Timothy Lawton

     The Obama administration is again proving their lack of understanding of history. The attacks on 9/11 were an act of war not a crime. Therefore those who were involved should be tried by the military’s justice system not in civillian courts. Aside from this legal reality the spectacle that this trial will be is preposterous. Safety concerns, the media, and the potential legal obstructions that the lawyers for these terrorists will no doubt pull will lead to a circus that could lead to these men being acquitted. On top of this is the fact that much of the information that may aid in convicting these men is of a classified nature. This decision by Attorney General, Eric Holder, to try these men in open court is an absurdity.

     This decision flies in the face of history. The attackers on 9/11 are not subject to the Geneva Conventions and they certainly are not entitled to a civillian trial. They are the equivalent of spies and spies are generally executed on the spot. Since the September 11th attacks are an act of war these men have to be subject to the rules of war. They do not meet a single one of the four requirements to be recognized as a legitimate enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions. This means they are to be treated as spies. Do they wear uniforms? Are they part of an armed force representing a country? Do they have readily recognizable insignia marking their rank? Do they use the public to hide and shield their identities? How has Eric Holder made the determination that these men deserve anything other than a military hearing?

     Yet, that is not the worst part of this move by this administration. The Pandora’s box that this trial will open up will lead to a plethora of unintended consequences. This trial will be a showcase for Al Queda and radical Islamists. The amount of recruitment that they will get with this free publicity will be enormous. The revelations of national security operations that will be exposed could potentially devastate our abilities to gather intelligence to prevent future attacks. The fact that the Army already failed to stop a terrorist attack at Fort Hood, in Texas, by one of their own proves how precarious our ability to defend ourselves from such extremists actually is. The possibility that these defendants may get off on a technicality is another looming potential disaster. Was Khalid Sheik Muhammed read his Miranda rights? And if so, when? What about the potential for one lone juror, who is sympathetic to their cause, to hang a jury or cause a mistrial? We also have to consider the security considerations of such a trial. How can this not heighten the already dangerous threat level for the city of New York?

     Time and again I am baffled by the Obama administration. If they really care about this nation how can they do what they are doing? How do these trials do anything other than weaken our security and promote the cause of the Islamo-fascists? This is similar to the trial that Adolf Hitler had after the Munich putsch. Were the Nazi’s not greatly popularized by the publicity Hitler received for free? The debacle of bringing terrorists into a civillian court under the circumstances of the 9/11 attacks is insane. If these men deserve anything less than a quick trip to meet their maker it is military justice.

Is President Obama naive, an ideologue. or worse? Does he really believe that we can use diplomacy to solve all of the problems of the world? Does he think that his eloquence can move even the most hardened dictators to come to an understanding? Does he not realize that there are some people that we cannot negotiate with? Does he know the lessons of history? Has Obama ever heard of Neville Chamberlain or Karl Marx?

Prime Minister Chamberlain was the British leader who believed that Hitler could be dealt with diplomatically. In 1938 he, his French counterpart, Mussolini, and Hitler all met at the Munich conference. Mr. Chamberlain, ever so dreadful of another conflict, basically handed over large portions of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. His thinkng was that this would satisfy Hitler and prevent another cataclysmic war like The Great War. The Prime Minister was so sure his diplomacy had succeeded that upon his return home he declared, “There will be peace in our time!”. Within one year Germany would provoke a war that would make WWI look minor in comparison. Are we on the same path with Mr. Obama as President?

Obama has unilaterally discarded plans for a missile defense shield to be placed in the Czech Republic and Poland. This without a single concession from the Russians who for some reason found this objectionable. He has also thrown Israel to the wolves by essentially stating that all Palestinian desires in negotiations to a two state solution will be met. This before talks have even begun. This in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly which is largely a collection of thugs, dictators, and anti-semites. He continually makes calls for the U.S. to cooperate with the world with no expectation that this be reciprocated. He refused to give even verbal support to the Iranian democracy protesters. And he has supported deposed President Zelaya in Honduras despite his violations of that country’s laws and Constitution. Not to mention his subservience and silence in the face of Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez. On top of this he has snubbed Great Britan’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown the leader of one of our closest allies. What is it that this man is trying to accomplish? He has already said he wants to fundamentally transform the United States. What are his intentions with the world?

