http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocWuPkNLla4

Are we losing our freedom? Are we, as a society, losing our ability to distinguish between what we don't like and what ought to be criminal? Every day, we see some glorious scheme being proposed to make us all safer, healthier, or wealthier, or to give us whiter teeth. To evaluate whether violating that law ought to be a crime, we need to ask: "Are you really willing to shoot someone over that?"

Before you say, "We're not going to be shooting anyone for smoking in public/not wearing a seatbelt/not wearing a helmet/not hiring the proper demographic in his office; we're only talking about a $50/$100/$250 fine!" think: "What if they won't pay their fine?" The response, "Then they'll have to appear in court, and the court will make them pay." The reply, "But what if they still refuse to comply with the court order?" "Then they'll be thrown in jail."

Even further, what if they refuse to allow the police in their home, or refuse to pull over their car when the officers try to arrest them? What if they are so tired of being nitpicked to death by nanny-statism that they just snap and refuse to be taken alive? Oops. At some point, somewhere along the way, if something is made a crime, someone may have to shoot somebody to enforce the law.
Of course, most people dismiss this argument as unrealistic and far-fetched. But a couple of weeks ago, this premise was proved right (again).

You probably heard about the man who was shot in Cincinnati in April by the police. This incident spawned several days of racial unrest and rioting. Do you know what the underlying reason for the death of this young man was? He wasn't wearing his seat belt.

Of course, it wasn't quite that simple. He had received several seat-belt violations and hadn't paid any of his tickets. He had refused to respond to court orders. So, when they pulled him over on that fateful day, all the police knew about him was that there was a warrant for his arrest. They didn't know at the time that it was for seat-belt violations.

As for the man, we don't know what he was thinking, exactly, but he clearly didn't want to be arrested by the police. He took off in his car and led the police on a high-speed chase, which ended in his own death when the police thought he reached for a gun and shot him. He died over the seat-belt law.

This is not to blame the police. They didn't know why he had a warrant out for his arrest. They also say they believed their lives were in danger at the conclusion of the chase.

This also isn't designed to make a hero out of the young man. I sincerely doubt that he was a conscientious objector to the nanny state. More likely, he just didn't like seat belts and couldn't afford to pay the tickets. When his unpaid tickets rose to warrant status and the police spotted him, he panicked. In the end, however, he died because someone thought it was a good idea to force people to wear seat belts. Was it worth it?

No matter how innocuous or well-intentioned a law, it has to be enforced with the full force of the police powers. If it isn't, then the law is useless. When rules aren't enforced, that breeds contempt for the law itself.

According to George Washington, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." No matter how high-minded a law sounds, its only power comes from the business end of a gun.

The next time something annoys you and you want it stopped, or you come up with a good idea to improve everybody's life and you want to make sure everybody has to do it, you need to stop yourself and ask this question: "Am I really willing to shoot someone for this?"

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his GPS and replied, "You're are in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

"You must be a republican," said the balloonist.

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."

The man responded, "You must be a democrat."

"I am", replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You are lost due to your own incompetence and neglegence but you want to blame someone else. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

The are many reasons I am a Conservative today and are in large part attributed to many years of study and personal soul searching as to what political philosophy is best for my progeny and My Nation. I like so many of my generation was brought up to believe that FDR was the New Messiah. I however, observed over the years that all the political rhetoric of the Left did not increase the social position or well being of anyone. The only people that seemed to change their status were doing it own their own.

I also began a life long study of the Constitution, upon entering the service I made an oath to 'protect and defend' it. I figured if I might have to die for it I should at least understand the principles cited in that document.

Therefore, after years of personal research I came to the following decisions, which I would like to share, with all of you, they are,

That Conservatism encompasses the accumulation of experience and wisdom over many generations, enlightened and guided by Divine Revelation. Much of the knowledge embodied in conservatism cannot be put into words but consists rather in certain dispositions and habits of the mind and heart.

However, there are certain fundamental truths that have been articulated within the Conservative tradition with increasing clarity and certainty. To many Americans, these truths may seem mere truisms or platitudes ("self-evident", as Jefferson put it), yet it is vitally important to remind ourselves periodically of what we know, to ensure that this body of wisdom can be passed on without loss to a new generation.

Conservatism as a philosophy does not produce a laundry list of policy recommendations, nor does it represent the interests of this or that class or special interest. Nor is conservatism grounded in a reflective reaction to change, nor in a nostalgic attachment to the past. Rather, it begins by rejecting what C. S. Lewis called "chronological bigotry": the foolish notion that contemporary thinkers have a monopoly on the truth, simply because they are alive today and not in an earlier, "less enlightened" era.

However, Conservatives do draw on the accumulated wisdom of the past to form a comprehensive and coherent view of the world, from which we derive certain principles essential to the promotion of the common good. As every philosophy has certain basic propositions upon which everything else is based.

