The Conservative Edge

There are several methods that political campaigns use to get the upper hand on an opponent. Often, a simple and direct approach is to attack the other person and his character. Sometimes, this can be accomplished in more subtle ways, especially when a candidate doesn’t want to appear mean-spirited or confrontational.

Liberals have become very adept at creating negative attitudes or doubts about a particular issue, and then associating an opponent with the perceived evil. For example, liberals have always hated guns, and fear constituents who own them. But rather than show their hatred of gun owners, the liberals simply demonized guns and gun manufacturers. They have chosen to portray guns as evil, responsible for murder and violence in America. Therefore, if people choose to own guns, they become liable for perpetuating crime and violence. As a result, liberals feel justified in creating more restrictive gun laws to keep them out of the hands of irresponsible citizens. It is a matter of guilt by association.

This practice of demonizing an institution has been the primary effort of Democrats here in Ohio. The campaign strategy of Governor Ted Strickland, the incumbent Democrat seeking re-election, consists mainly of blaming “Wall Street” for the state’s, and the country’s, economic distress. Strickland’s wife, Frances, blamed the loss of 8 million jobs during the past three years on “those working on Wall Street” during a rally on August 28 in Ohio. “That job loss started as a result of the problems on Wall Street,” she stated, according to the Dayton Daily News. In addition, television ads have been shown claiming that Wall Street was responsible for the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries.

There is a good reason why the liberals have been pressing the idea that Wall Street is evil. Strickland’s opponent for governor, Republican John Kasich, was employed at Lehman Brothers for several years. The association the liberals are trying to make is that, if firms like the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers caused the economic problems we are still dealing with, then Kasich must be guilty simply by association. And, that if the investment firms are responsible for the economic mess, then Kasich will be bad for the economy as well.

But the liberals conveniently omit the fact that many banks and investments firms have been hit just as hard by the economic downturn. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt; many banks failed; investment firms saw millions of dollars pulled out of the market. Another fallacy of the campaign against Kasich is that it ignores the personal success Kasich has achieved during his career. Kasich has a proven track record; he has taught economic classes at Ohio State University, and made profits for himself and the companies for which he worked.

The liberals are portraying success as something undesirable. It runs counter to good sense. We should want the most able, successful people in public office. The liberals can keep crowing about the evils of Wall Street if they want, but the continued economic downward spiral shows no signs of slowing down. We can’t blame Kasich for that.

Just when everyone thought that the foreclosure crisis was easing, new data shows that the housing market remains in turmoil. This has contributed, in part, to the stock market’s recent slide. Investors are concerned that Europe’s financial problems, combined with the United States’ stagnant economy and continuing housing crisis, will delay any global economic recovery.

Here in Ohio, the Dayton Daily News reports that the state is on a record pace for foreclosure filings through the first quarter of 2010. In an eight-county region in southwest Ohio, foreclosures have gone up 8.8% over the same period from last year. The paper blames Ohio’s Republican-controlled Senate, and its failure to pass legislation aimed at helping distressed mortgages. However, there is a federal program that will likely be responsible for giving lenders a green light to seize troubled properties, further accelerating the foreclosure pace.

The HAFA (Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives) program that began in April of this year was supposedly designed to alleviate mortgage delinquencies through the short sale process. Borrowers could potentially receive cash bonuses for agreeing to either a short sale or deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure procedure that would allow lenders to take the troubled property without resorting to foreclosure. That sounds good, in theory. But the reality is, the financial firms that own most of these mortgages aren’t even participating in the HAFA program.

Bank of America recently revealed that mortgages owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as FHA/VA mortgages, are not subject to HAFA guidelines. These loans make up the vast majority of home mortgages. As a result, many short sale packages previously submitted to lenders are being rejected, with no new short sale proposals being accepted. This frees lenders to swiftly foreclose on distressed properties with no fear of reprisal from the federal government. Many real estate professionals expect foreclosures to increase dramatically through the rest of this year.