By Obama’s own account he was attracted to “Marxist” professors. He has been associated with the most extreme radicals from the far left and has even appointed those who hold communist, socialist, and anti-American ideologies to positions of power in his administration. Van Jones had to step down as adviser to the President on green jobs because he was not only a communist, but had signed a petition implicating that the government had a role in 9/11. His policies at home seem to have been crafted by the most extreme liberalism. Whenever these extremist views are pointed out all we get from the left are cries of racism and accusations of how ludicrous it is to question whether Obama is a socialist. Yet, we never see a refutation of the veracity of these associates radical ties. So, what does this man really believe?

The President talked in an interview at the beginning of the decade about the “redistributive” property in the U.S. Constitution. He also seems to be bought into the idea that redistribution should be part of global policies. Cap and Trade and the Climate Change agreements will accomplish this if they become a reality. Both of these concepts will be devastating to the U.S. economy and that of the western nations as a whole. He talks again and again about a “green” economy, but never addresses the realities of getting there. The energy we need is decades away from being produced from alternative sources. Does the President think we can save enough by turning off light switches and “tuning” up our cars? If he does he needs another science advisor.

With each passing day the radicalism of this President seems to be more apparent. This is why so many have so quickly become vehemently opposed to his policies. They are creating a debt for our children that will be insurmountable. They have attempted to takeover 16% of our economy without even reading the Bills and then have had the audacity to be upset that people are getting angry and taking to the streets. The only segment of the Federal budget that they seem willing to cut is the military and this is when we are at war and under the constant threat of terror. Yet, the administration refuses to even use that word. He seems more worried about going on David Letterman and avoiding Fox News than he does about the well being of the nation. When will the mainstream media wake up and actually start to ask this man some serious questions? How about them Sox? And he wouldn’t even reply to that with a straight answer!!!!

On the commemeration of September 11th I wanted to write a blog about what makes us all Americans, but as I started to try to sort out my thoughts I did’t think I could honestly write such a piece. Instead I found myself pondering how far the extreme left has departed from the ideals that made this country great. Let me be clear here. I am not talking about ALL liberals. I am referring to the fringe of the ideology that has become anti-capitalist, socialistic, willing to use the power of the government to silence their opponents, and generally blames all the problems of the world on the United States and/or Israel. The use of epithets and hyperbole characterize every debate that they have. Recently we have seen any one who oppoes the policies of Obama called racist and even some have been likened to Nazis.

So, let us look at what the far left has been asserting in these last several weeks. We have had Nancy Pelosi say that the people against government run health care at the Townhall meetings were carrying swastikas. Jimmy Carter has said that many people opposed to Obama are upset because a black man is President. And countless columnists and pundits have claimed that any one opposed to the President is doing so because of his race. I’m sure their are some who hold these thoughts in their head, but it is possible to disagree with the liberal assault on our Constitution and way of life based on the merits. Last year I voted for myself for President, because it was the first time that I was over 35 years old and that is one of the requirements for that office. Prior to that I have voted for Jesus and I still don’t know what race he was. Maybe the left should spend more time trying to convince those who are against their policies why they have the best plan for this country instead of resorting to name calling. I, and virtually everyone else I know, base our opinions on which policies will move this nation and the world in the right direction. The liberal cry of racism is at best a distraction and at worst a deliberate attempt to scare people from voicing their opinions.

The true racists are those who incorporate race into their every thought. The ones who can never simply be people. The ones who not only voted against Obama because of his race, but those who voted FOR him because of his race as well. This applies to sex in an equally valid manner. These Tea Parties and anger at the Townhalls would have been just as vociferous had Hillary Clinton been elected and proposed the same policies. This would have had the left playing the sexist card instead of the race card had she won the office of President. Had John Edwards, or some other white male won, it would be interesting to see what arguments they would have had to come up with. Possibly they would have had to actually debate the issues.

