From the 30 April 2007 Greater Niagara Newspapers

SLAUGHTER-ING THE FREEDOM OF OPINION
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

The First Amendment grants to all of us the freedom of speech. As is the case with all of the original amendments, the purpose of this right is to prevent the government from abusing its powers. This right to speak or write freely was deemed paramount because it is the most effective way that people can hold their government in check. By allowing citizens to air their grievances with a government then, and only then, could it be known whether said government was doing a satisfactory job or was in need of improvement. This freedom was purposely conceived with a vastness of scope so that it could exist at the personal level as well as at the cumulative level of the press.

Over the course of American history the free press has been key in educating the masses. Through a wide variety of venues (print, television, or radio) many a startling issue has been exposed, inciting anger and change. In other more positive cases press coverage has created an upwelling of patriotism or support for our government. All of this is done not only to sell papers or airtime, but also out of an obligation that many press outlets feel they have to the community at large. They pride themselves on the job they do sticking up for the “little guy”, an extension of the powers and responsibilities that are granted to them in the Constitution.

Over the past two decades the press has added to the news an ever-growing supply of commentary. Newspapers have always done this, featuring since the earliest days of print news an editorial portion. This practice has now extended to all forms of media. Commentary of all sorts can be found on an almost endless variety of TV and radio talk shows. Add to that what is now available from Internet news and opinion sources and it is impossible to escape commentary.

Commentary (the provision of opinion) differs considerably from the reporting (the provision of fact) that had been the norm in what the press doled out. Reporting by its nature allows people to see an issue and then think about its ramifications on their own, which many of them tend not to do or, if they do, their thinking is done in a single-minded way that is controlled by their limited view of the world.

Commentary, on the other hand, allows the media outlet to have designated individuals offer their opinions of the news of the day. This commentary may or may not be typical to the region from which it originates or is broadcast to, thus, from pooling what is heard from multiple reporters and commentators a citizen can then develop an considerably-wider understanding of the world that is no longer restricted by their upbringing, geography or their day-to-day life.

One cannot help but look at this movement with utmost appreciation, as it is a key mark of an ever-developing society. Thanks to this abundance of commentary that exposes the masses to new ways of thinking, civics has become an increasingly fluid venture that adjusts to the times and to the needs of the people. Commentary has empowered the people.

As true as this is, the very entity that the freedom of speech is intended to limit, our government, is - at least from the Left - fearful of what has been wrought and is doing its best to suppress the accountability that is being levied upon it by the press and those who take in its offerings.

A contingent of Democrats led by WNY’s Congresswoman Louise Slaughter are constantly railing against the commentary that is offered by talk radio and television. They, in their party-driven ways, believe that most talk radio is right-leaning and feel their side is not being heard. So, rather than fighting fire with fire they have taken a path that is an affront to the freedom of speech: They are asking that the archaic and un-Constitutional Fairness Doctrine, which died in 1987, be reinstated. This Doctrine had been used by the Federal Communications Commission to limit broadcasters from offering controversial commentary in what might be an unfair and unbalanced manner.

This sort of approach is fraught with evil. It is a stifling of free thought. It limits the free enterprise system that drives media outlets. It limits the education of the people. It protects the government from criticism. It leaves one wondering just what “fair and balanced” is.

From all of that comes one haunting question: What if one day the government develops into a single-party oppressive system that considers any word against it to be at once unfair, unbalanced, and treasonous? Free speech - and therefore the people - would be stifled, just as the founding fathers had feared.

FIREARMS AND NATURAL RIGHTS
By Bob Confer, www.bobconfer.net

Natural rights are the most basic of all rights and are a part of the human essence. They are different than those granted by man-made laws because they represent freedoms and privileges that are key to existence and are so much greater in scale than any right that Man might ever create. Natural rights are granted to us by the Creator or, as its name implies, Nature itself. They are the very foundation of the freedoms bestowed upon us by the founders of the United States of America, existing as the backbone of our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Without a doubt the most important of all natural rights is the right protect oneself. One can see this primal importance perfectly represented in the animal kingdom which is, theoretically, humanity in its rawest form. It is a kingdom in which each and every creature has a right to live its life and maintain its health. With that right comes a responsibility to maintain the creature’s well-being as well as that of others. Every creature, man or beast, exists in a continuous struggle to live from one moment to the next. It is, as Darwin put it, survival of the fittest.

