and calling him names or making baseless accusations. They were listing out specific reasons why they wouldn’t support him. Their reasons weren’t untrue and some of it was sort of things that, if he’d simply addressed their concerns and given them some reason to believe that he might be on the same page as them even a little, he might’ve been able to win a few votes, but that never happened.

So I made it clear to this woman, who was functioning at the national level of a conservative group; one that went out of its way to make clear that it wasn’t specifically Republican, that I would not censor people who were backing their positions up with substance. She responded with this:

“As to the elections…..no one knows better than I do how much the Republican party stinks and how it no longer represents the people but its own self interests.”

Let me stop here for just a sec and make one thing clear. I know what she’s talking about. I’ve heard this ad nauseum…how evil the Republican Party is…no better than Democrats. I’ll address this in detail at some point in the future, but for right now, let me just say that this line of thought is nothing more than a giant load. I’m a Republican and proud to be so. I know there’s a lot of bad in the Party and it desperately needs to be cleaned up, but I also have met so many good Republicans this past year, people who I respect and admire, some of whom I’ve come to think of as family, and some who have become role models for me. I refuse to buy into this narrative of how horrible the GOP is. However, keep in mind what she just wrote about the Republican Party and her coming statements about supporting Republicans no matter what and view all this through the context of principles and personal integrity.

“No one knows more than I do how the Republican party is full of people who could care less about the conservative platform and especially the Libertarian…..and are trying to destroy the tea party movement. No one knows more than I that there are candidates I would not want to clean my shoes in the Republican party…..and the party has too many old farts with dead brains and the same ole way of thinking….and that is why I am a conservative American with no allegiance to any political party.

Having said of all of that…..on the other side, we DO KNOW that the Democratic party has been hijacked and taken over by progressives/socialists….so, this party MUST be defeated. The Republican party may stink and full of stinkers but it is still not over the top socialist as the Democrats. Our only chance at survival until another election period is to see that Republicans take away the power in the Senate from the Democrats and that we keep the power in the House. This means we are going to have to suck up and vote for those Republicans. We cannot afford any more whiney babies who are pissed off because a certain candidate did not win. We have to deal with what we have and what we have is one party that is moderate/liberal vs the other party that is progressive/socialist. WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICES THIS ELECTION!!

Sitting out this election like what happened in 2012 will only result in our slide into oblivion more rapid because the Democrats will retain power and control. So, your job is to help your members understand this….it is not what we want, it is not what we like but it is what we have and we must do it. Anyone that wants to decry that they will sit it out….remove them….anyone that wants to knock the plan to take the Senate by not voting for a Senator…remove them….if you cannot see that this an absolute necessity, then perhaps you may not want to do this….I can’t answer for you….but this nation’s survival surpasses all of our personal feelings. It is my personal hope that a viable third party will raise its head early and we will have another avenue we can follow…but we do not have that now and will not have that in time this election. If I lived in TX or KY or SC, I would puke when I went to the polls but I would vote for that Republican Senator running because it is now a matter of numbers….focus on the numbers and not the candidates….that is my message to our members…we are going for the numbers…the candidates may not be perfect but by damn the American people will show these socialists our power by putting in enough numbers to hopefully change the direction of this country. Our brains are amazing things….runs our whole bodies…but if one cell is off, our brain can change and our body can change….same thing here…changing the numbers in the Senate from Democrat to Republican can make a change.

As to you Governor…..I hope she slides into the Rio Grande and an alligator bites her butt…but that is a state issue….you may debate her but you must make primary the Senate race in your state and getting people to vote for that pile of crappola [refferring to Allen Weh] because we NEED THE NUMBERS. As John McCain’s own mother said when he was running for President….’hold our nose and vote for him anyway'”

Where to start with everything wrong with that message? She actually quoted John McCain’s mother and her message to vote for him no matter what. That’s so weak and so empty. We talked on the phone about this as well. A large reason for that was that I wasn’t about to resign in an online message and I’d already decided that I wasn’t going to throw away my principles and convictions like that, so I knew before calling that I was stepping down. But, on the phone as well as here in this message, she had absolutely nothing positive to say about these candidates she was wanting to force people to support. Basically, she was taking the approach that, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” an attitude that’s more likely to end with a knife in your own back as you learn that the enemy of your enemy is actually your enemy, too and you just helped him get rid of two of his enemies with very little effort. And, no, supporting a Republican who doesn’t deserve your support won’t actually kill you, but it will kill your effectiveness. It’ll destroy your reputation and any image of you as having integrity, as standing for what’s right or even just being someone who can be counted on to say what they mean and mean what they say. There’s no nice way to say this: You’ll be seen as a political whore…someone whose values will be tossed aside for something as shallow as a ‘win’ in an election. And I really don’t see how that kind of a perception would be inaccurate under those circumstances.

You can claim to have integrity all day long. You can tout the rightness and the importance of conservatism. You can say that you have values and principles and convictions that are worth fighting for. At the end of the day, if you choose to abandon or even temporarily ignore all of that for the purpose of gaining a win for a candidate when the only positive thing you can actually say about him is that he’s a member of the GOP, then you would’ve been better off keeping your mouth shut from the beginning. See, that way, besides not negating your words by your actions, you also wouldn’t be making things even worse by providing reason to dismiss anything you’ve said before or after this election that you’ve decided is so important as to take a liberal approach of ‘win at all cost’.

Add to that personal level of destruction, the damage that’s then done on a larger scale. When you identify yourself as a conservative, you’re going to be viewed by many as an example of what a conservative is and, usually, what a Republican is, too…especially if you screw up and say or do something where liberals can look at you and say, “Ah-Ha!” So, while you may be claiming that you want conservatives or the Republican Party, or both to be portrayed more accurately…more positively; that you want to see the lies and accusations being spread by the left put down, the truth is, by your words and actions and the image that people build of you based on that, you affect the image of a whole group of people solely because of the image of yourself that others see. Conservatives who have this image of a lack of integrity and no substantial strength in their convictions only succeed in strengthening liberal lies by providing examples they can point directly to.

The final negative effect that I see from this kind of behavior is that it impacts other individual conservatives…the ones many of us call ‘True Conservatives’. Their names change a little from time to time, but they’re the ones who actually stand firm on constitutional principles and right over wrong. The problem is, when you stand strong and solid on your principles; when you don’t falter or turn your back on them, then when you talk about those people who you do support, who embody parts, if not all, of the things that are important to you, people listen. Whether or not they’re going to agree with you, your words and your endorsements carry the weight of your convictions. But when you vacillate; when you actively support people who turn your stomach and embody nothing substantial that you claim to believe in, the next time you try and sing the praises of an actual true conservative, people remember the joker that you threw your support behind before and, instead of your endorsements carrying any real weight, they carry the seeds of doubt as to whether you’re being sincere or just playing the party loyalty game and maybe the person you’re supporting now isn’t really worth it, either.


Now, there’s a couple of other things I want to address quickly. They’re other signs of the weakness and even the decay that’s happening on the conservative side of the street.

Remember, this woman wrote:

“and that is why I am a conservative American with no allegiance to any political party.”

Yet, for having no allegiance, why do you think she’s so gung-ho to demand party allegiance during an election? The answer’s pretty simple and just a little sad. She also wrote:


“we DO KNOW that the Democratic party has been hijacked and taken over by progressives/socialists….so, this party MUST be defeated.”

“Our only chance at survival until another election period is to see that Republicans take away the power in the Senate from the Democrats and that we keep the power in the House.”

“Sitting out this election like what happened in 2012 will only result in our slide into oblivion more rapid because the Democrats will retain power and control.”

So, what is motivating this woman and so many who think like her? It’s fear. Look at what she writes. She has nothing positive to say about the Republicans she’s demanding support for, only negatives about the evils of Democrats staying in power. Her motivation is to stop the Democrats no matter what the cost. Understand, it’s always important to stop the liberal agendas, but we don’t have to turn them into big, scary boogeymen to do so. Once again, that’s what liberals do. She also talks like this past election was the last one that was important and, if we failed to take the Senate and retain the House, then it would be all over. Now understand, fear isn’t always a bad thing; it alerts us to danger and can spur us to action, but this kind of fear causes panic. It shuts down the brain and paralyzes…and that’s just what happened here. I’ve supported some candidates, as we all have, who have very little good to point to as a reason, but there’s always something. Truthfully, until this past Senate race here in New Mexico, I’d never actually encountered a candidate with absolutely nothing positive to focus on…and I voted for Mitt Romney for President…reluctantly, but I did. If I’d chucked my principles aside just to support a candidate like Allen Weh, besides proving that my principles have no real value, I’d be surrendering to that kind of oppressive fear. That way really does lead to the end. In all caps, this woman wrote to me,

“WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICES THIS ELECTION!!”

