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.

Pitts, however, doubts that Tea Partiers hate Barack Obama just because he is black. Indeed, Obama’s race is a minor issue. It wouldn’t matter which prominent Democrat held the office of President. The results would be the same, whether Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or any other liberal occupied the White House. As proof, one only needs to recall Bill Clinton’s first year in office. Among his top priorities were health care reform and the issue of gays in the military. In Barack Obama’s first year, he too has pressed for health care reform, addressed gay rights in the military, and has beat up on car companies and fat cat bankers to boot.

Instead, Pitts asserts that the Tea Partiers are upset about the changes in American society. He writes, “We are witness to the birth cries of a new America,” and that everyone like him “embraces and celebrates that,” and “looks forward to the opportunity and inclusiveness it promises.” Pitts might do well to check his eyesight. It is hard to see opportunity with a real unemployment rate of about 16 percent. It is hard to celebrate a government that keeps getting bigger, with government workers earning twice the salary of the average blue collar employee. It’s also hard to fault people who see their individual rights subordinated to the power of government, and, like the Whos living on the clover in “Horton Hears a Who,” are screaming “We are Here!”

Perhaps the Tea Party members can be faulted for not being vocal enough in recent years. I have a feeling that many of them thought that just believing in a set of morals or principals was good enough, and that there would always be sufficient numbers of like-minded people who would vote against the liberal candidate. They are now realizing that they might be doing too little too late.

Let us hope that there is still enough time to keep America from sinking into the quicksand of collectivist ideology. It’s going to take more than the Tea Partiers to make it happen. Every conservative in America needs to band together to resist the liberal juggernaut that threatens to turn America into a socialist has-been of a country.

The backlash against the big-government machine being piloted by the Obama administration has given voice to smaller, grass-roots organizations that are less concerned with typical moral issues like abortion, and more focused on runaway government spending and tax increases. This is probably beneficial to the conservative movement as a whole, and should be part of the Republican Party’s overall vision. The idea of a smaller, efficient government that primarily concerns itself with protecting the country, the country’s currency, the American economy, and the rights of individuals should be embraced by the GOP.

But somehow, the Republicans have forgotten how to emphasize the goodness of those principles, and have chosen instead to hack away at certain pieces of Democratic legislation, or at certain members of the Democratic Party. They have presented themselves to the public as being just as partisan and dogmatic as their opponents.

Hopefully, the voices of the various organizations that participated in Thursday’s conference can help refocus the sight of the Republican Party. Ned Ryun, founder of an organization called American Majority, observed that “The conservative movement has been stuck for so long in this idea that good ideas will win out. But good ideas won’t implement themselves without effective organization. Bad ideas with good organization will always win out over good ideas with bad organization.”

This is the major failing of the Republican Party. They have many of the right ideas, but can’t communicate them to the American people. Ronald Reagan was the last great Republican speaker; he was able to associate himself, his ideas, and his party with the things we envisioned as good about America. That is what the Republicans need right now; someone that can eloquently present the virtue of their form of governing, not just some adolescent attack on a Democratic straw man. Maybe the CPAC gathering can be a new beginning for the Grand Old Party.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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”!

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.

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?