The Conservative Edge

I didn’t watch President Obama’s State of the Union address. That was no accident. I didn’t tune in for two reasons: first, I knew the speech would be extensively published and reviewed, so I wouldn’t be missing anything; second, I didn’t care to witness Obama’s lack of accountability (from himself, his party, and the media) in defaulting on his campaign promises.

It seems that Obama spent roughly two-thirds of his speech explaining what he intends to do about the sputtering economy. Of course, he is not the only one responsible for crafting economic policy. However, the Democrats have always campaigned on their economic expertise. They claim to know what it takes to either cure a recession or accelerate economic growth. Bill Clinton became President by affirming his plan to pull America from the mild recession of the early 1990s. Obama was no different in 2008. He vowed that his administration would give a “quick jolt” to the economy, and that lots of new jobs would be made as green energy technology flourished.

On January 27, 2010, after one full year in office, Obama promised that he would make job growth his top priority. This begs the question: if job growth was NOT a priority, then what WAS his top priority? And why has it taken so long for him to give attention to the American economy?

Sadly, there were priorities that Obama and the Democrats had in mind. Some of the highlights: in January of 2009, they slapped additional taxes on tobacco products; they decided the government should own General Motors; Obama felt the need to apologize to foreign countries for America’s previous behavior; the Democrats reneged on Obama’s promise of transparency as they tried to pass health care legislation without debate, discussion, or acceptance by the American people; Obama “called out” Glenn Beck and Fox News; Obama traveled to Europe to plead for the Olympics to be held in Chicago; Obama pocketed a million bucks for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Those were just some of the items on the Democrats’ “to-do” list.

So, it becomes apparent that job creation never was a top priority. For all their self-proclaimed expertise, the Democrats do not understand that reducing unemployment is the key to economic recovery. Rebate programs like “Cash for Clunkers” mean nothing to people who are struggling to buy groceries or pay their mortgages. Obama’s chastisement of “fat cat” bankers may make us feel good for a while, but feelings don’t pay the bills.

Let’s hope that Obama and the Democrats really do get serious about fixing America’s economic problems. If they do not give heed, there will surely be more losses for the Democrats in upcoming elections. And they won’t have anyone to blame but themselves.

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.

There is an old Biblical proverb that says there is nothing new under the sun; things that are happening now have happened before (if you’re curious, read Ecclesiastes chapter one, verses 9 and 10).

That proverb has come to mind this week as I scanned a few articles in my local newspaper. I read about the proposals for health care reform, and legislation that will redefine or clarify abortion rights. I felt like I was reading articles from 1993. If you recall, it was Bill Clinton who, along with Hillary, attempted a massive overhaul of the American health care system. Clinton also endeavored to expand abortion services, and appropriate government funding for those services.

But during the election of 1992, Clinton had campaigned on economic issues. America had been in a mild recession, but statistics were showing that the economy was slowly recovering. However, the Democratic candidate painted a gloomy picture of our financial health, and promised quick action to stimulate our economy. His picture was indeed gloomy enough, and he was promptly elected.

Fast forward to 2008. As our nation faced a severe recession, Barack Obama promised to put thousands of Americans to work rebuilding our infrastructure. He also vowed to give a “quick Jolt” to the economy. But, like Clinton, Obama changed his priorities once he was sworn in to office. We now see the real goals set by the Democrats and liberals: higher taxes, increased regulation of banks and industry, health care reform, and abortion legislation.

It looks like Americans are going to recover in spite of the government, not because of it. There is still a lack of focus on job creation, which would stimulate the economy more than all the new regulations and taxes combined. Job prospects are still bleak. In my area of Ohio, for instance, there is the threat of closure of several public libraries. Voters will soon be deciding on whether to approve additional property taxes that will keep most library branches open. You know things are bad when public libraries have to shut down. But it’s like that all across the state.

I’m hoping that Obama will realize that the government should provide an environment for growth and innovation. When more people work, they buy more goods and contribute more revenue. But Obama’s efforts are going toward the taxation of the fewer Americans who are still working to create wealth. Many experts ridiculed the idea of “trickle-down” economics. If Obama isn’t careful, he will completely shut off the trickle we have left.

Last Friday (June 12), the federal government enacted legislation that, according to Yahoo! news, granted itself unprecedented authority to regulate and restrict cigarettes and tobacco products. President Obama remarked that this makes history “by giving scientists and medical experts at the FDA the power to take sensible steps.”

