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.

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!

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.

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!