The Conservative Edge

In some of my previous posts, I have likely mentioned the word “malaise” and the name “Jimmy Carter” in the same sentence. I have also been of the opinion that America is heading toward an economic freeze that will mirror that of the late 1970s. The reason for our stagnant economy is simple: we are led by the same sort of failed economic policies instituted by then-President Jimmy Carter and other Democrats.

I’m not the only one noticing the similarities. Former hedge fund manager and now talk show host Jim Cramer has written an excellent piece about a 21st-century malaise that is gripping American society. Cramer asserts that Carter’s infamous “malaise” speech sounds like something Barack Obama could have crafted. That’s not surprising. Both the former and the current President share decidedly anti-business, high-tax, big-bureaucracy ideals.

Here are some of Cramer’s remarks, as posted on Yahoo! Finance: “Malaise. The recognition that things are out of control and there is no getting better. The recognition that the president and Congress can’t create jobs and that we can’t stop the spill. The recognition that things are out of our hands. One true presidential historian/arbitrageur invoked the “pitiful helpless giant” speech, a true throwback, a miserable speech by Richard Nixon green-lighting the disastrous Cambodian incursion in order to defeat the indefatigable and ultimately undefeated North Vietnamese. Given our inability to subdue the Taliban, though, maybe the analogy’s not that off-base. It sure feels like we are stuck in a malaise and have been reduced to a pitiful helpless giant, hobbled this time by high debt, huge taxes, an anti-business agenda that is freezing job growth and an intractable economy.

To me, the coincidences are leading to what you see on your screen — a collective sense of ennui and ‘it isn’t worth it’ because things aren’t getting better, they are getting worse.”

Cramer further states: “This malaise, like the Carter malaise, starts from the top, although Carter’s speech was a thinly disguised attempt to blame the American people for the malaise and their unwillingness to sacrifice. I think it has to end at the top with a recognition from the president that jobs have to be created, uncertainty removed, the agenda shelved. He obviously has no intention WHATSOEVER of doing that. And I am not saying this as someone who favors or is opposed to Obama, I am saying it from the litmus I always use: Is something or someone good for stocks or bad? Obama’s bad.”

Cramer’s words are powerful, yet true. Americans were promised that the economy would be a priority. But the priority became, instead, the passage of liberal/leftist/socialist legislation, and subsequent growth of the federal bureaucracy. Financial reform, for instance, sounds great, but means absolutely nothing if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac escape federal scrutiny. Health care reform sounds good too, but has caused uncertainty for many employers who fear the rising costs for providing employee health care plans.

So, the Democrats, led by Barack Obama, can continue to tax and regulate American businesses into submission, but there is one word that describes the result: malaise.

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has led to a host of environmental zealots trying to make us all feel guilty about using oil. As the director of legislative and public affairs for Ohio’s Environmental Council put it, “You turn the key to the car, you’re part of the problem, and you’re part of the solution.” Undoubtedly, there is a short-term toll on the Gulf ecosystem. The results would be even worse if not for the efforts to contain and dispose of the oil that has already reached the shorelines. However, the guilt, and blame, lies squarely with BP and whoever else might have been responsible for the accident.

One of the primary reasons that oil companies have been drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is that the environmentalists have successfully convinced enough people in Washington that there should be no oil drilling on the U.S. mainland. Nearly all of the areas of the country that hold any substantial oil reserves have been deemed off limits. As a result, much of our domestic oil production comes from offshore drilling. Furthermore, while other countries are busily securing oil supplies wherever they can, the United States has neglected to develop its own resources.

Which doesn’t make any sense at all. There is always someone on television talking about the need to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” That’s tough to do if we insist on buying our oil from other nations. Even Adolf Hitler realized the need for a steady supply of petroleum that would keep the German army mobilized. By the time World War 2 had started, Germany was able to make hundreds of thousands of barrels of synthetic oil, reducing the need to find a supply of fuel from distant sources. These synthetic fuel factories were prime targets for Allied bombers. When the factories were destroyed, it devastated the German mobile army.