How far the left is willing to go is truly becoming scary. Their opposition to the war in Iraq has actually had Senators and Congressmen publicly state that the war was lost while our troops were still engaged in combat, that our men were “cold blooded” killers of innocent women and children, and the consistent broadcasting of the message that we are ready to turn and run at a moments notice. Couple this with the Obama apology tour and we are headed back to a pre-9/11 mindset. We can disagree, but we should never hinder the ability of the men and women on the ground to do the jobs that their survival deems necessary. Americans will NEVER tolerate undue brutality in war, but we cannot have our troops constantly looking over their shoulders. Remember, one of the worst attrocities in the Vietnam war perpetrated by our forces was My Lai, but it was our very own men who put a stop to it.

As for freedom of speech who is it that is trying to prevent it? Were hundreds of thousands prevented from marching in the streets protesting the Iraq war during President Bush’s time in office? Was Cindy Sheehan and her supporters taken away in the middle of the night when they set up camp outside Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas? No, it is the liberals who are trying to curb the first amendment. They know they can’t overtly shut down talk radio with the fairness doctrine, so they are planning to do it with “localism” and “diversity”. Liberal talk radio can’t survive on its own even with the millions that the likes of George Soros have poured into it. The left hates that it is actually being held to account for its distortions and half-truths. They hate that millions are abandoning their newspapers, network news, and left-leaning cable stations and turning to talk radio, FOX news, and the web. So, when competing has failed they are now trying to craft another method to silence their opposition. Watch closely over the next several months and see what types of proposals will come from the FCC’s new “diversity” Czar. They will attempt to impose fines or fees that will make it economically unviable for affiliates to carry national radio hosts. They will do it in the name of local representation, but its real purpose is to silence those who oppose their culture changing agenda.

America we are at a crossroads. We are witnessing the insidious rise of a radical attempt to alter our society. It is being done deliberately and incrementally. Those who wish for this brave new world know that they cannot allow their plans to be aired in the open. They have been working their way into the mind of our world for about a century. The divide between the right and the left grows because the liberals are abandoning the values that have made this country strong. Hard work, self-determination, and freedom are merely abstracts that obtrude into their vision of a society governed by the control of an ”enlightened” bureaucracy. The radical liberals do not believe in the things that have made America great. In fact they are opposed to them and have a different set of values that they want to see guide the world. To them America is not to be admired it is to be subdued.

The last six months have seen the explosion of a new phenomenon, the conservative protester. It began with the Tea Parties early in 2009 and has made for the incredible scenes we have seen recently at Townhall meetings where ordinary citizens are venting their frustration at national political figures. This is the result of the explosion of debt and proposed government takeovers of nearly every aspect of our lives. It is the awakening of Americans to the threat that the ultra-left poses to the values that have made this country great. It is the voice of common sense standing up to an out of control ivory tower federal government. This is the cultural civil war that has been a long time in coming.

For decades the liberals have marched in the streets overtly protesting  and covertly used the courts and social institutions to bypass the American electorate. We have seen their effete socialism crawl into every corner of our society. Their relativism has been used to reorder our culture and traditions. They finally have gone too far. Feeling comfortable with their control of the White House, a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, and a considerable margin in the House of Representatives they have proceeded to take the federal government to a level of power never envisioned by our Founders. The 787 BILLION dollar “stimulus” bill was their first strike in this war on the America we know. They have tossed bilions at their cronies, virtually taken over the auto industry, and have proposed the largest tax increase in history with their cap and trade bill. Their latest attack, the attempt to takeover our health care system, seems to have been the last straw. Citizens who never dreamed of taking to the streets have now become protesters with all of the accoutrements that go along with it. Signs, chants, and yes the occasional heated confrontation. Many people have realized what the left is up to and understand that if unchecked America as we know it will cease to exist.