Conservatism envisions a society in which each human being, no matter how humble in origin or apparently ordinary in talents, is treated with sacred respect. We see the drama of each unfolding human life as rich in meaning and significance. Consequently, we treat each person's life as inviolable and are unwilling to sacrifice the few for the good of the many.

We Conservatives affirm the existence of natural law, defining and protecting the natural rights of each person. These rights are inalienable and endowed to us by our Creator. They are, therefore, not subject to revision or repeal by any political coalition, no matter how powerful.

True Conservatives are not swayed by transitory intellectual fashions of the academy or the salon. Confidence in the power and reliability of common sense translates into stable, consistent and effective social policy. At the same time, we learn from scientific research when it is conducted according to sound methods and without political bias.

However, time and time again, genuine science confirms the wisdom of traditional ideas, such as the importance of faith, character, the nuclear family, and the classical tradition of education.

Real social, cultural and political progress is possible, but only when conservative ideas predominate. In Conservatism, hope is tempered by realism, leading to patient and measured action in support of virtue and justice.

Conservatives look for opportunities to strengthen the good that remains in existing institutions. Like Hippocrates, conservatives remember the wisdom of the principle: first, does no harm. We must always resist the temptation to launch large-scale untested schemes for reform.

As a Conservative I understand that it is individuals working together in voluntary association must take the leading role in social improvement. I truly look to faith-based charities and mutual aid societies that were proven so successful in improving social conditions in 19th century America, to again provide proven models for reversing the social decay resulting from generations of failed leftist programs.

Also personal moral virtue is invaluable in itself, meeting a natural human need, and is not merely a social construction or a means to other ends. Individual human beings receive from God individual callings or vocations, which they must each be free to pursue.

The Natural Law (as stated by our Fore Fathers) provides each of us with Archimedes' fixed point, to which we can appeal against the injustice of the powerful. As Conservatives, we therefore, are not easily cowed into submission to any tyranny. Instead, our conservative thoughts and practices provide us a principled limitation of the power and the scope of human government, as embodied in the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, as a conservative I do reject the following Leftists philosophies, each of which is part of the intellectual foundations of the Liberal consensus of today's academic, media and political elite:

Atheism and materialism -- the notion that human life is the accidental and meaningless result of mindless material processes.

Racism and chauvinism -- that certain races or classes of people are inherently superior in ultimate value.

Collectivism -- the thesis that individuals are important only as parts of society, that their lives have no significance or meaning beyond that assumed to them by their society.

Secular humanism -- that we human beings must define the meaning and purpose of our own existence.

Deep ecology -- the belief that the labor and technical achievements of mankind are inherently evil, and that only the undisturbed wilderness is good.

Animal rights anti-humanism -- that non-human animals, despite their lack of will or conscience, are on equal moral standing with human beings by virtue of their capacity for pain and pleasure.

Relativism -- that what is good or right varies fundamentally from time to time or place to place, that there are no universal truths of morality and politics.

Constructivism -- that what is right and just is nothing more than the product of social forces and historical accidents.

Subjectivism -- that what is good or right for an individual is determined simply by that individual's feelings or inclinations.

Cultural determinism -- that human nature is infinitely malleable by culture.

Nominalism -- that nothing has any definite nature, other than that which we ascribe to it through our invention of words or concepts.

Post-modernism -- that science is merely the expression of political ideology, and that the difference between good and bad science, or between science and pseudo-science, has no objective validity.

Scientism -- that there is no knowledge outside science, and that nothing is real that is not scientifically verifiable.

Empiricism -- that nothing exists beyond what can be verified by our five senses.

Skepticism -- that we know nothing with certainty.

Utopianism -- belief in the infinite perfectibility of man.

Positivism -- the denial of the fundamental reality of evil, attributing all human evil to superficial causes, such as poverty, maladjustment, lack of education, or distorted socioeconomic conditions.

Pessimism or cynicism -- the view that mankind is so corrupted that there is no hope for relative progress or improvement.

Ethical dualism -- attributing evil exclusively to some particular group or class (i.e. the Descendents of White Europeans, the Fundamentalist Christians, the bourgeoisie, Jews, the corporate elite, etc. etc.).

By disavowing all those identified human destructive beliefs of the left and embracing the enduring truths of Conservatism does gives me optimism about the future. It won't be easy but than nothing worthwhile ever is.

Even today, as bleak as the indicators of social and cultural health may be, we conservatives should look forward with hope to a restoration of the family, the community, and a civilized culture.

1) You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of funding.

2) You have to be against capital punishment, but for abortion on demand, in short you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

3) You have to believe that the same public school teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

4) You have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

5) You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

6) You have to believe that global temperatures is not affected by cyclical, documented changes in the Sun, but is really affected by SUVs.

