The Conservative Edge

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.

There are a couple of words that have become more prominent in my vocabulary, and I would like to introduce them to readers of this blog. The words are statists and collectivists. Both words actually refer to the same group of people. You might otherwise know them as socialists, Marxists, and liberals. Not coincidentally, most of these people belong to the Democratic Party.

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!

One thing that readers of this blog can expect to see is a new title for this site. I felt that January 1 was an appropriate day to change the name to “The Conservative Edge.” It seemed necessary to express a greater purpose for this blog, and to also imply that conservative and independent Americans should have a finer “edge” that can slice through the negative anti-American ideology of the liberal movement.

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”!

It’s no wonder the Democrats don’t want us to read the health care legislation being rammed through Congress. If we were allowed time to peruse the hundreds of pages, we might find that gun owners could face higher rates for health insurance, thanks to the Centers for Disease and Control.

That’s right—the CDC is violating a congressional ban enacted during the 1990s, in which Congress forbid the CDC to conduct studies on any kind of relationship between gun-related injuries and health care costs. The reason for the ban was to prevent any taxpayer-funded “research” being done by a government entity that would endorse tighter gun control laws.

Apparently, the Obama administration isn’t too concerned with a government agency acting unethically. The CDC is continuing its “research” on gun violence and its impact on health care costs. The results of the studies are being included in the pending health care legislation that will be debated in the Senate after Thanksgiving. So, even though the Democrats are outwardly concerned with the plight of the uninsured, they are secretly finding new ways to discourage gun ownership by increasing every conceivable cost associated with legally owning firearms. Just think—soon your health insurance applications will have a section asking you how many guns you own, and if so, what kind. If you confess to owning one, you’ll be put into a “high-risk” category.

Is that what health care “reform” is all about? If you don’t like the deceptive tactics of the CDC and Congress, contact your Senators. You can also read more about this issue at the Buckeye Firearms Association website, by following this link. Don’t let our government destroy our constitutional freedoms!

Every once in a while, you read or hear something that goes beyond interesting, and instead either moves you to tears or to action. I recently had the privilege of reading a column written by Thomas Sowell, and published in the November 2 edition of the IBD newspaper. His essay stirred my conscious, but I also felt validated in a way, because I have written several times previously about the danger the current President (and his cohorts) can inflict on our great country.

I wish not to try and quote Sowell word for word. I think each reader of this post should follow the link above and read his column in its entirety. However, I will briefly summarize the main points of the column:

1. An unelected government official has been appointed by the President, with authority to cut the pay of private business executives.
2. A media “czar” may be appointed to subsidize (seize) media outlets, to provide the government with the authority to silence talk radio.
3. President Obama has spoken of creating a national police force.
4. A panel of “experts” may soon decide who gets life-saving medical treatments.
5. Look at the kinds of people Obama has been associated with, and who he keeps putting in positions of power—individuals who flatly reject American values.
6. Obama and the Democratic nest of vipers have tried to force two landmark bills through Congress. Both of them were more than 1,000 pages long, and neither of them were made available for public scrutiny.
7. This administration is showing a dangerous tendency to be nice to foreign thugs, yet ruthless toward American society.

It is amazing that many Americans are still infatuated with the Pied Piper of “Hope” and “Change.” It is inconceivable that people still send the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Rangel, and others to Washington time after time. They are the ones sending this country down the road of destruction. We can no longer blame the previous administration for America’s growing maladies.

There is an old saying about a leader of a country, that he (or she, I suppose) should keep friends close, but keep enemies closer. Josef Stalin used that principle ruthlessly, as he maintained power by killing anyone he thought would threaten him in any way. I’m sure other dictators and despots employed similar tactics. I believe that Saddam Hussein studied the methods of Stalin, and achieved similar results in Iraq.

You wouldn’t expect such behavior, even on a smaller scale, from a Nobel Prize winner. Nor should an agent of “Hope” and “Change” have a conspicuous dark side of hate and mistrust. But President Barack Obama seems to be nurturing a grudge against those who publicly express any kind of disagreement with his actions and policies.

Of course, he is not alone in his disdain of the detractors. The liberals and Democrats always talk a good game, but get extremely annoyed when anyone dares to question them. They are all schooled in the art of debate, and in speech-making and presentation. Indeed, I saw one editorial cartoon recently that suggested that the Nobel Prize should have gone to Obama’s teleprompters. The Democrats think that we should be awed by all the wonderful words and catchphrases that roll off their glib tongues.

But it’s amazing how upset they become when average Americans start to question their political grandstanding. No wonder that so many of the recent “town hall” style meetings have become so contentious. Real people started voicing real concerns, and expressed genuine displeasure with the illogical and twisted legislative processes put in place by the leading Democrats. Some members of the Democratic party started referring to these average Americans as uneducated rubes who were un-American and unpatriotic for causing such commotions in public forums. No wonder they have begun hiding their legislation from the public. They don’t want any debate on the bills they are ramming through Congress.

