Blog Archives - Conservative Voice
There are just some basic principles in life that are simply undeniable.  Life is not fair.  Some are born with a silver spoon while others are forced to get a tetanus shot upon birth to cope with all of the rust, erosion and decay they are born into.  The silver spoons fail in life and the oxidized find success.  Just as life is unfair, life has no guarantees; the fate of success in life lies solely in the hand of the believer.

Will of freedom

There comes a time in life when our will must overcome our desire.  It is good to desire more from life, but without the will power to bring such desires to fruition, they are mere daydreams, wants and covets that sour the taste of life itself.  This is an undeniable reality that takes courage to accept.  This reality has a very peculiar relationship with freedom.

Freedom is the right to fail.  It is the ability to try, persist and persevere until the individual opts to yield.   There is nothing in existence that formally forces the pursuit of happiness or success.  Only the choices and will of the individual provides shelter from the risk of pursuing more.  It is what makes America great, it is what America was built to embrace, it is what we are failing to uphold.

Demons and dreams

Lost in the translation of freedom is that the individual is charged with the responsibility of their own journey.  Because some fail, all must be propped up.  Because some find success, the law of the land insists that none shall be entitled to success.  It is maddening.  We grow up wanting more; with the desire to attain and the understanding that the ability to achieve lies within the will of the individual brave enough to dream it to be true.  As some fall short, they are viewed as the direct casualties of those who have succeeded despite that fact that all have started out with the same ambitions.  It has become a transition; from dreams to demons.  We want, yet we seek to punish through political demonizing for finding the success they have spent a lifetime striving for.  Life is unfair and some find success while others do not, but all are free strive for it, all want it, none want a life without it.

It is unfortunate what we are doing to success.  We make a fuss over the millions the outgoing Google CEO will receive, while never comparing it to the 2.6% of the value he brought to Google.  Never considering how hard he worked to achieve in life.  Never contemplating what he lives without because he opted to put work first.  We only see CEO and dollar signs as we are being politically manipulated into believing success is only bad when someone other than us attains it; that not all have found it.

Equal outcomes of the mediocre

It is not a matter of equal outcomes, it is as impossible to provide equal outcomes as it is impossible for all to be the coveted CEO.  This however, does not make success wrong.  Our current obsession with the other and the success they find only hinders our own individual journeys through life.  If the other is bad for finding it, we should not pursue it, we should instead bide our time to allow government to provide to us our fair share.  It is easier and it comes without the risk, without the hard work, without the sacrifice and without the social dysfunction that often accompanies true success.  Our dreams lessen to the mediocre which we have ill fatedly learned to celebrate.  Our desires fail to find the challenge of will power.  We become less as we learn to settle for what others feel is best for us out of their own perverse envious, obsession of the other.

Is it time to topple the castle?  Many in Sierra Vista now believe the Castle Doctrine over extends the rights of gun owners and the associated use of force that consequently comes with it.  And do you know what?  All things considered right now, I really can’t say that I blame them. 

The general problem is the big picture and the specific problem with the Castle Doctrine is what preceded it. 

Once upon a time, and not too long ago in Arizona the dilemma was not whether you owned a gun, but whether you were foolish enough to use it.  If you did, not matter the situation, you were GUILTY and then had to justify your choice of force, which is incredibly subjective, as to why you used it.  Because of this,many a zonin’ Arizonans are confined to very small spaces courtesy of state  thanks to the liberal la la land 9th District Court.  The law was a layup shot for prosecutors because, believe it or not, a person, BY LAW, was guilty first and to be proven innocent, had to prove their own justification.  The subjectivity of the situation failed to accommodate the fact that all people react differently when threatened.  All it took was the wrong person to say they would have run away instead of use a gun. 

The Castle Doctrine returned the right to be innocent until proven guilty.  It however, is an aggressive, expressed legal representation of the right to self defense.  “I would have run away.” becomes absolutely meaningless under the Castle Doctrine.  “You messed with the wrong dude.” is what the doctrine very overtly states.

The Castle Doctrine returned rights to the people and in doing so, a significant amount of the prior “subjectivity” was suddenly removed in ways that some may find surprising.  The Castle Doctrine is based upon five sweeping principles.

1)      Justification defenses were removed.  The burden of proof was returned to the prosecution; not the defense (self defender).

