The Conservative Edge

Every once in a while, you read or hear something that goes beyond interesting, and instead either moves you to tears or to action. I recently had the privilege of reading a column written by Thomas Sowell, and published in the November 2 edition of the IBD newspaper. His essay stirred my conscious, but I also felt validated in a way, because I have written several times previously about the danger the current President (and his cohorts) can inflict on our great country.

I wish not to try and quote Sowell word for word. I think each reader of this post should follow the link above and read his column in its entirety. However, I will briefly summarize the main points of the column:

1. An unelected government official has been appointed by the President, with authority to cut the pay of private business executives.
2. A media “czar” may be appointed to subsidize (seize) media outlets, to provide the government with the authority to silence talk radio.
3. President Obama has spoken of creating a national police force.
4. A panel of “experts” may soon decide who gets life-saving medical treatments.
5. Look at the kinds of people Obama has been associated with, and who he keeps putting in positions of power—individuals who flatly reject American values.
6. Obama and the Democratic nest of vipers have tried to force two landmark bills through Congress. Both of them were more than 1,000 pages long, and neither of them were made available for public scrutiny.
7. This administration is showing a dangerous tendency to be nice to foreign thugs, yet ruthless toward American society.

It is amazing that many Americans are still infatuated with the Pied Piper of “Hope” and “Change.” It is inconceivable that people still send the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Rangel, and others to Washington time after time. They are the ones sending this country down the road of destruction. We can no longer blame the previous administration for America’s growing maladies.

Sometimes you have to give credit when credit is due. I must commend Jonah Goldberg, a syndicated columnist, for his recent commentary published in the September 6 edition of the Dayton Daily News. His column focused on the media’s tendency to “give Obama as many do-overs as he needs.” Goldberg’s remark was made in light of the fact that Obama’s upcoming speech will be his third prime-time address in three months, and the fifth of his 7-month presidency.

Obama keeps making speeches, but he doesn’t put any meat with the potatoes, so to speak. He obviously enjoys getting TV exposure, and he makes sure the teleprompters are in place for every televised event, so his words will sound sophisticated and smooth. But when it comes to specific reforms, especially about health care, he doesn’t give many details. And when it seems that Congress isn’t acting fast enough on certain issues, the White House claims that Obama will assert himself to speed up the legislative process, and come up with solutions to America’s problems.

The trouble is, the only speedy actions taken by the dominant liberals in Congress have been to either raise taxes or expand government control of certain hated industries. As I’ve said before, the liberals have always despised cars, banks, and tobacco; as a result, the only decisive actions made by the liberals in Congress and the White House have been to raise tobacco taxes, seize banks and insurance companies, and cripple America’s car industry.

Meanwhile, unemployment keeps rising, beyond levels projected by Obama and his advisors. We keep hearing from the Obama administration that they didn’t realize the severity of the recession. But, Obama and other Democrats campaigned on their thorough knowledge of the economy, and what should be done to promote recovery. They can’t lean on the “we didn’t know” crutch forever, especially as millions of Americans are still waiting for the promise of job creation to be fulfilled. Indeed, the Associated Press reported on Joe Biden’s recent efforts to claim victory for the stimulus package: “Biden, Obama’s chief stimulus cheerleader, proudly pointed to more than 2,200 highway projects Thursday funded by the program, but didn’t mention the growing frustration among contractors that infrastructure money is only trickling out and thus far hasn’t delivered the needed boost in jobs.”

Americans may be growing impatient with all the talk, and Obama’s appetite for airtime. Goldberg observed in his excellent column, “Funny how the people who run the most sophisticated communication operation in the history of the presidency keep concluding that their difficulties stem from their inability to get their message out and never from what their message actually is.” I wonder if Americans might be more receptive to health care reform if they first believed that the Obama administration was serious about creating jobs. That was the message of the 2008 campaign, but it’s now a message that can’t be heard above Obama’s prime time noise.

The rush is over. The Cash-for-Clunkers program ended yesterday, August 24. Also known by the acronym CARS, the clunker program was originally planned to be effective through November of this year. Several factors may have contributed to the early termination.

For one thing, the processing duties were overwhelming. The government had to hire hundreds of people to keep up with the flood of paperwork. Additionally, many dealers weren’t getting reimbursed by the government. As a result, dealerships were left with dozens of clunkers on their lots. The dealers could send the vehicles to salvage yards only after receiving CARS money for the trade-ins.

Besides these and other operational hiccups, there might have been another reason the government terminated the program. Sales figures show that many Americans were still buying trucks and SUVs, rather than Priuses and Civics. Lots of folks wanted bigger vehicles; they simply traded in older trucks and 4×4s on similar, more fuel-efficient vehicles of the same size.

This is not what the Obama administration was hoping for. The were two underlying purposes of the CARS program. Firstly, the government hoped to steer people into buying the kinds of cars that the government wanted them to drive (and destroy hundreds of older vehicles in the process). Secondly, the government really wants people to think that only the government can provide for them. In fact, Obama made a statement earlier this year that “the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.” The CARS program is the first step in convincing the public of that notion.