Apparently, we are living under a 21st century version of Prohibition. Look at what the government has done for itself. It now has “unprecedented authority” and “absolute power” not just to regulate the tobacco industry, but our personal lives as well. None of the Democratic candidates for president campaigned on promises to eradicate tobacco use. Yet, the Democratic agenda is clear: destroying the tobacco industry, and our right to use tobacco, takes precedence over creating jobs.

I felt so strongly about our rights to use tobacco that I wrote an essay for one of my college classes. Some of the statistics that I cited were from a report by Joe Jackson about the lies perpetrated by the anti-smoking zealots. Here is most of the essay that I wrote:

“In November of 2006, voters in the state of Ohio approved an indoor smoking ban for all workplaces. The ban, known as Issue 5, passed by a 59-41 percent margin. Some voters believed that private clubs and family-owned businesses would be exempt. However, the fine print in the law allowed few, if any, exemptions.
“Despite the ban, tobacco continues to be a legal product sold in Ohio. Tobacco products are also heavily taxed. In January 2009, Congress again raised the federal excise tax on cigarettes, now amounting to $1 per pack. If tobacco is a legal substance and subject to taxation, then Ohio residents who pay taxes on tobacco products should have input in determining Ohio’s smoking laws.
“The anti-smoking establishment maintains that no one has the right to subject others to secondhand smoke. This idea gained traction in the 1970s, when the more politically savvy members of the anti-smoking movement realized a need to show that tobacco smoke was harmful. At a World Health Organization conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber stated, ‘It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.’ But two significant studies on the risk of secondhand smoke failed to find any real danger. The World Health Organization, after conducting a 10-year European test, admitted in 1998 that it found no significant statistical proof of risk. The British Medical Journal, in 2003, published the results of a 39-year study done in California, which concluded that any risk was essentially too small to measure.
“Most studies of secondhand smoke influence are conducted by groups with clear anti-smoking agendas. These studies are usually financed by pharmaceutical companies which make money selling nicotine patches and gum. But the real intent of the anti-smoking movement is to stigmatize smokers, not to protect the public. This leads to the enactment of intrusive and unreasonable laws that restrict the freedom of American citizens. For example, the mayor of Los Angeles signed a law, effective in September of 2007, that banned smoking in all city parks and beaches, and also prohibited even the carrying, lighting, or discarding of tobacco products. As a result, individuals could be fined or arrested for carrying a product that was legally purchased at a gas station or convenience store.
“There are sensible measures that can be taken to appease the anti-smoking fanatics and avoid treating smokers like second-class citizens. Taxes on tobacco products should be used to install better ventilation systems in public workplaces and private organizations, much like using gasoline taxes to repair roads and bridges. This is a practical idea, since good ventilation systems can remove particles as small as .30 micron; tobacco smoke particles measure 1 micron. Tests have shown that, with a good ventilation system, the air in a smoking environment can be cleaner than the air in a non-smoking environment without ventilation.
“The anti-smokers have morphed into a powerful prohibitionist movement. They promote intolerance and social tension, and wield too much control over the lives of many Americans who use tobacco. Abraham Lincoln once said, “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” If American people consent to the bully tactics of the anti-smoking movement, many other freedoms could be sacrificed in the name of social engineering.”

Do we really want government officials and scientists to wield so much control of our lives? I hope Americans come to their senses and understand how the liberals are taking away our freedoms one by one.

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.

Unbelievable. That’s the word that kept coming to mind.

I visited three different sporting goods stores this weekend looking for some .40 caliber pistol ammunition. I have never before seen such prices and restrictions on ammunition. One store clerk told me that he only had some .38 Special and .45 ammo. He didn’t expect any new deliveries of the other semi-auto products. Another store had restrictions on .40 caliber, 9mm, .380 auto, and .45 auto—3 boxes per customer, if the product was in stock. The third store I went to was selling a 50-round box of .40 caliber for $44.95 AND restricting purchases to 2 boxes per customer. Unbelievable! Just a few months ago, I purchased a box for less than 20 bucks.

The reason ammo costs are sky-high is due to extreme demand. There is a shortage of the materials that go into making ammunition, which can increase the cost of the final product. But with such a demand by the retail customer, prices have gone through the proverbial roof. It makes sense, in a way. After Barack Obama was elected President, there was a marked surge in gun purchases across the country. One store here in Ohio has a picture of Obama displayed, with the phrase “The best gun salesman ever” or something to that effect. So, it stands to reason that if gun sales go up, ammo sales will follow.