This kind of fear creates tunnel vision, too. To see only two choices, a kind of binary up or down, is to give up so much of our power, especially that of our voices. In the case of New Mexico, we’re probably looking at somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 voters who did make their voices heard by creating a discrepancy that cannot be ignored by anyone who isn’t completely inept by voting Republican in other state races, but withholding their votes specifically in the Senate race. Of course, if you’re ruled by the fear of suffering losses at the hands of Democrats above everything else, then this sort of option would fill you with nothing but terror and disgust.

She wrote,

“but this nation’s survival surpasses all of our personal feelings.”

“If I lived in TX or KY or SC, I would puke when I went to the polls but I would vote for that Republican Senator running because it is now a matter of numbers….”

“the candidates may not be perfect but by damn the American people will show these socialists our power by putting in enough numbers to hopefully change the direction of this country.”

It sounds good, really passionate, but this is just more evidence of the tunnel vision her fear has created in her. I mean, we’re going to show liberals our power by putting in numbers?! What are we actually showing liberals if we’re putting in people who are truly only Republican in name; people who put more stock in political expediency than in devotion to a conservative point of view? Some of them even embrace liberal tactics to destroy their opponents, even when those opponents are supposedly on the same side, like Thad Cochrane in Mississippi with his smear campaign against primary opponent and Tea Party ally, Chris McDaniel. The only message we’re sending with that sort of behavior is that, if Democrats win, the liberals will be able to continue pursuing their agendas unimpeded and, if Republicans win, chances are that a good number of those aren’t going to do much if anything to change things, so the liberals will be able to continue pursuing their agendas nearly as unimpeded as if a Democrat had won. That’s really showing them, isn’t it?

This can’t be about numbers. It can’t be about fear. And it definitely can’t be about simply doing what’s expected of you because those who’ve allowed themselves to become so short-sighted believe and try to convince others that there are no other options. There was a time before we were a nation that the only acceptable option politically was to petition the king…to appeal to his sense of fairness and justice. Those are two things that simply don’t come naturally to government, whether it’s in the hands of one or many. The idea of taking up arms against the government was so far beyond radical, it simply wasn’t considered an option for many in the colonies. Now, I’m not saying we need to be taking up arms against our government…at least not now. That’s always an option if things ever do get to the point where there are no other options, but we’re still a long way off from seeing that come about.

I am saying that we need to stop chaining ourselves with our fear of what might happen if one of the guys wearing our jersey with a capital ‘R’ on it doesn’t win. We’re not a sports team. We’re part of a political movement that’s supposed to place value on the individual, not on the collective. Yes, we’re stronger when we stand together, but not when we’re standing with those who don’t actually stand with us beyond what they’re willing to say to get our votes come election time. We have God-given gifts that we’ve chosen to ignore for so long, one of those being discernment. We can be so good at using this gift when dealing with liberals, but that’s easy. They’re so blatantly separated from us ideologically that’s it’s easy to spot their flaws. We need to start using our discernment a little closer to home; toward those who put their arms around us, pat us on the back, tell us they’re just one of us.

Sometimes they’re telling the truth; sometimes a partial truth. These are the people we need to look closely at and determine: Are they on the same page as me? Do they believe as I do, at least in the areas that are relevant to the position they’re wanting to be in? Is this a person that, at the end of the day, I can feel positive about giving my support to because, even if we don’t agree on everything, I can point to good things in this person that are evidence that he or she has and is earning my vote?

But sometimes, these people are just using us to get what they want. Our vote is a sacred thing and a valuable thing, even beyond what it can do. It was secured for us by the struggle, sacrifice and blood of so many patriots before us. We have a duty not to squander it; not to cheapen it. Our vote needs to be earned by those who are willing to prove themselves worthy of it by doing more than just writing a certain letter by their name on a registration card or by dressing a certain way or by answering questions about their underwear choice or causing a “thrill” to run up your leg. I’m not talking about refusing to vote for anyone who you don’t like 100 percent…there is no such animal short of each of us voting for ourselves…but, sometimes, it may mean withholding your vote from either candidate when you can find no reason to award it to either one. Many those ensconced in the fear I’ve been talking about, will decry that as the same as voting for the ‘other guy’ or engaging in political ‘scorched earth’ tactics. That couldn’t be any farther from the truth in what I’m talking about here and you should never allow yourself to be cowed or bullied by that sort of drivel.

I have heard so many people, Libertarians especially, condemn the Republican Party for being no different from the Democrats and, unfortunately there are times that I have a hard time arguing against that sort of thing. The truth is, there are times that the Republican Party doesn’t act like anything worth taking pride in. I won’t deny that, but I will say that there are a majority of Republicans who are worth taking pride in, just as there are with conservatives in general. There are also times when the GOP acts in such a way, that I’m very proud to be one of them. Ultimately, though, the Party is simply a group made up by its members and defined by them and their other supporters. It’s up to each and every one of us to decide what the quality of the Republican Party will be. We can either step back and let inertia take it where it will or we can take an active hand in turning it back into something conservatives would be proud to be a part of; something that would be an actual threat to the Democrat Party and specifically to their liberal/socialist agenda that’s been dismantling America for so long.

We have to start thinking differently or, more accurately, we have to start thinking the way our predecessors did. We need to let go of the fear; simply do what’s right and damn whatever consequences we might be afraid of. We need to stop tolerating those within our very ranks who diminish us by not walking the walk and only talking the talk when it gets them what they want. We need to stand up for the values that America was built on and stop acting like it’s okay to treat our fundamental truths as something that can be altered and compromised.

Now, there will be those who will accuse me of having no party loyalty, that I’m perfectly happy burning the Republican Party to the ground. In fact, I’m already being accused of that. Let’s be clear. They’re partially right on he first part. My loyalty is not bought based on, basically, club membership. The currency for my loyalty is a little more specific. I will show loyalty to those who also show loyalty; in the case of our elected officials, the ones I’ll stand with are the ones whose actions show their love for our nation and state and their commitment to our founding constitutional principles and right over wrong. And, believe me, if you listen to me to just a very short amount of time, there’ll be no doubt who has earned my loyalty and support and who hasn’t. As far as the second part, I’m a conservative. I’m also a very proud Republican in spite of all the bad currently in the Party. I believe in the values that the GOP was founded on in the first place: respect for the Constitution, respect for all life, a belief in personal responsibility and limited government, especially at the federal level. I love my Party and I can’t see me ever being happy as a member of any other, but I do see the cancers that have crept into the Republican Party. They’re making us weaker. They’re making us ineffective. They’re making into a joke and, we do crumble, it will be from our own suicidal actions. The best chance that I see to make our communities and our nation better is for good conservative people to take up the role of the revolutionary and cut these cancers out of the Republican Party before it’s too sick to be saved. Only then will we have a vehicle capable of cutting out the socialistic cancers that infect and eat away at our society on every level. Like Jesus spoke in the Bible about first removing the plank from our own eye, we need to first stop plunging this dagger into our own bellies as conservatives and Republicans. Then, we’ll have better leverage to pull away the pistol we have collectively as a nation pointed at our own head.

Progressive Compassion and Charity: Neither Compassionate Nor Charitable

There’s a misconception that’s been around for a long time regarding charity and it doesn’t exist by accident but by design. It’s the concept that liberals are charitable and conservatives are selfish and greedy. It comes from misinformation put out by liberals trying to rebrand themselves and their agenda to make it sound less offensive to the American mindset…and it’s worked very well. I’ve come across many conservatives as well as liberals who have accepted it as fact, even though it’s based more on the Orwellian concept of “Newspeak”, redefining words and changing language, than on truth. I heard these sentiments on a now cancelled local radio talk show, Speak Up Las Cruces, a while ago and I’ve been thinking about it ever since. The host, Keith Whelpley, was talking with a woman who’s very active with charitable activities in the community. He said:

 

“That proves to me charity isn’t a political thing. Progressives like to institutionalize it in the form of laws and federal dollar handouts. That doesn’t mean they’re more compassionate. Conservatives tend to want compassion to be organic. They don’t want it institutionalized. In both cases it gets the job done but this is a community that really cares and it should be proud of how it does kind of take care of itself.”


