The Conservative Edge

This past Friday (February 20), President Obama held a conference in Washington with 80 mayors from various American cities. Present in the group was Rhine McLin, mayor of Dayton, Ohio. She stated that it was “refreshing” that Obama would take such an interest in cities, and how “invested” the mayors feel in successfully implementing the stimulus bill.

This “implementation” isn’t just a casual phrase to make small-town mayors feel good. Rather, it’s part of a strategic plan by the Obama administration. Now is Obama’s time to establish the network that will transfer federal monies to new urban areas that will be redrawn after the 2010 Census. Mayor McLin told the Dayton Daily News that Obama plans on “naming mayors to advisory councils,” and that he would be “relying on them to spend their portion of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan wisely.” Obama said he would use the full power of his office to ensure that federal funds are used properly.

Furthermore, McLin said that Obama had named the nation’s first Director of Urban Affairs. This Director will be charged with working with the mayors, especially those who are appointed to the advisory counsels. Don’t underestimate the power these councils will hold. Obama’s meeting with the mayors was also attended by the U.S. Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Education, Energy and Transportation. Apparently, this network of mayors, through the advisory councils, supervised by the Director of Urban Affairs, will have authority granted by the Attorney General to determine education and economic policies.

And just who predominately lives in these urban areas? I remember seeing the 2008 presidential election results, broken down into county-by-county statistics for the state of Ohio. Most of the counties were “red” which voted for the Republican candidate. The fewer “blue” counties were those which had higher populations concentrated in bigger cities. Cleveland, Dayton, and several other cities all voted Democratic. Now, imagine what could happen if these areas get additional federal money after the Census is taken. Will there be even more liberal changes in school curriculums? Will there be more federal funding of abortion programs? Will there be a concerted effort to ban gun ownership? Will small businesses collapse as government workers become more numerous and authoritative?

I have been sounding the alarm about the grass-roots organization that Obama is building. He isn’t working from the top down; he understands that power is nothing until it can be transmitted. It’s like utility companies that need miles and miles of transmission lines and substations to get the power where it’s needed. When Obama gets his network built, all of the government’s power and authority will begin to move, and we will begin to feel the effects. Personal freedom will fade away. Our subsistence will only come from the government, as it controls what we are taught, where we can go, and what we can live on.

To quote the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce CEO, “This is a slippery slope we’re on and it’s sliding toward a more socialistic state…and that is not a state upon which the United States was founded.” Amen.

I want to begin with this disclaimer: I know there are many loving wives and mothers who want to establish and protect a traditional two-parent household. I believe that women should be paid fairly for the work they do outside the home, and recognized for their work in the home. The Biblical proverb holds true, that a virtuous woman has a value that far exceeds that of rubies. I certainly agree.

Somewhere along the line, however, our values have changed. Single moms are held in highest esteem, while single dads are ignored. High school girls show off their status by getting pregnant. Court systems overwhelmingly give child custody to women; many fathers have limited visitation rights, with some only being able to visit by webcam. The recent Valentine’s Day was almost entirely devoted to pleasing women. In fact, I couldn’t find one advertisement in my local paper that suggested any kind of gift ideas for men.

Look at television. Daytime talk show programming is dominated by “The View”, “Oprah” and “Ellen.” Prime time shows include “The Closer” and “Saving Grace.” Lots of sitcoms feature an attractive woman who has to continually chastise an inept, bumbling, unattractive husband. White males, especially, are portrayed as smart or stylish only if they are gay as well. Movies are just as offensive.

Just a few days ago, I read a column by Nicholas Kristof, who writes for The New York Times. He proposes that the Wall Street meltdown was caused by too much testosterone. Apparently, some studies have suggested that high levels of testosterone cause men to make risky decisions. As a result, men who made risky trades saw those trades go sour, which caused chain reactions in the marketplace, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars for investors. Kristof says, “Wall Street is one of the most male-dominated bastions in the business world…there’s evidence that the result is second-rate decision making.” I wonder if Mr. Kristof thought there should be fewer men on the trading floor when his 401k was making money. It’s clear that he doesn’t realize how the market works, and equally clear that he is jumping on the feminist bandwagon.

