Conservative Corner- Lessons Learned from the Left

I have been writing this column since January of 2013, and during that time I have written on a variety of topics from gun control to abortion, to racism. With all the areas of interest I have covered I would like to extend a deep appreciation to the journalism instructor and Commuter adviser, Rob Priewe, for allowing me to write a conservative and politically/socially right-leaning column in a college publication that is usually moderate to left-leaning.

 I would also like to extend gratitude to the editor and editors of the past year for carefully helping to edit my columns in a way that would get my conservative point across without looking like a total ass. And last, but certainly not least, I would like to extend a heart-felt “Thank you” to all the readers and those have written in comments to either the Commuter web page, or emailed the Commuter on what I have written about. Because of you, even though many have opposed my view, we, as a campus, have seen different sides of a multitude of different topics and have seen that there may be more than one side to every story. It’s trying to understand the stories and how different people view them that make us better people. There are people, however, that see things so differently one can only guess is they can ever see the other side. Here are a few things I have learned from the left and from liberals.

We all must learn to at least tolerate change, even though we may not agree with it.

As I have walked around campus, I have seen a huge plethora of personalities from the quite conservative and old fashioned, to the very modern and liberal. I have learned that these people look this way because they like to, and that is acceptable, but I’ve also learned that some liberals think that conservatives have to embrace it or face consequences. That’s where liberals get it wrong, conservative tolerate a great many things, but accepting them is not necessary. Liberals need be tolerant of other views, not just their own.

We need to be fair and try to see the other side.

I have had many people try to explain to me cases like immigration or the gay rights issue, why is it that if a person is against illegal immigration, they are labeled racists. If people are in favor of traditional marriage, then why are they labeled bigots and homophobes? Liberal aren’t always lenient.

The left has an unspoken hypocrisy

A Gresham bakery, Sweet Cakes by Mellissa, was closed down for refusing to violate their religious beliefs by not baking a cake for a gay wedding. Gay rights groups claimed the bakery’s refusal to bake the cake was illegal; however, there is a retirement community in Gresham, Rainbow Vista, that advertises specifically for the gay community.

According to arcweb.sos.state.or.us, Oregon Admin Rule 839-005-0205  says “ A person may not...publish, circulate, issue or display...any communication, notice, advertisement, or sign of any kind whether oral, written or electronic, relating to the sale, rental or leasing of real property that indicates any preference based on sexual preference." Looks like hypocrisy to me.

 The left also seem to have issues with racism. When LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling was penalized for comments he made in private the left praised his persecution, however, Al Sharpton has been making racist comments for years and he gets his own segment on MSNBC. More hypocrisy

The left also seem quite happy with allowing illegal immigrants to get free healthcare, food stamps and low cost housing,  but they don’t seem to care much about the epidemic problem of our veterans who suffer with mental  and physical issues, homelessness , and unemployment.

The left seems to have a very unhealthy relationship with the government. It seems as though the left believes that the government should control all portions of their life. Thomas Jefferson said “History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.” While Ronald Reagan once said “Man is not free unless government is limited.”

A limited government is at the heart of most, if not all conservatives and libertarians, unfortunately liberals seem to think that they are entitled to everything and it’s up to the government to provide it.  As it has been said, a government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away.

As I take my leave, I would like to quote from two people.

Herb Shaindlin (1930-2008) was a long time Alaskan radio broadcaster who used to say “Everyone is entitled to my opinion”, while conservative radio talk show host and author Michael Savage commonly claims, “Liberalism is a mental disorder” 

                                            dkhummel.blogspot.com, dkhummel.com

Conservative Corner- One Person, One Vote

Well, the primaries are over in Oregon and very soon there will be, once again, politicians and political volunteers pounding the pavement and knocking on doors to get your vote. No matter what your political affiliation or even whether you vote, voting is very serious.

We are indeed blessed to be living in a country where we can change things that we, as citizens, do not approve of. We do not need to worry about a king, dictator, or some in tyrannical power to tell us what we can or can’t do. If we do not like a politician, we can vote them out, if we do not like a law, we can change it, I we feel we need a special person in congress or the Whitehouse to help us with the kind of change that is needed, we vote for the person. Unfortunately, some groups and people feel so strongly about helping out their favorite candidates during a political campaign that they will do anything to get that person elected, even if it means committing voter fraud.