Now, President Obama is taking aim at conservative media programming. Senator Lamar Alexander has observed some of Obama’s obsessive behavior, such as the Obama White House adopting an attitude similar to that of the Richard Nixon White House four decades ago, that “everybody is against us and we are going to get them.” The President has also said that he will call out people who oppose him and boycott Fox News network. To his credit, Alexander, a member of the congressional Republican leadership, said he is “suggesting that the president back up” and “don’t start an enemies list.”

So Obama and the liberals want to squelch all dissent, silence opposing media outlets, and prevent debate on legislation. Maybe they, too, have been reading about Stalin’s methodology. Oh well…if the Nobel Prize commission has a history of awarding the peace prize to people like Yassir Arafat, then perhaps Obama is in good company after all.

Sometimes you have to give credit when credit is due. I must commend Jonah Goldberg, a syndicated columnist, for his recent commentary published in the September 6 edition of the Dayton Daily News. His column focused on the media’s tendency to “give Obama as many do-overs as he needs.” Goldberg’s remark was made in light of the fact that Obama’s upcoming speech will be his third prime-time address in three months, and the fifth of his 7-month presidency.

Obama keeps making speeches, but he doesn’t put any meat with the potatoes, so to speak. He obviously enjoys getting TV exposure, and he makes sure the teleprompters are in place for every televised event, so his words will sound sophisticated and smooth. But when it comes to specific reforms, especially about health care, he doesn’t give many details. And when it seems that Congress isn’t acting fast enough on certain issues, the White House claims that Obama will assert himself to speed up the legislative process, and come up with solutions to America’s problems.

The trouble is, the only speedy actions taken by the dominant liberals in Congress have been to either raise taxes or expand government control of certain hated industries. As I’ve said before, the liberals have always despised cars, banks, and tobacco; as a result, the only decisive actions made by the liberals in Congress and the White House have been to raise tobacco taxes, seize banks and insurance companies, and cripple America’s car industry.

Meanwhile, unemployment keeps rising, beyond levels projected by Obama and his advisors. We keep hearing from the Obama administration that they didn’t realize the severity of the recession. But, Obama and other Democrats campaigned on their thorough knowledge of the economy, and what should be done to promote recovery. They can’t lean on the “we didn’t know” crutch forever, especially as millions of Americans are still waiting for the promise of job creation to be fulfilled. Indeed, the Associated Press reported on Joe Biden’s recent efforts to claim victory for the stimulus package: “Biden, Obama’s chief stimulus cheerleader, proudly pointed to more than 2,200 highway projects Thursday funded by the program, but didn’t mention the growing frustration among contractors that infrastructure money is only trickling out and thus far hasn’t delivered the needed boost in jobs.”

Americans may be growing impatient with all the talk, and Obama’s appetite for airtime. Goldberg observed in his excellent column, “Funny how the people who run the most sophisticated communication operation in the history of the presidency keep concluding that their difficulties stem from their inability to get their message out and never from what their message actually is.” I wonder if Americans might be more receptive to health care reform if they first believed that the Obama administration was serious about creating jobs. That was the message of the 2008 campaign, but it’s now a message that can’t be heard above Obama’s prime time noise.

Not too long ago, I posted some commentary about the possibility of another Waco-style tragedy occurring sometime soon. As I stated, I have been wondering about what set of circumstances would be needed to set off another confrontation between gun owners and the federal government. I am now seeing what those circumstances could be.

This past week, news reports revealed the frustration some law-abiding gun owners are feeling as they see the government expanding its control over the American people. Gun-rights advocates openly expressed their rights to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and protested at President Obama’s public appearance on August 17. The Associated Press reported on the event, saying, “About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.”

A few days before, other protesters gathered at a different location where the President was speaking. It was reported that, “Last week, during Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading ‘It is time to water the tree of liberty’ stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg. ‘It’s a political statement,’ he told The Boston Globe. ‘If you don’t use your rights, then you lose your rights.’”

These kinds of open protests against the Obama administration might be enough to start a battle; just consider how many of the “town hall” style of meetings have given opportunity for angry Americans to voice their displeasure with the government. The liberals won’t tolerate average people sassing them for very long. Indeed, some of the ranking Democrats have already been expressing their real views of the American people, especially those who dare to disagree with their glib lies.

Nancy Pelosi, for example, has labeled critics of this Democratic administration as “un-American.” Harry Reid has called the town hall protesters “evil-mongers” (I guess he would be an expert in identifying evil). Even Obama himself has said that “the time for talking is over” when it comes to the health care issue. These people don’t want any disagreement or debate about anything they do. They do want us to accept their smooth speeches and evil deeds with complete deference and submission.