Now, his actual point was to talk about how he’d witnessed impressive acts of charity from conservatives. Whelpley is a liberal. He has proven himself to more fair and open to truth than many liberals, but he is still firmly anchored in the socialist narratives of the left. He’s the kind of liberal who has been well indoctrinated, as opposed to the ones who actively, purposely indoctrinate others. Because of his indoctrination, his words echo regularly with false narratives, such as that charity can somehow flow from the fount that is liberalism.


 

Let’s break down what he said:



 

“That proves to me charity isn’t a political thing.”

 

That’s true. Charity is supposed to be a matter of heart and conviction, but liberals use charity as a political tool; alter its meaning and try to use it as a bludgeon to beat up conservatives. According to the left, conservatives only care about themselves and amassing wealth at the expense of others. This position relies on accusations that just aren’t true and a perversion of the word, ‘charity’.

 

“Progressives like to institutionalize it in the form of laws and federal dollar handouts. That doesn’t mean they’re more compassionate.”

 

I agree with that second part. It really doesn’t mean that progressives are more compassionate. In fact, if you take a look at what liberal ‘compassion’ is made of, you realize that there is nothing compassionate about it at all. The soft words he used actually don’t sound so bad until you take a look at what they really mean. He is talking about the fact that liberals want to label government programs and handouts as ‘charity’, but that’s really about as far from charity as you can get. The truth is you cannot institutionalize charity. What you can institutionalize, and it’s what progressives have had a great deal of success with, is theft. All pretty words, over-intellectualized arguments and political double-speak aside, what the left calls charity is actually very simple to understand. It’s the act of taking money from one group of people (mainly through taxation), deciding who has a need that makes them worthy of that money and then giving it to them. The liberal approach versus the conservative approach can be illustrated like this:

 

Let’s say you’re walking down the street and you see someone you identify as being in need (veteran, homeless person, single mother unable to feed her kids, etc.).

 

As a conservative, you would recognize the need, reach into your own pocket to give your own money or reach into your own schedule to give your own time, or both. Maybe you decide to contact other people to let them know about the need and they step up to help, too. It’s simple, personal and honest.

 

But as a liberal, you’d see the need, find someone else walking down the street dressed nicely and demand that they give you their money so you can help the first person. To follow along with the level of government coercion that liberals rely on to enforce their programs, you’d probably do it at gunpoint. Ideally, you’d want to find a cop to actually perform the shakedown for you. Ultimately, what liberals refer to as charity involves coercion by force, namely the force of the government and legislation, brought to bear. It is neither charity nor is it compassionate. It turns the person who the funds come from into essentially a victim of robbery and the person in need into a receiver of stolen goods who eventually becomes dependent on those goods. It should be pretty clear, following this line of thought, how those in the middle are defined.

 

“Conservatives tend to want compassion to be organic. They don’t want it institutionalized.”

 

While I’m not sure exactly what he meant by this, ‘organic’ would normally mean that conservatives want compassion (charity) to just happen on its own. <Poof!> Let’s be clear. We don’t want or expect to sit around and hope that someone somewhere will get inspired to help someone out of the blue. True conservatives believe that charity must begin and end with each and every one of us as individuals. That means it’s the responsibility of each of us to give and do for those we recognize as being truly in need. This is very problematic for liberals because an individual with a job who is very aware of the time and effort it requires to acquire the money they have is going to have a very different definition of ‘worthy’ than the government would. In other words, by the liberal standard of ‘institutionalized charity,’ someone of working age who is able to work but chooses not to can be considered just as worthy as others who are unable to meet their basic needs. When a person with real disabilities or who is looking for work but still needs to take care of their family in the meantime can’t get enough to take care of their basic needs, then liberals claim it’s a case of not enough funding in the system. Their response at that point is to take even more from the employed. It will never even occur to them to try to reform the system or even refine the definition of ‘worthy’. They’ll especially focus on taking from the wealthy, those who are working, making money and creating jobs and, for good measure, they’ll also vilify them and target them for higher and higher taxes, taking more and more from them that they would’ve been able to use for creating businesses, hiring others and simply buying things and feeding our consumer based economy

 

“In both cases it gets the job done…”

 

That’s simply not true. The liberal approach is so much like trying to get a $1.50 soda out of a vending machine by throwing $20 in change (that you got from someone else) at the slot and hoping enough will make it in to get what you want out of it. It doesn’t get the job done. It jus throws away money and, very likely, won’t even get a single coin in the machine, much less enough for a soda. It’s the conservative approach that actually gets the job done, like actually pulling $1.50 out of your pocket and putting it in the machine by hand, precisely and deliberately. In other words, identifying specific problems and executing action specifically aimed at those problems.

 

The problem is that, when government tries to discern need and worthiness, it will always fail because, in order to do that, you need discernment. Only individuals possess that particular ability. Government may be of, for and by the people, but it simply doesn’t possess the human characteristics necessary for discernment. Instead, it uses formulas, guidelines and sliding scales…the sorts of things that notoriously give incomplete pictures and can result in false conclusions, whether intentional or not.

 

In a speech delivered at Hillsdale College, William Voegeli said,

“…the real point of liberalism is to alleviate the suffering of those distressed by others’ suffering…”

The focus of progressives is their own feelings. Because of this, they really don’t put much value on whether the programs they advocate for even work or not…and, most of the time, they don’t. It’s more important to them that they did something, whether it makes any positive difference or even if it caused harm, either to those they claim compassion for, or others. When your focus is so intensely on yourself, your actions are nothing but selfish and ego-centric.

 

The results of liberal “charity”:

 

  • Commerce is slowed because of a lack of consumer confidence and fear of how much the government will decide to take.
  • There are less jobs available and fewer new businesses because those who would’ve created those jobs don’t have as much money to do so and no confidence that they can survive more of the same in taxation.
  • Those who have jobs keep less of their income and that creates financial hardships which can lead these people to find themselves in need, too. They then either suffer through on their own or they use government assistance and stress the system further.
  • Those who are capable of working but choose not to are encouraged to keep doing what they’re doing. After all, if your needs are being met by others and you don’t particularly have a drive to excel, then the status quo is enough to keep you happy.
  • There is less available to help those in genuine need because the system is stretched by the sheer number of people who simply qualify for assistance.

 

In essence, the liberal version of charity has as much in common with actual charity as bait in a trap or a worm on a hook has with a meal. It’s a ruse designed to ensnare and subjugate. Once you become dependent on socialized government, it becomes easier and easier to sink deeper into that dependency and harder and harder to break free of it. Charity is not supposed to become a crutch or a lifestyle as the liberal/socialist agenda desires. It’s supposed to be a chain reaction of good will, designed to give a hand up to one who is in need and who will then, once they’re in a position to be on the other side of the equation, provide that kind of help to another in the same sort of circumstances. It’s the practice of human compassion and kindness passed from one person to the next. Liberals can claim charity as the motivation behind their actions all they want, but saying it doesn’t make it true. Charity is action that illustrates selflessness while liberalism is founded and grown in an atmosphere of selfishness and control.