And now, comes the second version of CARS. The government is going to offer everyone rebates to help purchase more energy-efficient appliances. As described on Yahoo! Finance, “A $300 million cash-for-clunkers-type federal program to boost sales of energy-efficient home appliances provides a glimmer of hope for beleaguered makers of washing machines and dishwashers…Beginning late this fall, the program authorizes rebates of $50 to $200 for purchases of high-efficiency household appliances. Only appliances covered by the Energy Star seal will qualify. The money is part of the broader economic stimulus bill passed earlier this year. Unlike the clunkers auto program, consumers won’t have to trade in their old appliances. ‘These rebates will help families make the transition to more efficient appliances, making purchases that will directly stimulate the economy,’ Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement announcing the plan.”

How nice to have the government taking care of us. For a growing number of Americans, it’s getting so that whenever they get in their car, or open the fridge, they will warmly think of the benevolent government that helped pay for it all. But look at it another way—this could cause some people to assume larger levels of debt in order to purchase these goods through government programs. This may give a short term boost to the product makers, but it will be detrimental to consumers’ financial health.

Americans are aware, by now, of the need to be energy-efficient. We shouldn’t need the government to make product choices for us. Besides, we’re still waiting on the thousands of jobs that the Obama administration was going to create. He campaigned on the idea that Americans would be put to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. But now, he wants us to buy a new fridge. Some of us might do so, if we had good-paying jobs.

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.

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.

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’ve been listening to the debates over President Obama’s proposed stimulus plan. It seems that some people, like New York Times columnist Gail Collins, insist that there are no earmarks in the plan and that we should all just “give it a pat on the back” and accept it. Others, like columnist Paul Krugman, are accusing the Republicans of “trying to push the economy over the edge” as they object to the sheer size of the program. Of course, before Obama’s election, Mr. Krugman repeatedly charged the Republicans with overspending and running up the federal deficit. So much for his objectivity!

President Obama has ridiculed the Republican view that this stimulus is more about spending than about stimulating the economy. “What do you think a stimulus is?” he asked. Spending, he said, “is the whole point.” That callous response doesn’t make sense—common sense, that is. Most Americans understand the need to control their personal spending during tough times. Indeed, that’s partly why the economy is in a recession. People have tightened their budgets and expenditures; they’re saving money instead of spending it. How then can it be un-American to question the size and the intent of the stimulus plan? Didn’t the liberals question and over-analyze everything from the Patriot Act to Bush’s tax cuts?

The Democrats don’t understand (or won’t admit) that there may be ways to stimulate the economy without spending money like a shopaholic. For one, the government could slash the corporate tax rate, as America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world. Businesses might be able to retain more American workers, instead of sending production overseas to offset the high taxes. Many countries in Europe, for example, also subsidize corporate energy costs, making it even cheaper to produce goods. This puts American business at a huge disadvantage. But for some reason, the Democrats hate Big Business, especially oil companies and tobacco companies. They don’t seem to realize that when you create an environment in which business can grow, you create opportunities for employment growth as well.

Aren’t there any reductions in the stimulus plan? Can’t the supposedly intelligent, qualified members of Obama’s Cabinet (and other Democratic Representatives and Senators) find excess and redundancy in government and cut it out? Instead, they are focused on their efforts to make government even bigger, with a resulting increase in government control. When Ronald Reagan’s administration took office in 1981, James Baker recalls that their top three priorities were: economic recovery, economic recovery, and economic recovery. But now, the Obama administration’s priorities are: spend, spend, and spend some more.

Maybe more Americans would have a positive view of the stimulus plan if all the Democrats would pay their income taxes…

I can’t believe what I’ve been reading in my local newspaper this week. Many people have been writing to the editors, condemning the Israeli retaliation in Gaza. One reader stated that “Israel…is murdering innocent civilians in its so-called war against Hamas”, and that “Israel is no better than Saddam Hussein.” Another letter reads “There is a genocide going on in Gaza today”, and that President-elect Obama should “make a strong statement against the slaughter in Gaza.” There was even a public gathering downtown, where people protested againt Israel’s actions.

Are Americans so blind to the tactics of terrorist organizations? Do they never see the aggression that provokes the retaliation and subsequent war? Do they realize that Israel does indeed have a right–socially, morally, and militarily–to defend its borders and its people?

The Associated Press, at the beginning of the current conflict, reported that Hamas began launching rockets into Israel as the cease-fire agreement was set to expire. Israel was willing to extend the agreement, but Hamas was unwilling to cooperate. The AP also revealed on December 27, 2008, that thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.

This is the real tragedy: terrorist organizations who put citizens’ lives in danger by hiding weapons and munitions in homes and schools, thereby holding people hostage every day. In a sick form of passive-aggressive methodology, the terrorists actually hope for civilian casualties to further their cause. It works because they know that Israel will retaliate. Hamas (and other militants) are aggressors in picking a fight, but portray themselves as victims of aggression when someone fights back.