Voter fraud took place during both the 2008 and the 2012 presidential elections. One of the ways that voter fraud took place was through intimidation.  According to www.washingtontimes.com a “uniformed member of the New Black Panther Party” posted himself at the entrance to a polling place in the 1200 block of Fairmount Avenue in Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential elections. The very same thing happened at the during the 2012 elections when www.wnd.com reported that Malik Zulu Shabazz, national chairman of the New Black Panther Party, said in a radio interview that his racist group may deploy at voting booths in the November presidential elections, claiming such a move is needed to ensure there is no “intimidation against our people.”

Another kind of voter fraud that is now coming out into the open is voter registration of the dead. Even www.nrp.org states that “more than 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote. And 24 million registrations are either invalid or inaccurate.” Voter fraud gets narrowed down even more when www.whitehousedossier.com says “Dead people have long been a major Democratic constituency, given that Democrats mostly control the big cities where such voter fraud – and other types – tends to occur.” Using the dead to win elections, I’m sure, isn’t just a Democratic thing, it’s just the finger seems to be pointing their way.

A case of fraud that gained some national coverage was that of Melowese Richardson who was a poll worker and used her position to vote for Obama multiple times according to www.breitbart.com. Richardson pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting in 2009, 2011 and 2012 and was charged her with voting for her sister, who is in a coma. Four other counts were dropped in exchange for Richardson's plea. She has had past charges from witness harassment to theft to assault and told Judge Robert P. Ruehlman during her hearing “I take the law into my own hands. I do what I want." How can we stop voter fraud and people like this from putting the wrong person into power? One way is using voter identification.

If everyone could prove who they were with a passport, driver’s license, or even a basic ID card, that would most likely keep illegals, the dead, and fraudulent people from voting multiple times. Apparently www.motherjones.com thinks that the idea of needing ID for voting is a form of suppression and even hints that needing ID is racist. Does that mean that it is also racist to need an ID for cashing a check, buying alcohol, renting a DVD or driving a vehicle? Obtaining an ID is actually quite simple.

From what www.oregon.gov tells us all we need is proof of your legal name, proof of your legal residence in the United States, your social security number and $44.50. Granted, that much money is hard to get some times, but in today’s world having an ID is a necessity.

Elections are an extremely important event. If the wrong people fraudulently get the wrong people into an elected office the effects can be disastrous. Let’s ensure that everyone gets one vote. Until we find a better system, voter ID is the best way to ensure there is no voter fraud and that each person gets only one vote for a fair election.

                                 dkhummel.blogspot.com, dkhummel.com

Conservative Corner- The Right to an Appropriate Appearance

As students, staff, and faculty of Linn-Benton Community College, we are indeed enriched and blessed with a wealth of diversity in culture, attire, values, and opinions. It is remarkable how so many people with different backgrounds, cultures and mindsets can come together as a community to learn, work and play together in a strange kind of harmony.

            At LBCC we have nearly every kind of person that you can imagine, from the seemingly dark, quiet, and reserved, to the flamboyant, out-going and friendly. The same is said for how we present ourselves on campus. Students and staff alike have the privilege of expressing themselves in a plethora of attire, from the very distinguished suites of the professional executive business person, to those who chooses to cross-dress for fun and frolic. The choices of how we are seen on campus and the community are nearly endless. Unfortunately, some choose to take the issue of clothing a different way, showing appropriate clothing.

            How some of the students wear their clothing on campus became an issue on April 23 of this year. As it is understood, there was a discrepancy between a staff member and a student with how the young man wore his pants and LBCC security was called in to try to defuse a situation. The student was requested to pull up his pants to an appropriate level and he refused. When campus security arrived the young man was asked again to pull up his pants and again refused at which time campus security asked for the young man’s identification, but did not have his ID on his person. The student was then escorted out of the building and suspended for two days.

