The Conservative Edge

Jonah Goldberg wrote a column that was recently featured in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. Goldberg wrote about the statement made by Obama that he is not an “ideologue.” Goldberg countered that Obama is indeed an adherent to an ideology. Most politicians are, I suppose, but the liberals seem to be more radically aligned with an idea or set of ideals.

One of the editors from the Dayton Daily News claimed that Obama wasn’t an ideologue, but more of a pragmatist. That doesn’t explain why Obama took an entire year to realize he’d better do something about the economy. Anyway, I decided to respond to the editor on the newspaper’s website. I thought the response might make a good blog post, as follows:

“The liberals’ actions clearly reveal a consistent adherence to an ideology. Generally speaking, the principle components of liberal ideology are that corporate profits and individual wealth are both evil; wealth, in fact, must be redistributed; growth of government is necessary and good; and the rights of the individual are subordinate to the greater society. These ideas have caused every president since Jimmy Carter to punish the very businesses that provide goods and services. Carter had his obsession with “windfall profit taxes” against oil companies; and one of the first acts of the Obama administration was to levy outrageous taxes on tobacco, another industry hated by liberals.

“The liberals seek to create a dependency on government. That is why they want to reduce our wealth by way of taxes and redistribution; eliminate our right to self-defense; and restrict our right to pursue happiness, especially if that happiness comes from enjoying a cigar (just ask Michael Jordan), driving a fast car, or building a profitable business. Jimmy Carter tried to accuse the American people of harboring a “malaise.” He never stopped to think, as liberals seldom do, that the liberal ideology created,and still creates, a despair among free Americans.”

You can view the editorial opinion page of the Dayton Daily News here. Feel free to tell the editors what you think about the liberal ideology.

I didn’t watch President Obama’s State of the Union address. That was no accident. I didn’t tune in for two reasons: first, I knew the speech would be extensively published and reviewed, so I wouldn’t be missing anything; second, I didn’t care to witness Obama’s lack of accountability (from himself, his party, and the media) in defaulting on his campaign promises.

It seems that Obama spent roughly two-thirds of his speech explaining what he intends to do about the sputtering economy. Of course, he is not the only one responsible for crafting economic policy. However, the Democrats have always campaigned on their economic expertise. They claim to know what it takes to either cure a recession or accelerate economic growth. Bill Clinton became President by affirming his plan to pull America from the mild recession of the early 1990s. Obama was no different in 2008. He vowed that his administration would give a “quick jolt” to the economy, and that lots of new jobs would be made as green energy technology flourished.

On January 27, 2010, after one full year in office, Obama promised that he would make job growth his top priority. This begs the question: if job growth was NOT a priority, then what WAS his top priority? And why has it taken so long for him to give attention to the American economy?

Sadly, there were priorities that Obama and the Democrats had in mind. Some of the highlights: in January of 2009, they slapped additional taxes on tobacco products; they decided the government should own General Motors; Obama felt the need to apologize to foreign countries for America’s previous behavior; the Democrats reneged on Obama’s promise of transparency as they tried to pass health care legislation without debate, discussion, or acceptance by the American people; Obama “called out” Glenn Beck and Fox News; Obama traveled to Europe to plead for the Olympics to be held in Chicago; Obama pocketed a million bucks for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Those were just some of the items on the Democrats’ “to-do” list.

So, it becomes apparent that job creation never was a top priority. For all their self-proclaimed expertise, the Democrats do not understand that reducing unemployment is the key to economic recovery. Rebate programs like “Cash for Clunkers” mean nothing to people who are struggling to buy groceries or pay their mortgages. Obama’s chastisement of “fat cat” bankers may make us feel good for a while, but feelings don’t pay the bills.

Let’s hope that Obama and the Democrats really do get serious about fixing America’s economic problems. If they do not give heed, there will surely be more losses for the Democrats in upcoming elections. And they won’t have anyone to blame but themselves.

The altruists have kicked into high gear this week after a 7.0 magnitude earthquake rocked the country of Haiti. Roughly a third of Haiti’s 9 million people have been directly affected by the earthquake and subsequent 40 tremors and aftershocks. Not surprisingly, the celebrities, athletes, and other famous folks have made headlines regarding their donations to Haiti rescue efforts, as well as urging Americans to open their pockets and send money to help the victims.

It is not pleasant to see people suffer from natural calamities that wipe out homes, villages, and cities. Nature does not discriminate; it can overwhelm people regardless of culture, wealth, or social standing. But there are certain facts we should consider lest we are made to feel guilty for withholding our charity.

The first thing we should think of is how the Haitian government could be so incompetent in providing basic necessities for its constituents. Even though Haiti has not been a model of stability, one would think that some priority would have been given to the construction of roads, schools, hospitals, and water supplies. The Associated Press revealed in a recent article that “1 in 8 children in Haiti dies before age 5. The life expectancy is 59 to 62 years. Malaria, typhoid and dengue fevers and other life-threatening illnesses long ago wiped out in the industrialized world still plague Haiti.”

