The Conservative Edge

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.

I can’t believe what I’ve been reading in my local newspaper this week. Many people have been writing to the editors, condemning the Israeli retaliation in Gaza. One reader stated that “Israel…is murdering innocent civilians in its so-called war against Hamas”, and that “Israel is no better than Saddam Hussein.” Another letter reads “There is a genocide going on in Gaza today”, and that President-elect Obama should “make a strong statement against the slaughter in Gaza.” There was even a public gathering downtown, where people protested againt Israel’s actions.

Are Americans so blind to the tactics of terrorist organizations? Do they never see the aggression that provokes the retaliation and subsequent war? Do they realize that Israel does indeed have a right–socially, morally, and militarily–to defend its borders and its people?

The Associated Press, at the beginning of the current conflict, reported that Hamas began launching rockets into Israel as the cease-fire agreement was set to expire. Israel was willing to extend the agreement, but Hamas was unwilling to cooperate. The AP also revealed on December 27, 2008, that thousands of Gazans received Arabic-language cell phone messages from the Israeli military, urging them to leave homes where militants might have stashed weapons.

This is the real tragedy: terrorist organizations who put citizens’ lives in danger by hiding weapons and munitions in homes and schools, thereby holding people hostage every day. In a sick form of passive-aggressive methodology, the terrorists actually hope for civilian casualties to further their cause. It works because they know that Israel will retaliate. Hamas (and other militants) are aggressors in picking a fight, but portray themselves as victims of aggression when someone fights back.

Many people wonder why Israel has such sophisticated defenses, built with the help of the United States. The reason is very clear. Israel, a land roughly half the size of my home state of Ohio, is under constant threat. Not only do organizations like Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah regularly attack Israeli interests, but the countries of Lebanon, Syria, and Iran pose serious threats too. Imagine being under constant fear of rocket attacks in Ashkelon, or suicide bombs in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Would you not want your government to protect your right to live?

The United States encountered several terrorist attacks in the 1990’s. From the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, we lost hundreds of fine service people to thugs and cowards like the ones attacking Israel right now. Would any American deny our right to take action against those who harmed us? Even though we didn’t strike back with sufficient vengeance—Bill Clinton allowed Osama Bin Laden to be extradited to Afghanistan—we had (and still have) the right to defend our country. Why should Israel have any less right?

I had the privilege to visit Israel in February of 2000, as they were preparing for the Pope’s historic visit later that year. I only saw a handful of soldiers the whole time I was there. The soldiers were so friendly, in fact, that some of them posed for pictures with certain female members of our tour group. All across the country, people just seemed to enjoy relaxing on their front porches, watching their kids play soccer at school, or buying goodies at the marketplaces. They seemed willing to be peacable folks, but it’s hard to be at peace when neighboring countries keep shooting rockets at them. Again, I ask—why shouldn’t Israel defend its people, and its way of life?

“War—what is it good for?” is a line from a classic rock song. There aren’t too many people who can tolerate even the thought of war or conflict. But, wars have been fought for centuries, and for various reasons. Some wars have been waged in the name of religion, which we are seeing right now. Other conflicts have arisen because one man or nation wanted to control the rest of the world.

But there are times when fighting, without declarations of war, can bring about desired results. Sometimes, a mere threat of rebellion, or news of some trouble brewing between two countries, can affect a society far removed from the area of crisis. Let me explain what war is good for.

On December 17, 2008, the oil cartel OPEC agreed to cut 2.2 million barrels of oil from its daily production. It was OPEC’s single largest reduction ever. Iran, especially, was a vocal proponent of such cutbacks. When asked whether the size of the cut was enough to get oil prices up again, OPEC President Chekib Khelil said, “I hope we surprised you.” He also added, “If you’re not surprised, we need to do something about it.”

However, the oil markets did not react as OPEC had hoped. Crude oil sank to $40.20 after the announcement. The fear of world recession, and lower energy consumption, was enough to override OPEC’s reduced production, which is to be put into effect January 1, 2009.

Is it a coincidence, then, that Hamas started firing rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, within 2 weeks of OPEC’s announcement? Hamas is supported by Iran, which is part of the OPEC cartel. When OPEC saw that oil prices weren’t moved by the threats of reduced supply, it put in force the statement made by Mr. Khelil: “…we need to do something about it.” That “something” is an old tactic used time and again by Mideast countries. Make war, and threaten the supply of oil to the Western countries, and the price of oil will go up. And one of the surest ways to start a war is to fire some rockets into Israel, because Israel almost ALWAYS retaliates.

Hamas doesn’t care if Gaza citizens get killed in the process. In fact, they hope for civilian casualties, because it then emboldens other terrorist organizations, and other countries, drawing them into the conflict too. Before you know it, you’ve got fires burning all over the Mideast, and oil markets in chaos. That is exactly what war is good for!

If the United States truly wants peace in the Mideast, then perhaps we should be pumping our own oil. Then those other countries would have fewer reasons to fight. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a lot more violence, initiated by Iran, Lebanon, Hamas, and Hezbollah against Israel. We’ll see how this unfolds in 2009.

I read a fascinating article in my local newspaper last week. Written by Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for the National Review Online, it was a commentary on the media’s depiction of Barack Obama as a modern-day Abraham Lincoln or FDR.

After correctly chastising the media for such nonsense, Mr. Goldberg writes, “…shouldn’t we also hold off on comparing the guy to FDR and Lincoln before he’s done anything?”. Really, the only comparison we could make between Obama and the two aforementioned presidents is that Obama uses the media to showcase his oratory skills as FDR did with his radio messages in the 1930s.

Mr. Goldberg states further that, “Behind all the talk of unity and bipartisanship and shared sacrifice lies an uglier ambition: power.”. This is absolutely correct. America is right now experiencing a perfect storm of economic collapse and political dissatisfaction that will allow the big-government believers to step in and exert control. In presenting government as the solution to all of our problems, the liberals and Democrats will institute policies and programs that will, in effect, control all aspects of our lives. And, America will be persuaded by the silver-tongued Obama to accept it all without question.

I am reminded of some events recorded in a book I have, written by a man who personally opposed Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party in Germany. The writer details how, over a number of years, the National Socialists actually used democratic processes to gain control. They used elections, voting procedures, and parliamentary decisions to place themselves in command of Germany. Their mantra became “Dictatorship by Democracy”.

Now, I am not saying that Obama is the next Hitler. I am saying that the Democrats want to be a dictatorial party, controlling and manipulating America and its people. When they finally get the Supreme Court set up with a liberal majority, you will see the power machine kick into overdrive. The party that controls the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government will truly have achieved “Dictatorship by Democracy”.