To make matters worse, the federal government, and the Democrats in particular, still seem reluctant to make job creation a top priority. The Labor Department said that the number of mass layoffs (which involves 50 or more people) rose by 228 in the month of April to a total of 1,856. So, despite the notion that an economic recovery is underway, it is clear that manufacturers are continuing to eliminate jobs. This will only aggravate the housing crisis, as more Americans lose their incomes.

Sadly, the Democrats have suggested that their big legislative push is over until the 2010 election. After passing huge bills to reform health care, provide insurance to children, restructure (downsize) auto companies, regulate financial institutions, and increase tobacco taxes, the Democrats now want to take it easy. They are fearful of voter backlash. They forget, however, that voters will be mindful of what the Democrats didn’t do, rather than what they have done to this point. The longer it takes for the Democrats to address job growth, the bigger the backlash will grow.

Blitskrieg. That word comes to mind as I watch the Democrats smash through Constitutional principles in an attempt to establish a new American order. While they have the congressional and presidential advantages, they are fervently implementing their socialist and collectivist ideologies.

The ideas coming into shape are manifold. First, there is an obvious war against personal wealth. In a country that offers the greatest opportunity for an individual to be successful, it is amazing at the number of people who heap the blame for our country’s problems on the wealthy. The liberals have become proponents of this view, seeking to take from the “rich” to give handouts to the poor. The only problem is, wealth is not transferred to the poor—no one can amass any kind of fortune on government stipends. The government, instead, is the beneficiary of its plundering of the wealthy. Not only does the government reap increased revenue for additional spending, but government bureaucrats earn nice salaries and benefits as well.

There is also a grand notion that government is somehow better suited to make our life decisions than we are. The leading congressional Democrats, and the Democratic president, are working in tandem to pass massive amounts of legislation that will give them unprecedented control. They accept no debate or questioning of their actions. They forced a 2,600-page health care bill through Congress, and are now working on a 1,600-page financial overhaul bill. Meanwhile, a revised cap-and-trade bill is being readied for a vote, with Senator Harry Reid circumventing any ordinary committee process that could slow it down.

These bills are designed to give the federal government more control of our lives (and livelihoods), and more reason to increase revenues, also known as taxes. A first analysis of the health care bill, for example, reveals that costs won’t likely decrease as expected. The Associated Press reported that, “Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.”

The Democrats know this. That is why President Obama has spoken of the possibility of a national VAT tax being imposed. Of course, higher taxes and a redistribution of wealth have been the liberals’ prime goals all along. They can only impose taxes after first authorizing massive expenditures like health care, financial reform, and climate change legislation. Meanwhile, Obama has reneged on perhaps the primary campaign promise—reviving the economy. The White House would like to rejoice about a tiny drop in the unemployment rate, but it still remains that there is a record number of people who have been unemployed longer than six months. So much for that “quick jolt” Obama promised.

Perhaps the best response to all of this heavy-handed legislating will come in November. As someone once famously remarked, we should “Throw the bums out!”

There has been a lot of heated discussion lately about the so-called radical activism of the Tea Party. Commentators like Leonard Pitts and Paul Krugman have derided party members for engaging in acts of violence and propagating lies about everything from the health care bill to Barack Obama’s birthplace. Of course, we are to believe, these actions result from the manipulation of the Fox News network, in addition to a general lack of intelligence and education among those of the political right.

But is that really true, or just an association those on the left would have us make? The liberals and Democrats very badly want us to accept that the Tea Party methods of expression belong solely to the conservatives. The liberals seem to be implying that they are innocent of any devious, underhanded, or otherwise destructive behavior. That is not true. Liberals can demonstrate with the best of them.

For example, earlier this year, tens of thousands of leftists gathered at the World Social Forum in Brazil to decry the evils of capitalism. It was not a silent demonstration. The AP reported that “Accompanied by thundering drumbeats and samba blaring from sound trucks, a crowd of exuberant activists estimated by police to number 25,000 marched through Porto Alegre waving communist flags and shouting socialist slogans.”