It remains unclear why our government can’t use similar foresight. Instead, the liberals and Democrats resort to their core ideological beliefs. They believe that the individual has no right to succeed or fulfill any self-interest. The well-being of society takes precedence over the development of the person. As a result, we are all made to feel guilty for our normal and daily activities. We must not acquire wealth, because it is to be dispensed to the poor. We must not own firearms, because we might injure or kill another person. We should not enjoy the automobiles we own, lest we selfishly destroy the environment by burning fossil fuels. We must measure our self-worth by how much money we send to impoverished people in faraway countries. Meanwhile, as we suffocate our self esteem, the government grows larger in size and authority, and puts us under its dictatorial rule.

Nobody should feel guilty for using the gasoline that allows them to keep a job, feed a family, and maintain a home. Neither should any American feel remorse for using this country’s natural resources that would prevent us from being so dependent on a foreign supplier of energy. We should only demand that the producers of energy be efficient and responsible in their operations. And we should demand the same from our government.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The rush is over. The Cash-for-Clunkers program ended yesterday, August 24. Also known by the acronym CARS, the clunker program was originally planned to be effective through November of this year. Several factors may have contributed to the early termination.

For one thing, the processing duties were overwhelming. The government had to hire hundreds of people to keep up with the flood of paperwork. Additionally, many dealers weren’t getting reimbursed by the government. As a result, dealerships were left with dozens of clunkers on their lots. The dealers could send the vehicles to salvage yards only after receiving CARS money for the trade-ins.

Besides these and other operational hiccups, there might have been another reason the government terminated the program. Sales figures show that many Americans were still buying trucks and SUVs, rather than Priuses and Civics. Lots of folks wanted bigger vehicles; they simply traded in older trucks and 4×4s on similar, more fuel-efficient vehicles of the same size.

This is not what the Obama administration was hoping for. The were two underlying purposes of the CARS program. Firstly, the government hoped to steer people into buying the kinds of cars that the government wanted them to drive (and destroy hundreds of older vehicles in the process). Secondly, the government really wants people to think that only the government can provide for them. In fact, Obama made a statement earlier this year that “the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.” The CARS program is the first step in convincing the public of that notion.

And now, comes the second version of CARS. The government is going to offer everyone rebates to help purchase more energy-efficient appliances. As described on Yahoo! Finance, “A $300 million cash-for-clunkers-type federal program to boost sales of energy-efficient home appliances provides a glimmer of hope for beleaguered makers of washing machines and dishwashers…Beginning late this fall, the program authorizes rebates of $50 to $200 for purchases of high-efficiency household appliances. Only appliances covered by the Energy Star seal will qualify. The money is part of the broader economic stimulus bill passed earlier this year. Unlike the clunkers auto program, consumers won’t have to trade in their old appliances. ‘These rebates will help families make the transition to more efficient appliances, making purchases that will directly stimulate the economy,’ Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement announcing the plan.”

How nice to have the government taking care of us. For a growing number of Americans, it’s getting so that whenever they get in their car, or open the fridge, they will warmly think of the benevolent government that helped pay for it all. But look at it another way—this could cause some people to assume larger levels of debt in order to purchase these goods through government programs. This may give a short term boost to the product makers, but it will be detrimental to consumers’ financial health.

Americans are aware, by now, of the need to be energy-efficient. We shouldn’t need the government to make product choices for us. Besides, we’re still waiting on the thousands of jobs that the Obama administration was going to create. He campaigned on the idea that Americans would be put to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. But now, he wants us to buy a new fridge. Some of us might do so, if we had good-paying jobs.

A few days ago, a column written by Nicholas Kristof appeared in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. Mr. Kristof’s piece stated that Americans are unable to process the oncoming threat of global warming. He asserts that we have a cavalier attitude that prevents us from perceiving future dangers, even though we are alerted at more immediate ones.

I felt compelled to write a letter to the paper, pointing out that global warming is not presented in a factual, common-sense manner. Most global warming supporters use emotionally-based arguments and presentations to make their points.