2)      No duty to retreat.  This also expanded beyond the home and vehicle, but also to include wherever the self defender was present.

3)      The self defender is presumed to be justified in using force if he or she believes that they OR ANOTHER PERSON is / are in immanent peril.

4)      The self defender is presumed innocent when using force if the perpetrator is unlawfully entering their residence or vehicle.  It is the prosecutor who must prove force was not justified.

5)      If the aggressor sues and the self defender wins, the aggressor is required to pay all legal fees and lost wages.

Though the Castle Doctrine is not all that new to Arizona, it is the mindset of the years preceding it that persist.  A handful of years or so ago, a self defender was pretty much hauled straight to jail because they were by law guilty until they proved themselves innocent.  Today that is not the case.  The burden is on the prosecution.  If there is to be a case against a self defender, it will not instantly appear.  The prosecutor will, through due process, first have to establish a winnable case.  This, though correct in all reasonable legal terms, defies the expectation that was built on a hijacked legal process against Second Amendment rights to give prosecutors victories through an essential default of guilt.

In short, what this means is that when a self defender actually is not, it takes more time to bring the case forth.  Any such perceived delay, does not proclaim a perceived innocence.  The due process is appropriate given the return of the burden of proof to where it should always lie; on the prosecution, not the defense.

On the other side, the Castle Doctrine represents an air of caution when confronting another.  Because the doctrine reaches the physical presence of the self defender “castle” should not be thought of as (it was intended,) the home.  This extension of presence enables force under due threat regardless of location.  A force that is protected by a law that sides with the self defender.

I hope this helps.

My goal for the day was to write two articles; I failed – sort of.  So now I will have to settle for an article and a blog.  The good news is that this blog is to help my fellow writers, political and otherwise.

As a writer, I, like most, have a wide range of interests, curiosities, thoughts, passions and likes – all of which are a joy to write about.  Writing for Examiner allows me to fully express my interests in politics, but that only quenches the thirst of one of a myriad of topics I would like to write about. 

And along comes Suite 101 which allows me to write about virtually any topic of interest.  Since writing for Suite 101, I decided to place more emphasis on Search Engine Optimization (SEO).  The practice came easy; keywords, tags, anchor text, all of which enhances Google’s chances of finding your article.  You write and then you practice SEO.  What could be better than that?  Hardly anything, until you actually do it the way many (including Suite 101) suggest. 

In my practices and setting my website, discovered was the usefulness of Google Trends.  It was always my intent to examine first what was trending heavily and write on the subject matter which was of most interest at the time.  This morning Google Trends ( had a “hot topic” that fascinated me; the 13th zodiac sign.  Curious, I started reading and discovered that the new zodiac sign Ophiuchus just happened to be mine as it replaces Sagittarius’ position in the chart.  A perfect trending article to write!  The article posted online at 5:02PM.

Four hours later the time has arrived for article number two for the day.  Step one, Google Trends.  What I discovered was shocking!  Of the top ten “hot topics,” 4 through 10 were directly pertaining to my article of four hours ago.  Of the top ten “hot searches,” one through ten all matched the tags, key words and anchor text of the article less one, “horoscope” (which I should have thought through when putting the final touches on the article).  This of course made me revisit my article.

In four hours time my cumulative page views more than DOUBLED!  As I write this, the article is currently receiving 10 reads every minute.  When you are getting paid to write, this is a very good thing.

Of course luck is involved.  This topic just happened to catch my eye.  I could have just as easily selected one of the other nine options, or the two topics above it and missed out on such success, but when you have the opportunity to go with what is trending, things are always better than ignoring such hot topics.

Don’t get me wrong, I will still write want I want to write, or what I feel is important to write about.  This will just be balanced against what needs to be written about for the benefit of generating appropriate readership.

Just a lesson I learned today that I thought was worth sharing with my fellow writers.

James Madison
Perhaps it is best to open with a bit of history (which is now relegated to the archives of American trivia) to shed some light on an ever fleeting aspect of Americanism.

On June 8th, 1789, James Madison introduced to the House of Representatives a draft of the First Amendment: ''The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.''  The special committee to some extent rewrote the proposed Amendment: ''The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.” In this form it went to the Senate and in due process it was once again rewritten: ''That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.''

