The Conservative Edge

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 read a column in my local newspaper today (Jan. 19) that left me a little upset, and scratching my head. Isn’t it amazing how prominent columnists and political observers now want everyone to be nice, quiet citizens, and speak no ill toward the new administration? I felt the need to respond to a column by Kathleen Parker, and the entire contents of my letter are below:

“Kathleen,

“I just read your column “The Importance of Not Being Earnest”, published in the January 19 edition of the Dayton Daily News. While some of the column attempted to be encouraging, I saw an undercurrent of sarcasm and high-mindedness.

“Let’s take your indictment of our (your readers) seemingly inherent “snarky” attitudes. Are you suggesting that we are the only cynics and skeptics? That “snarkiness” must come from our own cold hearts and judgmental minds? Perhaps you should consider that some of us might be products of what we see on TV, or read in magazines and op-ed pieces. If it is the intention of editorial writers and other commentators to change or influence the thinking of those who read their works, then perhaps you should be willing to accept your role in shaping the attitudes of those you criticized in your column.

“For example, I believe it was you who, in a recent commentary, did everything but kick George Bush in the ass as you shoved him out the back door of the White House. Was this done in civility and grace? Hardly—to quote Clint Eastwood in the movie Heartbreak Ridge, “…that’s not very dignified for a mature woman…” And this is the kind of work many of us have been reading for the past 7 or 8 years. How can you then think that Americans have been immune to this kind of critical opinion? Is it possible that editorial poisons have sickened the American people?

“Another example of editorial pollution has been spread by your fellow columnist and “economist” Paul Krugman. I can’t think of a more crass, belligerent and snarky writer than Mr. Krugman. I have cut several of his columns out of the newspaper, just to marvel at his toxic vendettas he hurled at George Bush and other conservatives over the past few years. He has lambasted the Republicans for running federal deficits, but has now turned on a dime, insisting that deficits are necessary to turn our economy around.

“It seems that you have also turned on the same thin dime. You have gone from accuser to some sort of Pied Piper, telling us how WE need to develop a love for service. I think all of you who have fanned the fires of disdain and derision need to atone for your past few years of unpatriotic “snarkiness”. You have built your Golden Idol, and you want all of us to join the orgy of celebration. I’m sorry, but before I get all aglow, I need to see some admission of your own harboring of the things you seek to exorcise from us. Go ahead—confession is good for the soul!”

That’s my response. I guess we’re not supposed to treat Mr. Obama the same way that all the writers like Mrs. Parker treated the Bush administrations the past few years. It’s the old “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. It’s the Democratic/liberal way.