The Conservative Edge

There are several methods that political campaigns use to get the upper hand on an opponent. Often, a simple and direct approach is to attack the other person and his character. Sometimes, this can be accomplished in more subtle ways, especially when a candidate doesn’t want to appear mean-spirited or confrontational.

Liberals have become very adept at creating negative attitudes or doubts about a particular issue, and then associating an opponent with the perceived evil. For example, liberals have always hated guns, and fear constituents who own them. But rather than show their hatred of gun owners, the liberals simply demonized guns and gun manufacturers. They have chosen to portray guns as evil, responsible for murder and violence in America. Therefore, if people choose to own guns, they become liable for perpetuating crime and violence. As a result, liberals feel justified in creating more restrictive gun laws to keep them out of the hands of irresponsible citizens. It is a matter of guilt by association.

This practice of demonizing an institution has been the primary effort of Democrats here in Ohio. The campaign strategy of Governor Ted Strickland, the incumbent Democrat seeking re-election, consists mainly of blaming “Wall Street” for the state’s, and the country’s, economic distress. Strickland’s wife, Frances, blamed the loss of 8 million jobs during the past three years on “those working on Wall Street” during a rally on August 28 in Ohio. “That job loss started as a result of the problems on Wall Street,” she stated, according to the Dayton Daily News. In addition, television ads have been shown claiming that Wall Street was responsible for the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries.

There is a good reason why the liberals have been pressing the idea that Wall Street is evil. Strickland’s opponent for governor, Republican John Kasich, was employed at Lehman Brothers for several years. The association the liberals are trying to make is that, if firms like the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers caused the economic problems we are still dealing with, then Kasich must be guilty simply by association. And, that if the investment firms are responsible for the economic mess, then Kasich will be bad for the economy as well.

But the liberals conveniently omit the fact that many banks and investments firms have been hit just as hard by the economic downturn. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt; many banks failed; investment firms saw millions of dollars pulled out of the market. Another fallacy of the campaign against Kasich is that it ignores the personal success Kasich has achieved during his career. Kasich has a proven track record; he has taught economic classes at Ohio State University, and made profits for himself and the companies for which he worked.

The liberals are portraying success as something undesirable. It runs counter to good sense. We should want the most able, successful people in public office. The liberals can keep crowing about the evils of Wall Street if they want, but the continued economic downward spiral shows no signs of slowing down. We can’t blame Kasich for that.

I just want to share some final thoughts about the proposed Islamic mosque construction at the Ground Zero site in New York.

Time magazine recently featured an article that supported the mosque on the principle that allowing it to be built will miraculously foster understanding between Islam and the West. “The last legal hurdle to the proposed Islamic center near the site of the World Trade Center has been removed,” the article stated, “but ignorance, bigotry and politics are more formidable obstacles.” Resistance to the project apparently comes from “the ill-informed anguish of those who mistakenly view Islam as the malevolent force that brought down the towers.”

But the article failed to identify the force that did bring the World Trade Center down. In fact, the author, and Time magazine, has neglected, whether willingly or otherwise, to acknowledge the fact that America has been under attack for an entire generation. The first move against America came in the late 1970s, when the Iranian revolution ousted the Shah and set up an Islamic government. The first official act of the new regime was to kidnap American citizens and hold them hostage for over a year. And we should be mindful, too, of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the attack on the USS Cole, and all of the other acts of aggression perpetrated by radical Islam in between.

It is also clear that the antagonism against America has not, and likely never will, subside to any significant degree. No amount of “tolerance” will ever appease the haters of America, in the way that Adolf Hitler could not be deterred by Neville Chamberlain, a classic liberalist. But Time magazine insists that the proposed mosque can bring tolerance and understanding. The article claims “Rauf and Khan have said Park51 - envisaged as a 15-story structure, including a mosque, cultural center and auditorium - will promote greater interfaith dialogue.”

But do we need this mosque to gain a better understanding of Islam? Thomas Friedman, a well-known commentator, recently stated that “you can study Islam at virtually any American university.” If that is true (even the community college I attend has classes about Islam), then the mosque might be endorsed for other reasons than just greater understanding of religion. Perhaps the real reason is that someone wishes to take advantage of the excess liberty offered by our American democracy. Indeed, as Time says, “Rauf, 52, is the imam of a mosque in New York City’s Tribeca district, has written extensively on Islam and its place in modern society and often argues that American democracy is the embodiment of Islam’s ideal society.” Small wonder that Islamic leaders love American democracy—they know that they can have just about whatever they want because of our tolerance for everything foreign.

