The Conservative Edge

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?

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.