Happy Birthday, Obamacare!

aca birthdayIt’s time to bake a cake and stick five candles in it and celebrate the fifth birthday of Obamacare! Wait a minute. On second thought, you might not want to do that. After all, assuming that you currently do have health insurance and you’re not one of the nearly three million Americans who lost their plans, chances are that your government-approved plan won’t cover minor injuries like burning yourself, tripping and falling while carrying the cake in a darkened room or having your butt mistaken for the donkey’s by a blindfolded child, assuming you’re prone to playing Pin The Tail On The Donkey. (By the way, I understand that’s not a very popular game with the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid…although I know many Americans would love to play if those two played the roles of the donkeys.) Besides, even if you have a plan, you might not be able to afford treatment as deductibles tend to range from $3,000 to $5,000 for individuals and from $6,000 to $10,500 for families. Plus, Michelle Obama wouldn’t be happy with us eating cake, so we’d best pull out some kale and watch a low-fat, low-carb, gluten-free, smoke-free candle video on YouTube.
But don’t be down about all this! After all, a birthday is a cause for celebration and besides this train wreck of a health care system (It’s ok; everybody likes trains!), the Obama administration fulfilled one major promise by bringing us Hope and Change. So many of us just Hope that Obama and his allies will stop trying to ‘help’ us before they end up ‘helping’ us into either the poor house or the grave and everyday, as Obama tries to be even more ‘helpful’, we find that these government programs are leaving us with little more than a little change in our pockets. So I suppose that’s one promise Barack Obama has kept.
Now, we should probably take a minute to reflect back on the past five years of Obamacare. It was a hard struggle just to get the bill passed in the first place. After all, not a single Republican in either the House or the Senate deigned to vote for it. Apparently, those bigoted, elitist, rich Republicans are too good to vote for a bill like Obamacare for such petty reasons as party rivalry, the fact that it has the potential to crush business and disenfranchise millions of Americans from their health plans while expanding the Medicaid rolls and putting even more strain on an already overstressed system and the loss of our individual liberties, whether it’s business owners being told that their freedom of religion has to be put on the back burner for the ‘greater good’ or citizens being forced by government mandate to buy something whether they want it or not. I mean, where do those evil Republicans get off trying to look out for our economy and our liberties?!
Thank God for those wonderful Democrats who stood their ground and didn’t even hesitate to vote for a bill they hadn’t even read. After all, like Nancy Pelosi said, we’d all find out what was in it by passing it. If we had more publishing houses that approved projects under those criteria, we’d have so many books of equal quality to Hillary Clinton’s last book and that’d be great for bookstores. After all, that way, they’d never have to worry about going through the hassle of ordering new inventory because their shelves would always be stocked with books that no one has any desire to read and inconvenience anyone by having to sell them.
Now we have the sort of change that the President has been striving for. Just look at some of the changes:
From January to September of 2014, 8.38 million more people gained coverage! Of course, only  893,000 of those signed onto private plans while 7.49 million signed onto Medicaid. That means that 89% of the coverage increase was due to expanding Medicaid. Yes, that puts a lot more stress on the system, but there’s a simple solution: We’ll just raise more taxes. After all, everyone’s just fine paying more taxes. That way, the government is better able to take care of us…much like a nanny.
On the taxes front, the government is already way ahead of us. Obamacare has already lead to 18 new or increased taxes, that will draw $771 billion from Americans from 2013-2022.
Of course, paying your taxes may prove to be a challenge, but challenges build character, so that’s ok. You see, 800,000 people on Obamacare health plans were sent the wrong tax information from the federal government. Don’t worry though; most of those corrected forms have now been sent out…except for about 80,000, whose corrected forms have still not come out.
But things could be worse. Around 7.5 million people on Obamacare are receiving subsidies because the only way that the Affordable Care Act is affordable for so many is if the government that mandates it also helps pay for it. So, if those subsidies were to go away, there’d be 7.5 millions Americans suddenly without coverage again…in addition to the roughly three million who already lost coverage before…and then those poor unfortunate souls will have to be fined money they can’t afford to pay because they don’t have insurance they can’t afford to pay for while gaining no benefit by paying those fines other than providing more funds for the government.
So, everybody take a little time to sing Happy Birthday to Obamacare, quit worrying so much about losing those pesky little individual freedoms that this country was built on, eat your kale chips and blow out the candles on your computer screen.

News From Santa Fe on Gun Bill HR44

NM Representative Yvette Herrell, Chair: Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee

NM Representative Yvette Herrell, Chair: Regulatory and Public Affairs Committee

It’s the start of a new year in the New Mexico legislature and much has changed. For one, with this past election, the state House of Representatives finds itself with a Republican majority for the first time since 1953. At the same time, some things continue to repeat themselves. Once again, Miguel Garcia (D, Bernalillo County) has introduced his pet gun control bill, HB44, in spite of it being defeated last year. There are a few minor changes, but the substance of the bill remains basically the same: regulating firearms sales and transfers, creating greater government controls, increasing the possibility for misuse of federal database information and opening the door wider for an overall ability for the government to decide who merits being allowed to keep and bear arms and who doesn’t. Like most gun control legislation, it uses violent crime as its motivating factor while actually doing nothing to actually diminish violent crime or keeping guns out of the hands of either criminals or the mentally unstable. It simply focuses on putting greater burdens on law abiding gun owners; the ones who don’t commit most crimes. But this is nothing new. It’s the nature of gun laws. Their main focus is on curtailing, infringing and, ultimately, removing the right to keep and bear arms from the citizen under the guise of protecting our rights, but making us ‘safer’ at the same time.

So, here’s the good news about this bill: We now have a Republican majority in the State House as well as a Republican governor. The bad news: The Senate still has a Democrat majority and, sadly, we’ve seen that just because a legislator has an ‘R’ by their name doesn’t mean we can predict where they’ll stand on any particular issue. While it is the job of our senators and representatives to propose, debate and vote on legislation with consideration for their constituents, it’s our job as constituents to make our wishes known. We have a responsibility to call, to write, to show up and make our voices heard to those who represent us so they can effectively represent us. With that in mind, there are things we can do to support those in Santa Fe who are on the same page and get the attention of those who aren’t.
I had a chance to speak with Representative Yvette Herrell (R, Otero County) last Friday morning about HB44. With this new session, she has been named chair for the Regulatory & Public Affairs Committee, the first committee to discuss this bill. Herrell has scheduled a hearing on Saturday, February 7 at 1:30 pm in Room 307 of the State Capitol for anyone to have their say. She told me, “I wanted to do it on a weekend because I know it’s going to be a big bill that a lot of people want to come out for testimony and I want to make sure that whoever wants to be a part of that process has the opportunity and this way people at work will actually be allowed to come up and testify on behalf of the bill whether they support it or oppose it.”
If you’re wondering where she stands personally, she had this to say: “My position is I do not plan to support this bill for a couple of reasons. Number one, my constituents, they have been very vocal about their position and very few people in my distinct alone support it which I understand. My vote affects everybody in the state, but of the emails I’ve received, a far majority of them have been in opposition to it.”
Herrell put out a survey in her district a couple of years ago regarding this bill. “…they did not support it then and they don’t support it now.”
Far from simply opposing HR44, Representative Herrell also sees a more effective course of action to bring positive change to our current concerns about violence. “I think New Mexico would be better served if we would put a little more effort into looking into our behavioral health and counseling programs. I mean, we all understand that firearms are dangerous or can be dangerous but we also understand in this state that we are, I don’t think, addressing behavioral health issues and counseling issues the way that we need to.” She said, “We do already have in place some background checks for when you purchase a gun, but the thing of it is, people want to get their hands on a firearm, they’re probably not going to go through the process. I just think we’re missing the mark on where we’re focussing our energy.”
Herrell made it clear, though, that the committee will treat all speakers fairly. “But again, even with that being said, I do respect our process here. You know, this is the people’s House and I do want everybody that wants to have a voice in this process, [to] have that opportunity. And I can’t speak for the remainder of the members on this committee, so I don’t know, but I do think it’s important that folks that have a passion for this bill either way have the opportunity to come up and have their chance to speak to it and so that’s why we’ve moved it. Really, as it moves closer, I’m sure we’ll see a lot more email activity and we’ll see a lot more activity in the capital as we get closer to that seventh of February.”
While Representative Herrell and, I would suspect, the majority of the other Representatives on the committee may embrace fairness and a respect for all views, experience tells us that those sentiments won’t be shared by all speakers who turn out, especially those on the left. There’s already been drama brought to the Capitol this year from the hard left group, ProgressNow New Mexico in a hearing on right to work legislation. With gun control being another sore issue for liberals, it’s a pretty good bet that this group and possibly others will do whatever they can to gain an upper hand in this meeting, including resorting to being disruptive to the proceedings.
There is a sure way to make sure that your voice is heard on this. If you are able to make it up to Santa Fe on February 7, please do so. This is a perfect opportunity to express our desires to our elected officials and at the same time, present a positive image of ourselves in both word and deed of just who we really are. It’s good to remember that all the spin in the world does no good with those who get to see firsthand the difference in behavior between two very different types of people when they’re in the same room, addressing the same issue. What people see with their own eyes trumps all the false narrative in the world.
In the meantime, you can also contact the members of the Regulatory & Public Affairs Committee at:
Rep. Yvette Herrell
 
Rep. Bob Wooley
 
Rep. Deborah A. Armstrong
 
Rep. Nora Espinoza
 
Rep. D. Wonda Johnson
 
Rep. Patricia Roybal Caballero
Rep. James E. Smith
 
Or, you can send a single automated email expressing your opposition to HR44 by going to the website:
 
The form on this site is simple, short and takes less than a minute to fill out and send on its way. So often, we complain about how our elected officials don’t do what we want them to. This is a situation where we can easily have an impact. Light up the phones. Load up the inboxes. Fill up the meeting rooms. There’s one thing I can guarantee you: If we stand up and speak out, we will be heard.
 .

