The Conservative Edge

Not too long ago, I posted some commentary about the possibility of another Waco-style tragedy occurring sometime soon. As I stated, I have been wondering about what set of circumstances would be needed to set off another confrontation between gun owners and the federal government. I am now seeing what those circumstances could be.

This past week, news reports revealed the frustration some law-abiding gun owners are feeling as they see the government expanding its control over the American people. Gun-rights advocates openly expressed their rights to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and protested at President Obama’s public appearance on August 17. The Associated Press reported on the event, saying, “About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.”

A few days before, other protesters gathered at a different location where the President was speaking. It was reported that, “Last week, during Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading ‘It is time to water the tree of liberty’ stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg. ‘It’s a political statement,’ he told The Boston Globe. ‘If you don’t use your rights, then you lose your rights.’”

These kinds of open protests against the Obama administration might be enough to start a battle; just consider how many of the “town hall” style of meetings have given opportunity for angry Americans to voice their displeasure with the government. The liberals won’t tolerate average people sassing them for very long. Indeed, some of the ranking Democrats have already been expressing their real views of the American people, especially those who dare to disagree with their glib lies.

Nancy Pelosi, for example, has labeled critics of this Democratic administration as “un-American.” Harry Reid has called the town hall protesters “evil-mongers” (I guess he would be an expert in identifying evil). Even Obama himself has said that “the time for talking is over” when it comes to the health care issue. These people don’t want any disagreement or debate about anything they do. They do want us to accept their smooth speeches and evil deeds with complete deference and submission.

So, as the town hall meetings get nastier; as Obama’s approval ratings continue to fall; as government tightens its grip on our lives; and, as more gun owners openly express their rights, you can be sure that the government will exercise its power at the expense of someone’s life. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to read about an American citizen killed somewhere because he protested against the government by carrying a gun. Liberals can only take resistance for so long.

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.

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.

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.