I have sat smiling watching old men, young mothers, and countless others challenging the arrogance of our elected officials. Politicians who find it too tedious to actually read the bills that they are signing into law. Politicians who try to explain how we, the ordinary citizen, don’t know the good that they are trying to do for our benefit. The satisfaction that I take in seeing conservatives finally taking to the streets is more than I can express. For a generation, or more, the left has had a near stranglehold on demonstrations. It was the liberal who told us that it was their right to protest. That it was they who were acting on their American liberties. Well, now the tables have turned and they can’t stand it. The San Francisco socialist has likened the conservatives speaking out to Nazis. The President has a handpicked audience for his Townhall and tried to present it as a random crowd. Countless others on the left have tried to characterize the anger and frustration we have seen as unnatural and manufactured. That is fine by me. They do it to their own detriment. If they think that what has been happening over the last several months is not the organic reflection of a true opposition to the “change” they envision they are sadly mistaken. “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it any more!!”

This is the beginning of an open battle in our society. No longer will the leftists control the debate. No longer will they be able to inculcate their mantras into the minds of the people unopposed. College campuses and the media are no longer the sole bastions of the left. The social experiment is over. It is the common sense citizens of this country that must stand up now and loudly. We must take back the government at the ballot box and illuminate the millions who have yet to recognize the threat of the liberal agenda to our American way of life. The socialist state that they propose is the antithesis of everything that this nation is supposed to be about. The federal control of our lives, that they seek, is exactly what our ancestors rebelled against when we demanded our rights as citizens from the British Crown.

I am tired of liberals and the mainstream press saying that conservatives have no solutions to the problems that face us. We have plenty of ideas, they just happen to be ideas that the left doesn’t like. They also falsely try to portray that the Bush administration has tried these solutions during his eight years in office. Contrary to what is believed by many George W. Bush was NOT a conservative. His policies only adopted a small portion of the ideas that the right would have wanted to put forth to solve the crises that face America. The profligate spending of the Republicans during the six years that they controlled the White House and Capitol Hill could not have been more antithetical to the fundamental beliefs of conservatism.

The economy tanked in late 2008 due to the banking crisis. The banks had saddled themselves with toxic assets and all lending was on the verge of freezing up at the time. Rather than debate the specifics of what lead to this problem, because both sides have played a role in concocting this mess, I ‘d rather look at what should have been done at the time. Only one major issue stands in the way of doing this thoroughly and that is the fact that much of the specifics about how the books of the banks looked at the time is still shrouded in mystery. Let us suppose that some action of the Federal government may have been necessary. Yet, we can conclude that it was certainly not the role of the government to buy stakes in the banks and get involved in their day to day business. This is why we now have a pay Czar appointed by Obama. We also can relate this to the debacles of bailing out AIG and most of the American motor industry and the White House control over the executive compensations of those companies. We, the taxpayers, spent 80 billion of our money under Obama to hold off the bankruptcies of those motor corporations for six months and a 180 billion on AIG which is still teetering on the brink of collapse.  With Chrysler and GM we also saw the federal involvement lead to the violation of our laws when it came to bankruptcy restructuring. Primary debtors were given less money than the UAW union. If the laws of the U.S. can be so readily violated who would want to invest in companies based in this country? We should have let these corporations fail and allowed the banks to restucture the bad loans that they made that were still salvageable and set up a system similar to the one that bought up the bad debt from the Savings and Loan scandal two decades ago. Mortgages could have been increased in their terms and this could have made many delinquent loans more manageable and kept the banks liquid and able to continue making loans.

On top of these solutions a reduction of the capital gains tax could have spurred investment. We also should have lowered the tax rates on ALL citizens. This could have been done by reducing income taxes for those who pay, a reduction in the social security tax, reducing the payroll tax, and finally a reduction in state sales taxes. Many think that the Bush tax cuts were too deep. Contrary to that opinion I feel that they did not go far enough. We still have a 35% corporate tax rate in this country. It is one of the highest in the world. If we were to drop it to 20% or lower could you imagine how that would spur economic development in this country? Ronald Reagan inherited an economy that was in many ways worse than the one we have now and many of my proposals were part of the package that he put forth which brought us out of that severe recession.