My concern is that ammo prices will remain high for some time. Meanwhile, the liberals are working on legislation to add taxes on ammunition, intending to make it so expensive that we can’t afford to use it. Hey, that sounds familiar—that’s what they are doing with tobacco, and planning to do with gasoline and oil products. So, we need to keep pressure on our elected officials to prevent the anti-gunners from taxing us into submission.

In the meantime, buy your ammo when you get a good deal. Keep the shotgun handy. Or, you might start practicing with a slingshot and a longbow. Until you can’t afford them, that is.

I’ve been giving some attention to the reaction of the local media to last week’s Tea Party here in Dayton, Ohio. Our newspaper, the Dayton Daily News, generally downplayed the event. There seemed to be too many ordinary people who were present, too many blue-collar conservative types. Oh, and let’s not forget–they were mostly white folks.

As I read various articles and blogs, I noticed that of the people who carried signs at the event, there seemed to be no predominant message, other than venting at big government in general. There were lots of people who gathered because of one big issue that troubled each of them. Some people, for instance, were irate about high taxes. Others were concerned about government spending. Still others questioned the bank bailouts. You get the idea.

But I wonder how many people can put all of those little pieces together in order to craft the big picture of what this present administration is really trying to do? And how many folks can look back just a few years ago, to see when and how all of these power grabs got started? The speed of legislative action and the enactment of liberal ideology since January of 2009 has been breathtaking. The dominos are falling rapidly. The closure of Guantanamo Bay; the blitz of tobacco taxes; the reshaping of the auto industry; and now the judgement of the EPA concerning greenhouse gases, are all indications that there is serious social re-engineering going on.

I wish that conservatives could put everything together. The religious right, for example, should get off the abortion soapbox. They think that if a potential congressional or presidential candidate doesn’t say exactly what they want to hear on the abortion issue, they can’t support him. When they withdraw their votes, the liberal fanatics get to fill the vacuum. If the abortion foes would just see the bigger picture, they could help expose the liberal hypocrisy. Namely, the liberals want to give women the right to do as they please with their own bodies (by having abortions), but those same liberals want to take away everyone else’s right to do as they please with their bodies by enjoying tobacco. And these liberals have tried to validate their seizure of the right to use tobacco by citing suspicious and questionable “research” done on the dangers of tobacco use, going all the way back to the 1970s.

They have also been hammering on the oil companies since the late ’70s. Remember Jimmy Carter’s efforts to hammer oil companies with a “windfall profit” tax? And didn’t the liberals raise the same idea last year? Instead of allowing more responsible use of American resources, they restricted further the exploration and production of American oil and gas. What would happen if the oil companies stopped pumping because of the crushing profit taxes? Fuel costs would likely spike even higher.

We all need to see that the liberals have been planning their moves for a long time. They now have the opportunity to implement the many items on their agenda. We need to understand the many issues that are jeopardizing our freedoms. To the world, our President is appearing to be thoughtful, cooperative, and non-threatening. At home, he and his Democratic cohorts are squeezing the last bits of freedom from American society. Can you see the big picture?

As I speak with friends and/or acquaintances, I have begun to notice a common element of our conversations. Namely, there is a grave concern that this is the time in which the government finally achieves a total elimination of personal freedom. The phrase “social engineering” keeps coming to mind. We are living under an administration that is bent on reshaping the role of government, increasing its power at the expense of the common people.

I must say that the title of this post was inspired by a column written by Brock Yates in 1984 for Car and Driver magazine. His piece was titled “Why Liberals Hate Cars.” Yates listed several ways in which previous Democratic administrations expressed their hatred of the auto industry. Lyndon Johnson gave us the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which resulted in substantially increased government regulation. In the 1970s, a Democratic-controlled Congress implemented the 55-mph speed limit, and also mandated the requirements for ignition interlocks and 5-mph bumpers. Jimmy Carter promoted the development of the air bag. Yates further stated that the Democratic Party “believes with a religious conviction that all social problems can be solved by heavily funded Washington-based bureaucracies.”

That has become a rather prophetic statement. Barack Obama has dealt more harshly with the auto companies than he has with the financial institutions which caused the current economic meltdown. Making Rick Wagoner leave GM isn’t going to fix things. Obama just wants to put a smack down on the car companies. In his column, Yates referred to a writer named R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., who commented on the liberal attitude. Tyrrell said, “It’s not that a liberal hates cars, it’s that most Americans love cars. He sees the guy next door polishing his new car, and it makes him sore. He thinks that something has to be wrong if such a simple act can produce happiness.” Tyrrell continued, “It seems as if a liberal’s central purpose is to disturb his neighbor. On the one hand, he demands total freedom in terms of pornography…but denies other people the right to smoke cigarettes or drive without their seatbelts. It’s pure egotism. They’re right, and you’re not.”