It seems that at some point the countries who send the most in foreign aid should hold the recipient of that aid accountable. What has the Haitian government been doing with all of the money it has been receiving for the past several years? American citizens were upset with the federal government for its mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina cleanup, yet they don’t give a second thought as to how their tax dollars have been wasted by the Haitian government.

The AP has also reported that “much of the U.S. government’s aid to Haiti comes through the Agency for International Development, which has provided at least $800 million from budget years 2004 through 2008, agency figures show.” Yet, the report continues, “Haiti is one of the poorest places on Earth. Most basic public services are lacking, people typically live on less than $2 a day, nearly half the population is illiterate and the government has a history of instability. The public has little opportunity to be sure that aid to the government is used honestly and well.”

So, Haiti has received almost a billion dollars over four of the last five years, and they don’t have drinking water, schools, and a road system? That doesn’t seem like a very good return on our investment. A good portion of that 800 million dollars came from tax revenues collected from American people. In other words, most of us have already been sending money to Haiti. Apparently, our giving has gone for naught. And there is no guarantee that our contributions for earthquake relief will be used as intended.

I am content to let the “fat cat” actors, singers, athletes, politicians, and other activists send their donations to Haiti. Many Americans are still facing job losses, falling wages, higher energy and tuition costs, and plunging home values. Those who are struggling here at home need not feel shamed for refusing to jump on the altruist bandwagon. Maybe it’s time for some of the other industrialized nations to shoulder the load for disaster relief efforts. Time, too, for America to see to its own economic disaster recovery.

There are a couple of words that have become more prominent in my vocabulary, and I would like to introduce them to readers of this blog. The words are statists and collectivists. Both words actually refer to the same group of people. You might otherwise know them as socialists, Marxists, and liberals. Not coincidentally, most of these people belong to the Democratic Party.

Statists and collectivists believe that the individual is only a part of a greater whole, that is, national or global society. You might view statists as people who think that the State (the Federal government) is all-powerful, capable of directing and controlling all individuals for the benefit of society. The collectivists hold a similar view; they believe that goods and wealth should be collected and redistributed, so that no individual should be more prosperous than another. In either case, the individual essentially has no rights, especially those that pertain to the attainment of wealth, and the procurement of self-defense.

John Holden, science adviser to President Obama, has been quoted as saying that America “must design a stable, low-consumption economy…redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential.” This is why the government has been most active in time of economic crisis. The Obama administration, with cooperation from the liberals, has swiftly implemented laws and regulations that will bring about the desired redistribution. For instance, there is now a cap on the earnings of doctors and corporate executives. The salary of Bank of America’s president is now zero. Furthermore, the government has also displayed its ability to fire private-sector executives, such as Rick Wagoner of GM. It is interesting, too, that GM had at least 8 separate divisions before Obama was elected; but soon, GM will be reduced to only four, as Pontiac, Hummer, Saab, and Saturn will likely be shut down.

Apparently (and unfortunately), the message that capitalism has caused our economic problems is being accepted by American society. In a Rasmussen Reports survey conducted in April 2009, only 53 percent of Americans believed that capitalism was better than socialism; another survey of adults under 30 showed that 37 percent favored capitalism, while 33 percent preferred socialism (30 percent was undecided). The federal government would no doubt like to improve on that 33 percent figure. That’s why President Obama continues to demonize the financial institutions, referring to bankers as “fat cats.” The more that capitalism and free enterprise ideals are discredited, the more likely it is that American citizens will accept a socialist, totalitarian dictatorship implemented by the statists and collectivists of the Democratic party.

It is almost unimaginable that a third of young American adults would prefer a socialist government. Even the mighty Soviet Union collapsed under its totalitarian communist/socialist regime. The American economic system of free enterprise has resulted in a high standard of living for its people that has far surpassed that of any other nation. The men who framed our system of government realized that it was individual rights, not state rights, that would ensure a free and prosperous nation. We should support the economic engine that has secured the rights we do have, secured the country against foreign powers of evil, and virtually saved the world twice in the twentieth century. Long live capitalism!

One thing that readers of this blog can expect to see is a new title for this site. I felt that January 1 was an appropriate day to change the name to “The Conservative Edge.” It seemed necessary to express a greater purpose for this blog, and to also imply that conservative and independent Americans should have a finer “edge” that can slice through the negative anti-American ideology of the liberal movement.

Conservatives had best be honing their blades with the whetstones of intelligence and objectivity. Hiding behind our more virtuous lifestyles is not enough to resist the coming of a totalitarian, party-based dictatorship. Conservatives MUST learn how to communicate effectively, especially in the realm of public speaking. We must write, speak, and make sure that our ideas are heard and known.