On a number of other issues the conservative ideology also has the plans to help solve our problems. Health care is one of the most complex issues that we face domestically. Yet, all ideas proposed from the right are simply ignored by Congressional Democrats and the President. One idea that has the most potential to reduce costs is Tort reform, but the Democrats won’t touch this because they are the party of the trial lawyers. One of the greatest, if not the single most, contributors to high health care costs in this country is malpractice insurance. Reducing outrageous and unnecessary lawsuits would do wonders in reducing the amount of money that we spend in the medical system. Allowing personal health insurance to be bought accross state lines and piecemeal rather than being covered for every possibility would also help. As it stands now people are being covered for all cases from the very first moment that they buy insurance. We also have to consider how the reduced rates for medicine and machinery paid for in already socialized nations affects our prices here. Essentially we are subsidizing the costs in foreign countries because the health care corporations have to raise their prices here to make up the difference. Once these issues are addressed we can then look at the potential to deal with those who are still not covered, Yet, this number is not the 47 million we so often hear bandied about. That number includes approximately 12 million illegal aliens, those who are uninsured due to job transition, and those who have chosen not to be insured despite the fact that they can afford it. Even in the worse case scenario we do not have to nationalize health care in order to get those who are citizens of this country insured. I have heard some sort of a federally funded voucher program similar to food stamps proposed as a remedy for this situation. Nationalized health care is bankrupting every nation in which it has been implemented.

Not that I believe climate change is necessarily a problem that we can control, but I do believe that we can control what we do that may be exacerbating it. As one who studies climate and weather I do believe that there is some change occurring in our climate. The weather has grown more extreme over the last several decades and it is definetly affecting our environment. That said, the insanity over human induced climate change has taken on almost cultic tones.  Programs like the cash for clunkers, legislation like Cap and Trade, and the mandated change to using light bulbs that contain mercury (one of the most poisonous substances on earth) to avoid ordinary light bulbs which emit a bit more carbon dioxide are all ideas based on the faith that mankind is causing climate change. Since this concept ignores that there appears to be warming on other planets we may need to find another source. I think it could be the Sun. That big yellow ball of light that heats and lights our planet. I’m sure most of you have seen it. So, instead of conciously approaching the ways in which we can get and save energy better than we do now we have plans that toss perfectly good cars into landfills, a tax on energy which could be the largest single tax increase in mankind’s history, and light bulbs that will eventually poison our homes and pollute our ground water with a substance that is widely known to cause birth defects.

If we are going to be wasting trillions of dollars what we should be spending it on is improving our national infrastructure and finding alternative fuels that make sense. Some of this can be spent on research, which I would support the government investing money, and other efforts can be induced by tax incentives for already proven methods such as wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal energy production. Individuals and businesses that invest in these renewable resources can be rewarded for their reduction of fossil fuel use with tax rebates. We need to be cautious when implementing such programs, because we can see what the ethanol subsidy did when it was tried. Not only did ethanol made by corn not reduce our energy consumption, but it actually raised the price of all grain and rice commodities around the world increasing the price of food for those already at the margins of starvation. Such a replication would be a crime. How many went hungry or died around the world so American politicians could pander to farmers in the corn belt?

We need real solutions for real problems. Trying government control of the economy, healthcare, and energy production has repeatedly failed in the past. Why would we expect it to work now? Nothing is black and white. Are there areas in which the government can assist in solving these problems? Yes, but we do it to our detriment when we take out of the equation good old common sense and self-determination. Conservatives propose solutions that involve the people and allow them to make their own decisions based on what is best for them as an individual. Whenever this philosophy has been tried in the past it has yielded good results. Our nation was founded on the concept of individual liberty and the freedom to live as one chooses. Conservative solutions allow for the ingenuity and talent of every citizen to be applied to the challenges that face us as a society.