Many people wonder why Israel has such sophisticated defenses, built with the help of the United States. The reason is very clear. Israel, a land roughly half the size of my home state of Ohio, is under constant threat. Not only do organizations like Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah regularly attack Israeli interests, but the countries of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran pose serious threats too. Imagine being under constant fear of rocket attacks in Ashkelon, or suicide bombs in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Would you not want your government to protect your right to live?

The United States encountered several terrorist attacks in the 1990’s. From the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, we lost hundreds of fine service people to thugs and cowards like the ones attacking Israel right now. Would any American deny our right to take action against those who harmed us? Even though we didn’t strike back with sufficient vengeance—Bill Clinton allowed Osama Bin Laden to be extradited to Afghanistan—we had (and still have) the right to defend our country. Why should Israel have any less right?

I had the privilege to visit Israel in February of 2000, as they were preparing for the Pope’s historic visit later that year. I only saw a handful of soldiers the whole time I was there. The soldiers were so friendly, in fact, that some of them posed for pictures with certain female members of our tour group. All across the country, people just seemed to enjoy relaxing on their front porches, watching their kids play soccer at school, or buying goodies at the marketplaces. They seemed willing to be peacable folks, but it’s hard to be at peace when neighboring countries keep shooting rockets at them. Again, I ask—why shouldn’t Israel defend its people, and its way of life?

I read a fascinating article in my local newspaper last week. Written by Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for the National Review Online, it was a commentary on the media’s depiction of Barack Obama as a modern-day Abraham Lincoln or FDR.

After correctly chastising the media for such nonsense, Mr. Goldberg writes, “…shouldn’t we also hold off on comparing the guy to FDR and Lincoln before he’s done anything?”. Really, the only comparison we could make between Obama and the two aforementioned presidents is that Obama uses the media to showcase his oratory skills as FDR did with his radio messages in the 1930s.

Mr. Goldberg states further that, “Behind all the talk of unity and bipartisanship and shared sacrifice lies an uglier ambition: power.”. This is absolutely correct. America is right now experiencing a perfect storm of economic collapse and political dissatisfaction that will allow the big-government believers to step in and exert control. In presenting government as the solution to all of our problems, the liberals and Democrats will institute policies and programs that will, in effect, control all aspects of our lives. And, America will be persuaded by the silver-tongued Obama to accept it all without question.

I am reminded of some events recorded in a book I have, written by a man who personally opposed Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party in Germany. The writer details how, over a number of years, the National Socialists actually used democratic processes to gain control. They used elections, voting procedures, and parliamentary decisions to place themselves in command of Germany. Their mantra became “Dictatorship by Democracy”.

Now, I am not saying that Obama is the next Hitler. I am saying that the Democrats want to be a dictatorial party, controlling and manipulating America and its people. When they finally get the Supreme Court set up with a liberal majority, you will see the power machine kick into overdrive. The party that controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government will truly have achieved “Dictatorship by Democracy”.

So now that the election is over (although the media is still obsessing about Sarah Palin’s clothes), it’s time to think about what to expect after January 2009.

I personally believe we will see higher oil/gasoline prices beginning in Spring of next year. President-elect Obama is already considering using Presidential authority to reverse the executive decision made this year by President Bush to expand drilling in U.S territories. Many Democratic leaders and other liberals are expressing concern about the fragile and delicate environments in Utah and Alaska. I wish they could show equal concern for the tremendous economic price we pay for buying foreign oil. It is truly mind-boggling to think that there are Americans who adamantly oppose the production of American energy.

I recently read an article in my local newspaper about the difficulties many communities are experiencing in keeping their roads paved. Some towns are cutting back on repair and repaving of roads and streets. This is due to the dramatic increase in the cost of asphalt, which is a PETROLEUM-based product. Simply put, we could get more people working to pave more roads, if only asphalt was cheaper. What are we to do—start driving our cars on solar panels, instead of blacktop?

Let’s take it further—what other products have become more costly due to higher oil prices? How about all of the plastic containers that store all of those food products in the supermarket? How about cosmetics? Vaseline, for instance, is actually PETROLEUM jelly! Think of all the plastic chairs we sit on, or the computers made with polycarbonate materials. Think of how it costs more to get the oil changed in your car—you never see any $9.99 service specials any more. Tires cost more too. And let’s not forget how much more shipping charges we pay now, when we buy something from QVC or Amazon or eBay.

So, if the Democrats want to stimulate the economy, they should EXPAND oil and gas production, not restrict it. Think of all the jobs that would be created in the exploration, drilling, production, refining and transporting of oil, gasoline, and natural gas. Not to mention all of the related industries such as service and repair companies, trucking, and others that would increase hiring as well.

And we needn’t get upset with the oil companies’ profits, either. We’ve made the Saudis far richer with the money we’ve been sending them for the past few decades.

By the way, have you ever see the Democrats who are so concerned about the environment, actually spending time IN the environment? I’m not sure they could tell the difference between a maple tree and a pine tree. There aren’t too many of them I could equate with a Teddy Roosevelt!