When we think about the First Amendment, we must first think of why it exists, especially when it comes to the freedom of speech.  If certain forms of speech were not offensive to some, speech would not need protections under the Constitution.  Speech and the freedom thereof, are a right to protect the expression of that which some may deem controversial or offensive.

In doing so, the burden of responsibility has been placed on the receiver of a given message, not the sender!  Today, this point is being grossly overlooked by those most protected by the Amendment; the media.  Case in point; CNN Radio’s Lisa Desjardins who is currently working on a three part series addressing the “anger” and “hateful” nature of politics.  This of course brought into the limelight after Saturday’s slaying of the innocent in Tucson, AZ.   

Desjardins started her series by singling out friend and fellow Examiner writer Jesse Mathewson.  To make her point, Desjardins took exception to Jesse’s active and very open position against immigration enforcement measures in the state of Arizona while questioning his direct approach in his articles attacking strategies below the formal levels of the law to tighten immigration in a region economically stricken by illegal immigration.  This of course was exploited as she passively assaulted Jesse’s right to speak freely in her defense of those who may be offended by such speech.

Largely this has been the tone of America.  Are we saying things too tersely that leads to an atmosphere in which violence may be a secondary by-product?  What is missing is the intent of the First Amendment from its initial form, to the final Amendment right of all Americans.  The tragedy in Tucson, though horrid, has lent itself to a debate aiming to protect the receiver of messages and away from what the right actually protects.  This is a passive aggressive attack on the U.S. Constitution, its Amendments and the rights granted to the people under it.  The problem is that Americans see interviews such as this as being benign and not for the malignancy of anti-Americanism they actually represent.

The issue that lies before the American people is not in what is being stated, it is the lack of the enforcement of the responsibility of respecting freedom even when we do not fully agree with the controversies it brings forth.  When speech is expressed in a manner that is not desirable to some, and they in turn go forth and act violently against it; it is they whom have failed freedom – it is not the sender, but the receiver who is wrong.  Like it or not, this how America was formed to be. 

As the nation moves forward in trying to understand the acts of Saturday, January 8th, 2011, we struggle to make sense of that which will simply never make sense.  It is out of desperation that our struggle inappropriately extends itself to defend the lowest common sensibility and in doing so we move further and further away from freedom.

Immigration is an area in which Jesse and I have never seen eye to eye and probably never will.  This however, does not define our relationship; it accentuates our relationship.  This is due to the simple fact that we not only respect each other, but we respect each other’s rights as Americans.  Respect for the rights of fellow Americans is what the mainstream media is thwarting through its irresponsible reporting and representations of “angry” and “hurtful.”  Spirited debate is demonized because it suggests that an opposing view has been offended into defending itself.  America is moving away from the burden of freedom out of a gross lack of respect for and ignorance of freedom itself.

OK look.  Little is more upsetting than an atrocity of integrity for president.  And that is what Obama is and why he has lost so much support, so fast.  He doesn’t even attempt to be sly.  He just blatantly lies to the people and moves on with his own agenda against the people. 

Administration of deceit

We have seen this repeatedly starting with a stimulus that failed to deliver on promises he knew it couldn’t keep; it was what was needed at the time to further weaken an already threatened economy which served as the catalyst for a wave of recession extending government sponsored programs.  We listened to him directly criticize conditions in the AZ immigration enforcement law and turn to have the exact same provisions installed into a failed DREAM Act.  That of course got under my skin.

For months I listened to people complaining about HOW DARE WE REQUIRE IMMIGRANTS TO CARRY IDENTIFICATION ON THEM AT ALL TIMES.  This little fire was started by the Obama administration and fueled by people who failed to understand that such a requirement is a FEDERAL LAW.  When this found its way into the DREAM Act… silence.  This silence clearly stated the people would object carrying identification if it could be used to determine their unlawful status, but were perfectly fine with it if it meant the law breaking were suddenly “legal.” Such hypocrisy is maddening because it just goes to show how shallow and weak minded supporters against a cause and against the law can be.  They become supports of no cause, led by a supposed supporter of Human and Civil Rights; that only wished to tax illegal immigrants while selling a lie that he gave a crap about them and their well being.