This right to self (and group) protection basically allows all other rights to occur by maintaining the health or life force of the being and allowing it to further pursue what glorious wonders life may bring. As natural as this right is, our founding fathers brilliantly saw fit to acknowledge its existence, perfectly codifying it in the second amendment, which grants to us the right to keep and bear arms. It was their belief at the time, and one thankfully maintained to this day by Constitutionalists, that the inability to access arms could one day lead to a loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They were prophetic to say the least, for over the years the ways of misguided government and a softened populace have infringed on this God-given right.

The denial of the Natural Law of protection through gun ownership is an on-going source of controversial debate in the United States. It has come to the fore yet again, this time in volume because of the recent massacre at Virginia Tech. Those against the second amendment and the reason behind it are rallying against gun ownership, stating that had guns not been available Cho Seung-Hui would never have gone on his killing spree.

Their argument is fraught with weakness. It is emotional not logical in content, and is cast with blinders on. They fail to see that the intrusiveness of today’s gun laws prevent the victims of violence from adequately preparing to protect themselves from the deviants of society. The innocent and the law-abiding are left ill-prepared due to fear of legal retribution that comes with taking the due diligence to conceal a weapon on their person. Because of this damning mindset, gun laws empower the rapists, the murderers, and the thieves of our world. Those depraved souls are breaking laws and acting without morals to begin with, so the act of carrying a gun that is illegal or otherwise is not of their concern. Their very fiber is so unlike those who do follow written and natural laws.

To put this VT situation into a context highlighting natural rights, we need to break this down to the animal kingdom mentality yet again. The Seung-Huis of the world are vicious predators, the wolves of humanity, hungry for blood and equipped with claws and teeth (tools of death). The victims are comparable to deer. They are the prey of these wolves…an easy kill lacking the tools for defense. Had any one of the students or professors been allowed to pursue their right to protection and carry a weapon, the deer would have been at par with the wolf, able to defend not only itself but all of the other victims as well.

But, alas, they weren’t given the chance.

Advantage, predator.

What happened at Virginia Tech was a tragedy, a dramatic example of is what is allowed to occur day in, day out across our country. Innocents - whose ranks on a daily basis far outnumber the victims at Virginia Tech - are robbed, raped, maimed, or killed by stronger or armed predators. Our government has assisted in making them the victims by denying them the right – or making it difficult to reclaim the right – of protection.

This proves that any of Man’s laws that override natural laws are destined for disaster. The scheme of nature is such that we cannot change or inhibit the act of survival. If we do, only the fittest will survive…the fittest being those who are the most evil.

RACE PROBLEMS FOSTERED BY BAD LEADERSHIP, NOT IMUS
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

Don Imus, whether guilty or not of being racist, has become the embodiment of what was a social – and one time racial – anachronism. He has become a whipping boy. Because of the relentless news stories about his comments regarding the Rutgers women’s basketball team and the repercussions that came of them he can’t shake the overblown insinuations that he is Evil Incarnate. In all actuality, anything that Imus said was sexist and derogatory yet nowhere near as racist as it is being portrayed by the news media and race activists groups. But, he is being beaten for it anyways.

As much as Imus may be suffering over this fiasco, so are we. For days on end it has been boringly pounded into our heads that Imus’s comments are an issue of vast national importance. In the whole scheme of things this dustup is a non-issue and in a well-run media system it is not even worthy of mention. This is just another in a long line of overblown topics that aren’t newsworthy but are made so by a media that spoon feeds the ever-believing masses (Anna Nicole Smith, anyone?).

This overemphasis of triviality that is so pervasive in the media tends to mask what really should matter. Don Imus should not be the whipping boy for race issues. Doing so completely ignores the everyday and everywhere issue of race conflict in America. The racist label should be more appropriately applied to everyone. Every American - white, black, or otherwise - is guilty of perpetuating divides in color, race, and ethnicity.

This universal brand of hatred or confusion for dissimilar peoples is often not malicious but rather instead an ingrained behavior fostered by leadership that sets some very bad examples. The news and entertainment media are themselves a form of leadership – they control thought – but they are not the only leaders poorly influencing our ways of life. Political and social leaders belong in the mix as well.

In its most basic essence, American politics is a Caucasian fraternity. The vast majority of politicians and bureaucrats at the federal level are well-to-do white men (their numbers are in excess of 80%), making Washington DC the “white bred” epicenter of the United States. Even in such context, this extravagant ivory throne is surprisingly surrounded by a city that is 62% non-white and marred by horrible blight.

