The Conservative Edge

One of the liberals’ favorite mantras during the Bush administration was “Bush lied, people died.” The Democrats in Congress and in the media were obsessed with the idea that the Iraq war was accompanied by a massive cover-up of information. We supposedly went to war knowing that there were no WMDs in Iraq. All of the pied pipers in the media said that we had been misled and lied to, and that the government had suppressed vital intelligence information.

The Obama administration was going to be different. “Transparency” was a key word used to describe the truthfulness of the new presidency. But we’ve all been lied to since last November. Obama campaigned on putting Americans to work. He said that the economy was going to get a “quick jolt.” But, as Ohio’s own John Boehner recently asked, “Where are the jobs?”

The Obama administration is giving us a green version of deception and cover-up, with help from the Environmental Protection Agency. Research conducted by the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics challenges the prevailing notion that global warming is an increasing danger to the environment. But it seems that the report was intentionally suppressed in order to allow the EPA to support the administration’s efforts to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

The June 29 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily notes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) released the EPA study on its own website. Among the findings are interesting statements such as: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998, there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” And this one: “The idea that warming temperatures will cause Greenland to rapidly shed its ice has been greatly diminished by new results indicating little evidence for operations of such process.”

Apparently, the person responsible for producing the report at the EPA has been removed from all climate-related work. He has even been advised to hire an attorney. He is in hot water for suggesting that science is being ignored in the evaluation of CO2 as a pollutant.

If his research had been released before the House vote on the cap-and-trade bill, the outcome might have been different. It’s no wonder the Obama administration is moving so quickly on climate change legislation. They are intentionally suppressing information that would blow holes in the global warming theory, and allow millions of reasonable Americans to see what a farce the theory really is. Remember Y2K? It never happened.

You can read more of the IBD editorial here. I would also recommend a visit to a highly regarded science blog, Watts Up With That? You’ll find that not only are global warming dissenters being intentionally silenced, but that climate data is manipulated to produce desired results that support climate legislation.

Jobs? We don’t need them. The liberals are convinced that America needs more legislation and regulation. They are taking care of both with unprecedented speed and ruthlessness.

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!

Have you ever been thinking about an issue that is important to you, and then see that issue expounded in a magazine or newspaper? Maybe you feel that nobody else could ever have the same viewpoint on a particular subject. But when you see an article that expresses your own point of view, it feels good, doesn’t it?

I’m having that good feeling this weekend. If you have read any of my previous posts (feel free to check the archives) concerning American energy production, then you know that we’re giving up on crude oil way too soon. I know that runs contrary to liberal thought. Those liberals evidently think that we should solve the foreign oil problem by just getting rid of cars altogether. And with the government now practically running GM, and with Chrysler in bankruptcy, we can see that the automobile is doomed. This administration is set to dismantle the car industry and the freedom of personal transportation.

Until that happens, we will continue to rely on the auto as our primary mode of transportation. Which means, of course, that we will need plentiful supplies of gasoline at reasonable cost. (No ethanol, please; that’s a terrible waste of corn that could be otherwise used to feed hungry people.) Crude oil must remain a vital part of our energy policy. Not only do we use it to make gasoline, but crude oil is also used in the manufacture of paint, plastics, rubber, and hundreds of other products we take for granted.

My regard for crude oil was reflected in the special Monday, May 4 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily. Within the editorial pages, Robert J. Samuelson writes “Wind and solar (power) mainly produce electricity. Most of our oil goes for transportation; almost none—about 1.5%—generates electricity. Expanding wind and solar won’t displace much oil; someday, electric cars may change this. For now, reducing oil imports requires using less or producing more.”

That’s been my position, and it makes me feel good to see similar thoughts expressed in a pro-American newspaper like the IBD. I’ve listened to Obama and the other liberals talk about job creation, but they are castrating American industry, especially oil companies and car makers. If we developed more resources here at home, think of the jobs that would immediately be created. There would be a demand for geologists, engineers, truck drivers, and refinery workers. This demand might be enough to give the economy the “jolt” that Obama promised.

We will never be able to wean ourselves off foreign oil by building more solar panels or wind turbines. Samuelson notes that in 2007, wind and solar generated less than 1% of U.S. electricity. Increasing that ten times will still have those industries contributing only 10% of our electricity needs. And that still would do nothing to reduce our consumption of oil.

