The Conservative Edge

There are a couple of words that have become more prominent in my vocabulary, and I would like to introduce them to readers of this blog. The words are statists and collectivists. Both words actually refer to the same group of people. You might otherwise know them as socialists, Marxists, and liberals. Not coincidentally, most of these people belong to the Democratic Party.

Statists and collectivists believe that the individual is only a part of a greater whole, that is, national or global society. You might view statists as people who think that the State (the Federal government) is all-powerful, capable of directing and controlling all individuals for the benefit of society. The collectivists hold a similar view; they believe that goods and wealth should be collected and redistributed, so that no individual should be more prosperous than another. In either case, the individual essentially has no rights, especially those that pertain to the attainment of wealth, and the procurement of self-defense.

John Holden, science adviser to President Obama, has been quoted as saying that America “must design a stable, low-consumption economy…redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential.” This is why the government has been most active in time of economic crisis. The Obama administration, with cooperation from the liberals, has swiftly implemented laws and regulations that will bring about the desired redistribution. For instance, there is now a cap on the earnings of doctors and corporate executives. The salary of Bank of America’s president is now zero. Furthermore, the government has also displayed its ability to fire private-sector executives, such as Rick Wagoner of GM. It is interesting, too, that GM had at least 8 separate divisions before Obama was elected; but soon, GM will be reduced to only four, as Pontiac, Hummer, Saab, and Saturn will likely be shut down.

Apparently (and unfortunately), the message that capitalism has caused our economic problems is being accepted by American society. In a Rasmussen Reports survey conducted in April 2009, only 53 percent of Americans believed that capitalism was better than socialism; another survey of adults under 30 showed that 37 percent favored capitalism, while 33 percent preferred socialism (30 percent was undecided). The federal government would no doubt like to improve on that 33 percent figure. That’s why President Obama continues to demonize the financial institutions, referring to bankers as “fat cats.” The more that capitalism and free enterprise ideals are discredited, the more likely it is that American citizens will accept a socialist, totalitarian dictatorship implemented by the statists and collectivists of the Democratic party.

It is almost unimaginable that a third of young American adults would prefer a socialist government. Even the mighty Soviet Union collapsed under its totalitarian communist/socialist regime. The American economic system of free enterprise has resulted in a high standard of living for its people that has far surpassed that of any other nation. The men who framed our system of government realized that it was individual rights, not state rights, that would ensure a free and prosperous nation. We should support the economic engine that has secured the rights we do have, secured the country against foreign powers of evil, and virtually saved the world twice in the twentieth century. Long live capitalism!

On Friday, June 12, I heard Larry Summers defend the government’s involvement in private companies. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Summers said that President Obama “did not, as he has said many times, run for president to manage banks, insurance or car companies.”

That’s understandable. If Obama had mentioned those ideas, he might not have been elected. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama campaigned on fixing the economy, but, once in office, began implementing the Democrats’ real agenda.

If Obama had been completely honest, before the election, about the liberals’ real intentions, he would have told us that (among other things):

• They would impose outrageous and illogical taxes on tobacco products (supposedly to fund health insurance for children), with further tobacco regulation directed by the FDA.
• They would decimate the American auto industry, causing the additional loss of thousands more jobs. They would have the authority to fire the CEO of GM, and arrange the sale of Chrysler’s assets to a foreign car maker. They would increase the regulation of the auto industry, with the EPA to be in charge of auto emissions.
• They would permit the White House to oversee the upcoming Census, removing the Department of Commerce oversight.
• They would increase spending and our national deficit, leading to inflation and higher interest rates.
• They would refuse to expand the exploration and utilization of our energy resources, risking our national security and maintaining our dependence on foreign oil supplies.

That’s been the focus of the administration during the first few months. There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on job creation. We were supposed to get a “quick jolt” to the economy, but I haven’t noticed it yet. Most of the new jobs the Obama administration takes credit for have come from preparation for the Census. Unemployment has spiked well beyond government estimations. And the run-up in oil prices means that the markets are anticipating increases in inflation, due to the massive amounts of new money being released by the government.

It gets worse. If the Obama administration authorizes the pending cap-and-trade legislation, we will all be spending more on energy to heat and cool our homes. That’s besides the higher gasoline prices that are sure to come, because the Democrats refuse to capitalize on American resources. The real growth we are witnessing is not in job creation, but in the size and authority of the Federal government. God help us.

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.

This past Friday (February 20), President Obama held a conference in Washington with 80 mayors from various American cities. Present in the group was Rhine McLin, mayor of Dayton, Ohio. She stated that it was “refreshing” that Obama would take such an interest in cities, and how “invested” the mayors feel in successfully implementing the stimulus bill.

