The Conservative Edge

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”!

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!

I read an interesting article this past week about the rise in the number of militia groups here in America. I’m not surprised that new groups are forming, although I am somewhat taken by the number of people estimated to be involved. Those numbers are likely to increase, perhaps in direct proportion to the federal government’s insatiable lust for power and control over all aspects of our lives.

Following is an excerpt from an Associated Press report published in Yahoo! news:

WASHINGTON – “Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends.

“The stress of a poor economy and a liberal administration led by a black president are among the causes for the recent rise, the report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says. Conspiracy theories about a secret Mexican plan to reclaim the Southwest are also growing amid the public debate about illegal immigration.

“Bart McEntire, a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told SPLC researchers that this is the most growth he’s seen in more than a decade. “‘All it’s lacking is a spark,’ McEntire said in the report”.

I’m thinking about what could possibly be that “spark” that would set off another confrontation between the government and a group of supposedly dangerous citizens. Frankly, I’m surprised that more pressure hasn’t been put on some of the rising militia groups. I can only surmise that there is ample political pressure being applied to many of the liberals in Congress who would normally take a stronger stance against gun ownership. Many of the liberals realize that they can stay in office only by supporting law-abiding gun owners.

In 1993, the government’s (Democrats, in particular) hatred and suspicion of its own citizenry was revealed in the standoff at Waco, Texas. A “doomsday” cult, led by David Koresh, had built a defense compound, expecting some kind of apocalyptic end of the world. They did have a cache of arms, but they hadn’t used them aggressively. They were just preparing for the end. The Clinton administration, perhaps the most anti-gun administration in American history, ruthlessly destroyed the Koresh compound, killing many Americans in the process. It was a shameful and egregious expression of the liberal idea that no American should be armed. It’s unimaginable how the Clinton administration could murder those Americans, yet later allow Osama bin-Laden to be extradited to Afghanistan. As the AP report pointed out, “people…became convinced that the government would murder its own citizens to promote its liberal agenda.”

Right now, the Obama administration has been implementing other liberal initiatives. They have expressed their disdain for the tobacco, automobile, banking, financial, and health care industries through excessive taxation, regulation, and “reform.” When this health care legislation has been passed (which will allow federally-funded abortions and assisted suicides), then look for an all-out assault on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, and gun ownership. Then, we will likely see what “spark” sets off the next Waco-style tragedy.

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!

On Friday, June 12, I heard Larry Summers defend the government’s involvement in private companies. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Summers said that President Obama “did not, as he has said many times, run for president to manage banks, insurance or car companies.”

That’s understandable. If Obama had mentioned those ideas, he might not have been elected. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama campaigned on fixing the economy, but, once in office, began implementing the Democrats’ real agenda.

If Obama had been completely honest, before the election, about the liberals’ real intentions, he would have told us that (among other things):

• They would impose outrageous and illogical taxes on tobacco products (supposedly to fund health insurance for children), with further tobacco regulation directed by the FDA.
• They would decimate the American auto industry, causing the additional loss of thousands more jobs. They would have the authority to fire the CEO of GM, and arrange the sale of Chrysler’s assets to a foreign car maker. They would increase the regulation of the auto industry, with the EPA to be in charge of auto emissions.
• They would permit the White House to oversee the upcoming Census, removing the Department of Commerce oversight.
• They would increase spending and our national deficit, leading to inflation and higher interest rates.
• They would refuse to expand the exploration and utilization of our energy resources, risking our national security and maintaining our dependence on foreign oil supplies.

That’s been the focus of the administration during the first few months. There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on job creation. We were supposed to get a “quick jolt” to the economy, but I haven’t noticed it yet. Most of the new jobs the Obama administration takes credit for have come from preparation for the Census. Unemployment has spiked well beyond government estimations. And the run-up in oil prices means that the markets are anticipating increases in inflation, due to the massive amounts of new money being released by the government.

It gets worse. If the Obama administration authorizes the pending cap-and-trade legislation, we will all be spending more on energy to heat and cool our homes. That’s besides the higher gasoline prices that are sure to come, because the Democrats refuse to capitalize on American resources. The real growth we are witnessing is not in job creation, but in the size and authority of the Federal government. God help us.

I noticed the results of an online survey this past week regarding the cost of gasoline. The survey leads me to believe (to continue to believe, I might say) that the elected officials in Washington aren’t listening to the people they supposedly represent. The liberals, especially, continue their sky-is-falling scare tactics about global warming, while doing nothing to alleviate Americans’ fears that gasoline costs will again rise in the near future.

The polling group Ipsos conducted an online survey from May 19 through May 25. Following are some of the results:

• When asked to choose between lower gas prices and reduced auto emissions, 66 percent of Americans said that lower gas prices was the more important issue.
• When asked whether the government should subsidize food crops or ethanol production, 82 percent felt that food subsidies were more important; 56 percent felt that ethanol production created higher food prices.
• When the survey asked whether energy independence or lower food prices was more important, 55 percent opted for energy independence.

So it seems that, generally, Americans desire lower gas prices, and then reduced food costs, ahead of any emission or greenhouse gas concerns. If the liberals in Washington were attentive to these issues, they could put more Americans to work producing more American energy, to the benefit of society. The American people aren’t necessarily as stupid as the liberals believe. People understand that energy dependence leads to higher energy costs. Most of us remember that the spike in oil prices (all the way to $147 a barrel) not only led to a rise in gas prices, but caused food prices to escalate as well. This vicious cycle will be repeated as long as the liberals keep their stranglehold on American society, and fail to heed the working class.

Feel free to send these survey results to your elected officials. They need to hear our voices. You can bet that they will soon attempt to impose higher gasoline taxes (just look at what they did to tobacco products). We can’t let that happen without a fight.