            This example of, what I would consider to be a simple case of incorrect wearing of attire, may not have had the effect on campus if it weren’t for the fact that the young man is black. Javier Cervantes, of the Diversity Achievement Center, put an unfortunate racial spin on the situation by saying, “If we’re going to name what happened last week, it’s racial profiling,”  With all due respect to Mr. Cervantes I would, of course, strongly disagree with his appraisal of the situation.  As we all can attest to the idea, not just black young men wear their pants to show their boxer undergarments. In an effort to “be cool”, many young people choose to ware their pants this way. From what I can see of the situation, the idea that this is caused by racial profiling is outrageous and preposterous. Anyone can wear their pants like that, no matter what color of the skin.

            Taking race out of the situation, (as it should have been), does the young man have the right to wear baggy pants as to expose his undergarment? LBCC has no dress code; however, it does have code on the learning environment. According to the LBCC Code of Conduct we must “respect the teaching/learning environment by interacting with civility within the classroom and following safety guidelines”. If a student wears something that others consider distracting or offensive, doesn’t that effect the environment and civility of a class or area?

            The student failed to follow direction, according to the code when we learn that the young man did not “follow the lawful direction of faculty and staff including providing information and identification when requested.” When this situation occurs, “the lawful directions of college personnel acting in performance of their duties, e.g., disrupting class sufficiently to hinder effective instruction, or failure to leave a building or specified work area when directed to do so by college personnel.”, according to the Student Conduct Code.  LBCC does not have a dress code; however, I would think that the college would rely on the better judgment of their students to dress appropriately in the presents of those who may be offended by questionable attire.

            I am a firm believer in the freedom of expression, however, in a college as diverse as ours, we as a community, need to be increasingly vigilant on how we present ourselves to others with different values and be responsible for the consequences for inappropriate dressing or attire. I’m not saying we need a dress code and require all students, staff and faculty of wear business suits daily, but what I am saying is the next time a student should think before wearing a shirt with a swastika, the letters KKK, or any other images or inappropriate parts of the body show before arriving of campus.

            Yes, a student, or anyone else has the right to wear what he or she wants and how they wish to wear it, but should it come at the expense of all those whom it offends? I am very serious about my college career and normally dress to fit the part, however, even though I don’t approve of all the fashions that are represented at LB, I hope that all on campus can agree on the right to an appropriate appearance.

                                                Dkhummel.com, dkhummel.blogspot.com

Conservative Corner- Convenience or Mayhem From Above

                                                  Dkhummel.com, dkhummel.blogspot.com

                One of the issues that many in Western civilization face in the modern world is the lack of moderation when it comes to technology. Technology can indeed be a wonderful thing. We can now keep track of events around the world in real time, we can do research on any given topic from nearly anywhere in the world, and we can keep up with and play games with friends and family from the other side of the room or the other side of the planet. Unfortunately, too many people take the use of modern technology to far.

            We have went from using our phones to make simple calls to use them to play games, take photos, browse the internet, and make calls. Those things aren’t necessarily bad, however, too many people seem to spend their lives glued to their devices and not making human contact.

            A new technology is surfacing in the world of high tech, this new device is the unmanned wireless air craft known as drones. Like any other kind of tool, its popularity and success depends upon it use. Drones are being planned for commercial service. According to money.cnn.com, Domino’s Pizza is in the process of using drones for delivery. Likewise, www.computerworld.com tells us that Amazon is planning to use drones to deliver packages that are 5 pounds or less in 30 minutes or less. Unfortunately, until the FAA approves the use of unmanned wireless air craft, you will just have to wait until at least Dec 31 of 2015 to have your new tablet and pizza to land on your door step by a drone.

            One the other hand, as the science fiction movies and history has told us, big government will never pass up an opportunity to use technology against its own people to further an agenda. The proof that the Obama administration is targeting conservative groups is now overwhelming. Breitbart.com tell us about of the IRS targeting right-leaning groups for IRS surveillance and monitoring websites, group activities, and any public information wherever it is available. It has also been documented that through “bad metadata’ innocent lives have been lost”.

            I’m sure that the United States Government doesn’t want to target American citizens by using drones to search, locate, gather information and, if necessary, eliminate the possible hazard. The use of drones by the U.S. Government to locate threats to America is an idea most Americans can support, however, what would the government classify as threats to national security?

