Archive for March, 2010

Is Obama the AntiChrist?

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

I recently found the results of a poll that was conducted by Harris Interactive between March 1 and March 8. The poll attempted to reveal how Americans view President Barack Obama. The responses break down as follows:

* 38 percent say he wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns.
* 32 percent say he is a Muslim.
* 29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government.
* 29 percent think he has done many things that are unconstitutional.
* 27 percent say he resents America’s heritage.
* 27 percent say he does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do.
* 25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president.
* 25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of.
* 23 percent say he is a racist.
* 23 percent say he is anti-American.
* 23 percent say he wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.
* 20 percent say he is doing many of the things that Hitler did.

While some of those views may seem radical to many, there are some grains of truth to be found. The most obvious: he is an ardent liberal who is likely to be a proponent of gun control. I’m surprised only 38 percent of those polled could say so. The least significant response: Obama is not a natural-born citizen. It really doesn’t matter whether he was born here or not. His actions are making him unfit for office.

Here is another interesting statistic: 14 percent of Americans say President Barack Obama may be the AntiChrist. When split by political party, 24 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats viewed the nation’s leader in this way. Again, there is a grain of truth. The Biblical description of a deceiver, whether he be in our generation or not, is consistent. He must be a skilled speaker, able to move his followers with style, but no substance. Meanwhile, the real power is exerted in other subtle, unseen ways, until it’s too late for anyone to stop. Then, power is ruthlessly and decisively exerted over the people.

But the Bible speaks of a multiple of AntiChrists. It is a naive and shallow interpretation of Biblical writings that would have so many people believe that there can only be one AntiChrist to rule the world. Believers are warned that it is the appearance of “many antichrists” that might indicate the arrival of the last (end) time. Just look at the liberal side of American government. There, a whole nest of AntiChrist personalities can be found.

Bob Herbert Agrees

Friday, March 19th, 2010

Who says that conservatives and liberals can’t agree on anything?

I can’t say that. Not after reading Bob Herbert’s latest column that was published in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. In his piece, Herbert states that the Democrats are in political trouble because they have paid so little attention to America’s economic distress. As I read his column, I wondered if he had been secretly reading my blog.

In case you are unfamiliar with Herbert, you should know that he writes for the New York Times. He also writes from a decidedly liberal perspective. His specialty seems to be economic and social issues, and how government might best resolve those kinds of problems. This blog, The Conservative Edge, has taken the Obama administration to task for reneging on campaign promises to give the economy a “quick jolt.” It took an entire year for Obama to declare that the economy would be his chief concern. And yet, here we are, one-and-a-quarter years into the Obama presidency, and he is still fixated on health care reform. He and the Democrats are gambling their election year prospects by not making job creation a top priority.

Herbert agrees. In fact, here are some of his statements: “Instead of focusing with unwavering intensity on this increasingly tragic situation, making it their top domestic priority, President Barack Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have spent astonishing amounts of time and energy, and most of their political capital, on an obsessive quest to pass a health care bill.”

He further writes: “Health care reform is important. But what the public has wanted and still badly needs above all else from Obama and the Democrats are bold efforts to put people back to work. A major employment rebound is the only real way to alleviate the deep economic anxiety that has gripped so many Americans. Unaddressed, that anxiety will evolve into dread and then anger. But while the nation is desperate for jobs, jobs, jobs, the Democrats have spent most of the Obama era chanting health care, health care, health care.”

So it seems that liberals and conservatives can agree. Even a liberal like Herbert can see the error of Obama’s ways. The only difference is that some of us conservatives saw it first.

Capitalism Needs Capital

Saturday, March 6th, 2010

There I was a couple of days ago, sitting in front of the computer, reading some columns featured on the Dayton Daily News website. I try to respond to one or two columns a week, just so I can feel good about contributing to a liberal newspaper from a conservative perspective. I noticed an article written by Thomas Friedman, a well-known columnist who writes for the New York Times. He states that America is losing ground in technological development and innovation. Part of this decline is due to the high cost of doing business in the U.S. Businesses here face extremely high corporate tax rates, and the federal government is reluctant to use subsidies or other financial incentives to keep corporations planted in American soil.

So, I felt the need to respond to Friedman’s column. I wrote that Friedman is actually correct in theory. There is no good reason that American companies should not prosper by operating here in the States. Furthermore, as companies grow, they usually provide cheaper goods and services, and employ larger numbers of people. This employment includes not just production workers, but research and development teams as well.

However, the Obama administration, and all Democratic leadership, consider corporate profits to be evil. Carter wanted to tax the oil companies, Clinton harassed Bill Gates and Microsoft, and now Obama has taken swings at the car companies, Wall Street, and the big banks. It seems impossible that Obama and his cohorts in the House and Senate could even think of reducing unemployment without stimulating business growth. They think they can increase taxes, pile on stricter financial and environmental regulations, and yet somehow realize positive growth of America’s GDP. I closed my remarks on the Dayton Daily News website with the statement “capitalism needs capital.”

Honestly, at the time I posted my comments, I had no idea that Jack Kemp had made that exact statement years ago. I didn’t read of his observation until today (March 6). He was right. Capitalism is the only economic engine that has allowed the rise of America’s middle class, and given so many individuals the chance to obtain real wealth. Capitalism also fueled the fantastic technological advances of the late 1800s and early 1900s. The capitalist system allowed the development of steam engines and railroads, and later the telegraph, electricity, motion pictures, radio and television, not to mention the automobile and the production line. None of these things would have progressed the same way under another economic system.

But we have a President, and a liberal Congress, that views capitalism as an evil institution. No wonder we are losing technological ground to China and Korea. No wonder that real unemployment hovers at 16 percent. No wonder that this country isn’t producing enough scientists and engineers. The only people prospering now are government administrators. Jack Kemp was right. Capitalism needs capital; and America needs capitalism.