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 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.

President-elect Barack Obama recently introduced his “science advisor”, Harvard University professor John Holdren. I don’t know if this man will be in the White House basement practicing alchemy, but it does appear that Mr. Holdren will be responsible for lending some scientific credibility to the whole global warming argument/theory. Obama’s future efforts to pass environmental legislation will depend on having ideas based on “scientific” authority and inspiration.

Here is a statement from Mr. Holden on the phrase “global warming”: “It is rapid compared to the capacity of ecosystems to adjust and, alas, rapid compared to our capacity as a society to adjust,” he said. “We should be calling it global climatic disruption.”

I seem to remember the last “global disruption” that mankind was doomed to experience. It wasn’t so long ago, and it was commonly referred to as the “Y2K crisis”.

Think back to the year 1999, and how the entire world feverishly worked to correct the computer bug that would cause computer systems to crash when the date turned to January 1, 2000. I distinctly remember the panic, and the scenarios that were sure to unfold—airplanes would fall from the sky, gas pumps would no longer work, water-treatment plants would dump sewage into our rivers, and banks would surely scramble everyone’s accounts. I also remember some people I worked with at the time, who were busy buying batteries, 55-gallon drums for water storage, food rations, flashlights; some folks were even stocking up on firearms and ammo, to be ready for the stealing and looting that would occur.

Many companies staffed extra computer system and network personnel in anticipation of trouble. Hundreds of computer technicians were denied holiday leave, because they would be needed for the expected computer crashes. And, remember the political figure who was prominent during this time? It was Al Gore himself, the man who once claimed that he practically invented the Internet. In fact, he still has a seat on Apple Computer’s board of directors. Now, Mr. Gore wants to be savior of the world in the next great global crisis.

The methodology is simple for the would-be messiah(s): first, you must create the crisis, then present the solution to the crisis. There must also be a manipulation of society, using guilt and blame. Indeed, I think that, instead of the Nobel Prize, Al Gore should have received a “Misanthropist of the Year” award. He, along with other authorities, seem to take pleasure in blaming America (and its people) for the state of the global environment. Apparently, it’s our fault for burning fossil fuels to power our cars and heat our homes, dumping all that CO2 into the air. The problem is, Gore & Co. wants America to pay for the global cleanup, too.

Never mind that the earth has cooled slightly over the last few years. Never mind that increased solar activity (verified by NASA) was the cause of global temperature rises. Never mind that water vapor, not CO2, results in the greenhouse effect. Never mind that there are numerous scientists who disagree with the global warming theory—they never get a chance to offer their views, and they are never allowed to question Mr. Gore at any of his public appearances. Al Gore wants to be some kind of messiah in the worst way. He didn’t get to save the world from Y2K, and he didn’t get to be President of the United States. “Global warming” is his way of getting even with America. I hope Mr. Obama doesn’t share that sentiment.