But the supporters of the mosque overlook one important facet of democracy. That is, the majority rules. Sometimes the majority is wrong, but it can also be very right at times. This is one instance where the majority should be heeded. An overwhelming number of Americans do not want the mosque built at Ground Zero. They would see it as a symbol of Islam’s intolerance of our society for the last 40 years. Instead of calling the majority ignorant and bigoted, the simpering, kowtowing classic liberals should listen to voice of the people this time.

Some people seem to think that we, as a country, would exhibit a high degree of nobility by allowing an Islamic mosque to be constructed at (or adjacent to) Ground Zero in New York. It is not just the mayor of New York who is spearheading the effort to gain permission for the mosque’s construction; even some prominent journalists are supportive of the idea.

For instance, Leonard Pitts, a syndicated columnist, recently suggested that building the mosque would be a great way to display our ideals of freedom. He wrote, “Are Muslims not Americans, too? Is that what we’re saying now? Yes, I fear terrorism. But I find I fear even more what my country has become in response to it…so yes, putting that building in that place might be painful and provocative, but it would also be a reminder of the very values the terrorists sought to kill. And we seem to need that reminder more every day. They want to build a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero? Let them.”

This whole notion that the mosque should not seem offensive reminds me of an observation someone once made about democracy, that someone convicted of a crime can “continue to go about among their fellows.” It may be that the person (or persons) representing those wanting to build the mosque did not actually commit the terrorist act against America. However, the fact remains that the religion giving permission to kill others in the name of God is the religion associated with the mosque. The values America represents—equality, freedom, justice—were not found in the hearts of those who murdered innocent people on September 11, 2001, nor are they found in those who continue to murder innocents all over the world. That is what Americans would remember if the mosque is ever built.

Surely we can honor the deaths of American citizens in a better way. Building a Muslim mosque will only display our tolerance for the intolerance terrorists have towards us. This would be similar to erecting a replica of The Turner Diaries at the federal building in Oklahoma City, so we can be more tolerant of people who despise government. It would be like building an FBI office at the site of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, so we can be more sympathetic to a government that fears armed citizens. It just doesn’t make sense; and oftentimes, common sense is more virtuous than high-minded classic liberal ideology.

Letting the mosque be built at Ground Zero would be like letting the fox stay in the henhouse. I am sure that the people who died in the Trade Center attacks would have given their lives in defense of our country. Tolerating the ideas of terrorism and radical intolerance of the American way of life does nothing to honor those who died. We should say “no” to the mosque and not feel guilty.

One of my favorite quotes is as follows: “The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” The person who uttered those words was Winston Churchill. He was right. Since history often repeats itself, we can sometimes anticipate future events by studying similar circumstances that existed in previous eras.

For example, the Greek philosopher Plato realized that democracy might not be the best form of government. His reasoning is sound, but his predictions of what will eventually happen under democratic rule seem to perfectly describe American society. It is as though he was the one who utilized a time machine to travel forward and observe modern times.

Plato wrote that “democracy originates when the poor win, kill, or exile their opponents, and give the rest equal rights and opportunity of office…” He also observed that people would judge democracy “to be the best form of society…if they judge by appearances.” But appearances can be deceiving. According to author Douglas J. Soccio, Plato felt that democracy violates the principle of functional order and rule by reason. Plato felt that it was impossible that a love of money and adequate self-discipline by citizens could co-exist, and that one or the other must be neglected. It is clear which of those qualities has been cast aside.

It is fascinating how Plato predicted that even the animals would begin to have special rights as democracy developed. He observed that “you would never believe—unless you had seen it for yourself—how much more liberty the domestic animals have in a democracy. Everything is full of this spirit of liberty.” This past week, Yahoo! News reported that there is a host of animal rights laws that are being enacted worldwide. “The move was just the latest example of how animal rights are on the march - in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world,” the article stated. The report revealed that “animal-law courses are now taught at many of the nation’s leading law schools. Harvard Law School recently hosted a ‘Future of Animal Law’ conference sponsored by the Animal Legal Defense Fund.” Just as Plato predicted.

But the danger of liberty is that it often turns into excess. In fact, according to Soccio, Plato predicted that the built-in excesses of democracy already contain the seeds of tyranny. We can say that tyranny is a kind of government in which one person wields all power, but it is just as likely that a group or party can achieve the same kind of rule. Many people mistakenly think that Adolf Hitler seized power in Germany in the 1930s. He did not. The National Socialists gained a majority in Parliament mostly through democratic elections. Hitler himself was appointed Chancellor by an entirely legal process. The Nazis even had a slogan: “Dictatorship Through Democracy.”