Conservatives must not be content to be pigeonholed and stereotyped into the uncouth, illiterate crowd that liberals have created for anyone who disagree with them. It is actually our patriotic duty to offer our dissenting views, especially when our ideals are based on reason and intellect.

Otherwise, we can expect a tighter noose that is now strangling the life out of the Constitutional principle of personal freedom, and the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. The liberal movement is implementing an agenda that is designed to make Americans so unhappy and despondent, that they turn to big government for very subsistence. And when that happens, the liberals will have control and will usher in an era of party dictatorship.

Remember this lesson from history: Adolf Hitler did not seize power in Germany all at once; he manipulated the political parties, and made coalitions with them, resulting in Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor by the aged German president. The Nazis’ motto was: “Dictatorship by Democracy.” We are witnessing the same development of absolute power in America. Conservatives—sharpen your “edge”!

Religion is a funny thing. It’s sort of like water—it has equal capacity to either sustain or kill any human being. Some people (a shrinking minority of individuals) can develop an acute sense of morality as a result of their particular religious beliefs. On the other hand, far too many people misuse their faith, seeking to control or rule other persons.

This desire to attain supreme authority is not limited to Bible-believing Christians or even jihadists who follow the Koran. Religion takes many shapes and forms, and there are certainly more gods who are worshiped besides the One who created the Earth. We must remember that religion is based on faith, not reality. Faith must also be expressed and preached by someone with enough charisma, skill, and determination so that his ideals might be accepted and, ultimately, never questioned.

I am particularly reminded of one fellow in the Bible, a man named Simon, mentioned in the Book of Acts. He claimed to be some great power of God, and asserted himself so effectively, that he completely controlled the minds and behaviors of the people who lived in his city. The only way his spell could be broken was by the revelation of a new religion that emphasized freedom and healing over mind control. Simon lost his following when the new religion swept through the town.

Alas, Simon still lives. He lives because faith can still be used in this 21st century to control, manipulate, and subdue. The deity worshiped today is Mother Earth, and her disciples are many. High priests like Al Gore demand that we accept his ideals on faith, not reason or careful consideration. Claims are made that a majority of experts agree with him, even though it is entirely possible that a majority can be wrong. We are urged to accept computer projections of earth’s warming instead of proven laboratory tests and concrete evidence. Just as Gore and other liberals might suggest that God cannot be real because He cannot be proven to exist, Gore’s own theory of global warming cannot be proven either.

It has been said that a tyrant’s stated desire to save the world only conceals his true desire to rule the world. The people who would benefit most from a re-engineering of American society are the high priests such as Gore who are already set to benefit from the energy industries they endorse. The citizens of America, meanwhile, will be left with growing energy bills, shrinking transportation freedom, higher unemployment, and a general stranglehold on pursuits of liberty, wealth and happiness.

In the Biblical story about Simon, it is obvious that there was no liberty, wealth or happiness in his town. Religion and faith had been used (misused, one might say) by Simon to achieve a dictatorship. The same thing will happen today if Gore and the other false disciples successfully subdue America in the name of Mother Earth.

President Obama recently hammered the executives of the largest banks/financial institutions, calling them “fat cats” who should stop taking advantage of the American people. It wasn’t enough that Obama appointed a “pay czar” that gets to decide how much corporate executives can earn. Now Obama is calling them names, just to rub some salt into the wounds.

In truth, there are a lot of people who despise the rich bank executives. And it is equally true that many banks have oppressive fees and other regulations. Some mistrust of banking operations is to be expected. However, the American people should be just as upset with the growing size of the federal government and the earnings of government workers.

The USA Today just released its study of federal government pay data. The results show that, during the first year and a half of the economic downturn, six-figure salaries jumped from 14% of all civil servants to 19%. Additionally, in the same time frame, the Transportation Department went from having one employee making at least $170,000 to having 1,690 people earning that amount. This means that those 1,690 people in that department earn at least 287 million dollars. God only knows what the payout is for all of the people employed at the Transportation Department.

The liberals supposedly have such care and compassion for the Average Joe. But it is hypocritical for the Obama administration, and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, to publicly skewer private sector executives for their pay scales, while government workers get larger salaries. This kind of growth in government is the last thing we need in recessionary times.

I wonder how many bankers it would take to earn $287,000,000?

It just keeps getting worse. Overshadowing the historic significance of December 7, the Environmental Protection Agency has today announced that it can regulate auto emissions and greenhouse gases without any legislation being passed by Congress.

As the Reuters news organization reported, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday cleared the way for regulation of greenhouse gases without new laws passed by Congress, reflecting President Barack Obama’s commitment to act on climate change as a major summit opened in Copenhagen.” The news report also quoted Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, who said “This administration will not ignore science or the law any longer.”