**UPDATE:

On February 7, after hearing from everyone who took the time to travel to Santa Fe, the Regulatory & Public Affairs Committee voted 4 to 3 to table the bill. HB44 is dead for another year. Thanks in large part to the citizens who took the time to call, email, text, fax and speak their minds in person, this attempt to infringe further on our 2nd Amendment rights has been thwarted again. Of, course, this story never ends. Expect this bill to pop back up next year. All the gun control side has to do is win once, so please don’t let your guard down and don’t ever underestimate the value of the individual to make a difference. It was individuals who made a huge difference on this.

State Representative from Dona Ana County in the Headlights

New Mexico State Representative Bill McCamley, District 33 (Dona Ana County)

New Mexico State Representative Bill McCamley, District 33 (Dona Ana County)

There has been a lot of anger from some people in Las Cruces over an initiative to collect signatures to recall three city council members from their positions; Olga Pedroza, Gil Sorg and Nathan Small. All three identify as liberals and have responded in typical fashion to charges of improper and unethical behavior in their elected positions; they’ve responded with defensiveness and smug self-righteousness. In the case of Nathan Small, fear of losing his position that has led him to flip-flop more desperately than a fish in the sand. There are plenty who are coming to their defense the only way that liberals seem to know how to…by attacking others. In this case, the attacks have been leveled at the people involved in the recall initiative. Many are trying to diminish the leadership of those spearheading the recall initiative by pointing out that some are not native New Mexicans and therefore, in their eyes, don’t have a legitimate right to get involved. They do this while ignoring that two of these three council members aren’t New Mexico natives, either. They’re accusing those who are collecting petition signatures of lying in order to get those signatures, misrepresenting either the wrongdoings of the council members or claiming that the petition is about an entirely different issue than the recall. Of course, none of those making those accusations have so far produced a single scrap of supporting evidence while many people, myself included, have witnessed nothing other than honest representation from these signature collectors. While this sort of behavior from the left had come to be pretty much expected, one individual has crossed the line so blatantly that it’s caught nearly everyone off guard.

As reported on the local Las Cruces radio show, The Kelly O’Connell Show on January 19, NM State Representative for District 33 (Doña Ana County) Bill McCamley engaged in what amounts to an aggressive assault against a young lady here in Las Cruces.
Earlier this month, the 19-year-old girl, who was working to collect signatures for the recall of Olga Pedroza, knocked on a door that appears now to be the address that Bill McCamley claims as his residence. A woman answered the door and, when presented with the petition, asked some questions which the girl answered. The woman then signed the petition. At that point, the girl then asked if there was anyone else at home who might be willing to sign. The woman pointed to a car that was pulling up at the house and said that the man driving might sign. She went over to talk to the man, who turned out to be Bill McCamley, although she did not recognize him. When he realized what her petition was for, he began yelling at her and then began yelling at the woman at the front door for signing the petition. In order to avoid confrontation and make matters worse, the girl began walking away from the house. At that point, McCamley started running after the girl, yelling at her again. Fearful for her own safety at this point, she called her supervisor, who was only about a block away. By this point, McCamley was right up on the girl, yelling right in her face. The supervisor arrived and witnessed this and actually stated that, as being trained and licensed for concealed carry of a firearm in New Mexico, if she had been carrying her handgun that night, McCamley’s behavior was so aggressive that she would’ve considered drawing her weapon for defense.
The signature collector was quoted on the Kelley O’Connell Show as saying after the incident, “In this job, I anticipate getting chased by a dog, but I never imagined it would be the state representative. I was pretty scared.”
A police report was filed that night, but nothing has come of this story so far. The local newspaper, The Las Cruces Sun News, hasn’t even mentioned it. Afterwards, though, McCamley did make a statement on his Facebook account that he said was an apology, but was severely lacking in the language or appearance of remorse one might expect from a sincere apology of any substance. He wrote:
“OK, so I owe an apology. A canvasser for Close the Cafe came by my house looking for signatures to remove Olga Pedroza from the City Council. I asked why, and there was no answer given. I then went and spoke to her supervisor, and asked the same thing. When no answer was given, I raised my voice and took a frustrated and intense tone of voice in the conversation.
I didn’t touch anyone, or threaten anyone. I want to make that perfectly clear. However, raising my voice isn’t right. Though I disagree passionately with that movement (as it sets a horrible precedent for elected officials), discourse should be held in a civilized and polite manner. And that young, paid canvasser who came by my house certainly isn’t responsible for this issue. You all deserve better from your public officials, especially me.
And you have my word that sort of thing will never, ever happen again.”
Apparently, McCamley thinks that because he didn’t touch her or “threaten” her, what he did wasn’t so bad. While it’s true that, had he touched the girl, he would’ve been guilty of assault and battery, if it can be proven in court that he behaved as is being reported, then he still committed a crime: assault. Typical for someone like Bill McCamley, he is trying to diminish the seriousness of his behavior and blow it off as not being a big deal, saying it will never happen again. As a rule, that defense tends to stop being at all effective once a person is more than about eight years old.
The only defense that’s come close to being even slightly substantive has come from people like local radio host Keith Whelpley, who simply says that he doesn’t believe that he’s capable of that kind of behavior. Thank God that our system doesn’t simply weight guilt or innocence on the level of belief that those that know them have regarding the charges. If that we’re the case, we’d never convict serial killers due to the testimony of others as to their character (ie. “He was always quiet and kept to himself,” and “He was a good, thoughtful neighbor.”)
So, let me make two quick points, the second one carrying no more weight than anyone else’s thoughts about ‘belief’ of guilt or innocence: 1) Anyone is capable of just about anything. Failure to acknowledge that is simply ignorant and will regularly lead to disappointment at best. 2) From the online dealings I’ve had with Bill McCamley, the way I’ve seen him treat others and what I’ve heard from other people about his behavior, I have absolutely no problem believing him capable of going after someone he perceived as weaker than him and easily intimidated by him. He has struck me as an intellectual bully from the first time I was ever exposed to him and it’s a short road from that kind of bullying to other, more hands-on types.
Should the evidence prove that Bill McCamley did indeed attack this girl, there are three things I really hope happen. First, I want to see McCamley publicly humiliated as his actions are exposed for all to see and therefore lose any chance at serving in public office again. Second, that maybe he’ll even finally realize what it feels like to be honestly regretful of his behavior instead of just playing not so subtle lip service. Finally, and most importantly, I hope this girl finds the strength inside herself and realizes that, while fear is a perfectly natural reaction to a situation like she, it was McCamley who was reacting to her and what she was representing with fear and irrationality. I hope she comes to accept that, when you shine light into dark places, those that thrive in the dark may desperately try to extinguish the light, but they only strength they can ultimately bring against you is a false strength. True strength always comes from the light, not the shadows.

Dona Ana County Treasurer May Yet Lose His Job

Dona Ana County Treasurer David Gutierrez

Dona Ana County Treasurer David Gutierrez

While there is currently a petition drive in the city of Las Cruces to recall three city councillors, there may be another initiative shortly to recall the Treasurer for Dona Ana County, David Gutierrez. Unlike the city recall efforts, in this case, Gutierrez has actually admitted to committing the acts he’s been accused of.