So, as the town hall meetings get nastier; as Obama’s approval ratings continue to fall; as government tightens its grip on our lives; and, as more gun owners openly express their rights, you can be sure that the government will exercise its power at the expense of someone’s life. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to read about an American citizen killed somewhere because he protested against the government by carrying a gun. Liberals can only take resistance for so long.

One of the liberals’ favorite mantras during the Bush administration was “Bush lied, people died.” The Democrats in Congress and in the media were obsessed with the idea that the Iraq war was accompanied by a massive cover-up of information. We supposedly went to war knowing that there were no WMDs in Iraq. All of the pied pipers in the media said that we had been misled and lied to, and that the government had suppressed vital intelligence information.

The Obama administration was going to be different. “Transparency” was a key word used to describe the truthfulness of the new presidency. But we’ve all been lied to since last November. Obama campaigned on putting Americans to work. He said that the economy was going to get a “quick jolt.” But, as Ohio’s own John Boehner recently asked, “Where are the jobs?”

The Obama administration is giving us a green version of deception and cover-up, with help from the Environmental Protection Agency. Research conducted by the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics challenges the prevailing notion that global warming is an increasing danger to the environment. But it seems that the report was intentionally suppressed in order to allow the EPA to support the administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

The June 29 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily notes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released the EPA study on its own website. Among the findings are interesting statements such as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998, there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” And this one: “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such process.”

Apparently, the person responsible for producing the report at the EPA has been removed from all climate-related work. He has even been advised to hire an attorney. He is in hot water for suggesting that science is being ignored in the evaluation of CO2 as a pollutant.

If his research had been released before the House vote on the cap-and-trade bill, the outcome might have been different. It’s no wonder the Obama administration is moving so quickly on climate change legislation. They are intentionally suppressing information that would blow holes in the global warming theory, and allow millions of reasonable Americans to see what a farce the theory really is. Remember Y2K? It never happened.

You can read more of the IBD editorial here. I would also recommend a visit to a highly regarded science blog, Watts Up With That? You’ll find that not only are global warming dissenters being intentionally silenced, but that climate data is manipulated to produce desired results that support climate legislation.

Jobs? We don’t need them. The liberals are convinced that America needs more legislation and regulation. They are taking care of both with unprecedented speed and ruthlessness.

If you are a frequent visitor to this blog site, then you know I am less than thrilled by the actions of the Obama administration. Much of the legislation passed this year was done in speed and haste. You might say that some things were enacted because the liberal/Democratic bunch have greedily desired to beat up certain industries (like tobacco and automobiles); yet some issues are hastily being dealt with (namely health care) because they don’t want to give us a chance to disagree with their efforts.

But I do have to commend President Obama for his recent remarks concerning the dignity, and importance, of fatherhood. He has openly talked about the neglect he endured from his own father. He turned that negative relationship into a positive motivator, vowing to be a better father when he had children of his own. “I don’t want to be the kind of father I had,” the president is quoted as telling a friend in a new book about him (read more on Yahoo! news).

Fathers, and men in general, are being lost in an ever-growing tidal wave of feminism. If you look at the way TV shows, for instance, are being promoted, you can see a marked difference. Ads for “The Closer” and “Saving Grace” show a headstrong woman single-handedly rescuing society from evildoers. But men aren’t allowed to be independent butt-kickers anymore. White males, especially, have to be part of a multi-ethnic team now; look at the way the new drama “Leverage” is depicted. Perhaps more degrading is the manner in which men are shown on network programming. They are either stupid, lazy louts who can’t groom themselves, or they are weak, effeminate servants of some dominant female character.

Men and fathers are better than that, if they can only believe. I am often amazed when I read of the literary genius of a Winston Churchill or a J.R.R. Tolkien; or the deep reflection and power of observation of a Carl Jung or an Abraham Lincoln; or the artistic talents of a Pablo Picasso; or the mathematical and scientific ability of a George Boole or an Albert Einstein. These were all great men, remarkable in their various achievements. They can also be examples of what men can achieve, if they but only try.

I once read a book about the fall of the Roman Empire, and what lead to the breakdown of Roman society. The author cited the disintegration of the family unit as the beginning of the end of the empire. When the family lost the leadership of the father, there was a subsequent loss of tradition, discipline, work ethic, and honor. The author also drew a parallel to modern American society; indeed, we are witnessing the erosion of fatherhood, just as Rome lost its way. It has been estimated that 24 million Americans are now growing up without a dad. How tragic that we now esteem single mothers who raise kids alone, while men and fathers are deemed unimportant.

So, at least dads get one day of recognition tomorrow. We will have our T-bone steaks hot off the grill, we will have our iced teas (with perhaps a splash of tequila mixed in), and maybe enjoy an after-dinner cigar and a siesta. And then, come Monday, we will slide back into obscurity as the feminists see fit. It has been said that it takes a village to raise a child; that village better have some good men in it, or else I sure feel sorry for the kids.

Happy Father’s Day!