The Conservative Edge

One of my favorite quotes is as follows: “The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” The person who uttered those words was Winston Churchill. He was right. Since history often repeats itself, we can sometimes anticipate future events by studying similar circumstances that existed in previous eras.

For example, the Greek philosopher Plato realized that democracy might not be the best form of government. His reasoning is sound, but his predictions of what will eventually happen under democratic rule seem to perfectly describe American society. It is as though he was the one who utilized a time machine to travel forward and observe modern times.

Plato wrote that “democracy originates when the poor win, kill, or exile their opponents, and give the rest equal rights and opportunity of office…” He also observed that people would judge democracy “to be the best form of society…if they judge by appearances.” But appearances can be deceiving. According to author Douglas J. Soccio, Plato felt that democracy violates the principle of functional order and rule by reason. Plato felt that it was impossible that a love of money and adequate self-discipline by citizens could co-exist, and that one or the other must be neglected. It is clear which of those qualities has been cast aside.

It is fascinating how Plato predicted that even the animals would begin to have special rights as democracy developed. He observed that “you would never believe—unless you had seen it for yourself—how much more liberty the domestic animals have in a democracy. Everything is full of this spirit of liberty.” This past week, Yahoo! News reported that there is a host of animal rights laws that are being enacted worldwide. “The move was just the latest example of how animal rights are on the march - in the U.S. and much of the rest of the world,” the article stated. The report revealed that “animal-law courses are now taught at many of the nation’s leading law schools. Harvard Law School recently hosted a ‘Future of Animal Law’ conference sponsored by the Animal Legal Defense Fund.” Just as Plato predicted.

But the danger of liberty is that it often turns into excess. In fact, according to Soccio, Plato predicted that the built-in excesses of democracy already contain the seeds of tyranny. We can say that tyranny is a kind of government in which one person wields all power, but it is just as likely that a group or party can achieve the same kind of rule. Many people mistakenly think that Adolf Hitler seized power in Germany in the 1930s. He did not. The National Socialists gained a majority in Parliament mostly through democratic elections. Hitler himself was appointed Chancellor by an entirely legal process. The Nazis even had a slogan: “Dictatorship Through Democracy.”

In a similar way, the Democratic Party in America is aiming for the same kind of dictatorial power. The Democrats are using the idea of “liberty” for all, but are really catering to the excesses of people who prefer the democratic form of government. The Democrats and liberals promise everything to everyone, hoping to make the citizens content. Meanwhile, as they garner the votes of people who are virtually slaves to the party, they are securing more power to themselves, and taking away the rights of the individuals.

So it really is true—we can tell a lot about the future of America just by looking farther into the past.

The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has led to a host of environmental zealots trying to make us all feel guilty about using oil. As the director of legislative and public affairs for Ohio’s Environmental Council put it, “You turn the key to the car, you’re part of the problem, and you’re part of the solution.” Undoubtedly, there is a short-term toll on the Gulf ecosystem. The results would be even worse if not for the efforts to contain and dispose of the oil that has already reached the shorelines. However, the guilt, and blame, lies squarely with BP and whoever else might have been responsible for the accident.

One of the primary reasons that oil companies have been drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is that the environmentalists have successfully convinced enough people in Washington that there should be no oil drilling on the U.S. mainland. Nearly all of the areas of the country that hold any substantial oil reserves have been deemed off limits. As a result, much of our domestic oil production comes from offshore drilling. Furthermore, while other countries are busily securing oil supplies wherever they can, the United States has neglected to develop its own resources.

Which doesn’t make any sense at all. There is always someone on television talking about the need to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil.” That’s tough to do if we insist on buying our oil from other nations. Even Adolf Hitler realized the need for a steady supply of petroleum that would keep the German army mobilized. By the time World War 2 had started, Germany was able to make hundreds of thousands of barrels of synthetic oil, reducing the need to find a supply of fuel from distant sources. These synthetic fuel factories were prime targets for Allied bombers. When the factories were destroyed, it devastated the German mobile army.

It remains unclear why our government can’t use similar foresight. Instead, the liberals and Democrats resort to their core ideological beliefs. They believe that the individual has no right to succeed or fulfill any self-interest. The well-being of society takes precedence over the development of the person. As a result, we are all made to feel guilty for our normal and daily activities. We must not acquire wealth, because it is to be dispensed to the poor. We must not own firearms, because we might injure or kill another person. We should not enjoy the automobiles we own, lest we selfishly destroy the environment by burning fossil fuels. We must measure our self-worth by how much money we send to impoverished people in faraway countries. Meanwhile, as we suffocate our self esteem, the government grows larger in size and authority, and puts us under its dictatorial rule.

Nobody should feel guilty for using the gasoline that allows them to keep a job, feed a family, and maintain a home. Neither should any American feel remorse for using this country’s natural resources that would prevent us from being so dependent on a foreign supplier of energy. We should only demand that the producers of energy be efficient and responsible in their operations. And we should demand the same from our government.

That’s right—Al Gore thinks you’re a Nazi if you disagree with or refuse to accept the global warming theory. Here are some of his remarks, found on the science blog Watts Up With That? on July 7, 2009:

“Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis. The former US Vice President said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change.

“He also accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid difficult decisions.”

That last statement is quite amusing, because the global warming theory itself relies on a perceived ignorance in order to be accepted. However, there have been polls conducted which suggest that the more people discover about global warming, the less likely they are to accept it as fact.

That’s because global warming is presented primarily as an emotional argument. We hear that the ice caps are melting; the environment is in danger; the polar bears are becoming extinct; and now, one of the most emotionally-charged statements of all coming from the mouth of Al Gore, associating global warming resisters with the Nazis.