If we want to find an example of risk-taking, we should consider the behavior of Nadya Sulemon, the mother of the octuplets born in California. She is a perfect example of feminism gone crazy. She has obviously absorbed the feminist idea that she can do whatever she wants with her body. The feminists and liberals insist that a woman has the right to choose an abortion, but Sulemon has taken that view to the opposite extreme. She claimed the right to have as many babies as she wanted. Now, there are eight little people in a California hospital fighting for their lives. Doctors fear that some of them may develop permanent disabilities. Their medical costs are expected to reach into hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Testosterone wasn’t involved in the risk taken by Nadya Sulemon. I’d love to take Nicholas Kristof, Hillary Clinton, Rosie O’Donnell and a host of other feminists on a tour of the maternity ward where those octuplets are being cared for. I would remind them that it’s one thing to lose a million dollars, but another thing to put a child’s life on the line. This is what feminism and liberalism has done to America’s families and children. You can’t put a price on a child’s life.

President Obama has made it clear that Americans should embark on a new era of community service, neighborhood assistance and charitable works. There is nothing wrong with helping your fellow man. Even the Good Book says that if we see someone in need, and have the means to help, we are obligated to do so. However, there might be a hidden message in Obama’s call to service.

The first thing to consider is that this Great Commission sounds like we should duplicate, on a community level, what the federal government wants to do on a national scale. The Democrats, and the Obama administration, want to enact their wish list of government services and subsidies. Many of these services are eventually going to enlarge the number of people who become entirely dependent on government assistance. Welfare, health services, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other subsidies are being expanded by Congress and approved by Obama. Some may feel that this is the compassionate thing for government to do, but there is always a method to the madness. The ultimate goal for the Democrats is to keep as many people as possible hooked on government, thereby securing a voting base.

The next thing to remember is that the government, in its call for service, gets us to work for free. While the feds hand out just enough money and health services for people to live on, we are compelled to make up for any other needs through our community service. In other words, we become some sort of great commune, where everyone shares everything with everyone else, and nobody gets ahead. This is the socialist idea that drives the Democratic Party, even though some of them, like John Kerry, remain filthy rich while they strangle the rest of us. There are two things that Democrats and liberals fear: constituents who are affluent, and constituents who have means of defense. When you watch the Democrats in action, you will see them direct their aggressions against personal and corporate wealth, and against our right to self defense as expressed by the Second Amendment. They truly want us poor and defenseless, because we then become easier to control.

Finally, consider that all who embark on a crusade of volunteerism become potential workers in Obama’s proposed idea of “community organization”. This will likely be unveiled after the upcoming 2010 Census. No wonder that the stimulus package contained $1 billion to be used by the Census; no wonder why Obama intends to illegally supervise the Census operation, even though Federal law states that the Commerce Department is to direct the Census. If the White House is the overseer, what would prevent Obama from making adjustments to the results, affecting the distribution of perhaps $300 million in federal funding to state and community agencies? By redefining social and economic districts, metropolitan areas could have numerous government programs handing out federal money through the hands of a new class of volunteers. The rest of us (those who still value personal freedom) would essentially be forgotten.

The message is being received. For example, here is a news item from USA Today: “United Autoworkers Local 2250, the GM plant and the United Way of Greater St. Louis organized an on-site volunteer fair on Thursday to encourage about 2,000 employees to consider volunteering during their time away from work.
Benefits representative Mike Bridgins came up with the idea when he heard President Barack Obama speak of the importance of Americans helping one another in difficult times.”

Obama learned a lot from ACORN and Chicago politics, didn’t he?

President Obama is out on a dog-and-pony show, drumming up support for his economic stimulus plan. He scheduled public appearances to meet with Americans and explain why his plan should pass. It appears that not only has Obama encountered resistance in Congress, but American citizens are also questioning the size and content of the stimulus package.

