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!

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!

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.

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.

I used to get excited about the 4th of July. When I was a kid, July 4th was the summer’s equivalent of December 25th. I remember certain years in which we had so many fireworks to shoot off, that it took several hours to light them. We would start in late afternoon with the firecrackers, then move to the bottle rockets in early evening. When it became dark, we would light the fountains, spinners, and Roman candles. What a delight! When the explosions were all over, a fog of burned gunpowder hung in the air, resembling a battlefield. The day after, we tended to sore thumbs and ringing ears, but that was a small price to pay for the thrill of setting off those wonderful fireworks.

All these years later, I still enjoy watching a fireworks display at a city park, or some other venue. But I also treasure the sight of the American flag waving in the wind. And, I must confess that I get choked up when I hear “The Star-Spangled Banner.” It may be a challenging song to sing, but when someone gets it right, it’s beautiful to hear.

This year, I’ve been thinking about this holiday’s future. Independence Day has become increasingly more associated with fireworks and cookouts, and I fear that the true meaning has become obscured. I suppose that’s another way that July 4th resembles Christmas. Both holidays seem more oriented to consuming, rather than giving. I hope that Americans will take more time to reflect on the true meaning of the struggle for national independence that our forefathers undertook generations ago. And, with equal importance, we should think ahead to a new struggle that may necessarily arise as American citizens grapple with the growing centralzation of power assumed by our federal government.

I can certainly envision a time in which Americans, out of desperation, physically demonstrate displeasure with local, state, and federal governments. As innovation, industry, prosperity, and opportunity disappear from our land, people will be forced to realize that the government was responsible for the dismantling of the American dream. While that scenario may seem farfetched to some, we must realize that Independence Day commemorates the actions of American colonists against a tyrannical government. That potential for action is why the liberals work so hard to remove the right of the American people to keep and bear arms. An armed populace is the most serious of threats, and the surest of safeguards, against tyranny and control. But if our rights to obtain wealth, to dissent, and to bear arms are removed or negated, then the government will have means to control us at its will.

So I wonder if there will be a new Independence Day celebrated by Americans in another generation or so. We can’t go on much longer at the current rate at which we are losing our freedoms. Maybe there will be a time at which a new revolution of sorts spreads like wildfire across our nation. And perhaps the revolution will not bring a new form of government, but a restoration of what we once had. Then, we will be able to celebrate a different kind of 4th of July holiday.

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.

I’m sure that nearly everyone who reads this post is familiar with a certain line spoken at many marriage ceremonies. Namely, if someone has good reason why a man and woman should not be married, the person should “speak now or forever hold his peace.”

I’d like to pose a similar question about the development of American energy resources: Is there any good reason why we shouldn’t use domestic energy that is so readily available? There is much said about the need to wean ourselves from the use of foreign oil. That makes sense. But it would be equally sensible for our government to look for domestic resources to replace what we currently purchase from abroad.

It seems, however, that the liberal Democrats in Congress have a different idea. They really think that windmills and solar panels can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That is a terrible misconception. Solar and wind power will never meet our transportation energy needs. In fact, oil may continue to be the dominant energy source until the year 2030. So, it becomes clear that a reliable supply of oil must be established for the American consumer.

Recently, the U.S. Geological Survey revealed that the Chukchi Sea, just northwest of Alaska’s landmass, holds 1.6 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil. As the June 1 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily observes, that’s 30% of the world’s supply of natural gas, and 4% of global oil reserves, respectively. Tapping into those massive reserves would go a long way in establishing a dependable supply of domestic energy, as well as removing threats to our national security. We would no longer be held over a barrel, so to speak, by OPEC, the oil cartel whose membership includes several countries which are hostile to the United States.

I’m reminded of the Biblical story about the man who found a buried treasure in a field. Upon the discovery, he promptly sold everything he had to raise enough money to buy the field. In buying the field, then, the treasure belonged to him. He had sense enough to realize that the treasure was worth more than anything he had ever owned before. So, it was no big sacrifice to sell his posessions to be able to buy the land.

If only our government had the same kind of vision. Apparently, the liberals don’t value our natural resources. If our government doesn’t secure the oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea, the Russians will likely seize it. The Chinese are already moving in on oil reserves discovered off the coast of Florida. Foreign countries are determined to hoard oil supplies wherever they are found. But what is our current administration’s response? It suggests that we paint our roofs white, to make our homes more efficient.

Brilliant!

Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced a plan to require new cars and trucks to become more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. The goal is to cut auto emissions and increase mileage up to 30 percent by the year 2016. Vehicles will have to meet a fuel mileage standard of 35.5 miles per gallon.

Right now, it is estimated that consumers will pay an extra $1300 (or more) per vehicle for the cleaner cars and trucks. Before the Obama plan was hatched, carmakers were going to meet a mileage standard of 31.6 mpg by the year 2015. To meet that standard, it would cost the auto industry $47 billion. How much more will it cost them to meet the new requirements for both fuel efficiency AND emissions? Can we be sure that we won’t end up paying $2,000 or $3,000 more for cars and trucks that will meet the new regulations?

What’s really amusing (but also infuriatingly dumb) is the comment by an Obama administration official on the added costs. Here is an excerpt taken from a report on Yahoo!: “Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.

“That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers and if gas prices follow government projections.” Notice the “so what?” attitude about consumers paying more for new vehicles; if we’re already paying extra, what’s a few hundred dollars more, right? Shouldn’t the government be finding ways to make cleaner technology cheaper, so more people could afford to buy better cars and trucks?

But the real joke is the statement that we will get the money back through fuel savings if gas prices follow government projections. There is absolutely no way that the government will be able to predict gas prices with any kind of accuracy. Nobody can predict prices for the next 6 months, let alone project out to the year 2016. Is this the government’s way of telling us that it believes gas prices will be 6 or 8 dollars a gallon by 2016? That could be the final nail in the coffin for the auto industry and personal transportation.

The only way that our government could forecast gas prices for the next 7 years is if we had our own supply of oil. With much of our oil coming from unstable countries, it is impossible to predict what will happen to the supply and the price of crude. But if our government would put more people to work securing a predictable supply of oil, we could stabilize prices by cutting our need for foreign oil. The United States and Canada have roughly 15 percent of the world’s proven reserves. We need to get more of that 15 percent to market, available for use here at home.

The Obama administration may be crowing over its new plan to squeeze the life out of the auto industry. But no one is willing to talk about the higher costs the consumer will be shelling out. Not only will new cars cost thousands more, but gas prices will skyrocket again, perhaps from additional future gas taxes. And you can be sure that mandatory emission tests will soon be required, resulting in even more fees to be compliant. It looks like the real reduction in fuel use and emission output will come from the fact that no one will be able to afford cars anymore. Maybe that’s what the liberals want after all.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post titled “The Big Picture.” In it, I tried to make it easier for people to understand that the actions taken now by the government result from ideas conceived a generation ago. I know I keep going on about events transpiring in the auto industry, the oil and energy industries, and our personal uses of tobacco and firearms. But, we need to comprehend just how serious the liberal movement is about removing the freedoms and products we now use and value as good and necessary.

In “The Big Picture” I made this statement: “The liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.” Now there are, I will admit, some short-term reactions to the various flaps and controversies that pop up in the media. For instance, it is amazing to watch Nancy Pelosi squirm about her obvious knowledge of interrogation techniques. She is Clinton-like in her ability to turn a lie into an accusation. But her crisis is only temporary, and will soon fall from the headlines. Meanwhile, the great social engineering of the 21st century marches onward, orchestrated by the liberal dictatorship. The liberals have gone from planning to enacting.

I wish there were some conservatives or Republicans who could articulate, or at least identify, this danger to our country and society. Instead of just being the guys who say “no” to Obama, the Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops about the rapid pace at which we’re headed off the cliff. Many Republicans are fond of invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, but they can’t portray America’s strength and purpose the way he could. Watching some Republicans make speeches is about as exciting as watching paint dry. They have no fire, no cause, no raison d’etre as the French would say.

Here is an example of how Ronald Reagan could identify and explain a liberal ideological threat. In 1980, when he campaigned for the presidency, Reagan spoke of the liberals’ desire to dismantle the American auto industry. He said, “It is fashionable in some Washington circles to be hostile to the automobile, especially the American automobile. After all, everything in Washington is close by, and even those without limousines or Volvos can get around in the taxpayer-funded Metro subway. But those who must get from one place to another in such locales as Texas, Kansas, or Los Angeles can’t afford the luxury of seeing cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.”

How prophetic Reagan’s words have become. He understood, way back in 1980, that the liberals desired to destroy the automobile and its use as personal transportation. Listen to his phrases: “hostile to the automobile,” and “cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.” He knew it, and identified it as a part of the liberals’ plan to reshape America, and not for the better. Twenty-nine years later, look at what is happening to the auto industry. Like I said, the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.