And then there is the health care reform LIE.  It was Obama who bested Clinton in saying he would NEVER MANDATE health insurance in the US because he WOULD NEVER BURDEN the American people with the mandated expense.  This of course was determined to be unconstitutional as states lined up to protect themselves from the financial burden of the program.  One of the least discussed aspects of Obamacare is just that; the burden it places on the individual states.  The program expands a grossly failing Medicaid program that is suffering funding cuts while at the same time the Obama administration wishes to expand the demographics of those eligible for the program.  Though in ideology this is enticing to many, the math does just not add up.  You cannot cut funding to a program you are expanding and expect positive results.  The Obama administration was called out on this by the states who had determined the obvious.  What the Obama administration did was implement a program, cut funding and stuck the individual states with the shortfall (with the exception of Nevada whose elected official (Bart Stupak) who later decide to not run for re-election) sold his vote against the program to Obama’s offer (bribe) to cover health care reform costs for the state).  When the states called the federal government to the table to discuss these issues; the Obama administration literally walk away leaving the already economically crushed states to fend for their selves.  When you look at the happenings of health care reform, repeal should be based on principle, constitutionalism and economics.

Virtual and value of repeal

The Republican House of the 112th Congress has decided to go forward with, "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act."  OK, stop; just stop!

The Republican takeover of the House was too easy because it is this is the type of crap Obama led the 111th to do!  All rhetoric and no principle!  There is just reason to repeal the health care reform law and the just cause in doing so is the only reasonable approach to repeal. 

In all honesty, job killing could be a possible effect of Obamacare, but let’s face it; job killing was included in the title solely to elicit emotive response against the program long before it is proven to an actual detrimental aspect of the program (rhetoric).  This Obama like strategy is the exact opposite of why the 112th has been put in place by a population voting against Obama, his rhetoric and his lies.

Repeal it because the individual states were stuck with funding a federal program which they simply cannot afford to do.  Repeal it because the general population supports the repeal of the program.  Repeal it because the general population was against it while their elected officials supported it in defiance of their electorates.  Here’s a novel idea for the 112th Congress; REPEAL IT BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! 

Understand this; the 112th Congress is in place for the right reasons.  This of course does not mean they will follow the will of the people.  It is the people whom they work for, that is the way America was founded to be.  In their desire to repeal health care reform, they MUST go about it in the correct manner; nothing less should be tolerated by the people.  Here we already have them trying to do the right thing, but going about it the wrong way.

This shows you the impact Obama has had on American politics.  It is in direct spite of this that the 112th Congress was elected.  In doing the right thing, we must insist that they do it the right way.  They must explain to the people that the states have been collectively stuck with the tab on the federal takeover.  Explain that the mandate and the lie it represents is unconstitutional and goes against the very fabric of America in that it unravels Americanism.  This is not rocket science, but it is a matter of principle and integrity. 

American principles first

The day of expecting more from congress has passed.  It has yielded to a day of demanding more from and of congress.  Today, less than a third of Americans feel America is on the right path.  As alarming as this is, if the nation remains on a course of special interests that go against the will of the people it will become the norm and America will be lost to an era of political rhetoric and agendas against the people.

The election of the 112th Congress will only be of positive consequence if the remaining two thirds of Americans voice the virtues and values on which this great nation was based.  America is only lost when the people of her fail in seeking her out from the toils of internal self destruction.

Associated Press. "Tea party target Stupak won’t seek re-election ." 09 04 2010. MSNBC; Decision 2010. 05 01 2011 <>.

Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton. Ohio debate/Obama, Hillary on health care MSNBC. 2008 26 02.

Devitt, Caitlin. "Health Care Reform Likely To Cost States, Moody’s Says." 29 04 2010. Financial Planning. 05 01 2011 <>.

Freddoso, David. "Cantor's Obamacare repeal bill goes online." 03 01 2011. Huffington Post. 05 01 2011 <>.

Gov, Arizona State. "Text of Arizona's Anti-Illegal Immigration Law - Part 1." 25 04 2010. KEYTLaw, a legal information resource. 05 01 2011 <>.

Johnson, Paul. "Bart Stupak. Political Suicide or the Lesser Evil?" 9 4 2010. Examiner. 05 01 2011 <>.

—. "Why the DREAM Act Failed." 21 12 2010. Examiner. 05 01 2011 <>.