In a similar way, the Democratic Party in America is aiming for the same kind of dictatorial power. The Democrats are using the idea of “liberty” for all, but are really catering to the excesses of people who prefer the democratic form of government. The Democrats and liberals promise everything to everyone, hoping to make the citizens content. Meanwhile, as they garner the votes of people who are virtually slaves to the party, they are securing more power to themselves, and taking away the rights of the individuals.

So it really is true—we can tell a lot about the future of America just by looking farther into the past.

The city of Chicago recently passed what many people are calling the strictest handgun laws in the nation. Mayor Richard Daley clearly wanted to show that the Supreme Court ruling which upheld citizens’ rights to own firearms would hold no sway in his fair city. He claimed that he “wanted to give police a law they could begin enforcing as quickly as possible,” according to the Associated Press, but he obviously shows his anti-gun mentality by supporting the new legislation.

Here are the highlights of the new gun laws, from the AP report:

• They limit the number of handguns residents can register to one per month and prohibits residents from having more than one handgun in operating order at any given time.

• They require residents in homes with children to keep handguns in lock boxes or equipped with trigger locks and requires residents convicted of a gun offense to register with the police department, much as sex offenders are now required to do.

• They prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

• They require prospective gun owners to be fingerprinted, take a four-hour class and one-hour training at a gun range (despite the fact such training isn’t available in Chicago).

• They require the police department to maintain a registry of every registered handgun owner in the city, with the names and addresses to be made available to police officers, firefighters and other emergency responders.

But notice carefully who these new laws target. No mention was made of tougher sentencing for convicted criminals, or defending neighborhoods against gang-related activities. These new laws seem to exclusively restrict the legal ownership of handguns by law-abiding citizens. In other words, Chicago is inventing a new class of outlaws: the people who merely want to defend their homes and families against the real criminals. The new ordinances go so far as to prohibit gun owners from stepping outside their homes, even onto their porches or in their garages, with a handgun. All of this, in a misguided effort to reduce crime.

The idea of self-defense is not a theory, but is instead a harsh reality for many Americans. Otis McDonald, a man involved in the federal lawsuit challenging Chicago’s previous handgun ban, said he needed a gun to protect himself from gangs that terrorized his South Side neighborhood. In addition, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted that “the use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves” from violent groups such as the Ku Klux Klan in the Deep South.

But for some reason, the anti-gun groups won’t heed such simple logic. Instead, they believe in the fallacy that because a few (the criminals) misuse firearms, then everyone is capable of misusing them. This is simply not true—it couldn’t be true, because it hasn’t actually happened. The liberals and other anti-gun organizations are guilty of fear-mongering by trying to convince us that the most dangerous people in America are the Otis McDonalds and Clarence Thomases who seek to defend life and home.

Finally, think of it this way: if the Chicago police force is now going to busy itself making sure nobody steps on their front porch with a handgun, there is going to be less time to track down the real criminals who have no regard for any law. That might be the biggest crime of all.

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.

Apparently, the road to economic recovery runs through Washington, D.C. The federal government seems to be the only recipient of the “quick jolt” promised by Barack Obama and the leading Democrats in Congress. According to the Associated Press, the latest employment figures show that 390,000 government jobs were added in May, aided by temporary Census-related positions. This number far exceeds the 41,000 private sector jobs added during the same period. Furthermore, there were 35,000 jobs lost in the construction industry, 12,000 jobs lost in financial services, and 6,600 jobs lost in retail trade.

Is this what economic recovery is all about? The White House can try to take credit for some uptick in job creation, but the fact remains that the government is adding jobs at the expense of most other industries. It is also true that both the percentage increase in unemployment, and the length of time from peak employment, surpass those from every recessionary period since World War 2.

McClatchy Newspapers reports that the full-time federal civilian work force (except postal workers) is expected to top 2.1 million in fiscal year 2010. More than 560,000 new workers will be hired in the next four years. Moreover, average compensation for federal civilian workers increased nearly twice as much as for the private sector from 2000 to 2008. Their average annual compensation is $119,982, including earnings and benefits. This ranks federal civilian workers seventh among 72 occupation categories, behind only high finance, energy and company management professions.

The problem is, 98 percent of working Americans are not federal employees. While many people keep losing their jobs—incidentally, another manufacturer here in southwest Ohio closed, putting 57 folks out of work—there is a growing number of people who wonder why the government isn’t cutting back like every other employer.