Obama has been quoted as saying, “With the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.” As I analyzed that statement, there were two ideas expressed that reveal the true belief of the Democratic party. First, there is the notion that ONLY the GOVERNMENT has the resources to take necessary action, and subsequently heal the economy, because we are weak. Isn’t that a bold (and scary) statement about having less faith in ourselves and ascribing more power to the government? This leads to the second thought, which is the idea that the American PEOPLE should be the greatest resources; WE are the ones who circulate money in the form of purchases, investments, education, travel, and other activities. We pay taxes, which are the revenues government takes in to provide certain services for the people. The government doesn’t have “resources”; it has our tax monies!

Other information suggests that Obama may continue to have a tough time selling his product. According to Yahoo, recent polling revealed a shift in Americans’ opinion: “A recent poll by Pew Research Center found that a narrow majority of Americans, just 51%, support the stimulus. And that’s down from 57% in January. Even worse for the administration, support seems to be dropping among people who say they’ve learned more about the stimulus.” Imagine that! When taxpayers find out what the contents of the stimulus plan are, the less they value its effectiveness. Furthermore, a poll from Rasmussen reports that 62% of voters want more tax cuts and less government spending in the plan.

What has troubled me are the priorities of the Democrats and the Obama administration. When Obama took office, he couldn’t wait to free the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Why did they get priority instead of Americans who are losing their jobs? I think getting people back to work here is much more important than getting prisoners back to their terrorist activities. Furthermore, why was there a need for a complicated stimulus package? Why not just put $100 billion or so directly into the infrastructure projects, and haggle over the rest of the items later?

It appears that Obama and the Democrats want as much money approved as possible, in order to keep enacting all of the big-government programs as they deem necessary. Remember the mantra: “only government can take necessary action.” You’ll be hearing that for quite a while.

I’ve been listening to the debates over President Obama’s proposed stimulus plan. It seems that some people, like New York Times columnist Gail Collins, insist that there are no earmarks in the plan and that we should all just “give it a pat on the back” and accept it. Others, like columnist Paul Krugman, are accusing the Republicans of “trying to push the economy over the edge” as they object to the sheer size of the program. Of course, before Obama’s election, Mr. Krugman repeatedly charged the Republicans with overspending and running up the federal deficit. So much for his objectivity!

President Obama has ridiculed the Republican view that this stimulus is more about spending than about stimulating the economy. “What do you think a stimulus is?” he asked. Spending, he said, “is the whole point.” That callous response doesn’t make sense—common sense, that is. Most Americans understand the need to control their personal spending during tough times. Indeed, that’s partly why the economy is in a recession. People have tightened their budgets and expenditures; they’re saving money instead of spending it. How then can it be un-American to question the size and the intent of the stimulus plan? Didn’t the liberals question and over-analyze everything from the Patriot Act to Bush’s tax cuts?

The Democrats don’t understand (or won’t admit) that there may be ways to stimulate the economy without spending money like a shopaholic. For one, the government could slash the corporate tax rate, as America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. Businesses might be able to retain more American workers, instead of sending production overseas to offset the high taxes. Many countries in Europe, for example, also subsidize corporate energy costs, making it even cheaper to produce goods. This puts American business at a huge disadvantage. But for some reason, the Democrats hate Big Business, especially oil companies and tobacco companies. They don’t seem to realize that when you create an environment in which business can grow, you create opportunities for employment growth as well.

Aren’t there any reductions in the stimulus plan? Can’t the supposedly intelligent, qualified members of Obama’s Cabinet (and other Democratic Representatives and Senators) find excess and redundancy in government and cut it out? Instead, they are focused on their efforts to make government even bigger, with a resulting increase in government control. When Ronald Reagan’s administration took office in 1981, James Baker recalls that their top three priorities were: economic recovery, economic recovery, and economic recovery. But now, the Obama administration’s priorities are: spend, spend, and spend some more.

Maybe more Americans would have a positive view of the stimulus plan if all the Democrats would pay their income taxes…