The trouble is, the Obama administration is developing a callous disregard for any opposing views, and even the law itself. The White House has already stripped the Department of Commerce from its oversight of the upcoming 2010 Census, and has in fact been feuding with the department all year. Furthermore, the Constitution empowers Congress to make laws concerning trade and commerce. If the EPA makes good on its threats to regulate the auto industry, manufacturing plants, and utilities outside of Congressional law, the agency will violate the ideals expressed by our most fundamental document.

By regulating emissions, the EPA will surely be affecting the very industries involved in production, trade, and commerce. Enforcing auto emission standards (and I would assume truck emissions as well) will have a direct influence on the trucking, shipping, and transporting industries. Manufacturers, already hit hard by increasing unemployment compensation taxes, will be further decimated by tighter emission regulations. The only way many industries will be able to lower greenhouse gas output will be to reduce production output in proportion. This will result in decreased manufacturing activity, and will translate into more job losses in the future. The power utilities will no doubt pass higher operational costs to the consumer, which will likely result in higher utility bills. More money going to pay the electric bill will mean less money going into the economy.

The Obama administration and the congressional Democrats are running roughshod over the American people. I am reminded of a passage in the Book of Revelation, where it describes a horrible beast, and asks “Who is like the beast? And who can make war with the beast?” That is what our government is turning into—a terrible beast that becomes so powerful, it can do what it wants, and nobody can fight it. This group of vipers in Washington is cloaking its thirst for power behind a seemingly innocent ideal—that of saving the environment.

If you want an idea of what America will become, just look at the Russia of the 1990s. When Russia collapsed, industry and energy output crashed as well. Russian greenhouse gas output declined so drastically, that the carbon emissions fell well below levels permitted by law. As a result, Russia now has lots of energy credits it can sell, because it piled up those credits in the economic collapse of the 1990s.

That is where the Obama administration is taking this country. The only way to satisfy the EPA’s tighter standards will be to shrink our economic output. We will be sure to stagnate, just as Russia did just over a decade ago. Welcome to the USSA—the United Socialist States of America.

Most of us have probably seen or heard the studies about the health benefits from the consumption of coffee. I seem to recall that coffee can help prevent the development of colon cancer, among other things.

But another reason to keep drinking the java has to do with environmental health, instead of human health. Apparently, fireplace logs are now being made from coffee grounds. There are two reasons for the invention of these “Java logs.” Firstly, coffee grounds supposedly take up a lot of space in landfills. Secondly, coffee grounds are said to emit 78 percent less carbon monoxide than wood when burned.

I find this all a bit pointless, especially the idea of coffee grounds being bad for landfills. Coffee grounds are prime ingredients for the making of compost. That’s because the grounds are biodegradable. Compost can be made from leaves, twigs, egg shells, banana peels, apple peelings, grass clippings, and, yes, even coffee grounds. All of the previously mentioned ingredients can be combined in a drum or other container, and with proper dampening and agitation, they become organic compost material that is beneficial for gardens and flower beds.

This is just another manifestation of the borderline paranoia that resides in the various environmentalist movements. Indeed, I believe California has already instituted a restriction on fireplaces in any new home built within the state. There are even bans on tobacco smoking at many California beaches, parks, and golf courses. Reasonable concerns for environmental stewardship has instead grown into a radical political and social ideal that is being used to control and manipulate our lives. Something is terribly wrong when a guy like Michael Jordan can’t enjoy a cigar during a golf outing without being fined. Oh well—at least he can afford to pay the penalty.

It’s no wonder the Democrats don’t want us to read the health care legislation being rammed through Congress. If we were allowed time to peruse the hundreds of pages, we might find that gun owners could face higher rates for health insurance, thanks to the Centers for Disease and Control.

That’s right—the CDC is violating a congressional ban enacted during the 1990s, in which Congress forbid the CDC to conduct studies on any kind of relationship between gun-related injuries and health care costs. The reason for the ban was to prevent any taxpayer-funded “research” being done by a government entity that would endorse tighter gun control laws.

Apparently, the Obama administration isn’t too concerned with a government agency acting unethically. The CDC is continuing its “research” on gun violence and its impact on health care costs. The results of the studies are being included in the pending health care legislation that will be debated in the Senate after Thanksgiving. So, even though the Democrats are outwardly concerned with the plight of the uninsured, they are secretly finding new ways to discourage gun ownership by increasing every conceivable cost associated with legally owning firearms. Just think—soon your health insurance applications will have a section asking you how many guns you own, and if so, what kind. If you confess to owning one, you’ll be put into a “high-risk” category.

Is that what health care “reform” is all about? If you don’t like the deceptive tactics of the CDC and Congress, contact your Senators. You can also read more about this issue at the Buckeye Firearms Association website, by following this link. Don’t let our government destroy our constitutional freedoms!