This “implementation” isn’t just a casual phrase to make small-town mayors feel good. Rather, it’s part of a strategic plan by the Obama administration. Now is Obama’s time to establish the network that will transfer federal monies to new urban areas that will be redrawn after the 2010 Census. Mayor McLin told the Dayton Daily News that Obama plans on “naming mayors to advisory councils,” and that he would be “relying on them to spend their portion of the $787 billion economic stimulus plan wisely.” Obama said he would use the full power of his office to ensure that federal funds are used properly.

Furthermore, McLin said that Obama had named the nation’s first Director of Urban Affairs. This Director will be charged with working with the mayors, especially those who are appointed to the advisory counsels. Don’t underestimate the power these councils will hold. Obama’s meeting with the mayors was also attended by the U.S. Attorney General, and the Secretaries of Education, Energy and Transportation. Apparently, this network of mayors, through the advisory councils, supervised by the Director of Urban Affairs, will have authority granted by the Attorney General to determine education and economic policies.

And just who predominately lives in these urban areas? I remember seeing the 2008 presidential election results, broken down into county-by-county statistics for the state of Ohio. Most of the counties were “red” which voted for the Republican candidate. The fewer “blue” counties were those which had higher populations concentrated in bigger cities. Cleveland, Dayton, and several other cities all voted Democratic. Now, imagine what could happen if these areas get additional federal money after the Census is taken. Will there be even more liberal changes in school curriculums? Will there be more federal funding of abortion programs? Will there be a concerted effort to ban gun ownership? Will small businesses collapse as government workers become more numerous and authoritative?

I have been sounding the alarm about the grass-roots organization that Obama is building. He isn’t working from the top down; he understands that power is nothing until it can be transmitted. It’s like utility companies that need miles and miles of transmission lines and substations to get the power where it’s needed. When Obama gets his network built, all of the government’s power and authority will begin to move, and we will begin to feel the effects. Personal freedom will fade away. Our subsistence will only come from the government, as it controls what we are taught, where we can go, and what we can live on.

To quote the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce CEO, “This is a slippery slope we’re on and it’s sliding toward a more socialistic state…and that is not a state upon which the United States was founded.” Amen.

President Obama has made it clear that Americans should embark on a new era of community service, neighborhood assistance and charitable works. There is nothing wrong with helping your fellow man. Even the Good Book says that if we see someone in need, and have the means to help, we are obligated to do so. However, there might be a hidden message in Obama’s call to service.

The first thing to consider is that this Great Commission sounds like we should duplicate, on a community level, what the federal government wants to do on a national scale. The Democrats, and the Obama administration, want to enact their wish list of government services and subsidies. Many of these services are eventually going to enlarge the number of people who become entirely dependent on government assistance. Welfare, health services, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other subsidies are being expanded by Congress and approved by Obama. Some may feel that this is the compassionate thing for government to do, but there is always a method to the madness. The ultimate goal for the Democrats is to keep as many people as possible hooked on government, thereby securing a voting base.

The next thing to remember is that the government, in its call for service, gets us to work for free. While the feds hand out just enough money and health services for people to live on, we are compelled to make up for any other needs through our community service. In other words, we become some sort of great commune, where everyone shares everything with everyone else, and nobody gets ahead. This is the socialist idea that drives the Democratic Party, even though some of them, like John Kerry, remain filthy rich while they strangle the rest of us. There are two things that Democrats and liberals fear: constituents who are affluent, and constituents who have means of defense. When you watch the Democrats in action, you will see them direct their aggressions against personal and corporate wealth, and against our right to self defense as expressed by the Second Amendment. They truly want us poor and defenseless, because we then become easier to control.

Finally, consider that all who embark on a crusade of volunteerism become potential workers in Obama’s proposed idea of “community organization”. This will likely be unveiled after the upcoming 2010 Census. No wonder that the stimulus package contained $1 billion to be used by the Census; no wonder why Obama intends to illegally supervise the Census operation, even though Federal law states that the Commerce Department is to direct the Census. If the White House is the overseer, what would prevent Obama from making adjustments to the results, affecting the distribution of perhaps $300 million in federal funding to state and community agencies? By redefining social and economic districts, metropolitan areas could have numerous government programs handing out federal money through the hands of a new class of volunteers. The rest of us (those who still value personal freedom) would essentially be forgotten.

The message is being received. For example, here is a news item from USA Today: “United Autoworkers Local 2250, the GM plant and the United Way of Greater St. Louis organized an on-site volunteer fair on Thursday to encourage about 2,000 employees to consider volunteering during their time away from work.
Benefits representative Mike Bridgins came up with the idea when he heard President Barack Obama speak of the importance of Americans helping one another in difficult times.”

Obama learned a lot from ACORN and Chicago politics, didn’t he?

President Obama is out on a dog-and-pony show, drumming up support for his economic stimulus plan. He scheduled public appearances to meet with Americans and explain why his plan should pass. It appears that not only has Obama encountered resistance in Congress, but American citizens are also questioning the size and content of the stimulus package.