Even though some resources, like oil shale, would take time to develop, that’s no reason to avoid getting started now. Remember, it’s also going to take a lot of time to establish that tenfold increase in solar and wind output. There is still the electric car that needs refinement, and fuel-cell technology that should be explored. Until these and other advancements become practical and affordable, we shouldn’t let crude oil fall out of favor. Two dollars for a gallon of gas is still a pretty good deal.

Winston Churchill once said that “The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” He meant, of course, that history is a great teacher. Even the Old Testament philosopher said that there is nothing new under the sun; everything we see now has happened before.

And so it is with the American auto industry. With GM’s bankruptcy now likely to occur, many people may be wondering if we will ever again have a vibrant auto manufacturing industry. There are thousands of people losing their jobs, not just with GM or Chrysler, but at the smaller factories where parts are made and then sent to the big auto plants. Everyone from machine operators to engineers, from electricians to toolmakers, are seeing their jobs disappear.

And now, here comes our government to the rescue. But it almost seems that the car companies are making deals with the devil. In exchange for government loans to continue operations, the companies are essentially giving up the right to make the kinds of cars to satisfy market demands. They are also being told that the government can fire their CEOs, and tell corporate officials how much money they can make. Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank will start sketching prototype cars on the backside of bar napkins, and then send them to GM for manufacture.

Let’s look back a number of years to find a similar crisis facing a car company. In 1979 and 1980, there was much anxiety over the fate of Chrysler. Lots of experts were wondering how Chrysler could get in such sorry condition. There seemed to be some agreement that Chrysler’s problems stemmed from a combination of poor management and excessive government regulation. Lee Iaccoca came to Chrysler in 1979, and brought along some talented people from Ford, which resolved much of the management problems. But the company needed capital to stay in business long enough to revamp its product line. The federal government agreed to guarantee Chrysler up to $1.5 billion in loans.

In September, 1980, Ed Lapham wrote in Car and Driver that as part of the agreement, Chrysler had to get more than $450 million in wage and salary concessions from its employees. Chrysler then had to arrange $650 million in concessions from 400 banks; that was hard to do in times of high inflation and interest rates, especially with Chrysler’s credit rating. But the company eventually met all of the requirements for government loans. Iaccoca also worked hard to get everything in order. But his biggest challenge was holding his tongue while certain government officials inspected his company and then made public sport of it. Sound familiar?

In December, 1979, Tony Hogg said in Road and Track that “As far as government regulation is concerned, meeting a bunch of ill-conceived regulations…(is) absolutely devastating as soon as a business takes a turn for the worse…” Hogg also quoted then-Senator Carl Levin as saying “This situation was caused in part by the government…I think the government has an obligation to get Chrysler out of its problems. This is not a bail-out, but government help to solve a problem government has created.”

In 1980, a couple of months before the election, Iaccoca said “I suggested that we’ve had so much regulation in this country, how about declaring an economic crisis for 24 months and freezing all regulations in place. Everything. The air won’t get dirty. More people won’t get killed because side beams or bumpers aren’t meeting the new requirement.” Indeed, this whole realization that government was regulating the life out of American industry is what helped propel Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

But the Obama administration is set to add MORE regulation and legislation against American industry. How many millions of dollars will corporations have to spend to meet new piles of regulations, and to protect themselves against litigation? When you add these new costs to the higher taxes being imposed, it’s no wonder the American manufacturing industry is in such disarray. The auto industry revived in the 1980s because of a cooperative government (remember the repeal of the 55-mph speed limit). The auto industry will be crushed in the years ahead by an oppressive, anti-business government.

Churchill was right. History is a great teacher.

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.

I noticed a small news item this weekend that hinted of a big change in the near future. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told some law students in Boston, Massachusetts that there could soon be an opening on the Supreme Court. The nine justices have their picture taken together only when a new member is added. “We haven’t had any of those for some time, but surely we will soon,” she said.

Justice Ginsberg has dealt with some health issues recently. It is unclear whether she meant that she would be retiring, or whether another judge would step down. It was assumed during the presidential election that the new President would likely be appointing one or more new judges to the Supreme Court if any current judges retired. But this statement by Justice Ginsberg indicates that there may be a new person on the Supreme Court sooner than anticipated.

