The Conservative Edge

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.

I’ve been giving some attention to the reaction of the local media to last week’s Tea Party here in Dayton, Ohio. Our newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, generally downplayed the event. There seemed to be too many ordinary people who were present, too many blue-collar conservative types. Oh, and let’s not forget–they were mostly white folks.

As I read various articles and blogs, I noticed that of the people who carried signs at the event, there seemed to be no predominant message, other than venting at big government in general. There were lots of people who gathered because of one big issue that troubled each of them. Some people, for instance, were irate about high taxes. Others were concerned about government spending. Still others questioned the bank bailouts. You get the idea.

But I wonder how many people can put all of those little pieces together in order to craft the big picture of what this present administration is really trying to do? And how many folks can look back just a few years ago, to see when and how all of these power grabs got started? The speed of legislative action and the enactment of liberal ideology since January of 2009 has been breathtaking. The dominos are falling rapidly. The closure of Guantanamo Bay; the blitz of tobacco taxes; the reshaping of the auto industry; and now the judgement of the EPA concerning greenhouse gases, are all indications that there is serious social re-engineering going on.

I wish that conservatives could put everything together. The religious right, for example, should get off the abortion soapbox. They think that if a potential congressional or presidential candidate doesn’t say exactly what they want to hear on the abortion issue, they can’t support him. When they withdraw their votes, the liberal fanatics get to fill the vacuum. If the abortion foes would just see the bigger picture, they could help expose the liberal hypocrisy. Namely, the liberals want to give women the right to do as they please with their own bodies (by having abortions), but those same liberals want to take away everyone else’s right to do as they please with their bodies by enjoying tobacco. And these liberals have tried to validate their seizure of the right to use tobacco by citing suspicious and questionable “research” done on the dangers of tobacco use, going all the way back to the 1970s.

They have also been hammering on the oil companies since the late ’70s. Remember Jimmy Carter’s efforts to hammer oil companies with a “windfall profit” tax? And didn’t the liberals raise the same idea last year? Instead of allowing more responsible use of American resources, they restricted further the exploration and production of American oil and gas. What would happen if the oil companies stopped pumping because of the crushing profit taxes? Fuel costs would likely spike even higher.

We all need to see that the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time. They now have the opportunity to implement the many items on their agenda. We need to understand the many issues that are jeopardizing our freedoms. To the world, our President is appearing to be thoughtful, cooperative, and non-threatening. At home, he and his Democratic cohorts are squeezing the last bits of freedom from American society. Can you see the big picture?

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.

As I speak with friends and/or acquaintances, I have begun to notice a common element of our conversations. Namely, there is a grave concern that this is the time in which the government finally achieves a total elimination of personal freedom. The phrase “social engineering” keeps coming to mind. We are living under an administration that is bent on reshaping the role of government, increasing its power at the expense of the common people.

I must say that the title of this post was inspired by a column written by Brock Yates in 1984 for Car and Driver magazine. His piece was titled “Why Liberals Hate Cars.” Yates listed several ways in which previous Democratic administrations expressed their hatred of the auto industry. Lyndon Johnson gave us the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which resulted in substantially increased government regulation. In the 1970s, a Democratic-controlled Congress implemented the 55-mph speed limit, and also mandated the requirements for ignition interlocks and 5-mph bumpers. Jimmy Carter promoted the development of the air bag. Yates further stated that the Democratic Party “believes with a religious conviction that all social problems can be solved by heavily funded Washington-based bureaucracies.”

That has become a rather prophetic statement. Barack Obama has dealt more harshly with the auto companies than he has with the financial institutions which caused the current economic meltdown. Making Rick Wagoner leave GM isn’t going to fix things. Obama just wants to put a smack down on the car companies. In his column, Yates referred to a writer named R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., who commented on the liberal attitude. Tyrrell said, “It’s not that a liberal hates cars, it’s that most Americans love cars. He sees the guy next door polishing his new car, and it makes him sore. He thinks that something has to be wrong if such a simple act can produce happiness.” Tyrrell continued, “It seems as if a liberal’s central purpose is to disturb his neighbor. On the one hand, he demands total freedom in terms of pornography…but denies other people the right to smoke cigarettes or drive without their seatbelts. It’s pure egotism. They’re right, and you’re not.”

Yates also quoted an author and commentator named Ben Wattenburg. He said, “The automobile is the ultimate expression of a deregulated society. The car is the ultimate freedom machine, the great uncommon carrier. The liberals hate it because it defies control and regulation by bureaucratic elites.” Notice those words and phrases carefully. “Expression” and “freedom” are the things being assaulted by Obama and his cohorts. They hate anything that “defies control and regulation.” It’s no surprise, then, that the Democrats are using such heavy-handed tactics against the auto industry. They believe they can operate the car companies better than the executives; but on the other hand, they don’t care if the companies go under. That is egotism and arrogance at its finest.

This liberal hate is not reserved for the automakers. The liberals have gone after other industries. They are punishing tobacco companies—and the people who use tobacco—with exorbitant taxes and regulation. They want to hit oil companies with outrageous windfall profit taxes. They want to take away the option to send our children to non-public school systems. They are proposing legislation to eliminate conservative media outlets. They are plotting to eradicate any and all rights to gun ownership; that’s probably the Holy Grail of liberal control and domination.

Remember those words from Yates’ column. The Democratic Party “believes with a religious conviction that all social problems can be solved by heavily funded Washington-based bureaucracies.” Those words are coming to pass in a way never imagined before by the American people.