Obama has been quoted as saying, “With the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life.” As I analyzed that statement, there were two ideas expressed that reveal the true belief of the Democratic party. First, there is the notion that ONLY the GOVERNMENT has the resources to take necessary action, and subsequently heal the economy, because we are weak. Isn’t that a bold (and scary) statement about having less faith in ourselves and ascribing more power to the government? This leads to the second thought, which is the idea that the American PEOPLE should be the greatest resources; WE are the ones who circulate money in the form of purchases, investments, education, travel, and other activities. We pay taxes, which are the revenues government takes in to provide certain services for the people. The government doesn’t have “resources”; it has our tax monies!

Other information suggests that Obama may continue to have a tough time selling his product. According to Yahoo, recent polling revealed a shift in Americans’ opinion: “A recent poll by Pew Research Center found that a narrow majority of Americans, just 51%, support the stimulus. And that’s down from 57% in January. Even worse for the administration, support seems to be dropping among people who say they’ve learned more about the stimulus.” Imagine that! When taxpayers find out what the contents of the stimulus plan are, the less they value its effectiveness. Furthermore, a poll from Rasmussen reports that 62% of voters want more tax cuts and less government spending in the plan.

What has troubled me are the priorities of the Democrats and the Obama administration. When Obama took office, he couldn’t wait to free the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Why did they get priority instead of Americans who are losing their jobs? I think getting people back to work here is much more important than getting prisoners back to their terrorist activities. Furthermore, why was there a need for a complicated stimulus package? Why not just put $100 billion or so directly into the infrastructure projects, and haggle over the rest of the items later?

It appears that Obama and the Democrats want as much money approved as possible, in order to keep enacting all of the big-government programs as they deem necessary. Remember the mantra: “only government can take necessary action.” You’ll be hearing that for quite a while.

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 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.

The celebrations and festivities are kicking into high gear. Of course, I’m referring to the excitement of the impending inauguration of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States. There was somewhere around 40,000 people in Baltimore, Maryland to see Obama on one of his train stops, as he traveled on to Washington, D.C. I have seen photos of people crying, as they stood rapturously attending to Obama’s every word. Thousands of citizens are pouring into our nation’s Capitol, eager to celebrate this historic moment, and celebrate this great time of “change”.

Everyone except me—and others who know, deep down inside, that our country is set for a socialist takeover. I’m not sour about the election, as though John McCain got cheated by a fraudulent election, or some other shenanigans. In fact, the American people made it clear that they wanted someone quite different to perform some miraculous revival of our country’s “greatness”.

It’s just the definition of “greatness” that troubles me. It should trouble most white Americans in particular, but also anyone who values personal liberty above an omnipresent, omniscient government. Americans have come to see our current crises as a unique time for government, with a knight in shining armor leading the way, to magically solve all of our problems.

And government will intervene, too. Americans have lost confidence in themselves, partly because of inaction by conservative leadership, but mostly because of the messages we have been receiving. We have been told that America has spoiled its reputation abroad with its “cowboy” attitude. We have been scolded for burning too much fossil fuel, causing dramatic changes in global climates, and that we must bear the burden for cleanup. Too many of us are stubbornly “clinging to our guns and religion”. Therefore, we must purchase our ammunition coded with ID numbers, so our misuse of lawful arms can be tracked and verified. We must tolerate the establishment of Islamic temples and organizations, some of whom funnel money into terrorist networks all over the world. All Big Businesses (especially oil companies) are evil, so they must be taxed and regulated, to the point that they move their workforces overseas. Individuals who are “rich” must give their wealth to the government, to be given then to the “less fortunate”.

Does this sound like the prescription needed to cure our economic and social sicknesses? Is this the “change” we should celebrate? I read an observation made by an author of one of my favorite books, which states, “…unused power passes imperceptibly from idle hands into more active ones.” This is precisely what is happening in America today. The more active hands belong to the Democratic (I call it the National Socialist) Party. They exert their power more as the power of the individual weakens. So, this is a perfect time for them to ride in as “saviors”, when they are actually consolidating power among themselves.

I’m reminded of a story in Biblical history. When the young nation of Israel tired of being ruled by a prophet or judge, they demanded a king be anointed over them, just as all the other nations had done. Samuel the prophet, the last judge of Israel, tried to warn the people what they would endure under a monarchy. He told them that they would be heavily taxed; that the best of their sons would be conscripted for the king’s guard and the national army; other things they would sacrifice to keep the monarchy fed and supplied. But the people told Samuel that they didn’t care. They demanded a king! So, Samuel anointed a man named Saul as King of Israel. He eventually descended into madness, and nearly destroyed the nation of Israel.

America has demanded its “king”. I certainly hope we don’t get the same results.