Demagogues such as Al Gore are forced to use emotion in their remarks because they have little else to go on. Facts and common sense contradict the global warming theory. There are scientists who believe that we need not rush into hasty and overzealous legislation to combat the buildup of “greenhouse gases.” The average American can easily grasp the notion that solar activity can account for as much as 68% of Earth’s temperature variation. That’s just common sense, since the sun is our primary source of heat. But that doesn’t make the same kind of headlines that Al Gore likes to make with his remarks about the Nazis.

In fact, one could make the case that it is Al Gore who is acting like a Nazi. When Hitler began gathering support and power, he first felt compelled to rid the German government of all Communists. However, since most of the Communists happened to be Jews, Hitler extended his persecution to the Jewish race. Hitler relentlessly blamed the Jews for Germany’s ills, making them scapegoats for everything. It’s downright spooky to see how Al Gore demonizes those who disagree with his gospel, just as Hitler did in the 1920s and 1930s.

The real danger of global warming is that it can be used to completely change and control our lives. It can limit our transportational freedoms, and dictate how we feed our families and heat our homes. We don’t need or deserve the level of domination and control that will envelop us if global warming legislation is fully implemented. That’s what Al Gore is really after—domination and control. He hates us, you know.

Today, June 6, marks the 65th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy, referred to as D-Day. The success of the invasion essentially began the demise of the German/Axis control of Europe. There was, of course, a heavy price paid in American, British, and other Allied lives. What a living hell those soldiers had to endure; but they were driven by a purpose and a clear-cut goal—to free European nations from the grip of Nazi power.

I had an uncle who fought in the European theater. His name was Art. He was evidently a fine soldier, and saw a lot of action, including the Battle of the Bulge. There is a story passed down through the family about Art’s encounter with General George Patton. It seems that, during a rare break in action, Art had some time to regroup with his fellow soldiers. While Art was attending to some routine details, General Patton came strolling by. Patton addressed Art, and then cursed at him. Art never hesitated—he greeted General Patton, and cursed right back at him. I won’t go into details about what they said. But, apparently, Patton was satisfied with Art’s response, and nothing else was said.

After the war, Art came home with a long list of commendations. He didn’t get to spend much time in civilian life, though. Not long after returning stateside, Art was killed in an automobile accident. He died before I was born.

I would love to have heard his stories of the war. Not just because of fighting’s sake, but to understand what kind of training, discipline, and equipment was needed to overcome the enemy. I would like to have heard about the leaders—the captains, commanders, and generals who directed the American army. I would also want to know about the sacrifices Art and others had to make, and hear about the other soldiers he knew, where they came from, and how they lived and died.

Those brave Americans need to be remembered and appreciated. We are alive today, perhaps due in no small part to the men who stumbled out of the landing craft at Normandy. They are part of what has been called “The Greatest Generation.” I can’t argue with that.

Thanks to all who have served our country!

Not too long ago, I wrote a commentary titled “Why Liberals Hate Us.” I referred to a column written by Brock Yates, published years ago in Car and Driver magazine. In his column, Yates cited some other writers, who said that the automobile represented one of the last bastions of unregulated freedom. And that’s why liberals have always hated cars. They resent ordinary Americans who derive such pleasure from driving, collecting, restoring, and hot-rodding their favorite cars. Since the late ’60s and through the ’70s, the car haters sought to regulate the automobile and anything connected with the industry.

So, they made seat belts, air bags, ignition interlock switches and 5-MPH bumpers mandatory equipment on all autos sold in America. While countries such as Germany had brilliantly engineered autobahns, superior driver training, and high driving speeds, the liberals here decided we should crawl down the road at 55 miles per hour. We have also been taxed like the colonists were under King George. We pay more in gasoline taxes than the actual cost of the fuel. We have to pay sales tax every time we buy a used car, much less a new one. Every year, it seems like we pay more and more for our car registration fees and driving license fees. All of this is done because liberals hate us and our cars.

Now, in 2009, we have a President who is just as eager to dump on the auto industry as the rest of the liberals in Congress. With the perfect storm of high oil prices in 2008, a collapse of domestic car sales, and an economic crisis, the Obama administration gets what other Democrats before him could only dream of. He now has the opportunity to dictate to the car companies exactly what kind of cars they can make, and how to make them.

This is confirmed by a recent report made public by the Environmental Protection Agency. As reported by Yahoo!, the EPA has concluded that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are a major hazard to Americans’ health. “In both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem (and) the greenhouse gases that are responsible for it endanger public health and welfare,” said the EPA. It was the first time the federal government had said it was ready to use the Clean Air Act to require power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

This opens the door very wide for Congress, especially the car-hating liberals, to regulate the automobile right out of our lives. Pay attention to the following quotes: It’s “a wake-up call for Congress” — deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate committee dealing with climate legislation. If Congress doesn’t move, Boxer said she would press EPA to take swift action. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., whose House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hopes to craft legislation in the coming weeks, called the EPA action “a game changer.” “It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation. It’s now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation,” said Markey.

For years, the liberals have been trying to convince us how bad the automobile has been, and how we are guilty for loving such terrible contraptions. Never mind that cars sold in California, for example, have been practically emission-free for years. The liberals have been trying to stigmatize the automobile for a long time, the same way they demonize tobacco and firearms. They are getting set to take it all away.

The Investor’s Business Daily recently quoted Czech President Vaclav Klaus in an editorial piece. Klaus said “As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism.” Klaus told the Cato Institute that “environmentalism is a religion” that accepts global warming on faith and seeks to exploit it to reshape the world and economic social order.

I couldn’t agree more.

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!