In the 1990’s Washington, DC gained the moniker of “the murder capital of the United States” and still to this day has a phenomenally high rate of crime. It’s a fascinating study in disconnects: An army of white men decide what is best for answering the problems in today’s multi-cultural society yet they are unable to see the lack of results in their practices right in their very backyard, a backyard that is home to people so unlike them. These leaders have an inability – or often a lack of desire - to put into context issues that aren’t theirs. That complete indifference to reality is racism in practice and proves that what comes out of Capitol Hill, be it entitlements or policy, will do absolutely nothing to empower the blacks and Hispanics in other urban areas across the US.

This colorblindness extends to America’s black leaders as well. Those who are rallying against Don Imus the most – the Al Sharptons, the Jesse Jacksons and the NAACPs of the world – are as dirty as they say Imus is. Those individuals spend their days searching diligently for societal and political slip-ups and insinuations and, upon finding them, attack them with unrepentant zeal. This behavior is only possible due to a deranged “us versus them” mindset that is racism in itself. By categorizing blacks as an entity unto themselves and looking at all whites as potential enemies they are hypocritically promoting witch-hunts based in spite if not outright hatred.

Because of the misguided ways of those who set the very guidelines of our thoughts, our laws and our behaviors, we have a society that is numb to real race issues. Many Americans of all colors and backgrounds turn blind eyes to their neighbors and have no understanding of real race relations or the ways of life of others. This ignorance and sometimes hatred (whether conscious or subconscious) is fostered by what is some horrible leadership.

It’s unfortunate; here we are the most developed society in the history of the world, decades removed from the civil rights movement, and we still don’t know how to break the barriers between White and Black.

Must be Don Imus’s fault.

EXCELSIOR IS A FITTING MOTTO
By Bob Confer, www.BobConfer.net

New York State’s official motto is “excelsior” which is Latin for “ever upward”. Whoever chose that motto most have been a prophet, because you could not find a more fitting motto for the Empire State and how it has gone about fashioning budget and raising taxes over the past twenty-five years.

The unrestrained growth of the state budget beyond acceptable standards has been an ongoing issue since pennywise Hugh Carey left office in 1982. He was succeeded in office by Mario Cuomo whose liberal, Big Government mentality caused taxes and spending to rise significantly. Cuomo’s successor, George Pataki, proved to be no better despite his Conservative label. Taxes rose in every year of his reign and in the last year of his tenure the budget grew at its highest amount in three decades.

It was hoped by many that Eliot Spitzer would have changed this trend for the better and ventured into the territory of fiscal conservancy. In the first few months of his administration he had achieved some substantial victories in Albany that gave merit to such hope. But, alas, things fell apart and the desires of the masses were all for naught.

Our steamroller of a governor lost considerable steam in the budget process and became a part of the very system he despised. By tossing out his well-intended health and education reform initiatives he is now guilty of participating in the “Three Men In a Room” closed door system that has been the way of doing business in the Capitol. This is a corrupted system that perpetuates political patronage, legislative power, pork spending, waste, and, of course, big budgets.

The state budget that was passed under this scenario just two weeks ago has maintained the status quo in New York. By any normal definition “status quo” would mean that things had stayed the same and the budget grew negligibly. But, in New York, the “status quo” is not normal. It is Excelsior Incarnate, the act of spending beyond our means, that which the legislators and Governor have done yet again.

This year’s $121 billion budget is chock-full of bad math and is a perfect exemplification of bad government. This monstrous expenditure is 7.3% higher than last years budget, which, as mentioned earlier, was a monster in itself (it had grown at a 7.9% rate). This year’s 7.3% growth is almost three times the rate of inflation. To put this into terms that everyone will really understand - and really feel for - most employers across the US plan to increase wages by only 3.25% this year. So, as your wages rise slightly above the rate of inflation, the growth in state spending far outstrips your newfound income.

Speaking of income, this budget has the state spending much more than its anticipated income. A bevy of economists and state offices projected this budget year’s tax revenues to be in the territory of $118 billion. This places NY’s spending $3 billion beyond what it will theoretically have coming in. God forbid we have an economic downturn or some event that will make that deficit even worse. That being said, if common sense and frugality could be found in Albany, they would have strived for a budget that was far under anticipated revenues rather than one that far exceeded it. Add this debacle to NY’s current total debt load which is in the ballpark of $230 billion and, itself, suffering from a bad case of “Excelsior”. To satisfy this mess of increased spending and ever-growing debt the government will have no choice but to raise taxes in the coming years.

Will the blood-letting ever end in the Empire State? The trend says “no”. What’s occurring now says “no”. The Spitzer Regime was supposed to change the way of doing things in Albany. It has with some issues, but when it really mattered - when the fiscal well-being of the State and all its citizens came to the fore – it lost. The State motto is right: It’s “Excelsior” forever in New York (unfortunately).