On August 18, Gutierrez had gone to the post office with a female employee on Treasurer’s Office business, then to a bank. Afterward, Gutierrez offered her $1,000 to “spend a couple of hours with him at a hotel.” The employee said no and then told a supervisor what had happened on August 20. The two then reported to Deputy County Treasurer Rene Barba. Gutierrez walked in on the meeting and, when he asked what was going on, the employee told him she was reporting him. He then asked the employee to leave the room and asked Barba and the supervisor not to report the incident to county management to give him time to “resolve the matter with the employee,” a request that was immediately denied as it would’ve been a gross violation of proper procedure. In the course of the investigation, Gutierrez admitted to propositioning the employee and even clarified that the reason for going to the hotel would have been for sex.
Gutierrez didn’t attend the county commission meeting where the incident was to be discussed, but instead had county attorney John Caldwell read a statement that said, “I apologize to the commission for not being here today. Please do not take my absence as a sign of disrespect to you. I will respect the decision that the board makes today.” However, when the commission called for Gutierrez’s resignation, he refused and, since the commission doesn’t have the authority to force his resignation, they instead censured him, which simply amounts to a public reprimand with no actual punishment.
Prior to voting for censure, County Commissioner David Garcia said “I’m very sad today these kinds of things have to happen, but when they do happen, we have to move on it. I’m glad the procedures we have in place work.”
While the procedures may have worked, they also had absolutely no impact. Gutierrez committed two violations; soliciting an employee for sex and attempting to delay the investigation. Another thing that no one seems to be talking about right now is that David Gutierrez committed an actual crime as well by soliciting for prostitution. Yet, in the face of all of this, he has continued in his position as if nothing had happened. The lack of consequences for his behavior has not gone unnoticed, however.
Friday on both local Las Cruces AM radio shows, The Kelly O’Connell Show and Speak Up Las Cruces, Dolores Connor and Francis Williams came on to talk about the course of action they’ve decided to take on this issue.  Connor, a former Las Cruces City Council member and previous candidate for Mayor, and Williams, who has had a career investigating sexual harassment claims and is currently an appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights New Mexico State Advisory Committee, are very unhappy that, even after admitting to his behavior, Gutierrez remains in his position and is still collecting his $65,500 annual salary.
After waiting four months to give Gutierrez a chance to take appropriate action on his own, Dolores Conner went to the county commission on Tuesday to inform them that she has found a state statute providing for the removal of an elected official under these kinds of conditions. NMSA 10-4-2 lists a cause, among several others, for removal from office as:
” [6] G.  any other act [or acts which] that in the opinion of the court or jury [amount] amounts to corruption in office or gross immorality rendering the incumbent unfit to fill the office.”
They argue that offering a female employee $1,000 for sex is a perfect example of “gross immorality.” Connor and Williams say they are currently looking into taking action through the courts and a possible abbreviated petition drive to have Gutierrez removed from office. They will be meeting with Gerald Byer, an attorney at the Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office in Las Cruces, NM to look at the law to explore those options in the coming week.
Connor also wants to propose a change to the NMSA at the upcoming legislative session to add sexual harassment to the allowed reasons for removal from office. At this point, the only actions that have been taken against David Gonzalez has been a censure that didn’t actually affect him outside of a little bad publicity and action taken by the Democrat Party Central Committee to remove him from his position with them but it is possible that, ultimately, his actions could result in not only his removal from office, but also an important and fundamental change to state law and the level of behavior required of our elected officials.

Thoughts On The Movie, Selma

Martin-Luther-King-JrThis weekend, I watched the new movie, Selma. Oprah Winfrey, a notoriously close-minded liberal with a willingness to throw the race card almost as much as the likes of Al Sharpton, was heavily involved in making this movie, so I was a little concerned about what I was going to see.
Surprisingly though, Selma is much more accurate than I ever expected. The historical inaccuracies are relatively minor and most are easily overlooked. I was disappointed that there was no mention of A.D. King, Dr. King’s younger brother (and father of Dr. Alveda King), who was also present in Selma. I was a little disappointed, but not terribly surprised. After all, I’d be willing to bet good money that there wasn’t a single conservative involved in the creation of this movie. Just the subject matter alone is enough to raise some very uncomfortable issues for Democrats when dealing with racial issues in America in a factual way. After all. It’s pretty hard to avoid the fact that the racist politicians and lawmen who obstructed, intimidated, brutalized and even murdered those who were demanding the liberties we are all endowed with, were all, without a single exception, Democrats: Bull Conner, Wilson Baker, George Wallace and even J. Edgar Hoover. Including the father of one of today’s influential and passionate black women, a Christian minister, pro-life activist and, yes, conservative Republican, probably hit a little too close to home for them. There were only actually two things about this movie I wanted to address.

LYNDON JOHNSON AS A RACIST
Speaking of shortcomings in our education system, one of the first things I heard about Selma that piqued my interest, was from some very offended liberals. Beside the fact that liberals have a default setting of being offended most of the time, this caught my attention because they were upset at how ‘historically inaccurate’ the movie is because it portrays President Lyndon Johnson as a…gasp…racist! To be clear, Johnson was absolutely a racist. Yes, he did support and sign the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (the bill he referred to as “the n*gg*r bill”), but only after dragging his feet and opposing it. In 1948, then Senator Johnson said, regarding the civil rights efforts during the Truman administration that it, “is a farce and a sham–an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill … I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.” I assume that, for a man like Johnson, it was very important to protect the practices of poll taxes and lynchings. He fought against Eisenhower’s 1957 civil rights bill, ultimately using his position and power in the Senate to gut the bill of all its enforcement powers. He also fought against the 1960 Civil Rights Act. Johnson kept company with many like-minded racists in the Democrat Party but, unlike most of them, he came to understand the potential political power of a voting black populace and decided to attempt to rewrite his own history to make it look like he was the type of man who embraced what he’d actually been fighting against his whole life. A line from the PBS special, LBJ, says, “But the real measure of a leader is what he gets done, the size of the problems he faces. Before Lyndon Johnson, we were essentially a segregated society.” The thing is, if Johnson had his way, we would still be segregated today. It’s true that you measure a leader by what he gets done, but make no mistake. Johnson was not the leader to ‘get done’ anything to further the cause of Civil Rights in America; he was simply dragged along against his will in the wake of the real leaders of the time; people like Martin Luther King, Jr., A.D. King, John Lewis, Hosea Williams, James Orange, Roy Innis, A. Phillip Randolph, and Bayard Rustin, among so many others. These were the people who effected positive change in spite of the opposition of men like Lyndon Johnson. It’s sad that so many have since been conned into mistaking Johnson’s political expediency for any sort of change of heart or, even worse, have just blindly bought into the narrative of the man as some kind of Civil Rights hero because the media and other voices on the left say it’s so.

ATTEMPTS AT POLITICAL REPOSITIONING
The second thing that struck me came straight from the movie itself. While I wasn’t particularly surprised, it was disturbing to hear the words ‘progressive’ (used once) and ‘liberal’ (used twice) to describe the people who were inclined to support the Civil Rights Movement and the efforts of Dr. King. While it is true that the progressive movement wasn’t terribly advanced or high profile yet and the term ‘liberal’ was only beginning to be taken and twisted by the left, it’s clear what the subtle message that the movie makers are trying to get across is: that it was those evil Republicans who wanted to keep the black man down and the ones who could be rallied to stand against that racism were the Democrats. Of course, they had to make this message subtle for the simple reason that it’s an outright lie. Every single name mentioned in Selma as an enemy of equality was a devoted Democrat. It was the religious leaders that Dr. King called on for support, the majority of whom, at least those who were affiliated, were Republicans and definitely conservative, much like Dr. King himself. It was Republicans, both black and white, who were standing beside these activists across the nation, often losing their lives in the process, too. It was the NRA that was created specifically in order to arm and train black Americans so that they had a chance of defending themselves against those who immersed themselves in racial hatred, especially in the form of the Democrat sponsored, funded and manned Ku Klux Klan.
And, yes, I’m already hearing this nonsense starting to resurface about how there was this great party switch and the Republicans of then are now the Democrats of today. That’s always been a lie and always will be. To this day, the only example anyone can point to of a Democrat of that time becoming a Republican is Strom Thurmond. The thing is, Thurmond had a major change of heart and deed and turned his back on his racist practices and words. Of course he had to leave the Democrat Party. To do otherwise would’ve been like someone turning vegan but staying a member of the steak of the month club. (I assume something like that exists because, if it doesn’t, then it really, really should!) Here’s just a handful of Democrats (this article would be HUGE if I put all of them in) who were opposed to civil rights and equality for blacks who never made a single move to leave the Democrat Party: Orval Fabus, Bull Conner, Benjamin Travis Laney, John Stennis, James Eastland, Allen Ellender, Russell Long, John Sparkman, John McClellan, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, John Rarick, Robert Byrd (Bill Clinton’s good friend) and Al Gore, Sr. (his son invented the Internet).
The truth is, the place where those who wallow in racism or victimization or a desire to imprison people, be it in chains of iron or the more deceptive chains of entitlement and dependency, feel the most comfortable is the Democrat Party. That has never changed from Day One. The only things that have changed are the words they subvert to describe themselves and the increasing sophistication of the shell game they play to fool so many people.

