The Conservative Edge

Leonard Pitts, a columnist for the Miami Herald, recently commented on the driving forces behind the Tea Party movement. He referred to MSNBC hack Keith Olbermann, who insinuated that the Tea Party members “haven’t made peace with the fact that their president is black.” Spoken like a true demagogue—the Sharptons, Jacksons, and Olbermanns of this country continually stir up racial strife so they can remain in the news.

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.

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.

I didn’t watch President Obama’s State of the Union address. That was no accident. I didn’t tune in for two reasons: first, I knew the speech would be extensively published and reviewed, so I wouldn’t be missing anything; second, I didn’t care to witness Obama’s lack of accountability (from himself, his party, and the media) in defaulting on his campaign promises.

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.

The altruists have kicked into high gear this week after a 7.0 magnitude earthquake rocked the country of Haiti. Roughly a third of Haiti’s 9 million people have been directly affected by the earthquake and subsequent 40 tremors and aftershocks. Not surprisingly, the celebrities, athletes, and other famous folks have made headlines regarding their donations to Haiti rescue efforts, as well as urging Americans to open their pockets and send money to help the victims.

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.

Today marks the anniversary of the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. I watched some of the programs on the History Channel that chronicled both the events leading up to the attack, and the subsequent rescue and cleanup efforts. As I viewed the devastation, I thought that similar feelings must have gripped our nation after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. We were justified in reacting with full force against imperialist Japan; it seems that America should also be justified in retaliation against the terrorist regime responsible for attacking the Trade Center on two occasions.

But there are some who insist that the party responsible for flying two planes into the Trade Center buildings was none other than the United States government. The conspiracy theorists claim that the Bush administration contrived an elaborate plan to destroy the financial heart of America. This was supposedly done to allow the administration to enact surveillance laws that would enable the government to exert control over the American people, and also give cause for the invasion of Iraq.

But that theory is hard to accept. There are lots of folks who try to present evidence of flight number discrepancies, or suggest that undercover personnel planted explosives in the Trade Center. But it remains clear that terrorists wanted to destroy the symbols of American capitalism. The first attempt was in 1993, when a massive bomb was detonated underneath the Trade Center. Fortunately, the tower survived the blast, and the damage was quickly repaired. There have been no conspiracy theories developed to explain the first attack; why should we think it strange or unlikely that the same terrorist group would make a second strike to complete their mission of destruction?

Remember also that there is quite a difference in the way that Democratic and Republican administrations use force. Republican presidents have, generally, used military force against foreign regimes and countries. Ronald Reagan, for instance, invaded the island of Grenada to rescue American students who had been taken hostage. Reagan was also intent on standing up to Soviet aggression. The first George Bush built a coalition to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The second George Bush invaded Iraq to depose Saddam once and for all.

But Democratic presidents have been more forceful here at home. Bill Clinton blew the chance to apprehend Osama Bin Laden, and admitted as much in a television interview. Democrats always take a weak position of appeasement with foreign thugs. But domestically, Democrats turn into tigers when they get a chance to show off government’s power. The standoff at Waco, Texas in the early years of the Clinton administration was the most egregious and unlawful use of force ever exhibited by any occupant of the White House. Conspiracy theorists fret about Bush’s use of wiretaps, but he never sent tanks into an American city to kill American citizens the way that Clinton did at Waco.

Clinton could have ordered the FBI to quietly nab David Koresh, the leader of the Branch Davidians, at some local coffee shop or gas station. But because the Branch Davidians had stockpiled some weapons in anticipation of the Apocalypse, Clinton decided that a show of force was necessary. Any individual or group of people that bear arms are seen by Democrats and liberals as a threat to government authority. Clinton was determined that he would show the Davidians who was boss. He sent tanks and other armed personnel to confront, and ultimately destroy, the Davidians and their compound. A situation that could have been defused peacefully turned into a tragedy. And without Waco, there might not have been a bombing in Oklahoma City.

If conspiracy theorists want to see a real abuse of power by the government, they should focus on the tragedy at Waco. Meanwhile, I will continue to mourn the loss of American lives on September 11, 2001, and remember that it was the obsessive hatred of a terrorist organization that destroyed those two gleaming towers.

There is an old Biblical proverb that says there is nothing new under the sun; things that are happening now have happened before (if you’re curious, read Ecclesiastes chapter one, verses 9 and 10).

That proverb has come to mind this week as I scanned a few articles in my local newspaper. I read about the proposals for health care reform, and legislation that will redefine or clarify abortion rights. I felt like I was reading articles from 1993. If you recall, it was Bill Clinton who, along with Hillary, attempted a massive overhaul of the American health care system. Clinton also endeavored to expand abortion services, and appropriate government funding for those services.