If you’d like to see the letter, and accompanying responses, follow this link to the Dayton Daily News website. Feel free to post a response either here at this blog, or at the paper’s opinion page. You might be surprised at how many people are refusing to accept the dubious global warming theory.

That’s right—Al Gore thinks you’re a Nazi if you disagree with or refuse to accept the global warming theory. Here are some of his remarks, found on the science blog Watts Up With That? on July 7, 2009:

“Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis. The former US Vice President said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change.

“He also accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid difficult decisions.”

That last statement is quite amusing, because the global warming theory itself relies on a perceived ignorance in order to be accepted. However, there have been polls conducted which suggest that the more people discover about global warming, the less likely they are to accept it as fact.

That’s because global warming is presented primarily as an emotional argument. We hear that the ice caps are melting; the environment is in danger; the polar bears are becoming extinct; and now, one of the most emotionally-charged statements of all coming from the mouth of Al Gore, associating global warming resisters with the Nazis.

Demagogues such as Al Gore are forced to use emotion in their remarks because they have little else to go on. Facts and common sense contradict the global warming theory. There are scientists who believe that we need not rush into hasty and overzealous legislation to combat the buildup of “greenhouse gases.” The average American can easily grasp the notion that solar activity can account for as much as 68% of Earth’s temperature variation. That’s just common sense, since the sun is our primary source of heat. But that doesn’t make the same kind of headlines that Al Gore likes to make with his remarks about the Nazis.

In fact, one could make the case that it is Al Gore who is acting like a Nazi. When Hitler began gathering support and power, he first felt compelled to rid the German government of all Communists. However, since most of the Communists happened to be Jews, Hitler extended his persecution to the Jewish race. Hitler relentlessly blamed the Jews for Germany’s ills, making them scapegoats for everything. It’s downright spooky to see how Al Gore demonizes those who disagree with his gospel, just as Hitler did in the 1920s and 1930s.

The real danger of global warming is that it can be used to completely change and control our lives. It can limit our transportational freedoms, and dictate how we feed our families and heat our homes. We don’t need or deserve the level of domination and control that will envelop us if global warming legislation is fully implemented. That’s what Al Gore is really after—domination and control. He hates us, you know.

One of the liberals’ favorite mantras during the Bush administration was “Bush lied, people died.” The Democrats in Congress and in the media were obsessed with the idea that the Iraq war was accompanied by a massive cover-up of information. We supposedly went to war knowing that there were no WMDs in Iraq. All of the pied pipers in the media said that we had been misled and lied to, and that the government had suppressed vital intelligence information.

The Obama administration was going to be different. “Transparency” was a key word used to describe the truthfulness of the new presidency. But we’ve all been lied to since last November. Obama campaigned on putting Americans to work. He said that the economy was going to get a “quick jolt.” But, as Ohio’s own John Boehner recently asked, “Where are the jobs?”

The Obama administration is giving us a green version of deception and cover-up, with help from the Environmental Protection Agency. Research conducted by the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics challenges the prevailing notion that global warming is an increasing danger to the environment. But it seems that the report was intentionally suppressed in order to allow the EPA to support the administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

The June 29 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily notes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released the EPA study on its own website. Among the findings are interesting statements such as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998, there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” And this one: “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such process.”

Apparently, the person responsible for producing the report at the EPA has been removed from all climate-related work. He has even been advised to hire an attorney. He is in hot water for suggesting that science is being ignored in the evaluation of CO2 as a pollutant.

If his research had been released before the House vote on the cap-and-trade bill, the outcome might have been different. It’s no wonder the Obama administration is moving so quickly on climate change legislation. They are intentionally suppressing information that would blow holes in the global warming theory, and allow millions of reasonable Americans to see what a farce the theory really is. Remember Y2K? It never happened.

You can read more of the IBD editorial here. I would also recommend a visit to a highly regarded science blog, Watts Up With That? You’ll find that not only are global warming dissenters being intentionally silenced, but that climate data is manipulated to produce desired results that support climate legislation.

Jobs? We don’t need them. The liberals are convinced that America needs more legislation and regulation. They are taking care of both with unprecedented speed and ruthlessness.