Indeed, there have been many things happening at an accelerated rate since January. I have noticed changes in attitudes, editorials, and news reporting here in Ohio. Let me briefly give a few examples. First, our newspaper has ran several articles calling for increased numbers of women in Ohio politics, as well as greater numbers of women for high school girls’ basketball coaching positions. Our paper has been featuring liberal and feminist columnists from The New York Times almost exclusively. One of those writers made the absurd assertion that men were to blame for the stock market crash; it had something to do with high levels of testosterone. (See my post about “Feminism and Nadya Sulemon.”) Our paper also featured the results—on the front page, mind you—of a new poll that revealed a growing number of Americans who no longer claim association with a particular religion. The editors must have been giddy to imply that Americans are becoming less religious. If you look closely, you will notice similar changes in your community.

Let me go further in stating that I believe there is a strong undercurrent of power that is now working in America. It is the effort of a beast-like power and authority that wants to strip the remaining freedoms we have from American society. We are seeing things take shape: the building of a community-based urban organization that will implement and enforce social programs; the illegal assumption of the administration of the 2010 Census by the White House; the obvious attempt to discredit conservative media programs and target them for future termination; the growing media consensus that America is no more a religious country; and soon, perhaps, a remake of the Supreme Court that will result in liberal and socialist interpretations of American laws, and the Constitution itself.

In the final weeks of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 majority that Americans did indeed have the right to own guns for self-defense. The Obama administration has already reversed many of Bush’s policies, such as the stem cell research issue. But if Obama and the liberals can get the Supreme Court shifted to the left, they will surely review the court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment. And if the court decides that Americans can’t have a legal means of self-defense, then the government will have free reign to do what it wants. The two things that any dictatorial power wants to take away from the people are wealth and self defense. The Obama administration is already working on stripping away the right to personal wealth. If they take away our right to bear arms, they could then do as they please.

Can’t you feel the power growing? It’s a dark and evil kind of power. It reminds me of the Star Wars movies, where Senator Palpatine slowly and surely sets himself up for the ultimate power grab. I just hope that the American people wise up before it’s too late.

I read a column in my local newspaper today (Jan. 19) that left me a little upset, and scratching my head. Isn’t it amazing how prominent columnists and political observers now want everyone to be nice, quiet citizens, and speak no ill toward the new administration? I felt the need to respond to a column by Kathleen Parker, and the entire contents of my letter are below:

“Kathleen,

“I just read your column “The Importance of Not Being Earnest”, published in the January 19 edition of the Dayton Daily News. While some of the column attempted to be encouraging, I saw an undercurrent of sarcasm and high-mindedness.

“Let’s take your indictment of our (your readers) seemingly inherent “snarky” attitudes. Are you suggesting that we are the only cynics and skeptics? That “snarkiness” must come from our own cold hearts and judgmental minds? Perhaps you should consider that some of us might be products of what we see on TV, or read in magazines and op-ed pieces. If it is the intention of editorial writers and other commentators to change or influence the thinking of those who read their works, then perhaps you should be willing to accept your role in shaping the attitudes of those you criticized in your column.

“For example, I believe it was you who, in a recent commentary, did everything but kick George Bush in the ass as you shoved him out the back door of the White House. Was this done in civility and grace? Hardly—to quote Clint Eastwood in the movie Heartbreak Ridge, “…that’s not very dignified for a mature woman…” And this is the kind of work many of us have been reading for the past 7 or 8 years. How can you then think that Americans have been immune to this kind of critical opinion? Is it possible that editorial poisons have sickened the American people?

“Another example of editorial pollution has been spread by your fellow columnist and “economist” Paul Krugman. I can’t think of a more crass, belligerent and snarky writer than Mr. Krugman. I have cut several of his columns out of the newspaper, just to marvel at his toxic vendettas he hurled at George Bush and other conservatives over the past few years. He has lambasted the Republicans for running federal deficits, but has now turned on a dime, insisting that deficits are necessary to turn our economy around.

“It seems that you have also turned on the same thin dime. You have gone from accuser to some sort of Pied Piper, telling us how WE need to develop a love for service. I think all of you who have fanned the fires of disdain and derision need to atone for your past few years of unpatriotic “snarkiness”. You have built your Golden Idol, and you want all of us to join the orgy of celebration. I’m sorry, but before I get all aglow, I need to see some admission of your own harboring of the things you seek to exorcise from us. Go ahead—confession is good for the soul!”

That’s my response. I guess we’re not supposed to treat Mr. Obama the same way that all the writers like Mrs. Parker treated the Bush administrations the past few years. It’s the old “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude. It’s the Democratic/liberal way.