7) You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

8)You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

9) You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature but animal rights activists who've never been outside Seattle do.

10) You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11) You have to believe there was no art before federal funding.

12) You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians start all wars.

13) You have to believe the free market that gives us 500+ channels of entertainment can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

14) You have to believe the NRA is evil, because it stands up for the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they attempt to create a new Constitution out of thin air.

15) You have to believe that taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

16) You have to believe that Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Dolly Madison or Thomas Edison.

17) You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

18) You have to believe that second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

19) You have to believe Hilary Clinton is really a lady and Rosie O'Donnell is really funny.

20) You have to believe that conservatives are racists, but that black people couldn't make it without your help.

21) You have to believe the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

I am convinced that most liberals do not understand conservative political philosophy. So, here’sa few principles which may help:

1. Just because I own more stuff than you doesn’t mean I acquired it wrongly. If I have acquired my wealth through unjust means (e.g., fraud, deceit, stealing, asuspicious late 1970s cattle futures investment), it is clear that I am obligated to return it to its rightful owner(s). However, if I get a good job, invest wisely or create a profitable enterprise entirely by just means, what sense does it make to say that anybody except me is "entitled" to it? I believe there is a public good in creating an economic safety net for those who, because of physical or mental sickness and/or disabilities, are not able to care for themselves. But that is a far cry from saying, as liberals do, that the unfortunate are entitled to my wealth simply because I have more than they do.

2. Just because you want or need something I have does not mean you are entitled to it. Perhaps you have no kidneys while I have two and I am the only person in the world who has the type of kidney which would save your life. You want my kidney. You need my kidney. However, you are not entitled to my kidney. If I give you one of my kidneys, I have performed a great act of kindness. But I am not required to do this. You may need my money. You may want my money. Sorry, you are not entitled to that, either. I may give it to you because I think that charity is a virtue. I may even support the type of economic safety net I mentioned above. But none of this means that you are entitled to what is mine. Envy is still a vice, and if you think you are entitled to what I have, you are envious. And if this brings you no shame, perhaps you have a future in politics.

3. Just because a few people in my group harmed some individuals in your group does not mean that I owe you anything unless it was me who harmed you. Liberals who oppose the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI or Prop. 209), which would ban the state government from continuing to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, argue that preferential treatment based on race and gender in state hiring and college admissions is justified because of the past discrimination of white males against minorities and women. No doubt there is still discrimination, but the liberals’ argument has nothing to do with justifying preferential treatment. The best they can do is cite specific cases with good evidence that particular victims were harmed by actual perpetrators. In other words, when there is a documented case of unjustified racial or gender discrimination, the perpetrator(s) ought to be punished and forced to compensate the victim(s) for his, her or their loss. But this is simple justice, not prefrential treatment.

However, if an injustice is claimed, but neither perpetrator(s) nor victim(s) can be identified other than in vague generalities (e.g., "Whites have harmed blacks and therefore blacks deserve to be compensated for their loss" or "Women only earn 70% of what men earn and so ought to receive preferential treatment in the job market"), then there is simply no way, short of possessing omniscience and omnipotence, to dispense justice without harming innocent people as well as encouraging mediocrity. For example, if some people of your race at some point in the past murdered and stole from some people of my race, it would surely not be just for me to require that the living members of your group be randomly killed and/or some of their assets confiscated by the state and given randomly to selected members of my group. This is commonly referred to as Bosnia.

4. Sensitivity is not an accurate measurement of truth. Conservatives, like Mother Theresa, are typically accused by liberals, like Teddy Kennedy and Roseanne, of being insensitive. Perhaps the liberals are confusing the plausibility of a political position with finding a boyfriend, a baby-sitter, or a therapist. To paraphrase Johnny Lee, liberals are "looking for love in all the wrong places." Maybe this is why liberals are more inclined than conservatives to embrace politically correct euphemisms in order to relieve people of the burden of being morally responsible for their decisions, e.g., "alternative shopper" instead of "looter," "sexually active" instead of "easy," "chemically dependent" instead of "junkie," or "Mr. President" instead of "draft dodger."

Conservative political philosophy is either better or worse than its rivals. The conservatives you know may slobber their food (sometimes a nicely cooked dead animal they shot themselves) or refer to The Los Angeles baseball team as the "Brooklyn Dodgers," but they still could have the best political philosophy on the planet. The Reverend Jim Jones (of Jonestown infamy), a Bay Area liberal, was clearly more "sensitive" than former Secretary of the Interior James Watt, known for insensitive remarks about minorities and handicapped people as well as dis-inviting the Beach Boys from a summer concert in our nation's capital. But who would you trust to bring the punch to the picnic?