The answer is relatively simple. The government keeps expanding because it keeps adding layer upon layer of services and programs, with commensurate increases in federal bureaucracy. It will soon get to the point at which our economy will grind to a halt under all of the new taxes, laws, and regulations. Companies trying to conduct business here at home will soon find an economic climate favoring government oversight instead of productivity. We may, by the end of Obama’s first (and hopefully only) term, revisit the economic malaise brought on by the Carter administration: double digit unemployment, high inflation, and escalating interest rates. Even if inflation and interest rates never reach those levels, economists aren’t expecting the job market to reach pre-recession hiring levels until 2015.

It comes down to this: if you want to prosper, get a job working for Uncle Sam. Otherwise, get ready for an extended rough ride.

Just when everyone thought that the foreclosure crisis was easing, new data shows that the housing market remains in turmoil. This has contributed, in part, to the stock market’s recent slide. Investors are concerned that Europe’s financial problems, combined with the United States’ stagnant economy and continuing housing crisis, will delay any global economic recovery.

Here in Ohio, the Dayton Daily News reports that the state is on a record pace for foreclosure filings through the first quarter of 2010. In an eight-county region in southwest Ohio, foreclosures have gone up 8.8% over the same period from last year. The paper blames Ohio’s Republican-controlled Senate, and its failure to pass legislation aimed at helping distressed mortgages. However, there is a federal program that will likely be responsible for giving lenders a green light to seize troubled properties, further accelerating the foreclosure pace.

The HAFA (Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives) program that began in April of this year was supposedly designed to alleviate mortgage delinquencies through the short sale process. Borrowers could potentially receive cash bonuses for agreeing to either a short sale or deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure procedure that would allow lenders to take the troubled property without resorting to foreclosure. That sounds good, in theory. But the reality is, the financial firms that own most of these mortgages aren’t even participating in the HAFA program.

Bank of America recently revealed that mortgages owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as FHA/VA mortgages, are not subject to HAFA guidelines. These loans make up the vast majority of home mortgages. As a result, many short sale packages previously submitted to lenders are being rejected, with no new short sale proposals being accepted. This frees lenders to swiftly foreclose on distressed properties with no fear of reprisal from the federal government. Many real estate professionals expect foreclosures to increase dramatically through the rest of this year.

To make matters worse, the federal government, and the Democrats in particular, still seem reluctant to make job creation a top priority. The Labor Department said that the number of mass layoffs (which involves 50 or more people) rose by 228 in the month of April to a total of 1,856. So, despite the notion that an economic recovery is underway, it is clear that manufacturers are continuing to eliminate jobs. This will only aggravate the housing crisis, as more Americans lose their incomes.

Sadly, the Democrats have suggested that their big legislative push is over until the 2010 election. After passing huge bills to reform health care, provide insurance to children, restructure (downsize) auto companies, regulate financial institutions, and increase tobacco taxes, the Democrats now want to take it easy. They are fearful of voter backlash. They forget, however, that voters will be mindful of what the Democrats didn’t do, rather than what they have done to this point. The longer it takes for the Democrats to address job growth, the bigger the backlash will grow.

The Democrats obviously misunderstood the message. When Americans elected Barack Obama as President, the Democrats thought they had been given a green light to reshape this country to fit their liberal ideology. While Obama’s campaign promises to revive the economy, bring transparency to government, and make health insurance more available sounded good, the real agenda lay hidden until after the inauguration.

Now, we can see that the Democrats intended all along to increase the size and power of the federal government. And when government gets larger in size, it also gets hungrier for revenue. Like the Roman Empire that needed enormous sums of money to expand its borders, our government will someday find itself in the same circumstance and, sadly, the same end.

Here are some alarming statistics, from an article written by David Gergen for the May 9 edition of Parade magazine:

• Public spending by federal, state, and local government was 24% of the GDP in 1950; however, spending could hit 44% of GDP this year.
• The Tax Foundation estimates that 60% of all Americans now receive more in income benefits from government than they pay into government.
• The Tax Policy Center has found that only 47% Of American households now pay federal income taxes.
• The European Union says that it is dangerous for a country to allow its publicly held debt to exceed 60% of its GDP. The Congressional Budget Office, however, says that the United States could hit that 60% mark by the end of the year, and could reach 100% by the year 2020.
• Finally, The Economist estimates that the federal government now employs a quarter of a million people to write and enforce regulations.

Many people accuse the Republicans of coddling the rich at the expense of the poor. But the Democrats are no better; they rob everyone, and make the government fatter and richer. The numbers tell an alarming story. When government spending is 44% of GDP, 60% of citizens receive more of their income from government, and there are 250,000 federal employees writing or enforcing regulations, but there is less than half of American households paying taxes, it is easy to see that we are headed for a total collapse.

It is time to quit feeding the monster. If we don’t, the monster will end up devouring us all, one tax at a time.