The report also quoted one activist. ‘”They have driven the capitalist system into chaos,” said Sergio Bernardo, a Brazilian human rights activist sporting a bright red shirt emblazoned with the words “Bourgeoisie Stinks!”‘

Notice too how these leftists had no problem extolling either communism or socialism. But in America, the liberals seem to be so often offended when they are linked to socialist ideology. Indeed, the more liberal the Democrats become, the more likely they are to enact socialist-style legislation. That is why they are working so hard to silence or discredit the voices of Tea Party members, as well as the Limbaughs and Becks of the world. The liberals don’t want us to discover their little secret—they really are socialists at heart.

I recently found the results of a poll that was conducted by Harris Interactive between March 1 and March 8. The poll attempted to reveal how Americans view President Barack Obama. The responses break down as follows:

* 38 percent say he wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns.
* 32 percent say he is a Muslim.
* 29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government.
* 29 percent think he has done many things that are unconstitutional.
* 27 percent say he resents America’s heritage.
* 27 percent say he does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do.
* 25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president.
* 25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of.
* 23 percent say he is a racist.
* 23 percent say he is anti-American.
* 23 percent say he wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.
* 20 percent say he is doing many of the things that Hitler did.

While some of those views may seem radical to many, there are some grains of truth to be found. The most obvious: he is an ardent liberal who is likely to be a proponent of gun control. I’m surprised only 38 percent of those polled could say so. The least significant response: Obama is not a natural-born citizen. It really doesn’t matter whether he was born here or not. His actions are making him unfit for office.

Here is another interesting statistic: 14 percent of Americans say President Barack Obama may be the AntiChrist. When split by political party, 24 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats viewed the nation’s leader in this way. Again, there is a grain of truth. The Biblical description of a deceiver, whether he be in our generation or not, is consistent. He must be a skilled speaker, able to move his followers with style, but no substance. Meanwhile, the real power is exerted in other subtle, unseen ways, until it’s too late for anyone to stop. Then, power is ruthlessly and decisively exerted over the people.

But the Bible speaks of a multiple of AntiChrists. It is a naive and shallow interpretation of Biblical writings that would have so many people believe that there can only be one AntiChrist to rule the world. Believers are warned that it is the appearance of “many antichrists” that might indicate the arrival of the last (end) time. Just look at the liberal side of American government. There, a whole nest of AntiChrist personalities can be found.

Who says that conservatives and liberals can’t agree on anything?

I can’t say that. Not after reading Bob Herbert’s latest column that was published in my local newspaper, the Dayton Daily News. In his piece, Herbert states that the Democrats are in political trouble because they have paid so little attention to America’s economic distress. As I read his column, I wondered if he had been secretly reading my blog.

In case you are unfamiliar with Herbert, you should know that he writes for the New York Times. He also writes from a decidedly liberal perspective. His specialty seems to be economic and social issues, and how government might best resolve those kinds of problems. This blog, The Conservative Edge, has taken the Obama administration to task for reneging on campaign promises to give the economy a “quick jolt.” It took an entire year for Obama to declare that the economy would be his chief concern. And yet, here we are, one-and-a-quarter years into the Obama presidency, and he is still fixated on health care reform. He and the Democrats are gambling their election year prospects by not making job creation a top priority.

Herbert agrees. In fact, here are some of his statements: “Instead of focusing with unwavering intensity on this increasingly tragic situation, making it their top domestic priority, President Barack Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have spent astonishing amounts of time and energy, and most of their political capital, on an obsessive quest to pass a health care bill.”

He further writes: “Health care reform is important. But what the public has wanted and still badly needs above all else from Obama and the Democrats are bold efforts to put people back to work. A major employment rebound is the only real way to alleviate the deep economic anxiety that has gripped so many Americans. Unaddressed, that anxiety will evolve into dread and then anger. But while the nation is desperate for jobs, jobs, jobs, the Democrats have spent most of the Obama era chanting health care, health care, health care.”

So it seems that liberals and conservatives can agree. Even a liberal like Herbert can see the error of Obama’s ways. The only difference is that some of us conservatives saw it first.

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.

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”!