BACK TO THE MOVIE
Believe it or not, in spite of the time I took addressing these two factors, they’re actually pretty minimal problems in regard to this movie. Selma is a movie I’d really encourage people to see. I really like the way it portrays Martin Luther King Jr.; as a man who is, like the rest of us, flawed and at times unsure, but who follows his conscience and commits himself to promoting what is right and standing against what is wrong. He sets a standard in those ways that is worthy of emulation and it is an example that so many members of the modern Republican Party would do well to take to heart before we completely lose our way. I found myself crying at the sight of people’s capacity for cruelty towards others and my heart swelled with pride at those who answered the call to oppose such overwhelming hatred and violence. While I’m used to the sort of biased tripe that Oprah Winfrey and other Hollywood liberals put out, like that train wreck of a movie (but not the book), The Butler, I do have to give credit where credit is due. Other than a couple of minor attempts to alter the political reality of our history, this movie is very well done and worth the time to watch.
Next time, I’ll be talking about how the new Dumb and Dumber movie is a direct parallel to the Democrat National Convention. Well, probably not, but you never know!

Stand up and reject the entitlement mentality

There are plenty of fundamental problems in our society that desperately need to be fixed. One of the major issues facing us is this pervasive entitlement mentality that has been eating away at our character as a people, constantly making us weaker and weaker…and less American. The most recent and local example of this is the minimum wage initiative by NMCAFe here in southern New Mexico.

In spite of the Las Cruces City Council putting forth a reasonable compromise of an increased minimum wage of $8.50/hour (something that made no one really happy, but something everyone could live with), NMCAFe plugged their ears and shut their eyes and pushed forward to get the $10.10/hour increase they wanted, no matter what the concerns of others might be or who might get hurt in the process (including those they claim to want to help). It’s this attitude of “I deserve” and “I’m owed” that’s allowed that kind of behavior to be tolerated and even embraced. So many people on both sides have failed to do what used to be the norm in America: telling those like NMCAFe Director, Sara Nolan, to grow up and learn how to work with others for something beyond their personal wants.

It’s not just a left-wing thing, either. We had a Republican running for Senate this past year, Allen Weh, who was just as guilty of wallowing in an entitlement mentality. He decided that, because of who he was, what he’d done in his past and the station in society he now holds, that he simply deserved to be elected and everyone who considered themselves conservative should just fall in line and support him blindly. Unfortunately for him, there are way too many people on the right who are fed up with being treated that way. Add to that the fact that he blatantly alienated large numbers of grass roots-oriented conservatives while making absolutely no effort to connect with conservative Democrats (Yes, there are a lot of those in New Mexico.). His run was a spectacular failure as large numbers of voters simply stayed away from the polls altogether and a huge block who did vote, withheld their votes from him. Yet, we have so many who demand the allegiance of voters simply because of the letter beside their names and the candidates names. Like expecting workers who want higher pay to be willing to put out the effort to earn it, we need to start demanding that our candidates and officials do something to actually earn our votes and our support, too.

Our nation is founded on the principle that we’re all created equal, not that equality needs to be imposed upon us throughout our lives and definitely not that those who earn more need to be forcibly brought down to a lower level out of some twisted sense of fairness and not that we need to be told to shut up and show ‘gratitude’ or ‘loyalty’ to those who claim to know so much more than we do and who claim to be looking out for our wellbeing. We need to stop acting like victims and giving our power away and embrace individual responsibility again…in ourselves and those around us.

After all, equality doesn’t need to be imposed, only defended against those who would directly attack it or twist, diminish and pervert it under the guise of empowerment and doing away with perceived inequalities (like the false narrative about the so-called income inequality). We need to return to the idea that, if we want something, then we should put out the effort to get it. If we’re not willing to do what it takes, then it’s obviously not important enough to us. Handing people what they haven’t earned is like rewarding a child who has behaved badly. In that kind of an environment, there should be no surprise when that child continues to behave badly, just as there should be no surprise when those being given higher wages or benefits or even votes under the guise of ‘equality’ or ‘loyalty’ or ‘a lesser of two evils’, regardless of effort, show no desire to excel or put out extra effort to earn what they want.

In small increments, kind of like putting a frog into cold water and then slowly heating it up, we’ve accepted so much of this sort of entitlement thinking as a part of modern life and it becomes more vitally important every day that we wake up and jump out of that pot while we’re still capable as a society of embracing personal responsibility and excelling in the process.

New Voter ID Law Passes in Hobbs, New Mexico

voter id ballot hobbsVoters in Hobbs New Mexico today voted to approve a measure that would require identification  to be presented in order to vote in municipal elections. The vote was decisive with 78% of voters in favor of the measure in spite of efforts by opposition, including the NAACP. B.J. Choice Sr., a member of the NAACP and Hobbs resident, said, “It’s an effort, in my opinion, to suppress people coming to the polls.” He said the legislation is like “the poll tax and the literacy test that minorities and poor whites had to go through.” Opponents, including Choice, have also compared it to the Jim Crow laws and say that groups like African Americans, Latinos and the elderly will have a harder time obtaining photo IDs in order to vote.
Just for the record, poll taxes were instituted by Democrats to require that voters pay in order to register to vote…unless their father or grandfather had been registered previously. This specifically targeted blacks, whose fathers and grandfathers had generally been slaves with no right to vote, while whites were much more likely to qualify to have the poll tax waived. The same thing with the literacy tests; they were designed to exclude blacks, who had a much higher rate of illiteracy than whites and could be disqualified even if they were literate. As an example, in Alabama, blacks were asked to answer questions such as: name all 67 county judges in the state, name the date when Oklahoma was admitted to the Union, and how many bubbles are in a bar of soap. Jim Crow laws, also passed by southern Democrats, established the concept of “separate but equal” and severely disenfranchised and limited the civil liberties of blacks.
By contrast, this voter ID law requires every voter to present an ID, proving that they are who they say they are. That’s all. Among other things, you must have a valid photo ID to:
  • buy cigarettes, alcohol or an “M” rated video game
  • open a bank account
  • apply for a mortgage, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment or government assistance including public health insurance (ie. Obamacare)
  • drive, buy or rent a car
  • get on an airplane
  • get married
  • adopt a pet
  • rent a hotel room
  • apply for a hunting or fishing license
  • pick up prescriptions
  • donate blood
  • get a job
  • cash a check
  • or even get a library card.
While they haven’t been vocal about these requirements for ID, Civil rights groups like the NAACP argue that voter ID laws target blacks, latinos, senior citizens and the poor by unduly restricting voting and imposing unnecessary costs. However, anyone who can prove who they are and that they are legally authorized to vote, gets to vote. The new legislation also ads that, if voters don’t have identification, the city will provide it for no charge. So, apparently, the NAACP believes that blacks, latinos, seniors and the poor are either too stupid to go down and ask for an ID, pose for a picture, or follow the same rules as everyone else or they believe that they’re too poor to afford a free ID. Or it could just be that the they’re using this issue to further promote class warfare and racial division and score political points on an issue that has nothing to do with race or class. It’s not like they have a reputation for pulling those kinds of stunts, right?
Even at the state level right now, any citizen can acquire an ID by providing 1) a document of their identity (birth certificate, U.S. passport, military ID, etc.), 2) a document proving their identification number (Social Security card), 3) two documents proving New Mexico residency (rental or mortgage agreement, utility bills, bank statement, etc.) and 4) a thumbprint and signature. It then costs $10 for four years or $18 for eight years. Citizens who are 75 or older get the ID free. That’s not what I’d call restrictive requirements. It is nothing more than establishing the identity of those the state is providing proof of and I pay more for my gym membership than either $10 or $18 a year (not to mention what I pay for my drivers license).
Secretary of State Dianna Duran has called the Hobbs special election encouraging and said that she will again push state lawmakers to consider a voter ID law. If that were to happen, such legislation would very likely include making those state IDs available at no charge, as well.
Hobbs is also not the first city in New Mexico to pass a voter ID law. Albuquerque and Rio Rancho also require photo ID for local elections. We currently have 34 states with laws requiring voters to show identification at the polls. The Hobbs vote is not an isolated incident and these laws are not designed to keep anyone from the polls…other than those who are attempting to perpetrate fraud on our election process. The voting rights of those who actually have the right to vote will be protected through these laws. The ones who are not registered to vote, who have had their right to vote revoked through Due Process, who try to vote under someone else’s name or who are simply not residents or even citizens? They have no right to vote anyway, nor should they, so there are no rights there to protect.
Congratulations to Hobbs, New Mexico on passing a voter ID law and may the rest of us come to our senses and follow your example soon.

