Pressure to ban smoking on military bases only a single symptom of the erosion of American freedom
Today, we learn that the federal government is looking to reduce smoking rates among American military personnel . . . by banning the sale of cigarettes on military installations. Forget, for a moment, the inherent hypocrisy considering that the Commander in Chief is a smoker — not only is this the manifestation of a growing nanny state, but it also shows just how out of touch many of our government officials are about the basic fundamentals upon which this nation was founded.
We live in a free society. Just in the same way that adventurists can free-climb a cliff face, taking their life in their own hands, if somebody wants to reap the consequences of obesity and destroy their body and their life with endless amounts of trans fats, then so be it. So long as we do not run afoul of the law, we should be free to live our lives as we choose.
And yet our American servicemen and servicewomen, who unfortunately smoke at nearly double the rate of civilian America, are being told how they can go about the personal aspects of their daily lives? For crying out loud, these are the people who have sacrificed nearly everything—and in some cases, everything indeed—to fight for the freedom to smoke cigarettes, or free-climb a cliff face, or drown ourselves in Kentucky Fried Chicken, and the federal government wants to infringe upon the very freedom they provide?
It’s being done for their own good, the officials say. It’s absolutely insane, is what it is. And yet it’s on the horizon for each and every one of us, in and out of uniform.
Government-run health care will provide officials on Capitol Hill, whether they be elected, appointed or merely selected (like a czar, for instance), with a mechanism for which to slam down the heavy hand of government onto each and every aspect of American life. Much like smoking and tobacco sales could be banned from military installations because of the $846 million in associated costs touted by the Pentagon, smoking for civilians will be made more and more expensive and inconvenient through extra taxes and bans on smoking even in outdoor areas. Controlling healthcare can provide a government bent upon amassing more and more control with the opportunity to exert its will. Look for government intervention in the option to enjoy certain foods because of the downhill costs associated with obesity, heart disease and the like. Look for a nationwide decreased speed limit on America’s highways, if not for the purported energy savings, then rationalized by way of touting the healthcare costs associated with traffic accidents. Look for every single means of controlling the American public to be rationalized by an overreaching federal government, all in the name of “for our own good.”
Already we see it in the healthcare reform bill itself, containing billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending for infrastructure projects including but not limited to augmenting the lighting in urban areas, expanding playgrounds, creating bike and walking paths, and various other measures that should be the responsibility of local government, all rationalized by the idea that such things would give people the opportunity to exercise.
This government wants control. That’s what the banking bailout legislation was all about, evident in the government’s refusal to accept repayment of funds from several institutions. That’s what the cap-and-trade legislation is all about, evident in the restrictions it would place on Americans’ daily lives, right down to the local for the power outlet with which we are to charge our electric cars. And that’s what the healthcare reform proposals are all about.
Barack Obama and the Democrats do not want economic recovery, at least not yet, because their otherwise unpalatable agenda can only thrive in times of crisis. Nor do they want to pass energy form for the sake of the environment, instead they want the distribution of wealth, both among the classes here in the United States and to developing nations across the world, that such legislation would bring. And, lastly but certainly not finally, nor do they want to provide health care to everybody in the United States for the purpose of making us healthier – if they wanted that, they would foster competition among private enterprises to make healthcare cheaper and more attainable, rather than destroy the free market upon which so much of our healthcare-related ingenuity and innovation has been built.
It’s not about anything but control. And think about it – if this federal government is willing to exert its authority over the very men and women who fight for our freedom, imagine what it will do to the rest of us.