But during the election of 1992, Clinton had campaigned on economic issues. America had been in a mild recession, but statistics were showing that the economy was slowly recovering. However, the Democratic candidate painted a gloomy picture of our financial health, and promised quick action to stimulate our economy. His picture was indeed gloomy enough, and he was promptly elected.

Fast forward to 2008. As our nation faced a severe recession, Barack Obama promised to put thousands of Americans to work rebuilding our infrastructure. He also vowed to give a “quick Jolt” to the economy. But, like Clinton, Obama changed his priorities once he was sworn in to office. We now see the real goals set by the Democrats and liberals: higher taxes, increased regulation of banks and industry, health care reform, and abortion legislation.

It looks like Americans are going to recover in spite of the government, not because of it. There is still a lack of focus on job creation, which would stimulate the economy more than all the new regulations and taxes combined. Job prospects are still bleak. In my area of Ohio, for instance, there is the threat of closure of several public libraries. Voters will soon be deciding on whether to approve additional property taxes that will keep most library branches open. You know things are bad when public libraries have to shut down. But it’s like that all across the state.

I’m hoping that Obama will realize that the government should provide an environment for growth and innovation. When more people work, they buy more goods and contribute more revenue. But Obama’s efforts are going toward the taxation of the fewer Americans who are still working to create wealth. Many experts ridiculed the idea of “trickle-down” economics. If Obama isn’t careful, he will completely shut off the trickle we have left.

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.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post titled “The Big Picture.” In it, I tried to make it easier for people to understand that the actions taken now by the government result from ideas conceived a generation ago. I know I keep going on about events transpiring in the auto industry, the oil and energy industries, and our personal uses of tobacco and firearms. But, we need to comprehend just how serious the liberal movement is about removing the freedoms and products we now use and value as good and necessary.

In “The Big Picture” I made this statement: “The liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.” Now there are, I will admit, some short-term reactions to the various flaps and controversies that pop up in the media. For instance, it is amazing to watch Nancy Pelosi squirm about her obvious knowledge of interrogation techniques. She is Clinton-like in her ability to turn a lie into an accusation. But her crisis is only temporary, and will soon fall from the headlines. Meanwhile, the great social engineering of the 21st century marches onward, orchestrated by the liberal dictatorship. The liberals have gone from planning to enacting.

I wish there were some conservatives or Republicans who could articulate, or at least identify, this danger to our country and society. Instead of just being the guys who say “no” to Obama, the Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops about the rapid pace at which we’re headed off the cliff. Many Republicans are fond of invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, but they can’t portray America’s strength and purpose the way he could. Watching some Republicans make speeches is about as exciting as watching paint dry. They have no fire, no cause, no raison d’etre as the French would say.

Here is an example of how Ronald Reagan could identify and explain a liberal ideological threat. In 1980, when he campaigned for the presidency, Reagan spoke of the liberals’ desire to dismantle the American auto industry. He said, “It is fashionable in some Washington circles to be hostile to the automobile, especially the American automobile. After all, everything in Washington is close by, and even those without limousines or Volvos can get around in the taxpayer-funded Metro subway. But those who must get from one place to another in such locales as Texas, Kansas, or Los Angeles can’t afford the luxury of seeing cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.”

How prophetic Reagan’s words have become. He understood, way back in 1980, that the liberals desired to destroy the automobile and its use as personal transportation. Listen to his phrases: “hostile to the automobile,” and “cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.” He knew it, and identified it as a part of the liberals’ plan to reshape America, and not for the better. Twenty-nine years later, look at what is happening to the auto industry. Like I said, the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.

In early 1993, I wrote a letter to my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, about Bill Clinton’s first 100 days in office. If you remember, Clinton had campaigned mostly on economic issues. The Democratic mantra of the time was “It’s the economy, stupid.” America was experiencing a mild recession at the time, but was coming out of it in the last half of 1992. The Democrats, predictably, still insisted that the economy was in shambles, and the only way to turn things around was to elect Clinton for president.

However, as I reminded the newspaper, Clinton changed his tune after he took office. In his first 100 days, his two top priorities were to legalize and fund abortions, and to change the military’s policy on homosexuals who served or would serve in the armed forces. Additionally, Hillary Clinton would embark on a reformation of America’s health care system. The economy suddenly became less important.

