The Conservative Edge

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.

It does sound like a good deal. The “Cash for Clunkers” program will help put you behind the wheel of that new car the government wants you to own. Old vehicles get taken off the roads, and are replaced by new fuel-efficient cars, and the consumer gets a good deal to boot. So what could be wrong with the program?

There are actually a few negative side effects. Firstly, there are restrictions on the purchase of the new vehicle; namely, the new vehicle cannot be resold for the first two years of ownership. This makes sense, in a way, but it does prevent the buyer of a new car from potentially making a profit by selling the vehicle. For instance, say a person takes advantage of the CARS trade-in program in addition to factory rebates and dealer incentives. But, six months into ownership, say the buyer either doesn’t like the car after all, or needs to sell it due to financial considerations. He or she could get his or her money back, and then some. That transaction, however, would be disallowed by the CARS program restrictions.

Secondly, the used car and used parts industries are being dramatically affected. This is because any vehicle (the “clunker”) traded in must be scrapped, and cannot be re-sold. Salvage yards are not even allowed to sell the engines and drivetrains; they must be destroyed. According to the Dayton Daily News, one local salvage yard refused to take part in the CARS program because of all the rules and restrictions. Another local salvage yard is approved to accept the clunkers, but has declined. Apparently, a government safety bulletin has been issued, stating that disabling the motors yields a toxic substance when the components are melted together, possibly causing skin irritations and other hazards to workers in unventilated areas. These are serious safety concerns for salvage yard owners.

Thirdly, there are higher costs projected for used auto and truck parts. One local proprietor predicts that consumers will see an increase in the prices of used parts for SUVs and trucks, simply because there will be fewer parts available. Another salvage yard owner stated that in the future, if someone needs a transmission, they will be paying quite a bit more for it. This will affect the people who cannot afford a new vehicle, even if they could be eligible for the clunkers deal. With so many Americans still out of work, the last thing they need is higher vehicle repair costs.

Finally, many of the cars being traded in are still driveable. A local car dealer observed that, out of 25 “clunkers” taken in, 15 or 16 of them could have been retailed, or given to someone in need of a nice car. Furthermore, some dealers aren’t getting paid for the “clunkers.” One dealer has 96 cars ready to be taken off his lot, but hasn’t been paid by the government. He has close to half a million dollars’ worth of vehicles ready to send to the scrap yards.

Even though the “Cash for Clunkers” program seems to be a great deal for the consumer, there is still an underlying goal for the liberals in the federal government. Their goal is to dramatically reduce the numbers of cars on the road, and in the process, reduce our dependence on automobiles as personal transportational devices. This CARS program is only the first step. Don’t be surprised if, under the authority of the EPA, the government mandates emission tests for all used vehicles; if the vehicle can’t pass the new emission tests, it will be taken out of service. That won’t be a good deal for anyone.

On Friday, June 12, I heard Larry Summers defend the government’s involvement in private companies. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Summers said that President Obama “did not, as he has said many times, run for president to manage banks, insurance or car companies.”

That’s understandable. If Obama had mentioned those ideas, he might not have been elected. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama campaigned on fixing the economy, but, once in office, began implementing the Democrats’ real agenda.

If Obama had been completely honest, before the election, about the liberals’ real intentions, he would have told us that (among other things):

• They would impose outrageous and illogical taxes on tobacco products (supposedly to fund health insurance for children), with further tobacco regulation directed by the FDA.
• They would decimate the American auto industry, causing the additional loss of thousands more jobs. They would have the authority to fire the CEO of GM, and arrange the sale of Chrysler’s assets to a foreign car maker. They would increase the regulation of the auto industry, with the EPA to be in charge of auto emissions.
• They would permit the White House to oversee the upcoming Census, removing the Department of Commerce oversight.
• They would increase spending and our national deficit, leading to inflation and higher interest rates.
• They would refuse to expand the exploration and utilization of our energy resources, risking our national security and maintaining our dependence on foreign oil supplies.

That’s been the focus of the administration during the first few months. There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on job creation. We were supposed to get a “quick jolt” to the economy, but I haven’t noticed it yet. Most of the new jobs the Obama administration takes credit for have come from preparation for the Census. Unemployment has spiked well beyond government estimations. And the run-up in oil prices means that the markets are anticipating increases in inflation, due to the massive amounts of new money being released by the government.

It gets worse. If the Obama administration authorizes the pending cap-and-trade legislation, we will all be spending more on energy to heat and cool our homes. That’s besides the higher gasoline prices that are sure to come, because the Democrats refuse to capitalize on American resources. The real growth we are witnessing is not in job creation, but in the size and authority of the Federal government. God help us.

I noticed the results of an online survey this past week regarding the cost of gasoline. The survey leads me to believe (to continue to believe, I might say) that the elected officials in Washington aren’t listening to the people they supposedly represent. The liberals, especially, continue their sky-is-falling scare tactics about global warming, while doing nothing to alleviate Americans’ fears that gasoline costs will again rise in the near future.

The polling group Ipsos conducted an online survey from May 19 through May 25. Following are some of the results:

• When asked to choose between lower gas prices and reduced auto emissions, 66 percent of Americans said that lower gas prices was the more important issue.
• When asked whether the government should subsidize food crops or ethanol production, 82 percent felt that food subsidies were more important; 56 percent felt that ethanol production created higher food prices.
• When the survey asked whether energy independence or lower food prices was more important, 55 percent opted for energy independence.

So it seems that, generally, Americans desire lower gas prices, and then reduced food costs, ahead of any emission or greenhouse gas concerns. If the liberals in Washington were attentive to these issues, they could put more Americans to work producing more American energy, to the benefit of society. The American people aren’t necessarily as stupid as the liberals believe. People understand that energy dependence leads to higher energy costs. Most of us remember that the spike in oil prices (all the way to $147 a barrel) not only led to a rise in gas prices, but caused food prices to escalate as well. This vicious cycle will be repeated as long as the liberals keep their stranglehold on American society, and fail to heed the working class.

Feel free to send these survey results to your elected officials. They need to hear our voices. You can bet that they will soon attempt to impose higher gasoline taxes (just look at what they did to tobacco products). We can’t let that happen without a fight.