LEAHY), Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. "DREAM Act of 2010 (text)." 30 11 2010. Opencongress. 05 01 2011 <>.

Picket, Kerry. "Ariz. immigration law mirrors federal version but with state enforcement." 26 04 2010. Washington Times. 05 01 2011 <>.

Weiner, Rachel. "Poll: Voters Reject Health Care Mandate Without Public Option, Medicare Buy-In." 03 06 2010. Huffington Post. 05 01 2011 <>.

Rachel Maddow is back in the conservative spotlight and being criticized for a comment she made about the incoming Republican takeover of the House.  “Watch what the Republics do, not what they say.” she said of the Republicans and their claim to be the new party of fiscal responsibility.  (Not something aptly demonstrated in the past mind you)!

Several things come to mind.  The first of which; she is right and conservatives rebutting such a comment are doing so out of closed minded and stubborn ignorance.  What we know about government and any political orientation associated with it, is that the rhetoric far exceeds the impact of any truths stemming from it.  Both Democratic and Republican administrations are blatantly guilty of this.  Suddenly, a liberal news personality calls it correctly and conservatives want to have beef with it.  Is the beef because conservatives want to “hear” rhetoric from DC that is in line with their values… ONLY?  Is it that conservatives feel threatened by being called out by an expectation the Republicans actually deliver on their spoken intent?

We can split hairs on this if we want.  Should we overlook it because it is coming from a liberal?  Absolutely not!  It was the conservative vote that delivered these Republicans to office and it should be the conservatives who hold the Republican’s feet to the fire in undoing the Obama regime’s internal destruction of America.

What Americans do not understand is that America was designed in a manner that bestowed upon the people the power to overthrow the government and make it into a government of their choosing.  That is what Obama represents; an overthrow of Americanism.  Under our constitution, the people have the power of ultimate rule.  This where the Modern Liberal has found control of America with the intent to deliver America to a Europeanized Union of States. 

The steps to returning America to her former self have been taken, but are meaningless without the elected Republicans making good on why they were elected.  It is not a matter of “watching what the Republicans do,” it is a matter of forcing the Republicans to do what is right for America.  Accountability is a self expectation of any good conservative in America and accountability MUST be demanded from Washington.

We have watched for two years how the Obama administration has stated one thing and done the complete opposite in order to advance their own agenda over the  interests of the people.  We have listened to how health care would not entail a mandate and watched a coup against the constitution delivered by a lying US President who used political corruption to pass a bill against his own personal promises to an entire nation.  We have listened to how a stimulus would save America from her economic woes and watched the delivery of fiscal policy that was so large it not only indebted the current generations, but the forth coming generation because the bill itself was delivered in such a manner that Obama’s own party was denied the opportunity even read.  We have listened to a US President standing in front of our very constitution and declare how he would seek means to circumvent it and now watch as the promise to undermine the constitution comes to fruition.  What Rachel Maddow is saying is that we cannot allow the Republicans to be anything like these Democrats in office today!  How a person could contest such a notion is beyond me.

Granted, some are going to claim that these assertions are meaningless because of Rachel Maddow herself.  But when you stop to think about it, it was Rachel that broke the story on how Obama wanted to circumvent the constitution while having the gull to announce as much while standing directly in front of it; almost as if he were metaphorically urinating on it.  More objectivity exists with her than people give credit for.  Is she slanted?  Of course, but name any pundit from a given side that is not.  In as much, there are times when a criticism holds truth when you are willing, confident, secure and strong enough to listen to it. 

Americanism is in decline because the American citizen has grossly taken America and the freedom she represents for granted.  Through our passive citizenry we have yielded the helm of freedom to the progressive, socialist inclined, liberal anti-American. 

Lost is the freedom of the individual pursuit of happiness as it has fallen to a false sense of entitlement and economic enslavement by a government seeking absolute control under the guise of the absolution of the individual. 

This wrong can be righted, but only if we as a people hold to account those whom we have elected to do so.  Where Rachel Maddow is wrong is that it is not a matter of “watching;” it is a matter of insisting upon true and wholesome conservatives values as expressed with the compassion for our fellow man.


It is just incredible what is happening in America!  If you are wondering why America is such decline, it is because people such as this exist within America.