Riots In Ferguson: Disheartening, But Not Unexpected

I don’t know what happened! I stopped at the gas station on the way into work this morning and bought a soda. On the drive to work, I shook the bottle as hard as I could the whole way. When I got to work, I opened the bottle and…it exploded all over me! I just don’t understand why it would do something like that!

So, tell me. How dumb did I sound just then? Is there anyone reading this who doesn’t understand why the bottle exploded? Yet I’ve been reading and listening to all sorts of people talking about the riots in Ferguson. So many of them are expressing surprise or an inability to comprehend why these people are behaving like this. If you want to play a drinking game that’ll leave you passed out in the floor in no time, just take a drink every time you hear someone say something like, “How could they cause this kind of damage to their own homes and neighborhoods?”

The answer is simple as to why they’re destroying their own neighborhoods: An explosion damages everything around it.

What’s amazing to me is the surprise and shock over it all and the pleas for peace, at least from those who have helped shake the bottle of racial unrest that’s been continuously shaken for decades. For the sake of brevity, let’s take a look at just three who’ve most recently had their hands on the bottle.

President Obama said last night, “I join Michael’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully.” He also said, “Michael Brown’s parents have lost more than anyone. We should honor their decision.”

I’m sorry, Mr. President; is that why we should be peaceful? Not because violence is wrong, counterproductive and ultimately self-destructive, but because it’s what the Browns want? Well, thank God they’re not crying for blood, then. Obama’s calls for peace come across as weak, in large part, because of his own contributions to racial tensions and division in America. Typical of most liberals, he’s constantly playing the race card, from claiming that conservatives oppose him because of the color of his skin (as opposed to the deficiency in the content of his character) to taking stands in racially charged cases with no regards to the facts (ie. Henry Lewis Gates and Trayvon Martin) to opening the floodgates to illegal immigrants at our southern border while ignoring the hardships of Americans and the huge number of legal immigrants who have found themselves trapped in a quagmire of red tape that stalls their efforts to gain citizenship the proper way. Add to that, just for fun, his close ties with other race baiters like Derrick Bell, Jeremiah Wright, Dorothy Tillman, and Al Sharpton (We’ll get to him in a minute). Obama’s entire career has been built upon the liberal Democrat practice of using race as a bludgeon to clear the path of any opposition and of building narratives of class and racial division in order to keep the people who fall for those tactics looking to them for some sort of salvation from this supposed cesspool of racial injustice and hatred we call America.

Next up is Eric Holder, the U.S. Attorney General who, no matter what his color, should’ve been fired, if not brought up on criminal charges, a long time ago. He’s engaged in the practice of racial division with the fervency of a true believer. He’s propagated the narrative that blacks are victims at the hands of evil racist conservatives and corporations…and probably anyone wanting to launch an investigation into his actions as Attorney General. He opposes voter ID law as racist and disenfranchising because, apparently in his mind, only whites are smart enough and rich enough to get cheap and, in many cases, free state-issued IDs. He feels perfectly comfortable inserting the federal government into local criminal investigations like the Trayvon Martin case and now the Michael Brown case, only succeeding in furthering the idea of America being a racist place where minorities have no power, except what is given to them by the government. At the same time, he has refused to do his actual job when it comes to things like investigating the New Black Panther Party for blatant acts of voter intimidation; a crime that is actually in the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. He has worked so hard to drive a wedge and set back race relations in America as much as he possibly can. In contrast to his actions over the last several years, now he’s calling for peace in Ferguson…a request that is obviously falling on mainly deaf ears. Eric Holder has become the equivalent of a man who pulls the pin on a grenade and then begs it not to explode…and he’s proving to be just about as successful.

Then there’s the man who Barack Obama has called “a voice for the voiceless and … dispossessed,” Al Sharpton. Sharpton’s entire career has been immersed in hatred, bigotry, division and even bloodshed. From the Tawana Brawley case, where Sharpton didn’t even believe that Brawley had been raped but went ahead anyway, accusing an innocent man who ended up committing suicide, to his campaign against Jewish storeowner Fred Harari that led to seven murders by one of Sharpton’s followers, right up to the Michael Brown shooting, the aftermath of which will turn out poorly as well, if Sharpton has anything to do about it anyway. Remember how these other agents for left-wing race baiting and division at least make it look like they’re genuinely calling for peace? Sharpton can’t even be bothered with anything more than the most cursory of that kind of posing. He was waiting for the grand jury decision like a kid on Christmas, with major protest demonstrations organized and ready to start in 28 cities across America. After the decision was released, he went on to call for a continued federal investigation into a case that has now been properly and legally laid to rest in the courts. Apparently, for Reverend Al, the courts only have validity if they do what he wants them to. Otherwise, he’ll just try to kick it up to other levels of government and openly abuse our legal system for his own personal gain. Sharpton called the verdict, “an absolute blow to those of us that wanted to see a fair and open trial.” Of course, how can you have a fair and open trial that starts with the abuse of the legal system to get the trial that you want, but is not supported by the established process of law? It reminds me of a western I saw once (the name escapes me) where a lawman told another man, “Don’t worry. You’ll get a fair trial, followed by a first class hangin’.” Other than the fact that Sharpton doesn’t have a Texas drawl, those are the kinds of words I imagine could come flowing quite comfortably from his lips. Sharpton has also announced that he will continue to “rally around the country” regarding the verdict. Obviously, he believes he can still milk more money and media attention from this death and the misery and devastation of this town, which is partly due to Sharpton stirring up unrest.

The bottom line here is, when these people who have built and protected their careers by promoting narratives that encourage people to feel like victims, to feel powerless and set upon by enemies who they have no chance to fight against, to feel cornered and pinned down with nowhere to go, no way to improve their lives by their own actions; do not believe them when they start acting surprised or shocked when all of this pressure they’ve been applying blows up. Don’t believe that they’re sincere when they call for peace; for calm and rational behavior. It’s the fear and the frustration that that they can manipulate into dependency that keeps their bank accounts full and their positions secure.

At the same time, the next time you say or think something about how you can’t believe people would destroy their homes and neighborhoods, stop and think about those who’ve been pressurizing these communities, as well as the communities and individuals who have bought into this horrible narrative about their own un-acceptionalism. Remember that this is what those who cash in on convincing others that America is an evil place filled with racists and self-serving, victimizing fat cats want. Realize that there really is nothing shocking when communities explode like this. The only really surprising thing is that we aren’t seeing this kind of ugliness more often, considering the decades of seeds that have been planted, especially in the soil of minority communities by self-serving liberals who are more focussed on their own selfish ends than the means. And, much like opening a bottle of shaken up soda, riots in places like Ferguson, Missouri are very easy to see and understand, both in terms of the causes and the inevitable effect. Unlike the bottle of soda, the clean-up is a lot more difficult and heartbreaking.