The Conservative Edge

I recently found the results of a poll that was conducted by Harris Interactive between March 1 and March 8. The poll attempted to reveal how Americans view President Barack Obama. The responses break down as follows:

* 38 percent say he wants to take away Americans’ right to own guns.
* 32 percent say he is a Muslim.
* 29 percent think he wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one world government.
* 29 percent think he has done many things that are unconstitutional.
* 27 percent say he resents America’s heritage.
* 27 percent say he does what Wall Street and the bankers tell him to do.
* 25 percent say he was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president.
* 25 percent say he is a domestic enemy that the U.S. Constitution speaks of.
* 23 percent say he is a racist.
* 23 percent say he is anti-American.
* 23 percent say he wants to use an economic collapse or terrorist attack as an excuse to take dictatorial powers.
* 20 percent say he is doing many of the things that Hitler did.

While some of those views may seem radical to many, there are some grains of truth to be found. The most obvious: he is an ardent liberal who is likely to be a proponent of gun control. I’m surprised only 38 percent of those polled could say so. The least significant response: Obama is not a natural-born citizen. It really doesn’t matter whether he was born here or not. His actions are making him unfit for office.

Here is another interesting statistic: 14 percent of Americans say President Barack Obama may be the AntiChrist. When split by political party, 24 percent of Republicans and 6 percent of Democrats viewed the nation’s leader in this way. Again, there is a grain of truth. The Biblical description of a deceiver, whether he be in our generation or not, is consistent. He must be a skilled speaker, able to move his followers with style, but no substance. Meanwhile, the real power is exerted in other subtle, unseen ways, until it’s too late for anyone to stop. Then, power is ruthlessly and decisively exerted over the people.

But the Bible speaks of a multiple of AntiChrists. It is a naive and shallow interpretation of Biblical writings that would have so many people believe that there can only be one AntiChrist to rule the world. Believers are warned that it is the appearance of “many antichrists” that might indicate the arrival of the last (end) time. Just look at the liberal side of American government. There, a whole nest of AntiChrist personalities can be found.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post titled “The Big Picture.” In it, I tried to make it easier for people to understand that the actions taken now by the government result from ideas conceived a generation ago. I know I keep going on about events transpiring in the auto industry, the oil and energy industries, and our personal uses of tobacco and firearms. But, we need to comprehend just how serious the liberal movement is about removing the freedoms and products we now use and value as good and necessary.

In “The Big Picture” I made this statement: “The liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.” Now there are, I will admit, some short-term reactions to the various flaps and controversies that pop up in the media. For instance, it is amazing to watch Nancy Pelosi squirm about her obvious knowledge of interrogation techniques. She is Clinton-like in her ability to turn a lie into an accusation. But her crisis is only temporary, and will soon fall from the headlines. Meanwhile, the great social engineering of the 21st century marches onward, orchestrated by the liberal dictatorship. The liberals have gone from planning to enacting.

I wish there were some conservatives or Republicans who could articulate, or at least identify, this danger to our country and society. Instead of just being the guys who say “no” to Obama, the Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops about the rapid pace at which we’re headed off the cliff. Many Republicans are fond of invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, but they can’t portray America’s strength and purpose the way he could. Watching some Republicans make speeches is about as exciting as watching paint dry. They have no fire, no cause, no raison d’etre as the French would say.

Here is an example of how Ronald Reagan could identify and explain a liberal ideological threat. In 1980, when he campaigned for the presidency, Reagan spoke of the liberals’ desire to dismantle the American auto industry. He said, “It is fashionable in some Washington circles to be hostile to the automobile, especially the American automobile. After all, everything in Washington is close by, and even those without limousines or Volvos can get around in the taxpayer-funded Metro subway. But those who must get from one place to another in such locales as Texas, Kansas, or Los Angeles can’t afford the luxury of seeing cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.”

How prophetic Reagan’s words have become. He understood, way back in 1980, that the liberals desired to destroy the automobile and its use as personal transportation. Listen to his phrases: “hostile to the automobile,” and “cars taxed and regulated into oblivion.” He knew it, and identified it as a part of the liberals’ plan to reshape America, and not for the better. Twenty-nine years later, look at what is happening to the auto industry. Like I said, the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time.

I wrote in a previous post about the movement of political power. I said that power has a way of moving from the inactive, into the hands of those who are most active. We have seen the political sands wash from under the feet of the Republicans, as they abandoned their foundation of smaller government, low taxes, and personal freedom. Waves of liberal ideology are sweeping quickly across this country as the Democrats in power seek to destroy conservatism, and rule a socialist America.

A political party must eliminate any opposition that can influence society, in order to exert and maintain control. This is being done in America, less than two months after the inauguration of Barack Obama as President. It is happening first at the local level, but liberals have a much bigger target in mind. Rush Limbaugh is the ultimate voice that must be silenced. He is viewed as the person who represents those Americans who disagree with Obama and his national socialist agenda.

First, let me tell you about a situation here in Dayton, Ohio. A conservative talk show host named Mike Scinto has been dismissed by his radio station, WDAO-AM. Scinto worked at WDAO since 1999, but was so abruptly fired that he never got a chance to say goodbye to his listeners. Scinto said that he thinks his criticism of President Obama and the stimulus package played a role in his dismissal. On its Web site, WDAO is said to be a station that is “Targeted to the metro community” and is “specifically geared to their lifestyles.” With Obama’s focus on urban community organization, it seems likely that Scinto, and his conservative ideas, are to be shut out of urban affairs. It also seems likely that there is a master plan to shut down conservative expression altogether.

This is how Limbaugh will be silenced. One by one, urban and metropolitan radio stations will cease to carry Limbaugh’s program. More radio and TV networks may end up being purchased and operated by minority groups, and it wouldn’t be surprising if they get funding to do so from the stimulus package. It may take some time to bring Limbaugh down, but expect first to see your local conservative programming eliminated. Most major news outlets in the country have reported that Obama wants to repeal the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Silencing the conservative talk shows is the first step toward a dictatorship by the Democratic Party.

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.