            Mrconservative.com tells us that Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech last year that American citizens who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” may be targeted, although the “violent attack” isn’t specific. According to The Washington Times, the Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about “rightwing extremist activity” including those against Obama and disgruntled war veterans. Does this mean the Government will be using drones to locate and spy on and eliminate the “right-wing threat”?

            Drones are not all bad. Like any other tool, it’s all how it’s used. Drones can also help police, guard the boarders, monitoring irrigation on farms, helping to sell real estate and locating lost hikers. Embracing technology, even for older people, can be and should be a good.

            Drones can be a wonderful tool for convenience and information if we can just keep it that way.  If drones are allowed to do quick delivery any one can get a fresh, hot pizza with 30 minutes without the delivery boy.  As long as certain people in the government and companies can use drones safely and productively, we can experience the convenience and not the mayhem.

Conservative Corner- Battle for the Buzz-kill

Whether it’s the over the counter medication for a simple head cold, high potency prescriptions for illness and allergies, or illicit street drugs for a quick high, Americans seem to have felt the need to self-medicate themselves in order to cope with life’s problems. Many people require medication prescribed by their physician to live and enjoy a normal life; however, there are those people who claim to use some medications and illicit drugs for their “recreational” use.

            Many of us have experience a time of “chemical experimentation”, and our youth may have enjoyed a few parties while being drunk and/or high. However, many of us have grown up, matured and no longer need the aid of recreational drugs. Unfortunately, the effects of overdoses have caused an increase in drug related deaths. According to latimes.com in 2009 drugs surpassed auto accidents in causes of death. About 37,485 people nationally were killed due to drugs.

            We all know drugs can, and do, destroy lifestyles and lives; in Clackamas County, drug deaths increased by 30 percent in 2013. Oregonlive.com tells us that even though heroin and cocaine use has somewhat declined, meth has gone up by 32 percent bring the death toll to 222 in Clackamas County alone. 

            How do we combat the chemical intrusion that kills so many people? That is a question, I believe, that has no easy answer. Unfortunately, we have been battling drug use and overdoes for quite some time. In the 1870’s the first laws were put into effect to control the use of opium, while the early 1900’s seen the first laws directed at cocaine use and marijuana laws first began enforcement in the 1910’s and 20’s.

            In the 1960’s drugs became signs of youth, rebellion, social discontent and political protest. During this time the government stopped doing scientific research for medical safety efficacy according to www.drugpolicy.org.  In June 1971 President Nixon began the War on Drugs and increased the size of the federal drug control agencies.

            President Ronald Reagan increased the offensive when he took office in 1981. His wife, Nancy Reagan, tried helping her husband by taking a major role with the “Just Say No” anti-drug campaign. Even though Bill Clinton was for drug abuse treatment instead of imprisonment, he continued with the same drug war policies that Reagan used.

            Trying to battle America’s use of drugs should still be an active program; unfortunately, we seem to be fighting this “war” the wrong way. CNN.com tells us the United States Government has already spent $1 trillion since 1971 with little to show for it. We need to invest our resources in America’s addicted personalities and a media front about what drugs can do to you.  Too many youngsters use drugs like a rite of passage. Many young people begin to smoke cigarettes to fit in to a group or to act older. We need to find a way to keep our young people from even wanting to try drugs. If the urge to use is taken away, perhaps the market will go as well.

            As I understand some Libertarians want little, to no government intrusion into personal lives, including legalizing all drugs. I am all for limited government, but in my opinion the last thing we need is some moron loaded up on meth, marijuana and, heroin to go crashing into a busload of kindergarteners because his or her head was on the dark side of the moon because drugs were made legal.

            Many people of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, have tried every combination of every drug has been used; the ones who grew up and matured either no longer use or use responsibly. Unfortunately, too many children of those years either never grew up, or have an addictive personality and should have never used drugs to begin with.

            We should not pressure our law makers to legalize illicit drugs just to make more room in the prisons, instead we need to find out why people use in the first place and try to help them keep away from these addictive substances. We also need to get back to the preemies of the old saying, “This is your brain, and this is your brain on drugs, any questions?”  If we can work with the addicted and work to keep kids off drugs, maybe we can make the buzz-kill of drugs complete.

                                             Dkhummel.com, dkhummel.blogspot.com