So now, in 2009, we again have a Democratic president who campaigned on giving the economy a “quick jolt” to help start a recovery from a serious recession. But what has happened since Barack Obama took office? First, there was a change in urgency. The message went from giving the economy a “quick jolt” to “it’s going to take a long time” to fix things. This attitude is in contrast to a recent poll conducted by Pew Research, which revealed that 82% of Americans feel that jobs/job creation is the most serious issue we will face in 2009.

But again, job creation has been put on the back burner. What has been the Democrats’ priorities since Obama took office? The new administration reversed the Bush stance toward abortion, and has provided new funding for the abortion industry. Guantanamo Bay has been closed, with some of the detainees already getting back to their terrorist activities. New taxes have been levied on all tobacco products. And now we have a “stimulus” plan that is devoid of any kind of jolt the economy sorely needs.

For example, there is $800 million going to AMTRAK. $345 million for new Agriculture Department computers. $650 million for TV converter boxes. $1 billion to deal with Census problems. $88 million to move the Public Health Service into a new building. The Senate wants $2.1 billion to pay off a shortfall in public housing accounts, $870 million to combat the flu and $400 million to slow the spread of HIV and other diseases. One of the more ominous provisions: $1 billion for “community organizing”.

No wonder the Democrats are telling us it’s going to be a long time until the economy recovers. The only thing being stimulated under this new administration is the size of the government. As Cal Thomas stated in one of his recent columns, “Democrats see government as a first resource and people as an expanding pool of victims who are incapable of independently bettering their lives.” As I try to tell people, the Democrats can only gain power as the people lose their power and independence.

Be extremely wary of all that “community organizing”. In Germany of the 1920s and 1930s, there had been a sort of national organization called the “Citizens Defense”, which was ready to stand against foreign involvement regarding certain German territories. When this defense group was officially outlawed, one of Adolf Hitler’s henchmen rebuilt the group into the SA, which enforced the will of the Nazi party on a “community” level. Given that Obama has already supported the likes of ACORN, what would his “community organizations” be equipped to do? Think about it!

I can’t believe what I’ve been reading in my local newspaper this week. Many people have been writing to the editors, condemning the Israeli retaliation in Gaza. One reader stated that “Israel…is murdering innocent civilians in its so-called war against Hamas”, and that “Israel is no better than Saddam Hussein.” Another letter reads “There is a genocide going on in Gaza today”, and that President-elect Obama should “make a strong statement against the slaughter in Gaza.” There was even a public gathering downtown, where people protested againt Israel’s actions.

Are Americans so blind to the tactics of terrorist organizations? Do they never see the aggression that provokes the retaliation and subsequent war? Do they realize that Israel does indeed have a right–socially, morally, and militarily–to defend its borders and its people?

The Associated Press, at the beginning of the current conflict, reported that Hamas began launching rockets into Israel as the cease-fire agreement was set to expire. Israel was willing to extend the agreement, but Hamas was unwilling to cooperate. The AP also revealed on December 27, 2008, that thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.

This is the real tragedy: terrorist organizations who put citizens’ lives in danger by hiding weapons and munitions in homes and schools, thereby holding people hostage every day. In a sick form of passive-aggressive methodology, the terrorists actually hope for civilian casualties to further their cause. It works because they know that Israel will retaliate. Hamas (and other militants) are aggressors in picking a fight, but portray themselves as victims of aggression when someone fights back.

Many people wonder why Israel has such sophisticated defenses, built with the help of the United States. The reason is very clear. Israel, a land roughly half the size of my home state of Ohio, is under constant threat. Not only do organizations like Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah regularly attack Israeli interests, but the countries of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran pose serious threats too. Imagine being under constant fear of rocket attacks in Ashkelon, or suicide bombs in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Would you not want your government to protect your right to live?

The United States encountered several terrorist attacks in the 1990’s. From the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, we lost hundreds of fine service people to thugs and cowards like the ones attacking Israel right now. Would any American deny our right to take action against those who harmed us? Even though we didn’t strike back with sufficient vengeance—Bill Clinton allowed Osama Bin Laden to be extradited to Afghanistan—we had (and still have) the right to defend our country. Why should Israel have any less right?

I had the privilege to visit Israel in February of 2000, as they were preparing for the Pope’s historic visit later that year. I only saw a handful of soldiers the whole time I was there. The soldiers were so friendly, in fact, that some of them posed for pictures with certain female members of our tour group. All across the country, people just seemed to enjoy relaxing on their front porches, watching their kids play soccer at school, or buying goodies at the marketplaces. They seemed willing to be peacable folks, but it’s hard to be at peace when neighboring countries keep shooting rockets at them. Again, I ask—why shouldn’t Israel defend its people, and its way of life?