Yates also quoted an author and commentator named Ben Wattenburg. He said, “The automobile is the ultimate expression of a deregulated society. The car is the ultimate freedom machine, the great uncommon carrier. The liberals hate it because it defies control and regulation by bureaucratic elites.” Notice those words and phrases carefully. “Expression” and “freedom” are the things being assaulted by Obama and his cohorts. They hate anything that “defies control and regulation.” It’s no surprise, then, that the Democrats are using such heavy-handed tactics against the auto industry. They believe they can operate the car companies better than the executives; but on the other hand, they don’t care if the companies go under. That is egotism and arrogance at its finest.

This liberal hate is not reserved for the automakers. The liberals have gone after other industries. They are punishing tobacco companies—and the people who use tobacco—with exorbitant taxes and regulation. They want to hit oil companies with outrageous windfall profit taxes. They want to take away the option to send our children to non-public school systems. They are proposing legislation to eliminate conservative media outlets. They are plotting to eradicate any and all rights to gun ownership; that’s probably the Holy Grail of liberal control and domination.

Remember those words from Yates’ column. The Democratic Party “believes with a religious conviction that all social problems can be solved by heavily funded Washington-based bureaucracies.” Those words are coming to pass in a way never imagined before by the American people.

I’ve been working on an argument essay for my English class at college. Everyone in the class was free to choose a topic. I decided to write my essay about the Ohio smoking ban. This ban, known as state Issue 5, was approved by a majority of Ohio voters and prohibits smoking in all public buildings and all workplaces. Someone asked me why I chose this subject, since I don’t smoke. My reason is that there are too many American citizens who don’t realize they are being targeted for a great social re-engineering.

People don’t realize that, before they actually lose a particular freedom, they are first stigmatized by the movements who want to take the freedom away. Tobacco users, for example, are (and have been since the 1970s) labeled pathetic and helpless “addicts” who really want to quit smoking but can’t. Smokers are also accused of making non-smokers suffer from secondhand smoke. Once this negative association with tobacco use is made, it becomes easier to eliminate tobacco from society. The same is true with gun ownership. Honest, law-abiding American citizens are stigmatized as ignorant, uneducated, irresponsible threats to American society. As a result, they pay heavy taxes on ammunition, and must meet endless purchasing and licensing requirements just to be able to own a gun. Once the idea is accepted that a vast number of armed citizens is actually a threat to society, it becomes easier to outlaw gun ownership.

And so I am writing about the smoking ban because I feel that everyday Americans should stand up for their freedoms, liberties, and pursuits of happiness. Here is some of my essay:

“The anti-smoking establishment maintains that no one has the right to subject others to secondhand smoke. This idea gained traction in the 1970s, when the more politically savvy members of the anti-smoking movement realized a need to show that tobacco smoke was harmful. At a World Health Organization conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber stated, ‘It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.’ But two significant studies on the risk of secondhand smoke failed to find any real danger. The World Health Organization, after conducting a 10-year European test, admitted in 1998 that it found no significant statistical proof of risk. The British Medical Journal, in 2003, published the results of a 39-year study done in California, which concluded that any risk was essentially too small to measure.

“Most studies of secondhand smoke influence are conducted by groups with clear anti-smoking agendas. These studies are usually financed by pharmaceutical companies which make money selling nicotine patches and gum. But the real intent of the anti-smoking movement is to stigmatize smokers, not to protect the public. This leads to the enactment of intrusive and unreasonable laws that restrict the freedom of American citizens. For example, the mayor of Los Angeles signed a law, effective in September of 2007, that banned smoking in all city parks and beaches, and also prohibited even the carrying, lighting, or discarding of tobacco products. Imagine being fined or arrested for carrying a product that was legally purchased at a gas station or convenience store!

“The anti-smokers have morphed into a powerful prohibitionist movement. They promote intolerance and social tension, and wield too much control over the lives of many Americans who use tobacco. Abraham Lincoln once said, ‘No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.’ If American people consent to the bully tactics of the anti-smoking movement, many other freedoms could be sacrificed in the name of social engineering.”

So, what do you think? Just replace tobacco use with gun ownership, freedom of religion, conservative news media, or other American interests. You’ll likely find that some liberal organization is targeting you, and preparing to take away whatever freedom you enjoy. Write your Representatives and Senators; write letters to the editors of your newspaper; join conservative organizations; give yourself a voice. If we don’t stick together, we will surely lose this America we love.

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.