The Conservative Edge

Blitskrieg. That word comes to mind as I watch the Democrats smash through Constitutional principles in an attempt to establish a new American order. While they have the congressional and presidential advantages, they are fervently implementing their socialist and collectivist ideologies.

The ideas coming into shape are manifold. First, there is an obvious war against personal wealth. In a country that offers the greatest opportunity for an individual to be successful, it is amazing at the number of people who heap the blame for our country’s problems on the wealthy. The liberals have become proponents of this view, seeking to take from the “rich” to give handouts to the poor. The only problem is, wealth is not transferred to the poor—no one can amass any kind of fortune on government stipends. The government, instead, is the beneficiary of its plundering of the wealthy. Not only does the government reap increased revenue for additional spending, but government bureaucrats earn nice salaries and benefits as well.

There is also a grand notion that government is somehow better suited to make our life decisions than we are. The leading congressional Democrats, and the Democratic president, are working in tandem to pass massive amounts of legislation that will give them unprecedented control. They accept no debate or questioning of their actions. They forced a 2,600-page health care bill through Congress, and are now working on a 1,600-page financial overhaul bill. Meanwhile, a revised cap-and-trade bill is being readied for a vote, with Senator Harry Reid circumventing any ordinary committee process that could slow it down.

These bills are designed to give the federal government more control of our lives (and livelihoods), and more reason to increase revenues, also known as taxes. A first analysis of the health care bill, for example, reveals that costs won’t likely decrease as expected. The Associated Press reported that, “Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls. But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.”

The Democrats know this. That is why President Obama has spoken of the possibility of a national VAT tax being imposed. Of course, higher taxes and a redistribution of wealth have been the liberals’ prime goals all along. They can only impose taxes after first authorizing massive expenditures like health care, financial reform, and climate change legislation. Meanwhile, Obama has reneged on perhaps the primary campaign promise—reviving the economy. The White House would like to rejoice about a tiny drop in the unemployment rate, but it still remains that there is a record number of people who have been unemployed longer than six months. So much for that “quick jolt” Obama promised.

Perhaps the best response to all of this heavy-handed legislating will come in November. As someone once famously remarked, we should “Throw the bums out!”

There has been a lot of heated discussion lately about the so-called radical activism of the Tea Party. Commentators like Leonard Pitts and Paul Krugman have derided party members for engaging in acts of violence and propagating lies about everything from the health care bill to Barack Obama’s birthplace. Of course, we are to believe, these actions result from the manipulation of the Fox News network, in addition to a general lack of intelligence and education among those of the political right.

But is that really true, or just an association those on the left would have us make? The liberals and Democrats very badly want us to accept that the Tea Party methods of expression belong solely to the conservatives. The liberals seem to be implying that they are innocent of any devious, underhanded, or otherwise destructive behavior. That is not true. Liberals can demonstrate with the best of them.

For example, earlier this year, tens of thousands of leftists gathered at the World Social Forum in Brazil to decry the evils of capitalism. It was not a silent demonstration. The AP reported that “Accompanied by thundering drumbeats and samba blaring from sound trucks, a crowd of exuberant activists estimated by police to number 25,000 marched through Porto Alegre waving communist flags and shouting socialist slogans.”

The report also quoted one activist. ‘”They have driven the capitalist system into chaos,” said Sergio Bernardo, a Brazilian human rights activist sporting a bright red shirt emblazoned with the words “Bourgeoisie Stinks!”‘

Notice too how these leftists had no problem extolling either communism or socialism. But in America, the liberals seem to be so often offended when they are linked to socialist ideology. Indeed, the more liberal the Democrats become, the more likely they are to enact socialist-style legislation. That is why they are working so hard to silence or discredit the voices of Tea Party members, as well as the Limbaughs and Becks of the world. The liberals don’t want us to discover their little secret—they really are socialists at heart.

Leonard Pitts, a columnist for the Miami Herald, recently commented on the driving forces behind the Tea Party movement. He referred to MSNBC hack Keith Olbermann, who insinuated that the Tea Party members “haven’t made peace with the fact that their president is black.” Spoken like a true demagogue—the Sharptons, Jacksons, and Olbermanns of this country continually stir up racial strife so they can remain in the news.

Pitts, however, doubts that Tea Partiers hate Barack Obama just because he is black. Indeed, Obama’s race is a minor issue. It wouldn’t matter which prominent Democrat held the office of President. The results would be the same, whether Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, or any other liberal occupied the White House. As proof, one only needs to recall Bill Clinton’s first year in office. Among his top priorities were health care reform and the issue of gays in the military. In Barack Obama’s first year, he too has pressed for health care reform, addressed gay rights in the military, and has beat up on car companies and fat cat bankers to boot.

Instead, Pitts asserts that the Tea Partiers are upset about the changes in American society. He writes, “We are witness to the birth cries of a new America,” and that everyone like him “embraces and celebrates that,” and “looks forward to the opportunity and inclusiveness it promises.” Pitts might do well to check his eyesight. It is hard to see opportunity with a real unemployment rate of about 16 percent. It is hard to celebrate a government that keeps getting bigger, with government workers earning twice the salary of the average blue collar employee. It’s also hard to fault people who see their individual rights subordinated to the power of government, and, like the Whos living on the clover in “Horton Hears a Who,” are screaming “We are Here!”

Perhaps the Tea Party members can be faulted for not being vocal enough in recent years. I have a feeling that many of them thought that just believing in a set of morals or principals was good enough, and that there would always be sufficient numbers of like-minded people who would vote against the liberal candidate. They are now realizing that they might be doing too little too late.

Let us hope that there is still enough time to keep America from sinking into the quicksand of collectivist ideology. It’s going to take more than the Tea Partiers to make it happen. Every conservative in America needs to band together to resist the liberal juggernaut that threatens to turn America into a socialist has-been of a country.

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!

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.

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?

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.