Archive for the 'Nanny Statism' Category

The weekend has come, and so has the dreary weather, at least in my part of the world, known as central Maryland. But there’s a bright side, in that I won’t have to shovel anything. In other parts of the world, here’s a bit of what’s been going on:

The University of Alabama in Huntsville has fired professor Amy Bishop, accused of shooting 6 colleagues, killing 3 of them.

From the “stoopid criminals” department: Oregon Ducks quarterback Jeremiah Masoli has been suspended for the upcoming 2010 football season, after pleading guilty to a burglary charge. What did he steal? Two laptop computers and a guitar.

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional.

The National Review interviews pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak. For politicians with views similar to Stupak’s, 2SecondsFaster asks, “What should pro-life Democrats do?”

Members of the Thomas More Society react to the Illinios Attorney General’s claim that state’s constitution contains the right to an abortion.

Some say that defending the enemy is a time-honored tradition, sometimes invoking John Adams’ defense of the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre. A Wall Street Journal editorial begs to differ.

The Weekly Standard celebrates hope and change – in Iraq.

The New England Journal of Medicine reports a survey indicating that Obamacare could result in a decrease in the number of physicians. (H/T Hugh Hewitt)

SayAnythingBlog warns of a double-dip recession.

On the other hand theSpec reports that the world-wide freight recession could be ending.

The Empire State brings forth the nanny state. The New York legislature is considering a bill that would forbid restaurants from using salt in cooking.

And finally, a young protestor gives her opinion of President Obama’s fiscal policies.
Read the rest of this entry »

Here is the sad part. Audi is really slamming the eco-movement in this country, and especially its influence on our government. And it is a bout time some other car company pushed another TDI onto the market as opposed to leaving Volkswagen as the only company with a viable product here in the States.

“Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom, It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves” – William Pitt, before the House of Commons, Nov 18, 1783

Remember this as we deal with ObamaCare, Medicaid/Medicare, and Social Security…. amongst the plethora of social welfare programs that were “for the people”…

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” – Thomas Jefferson

That’s right. After much reading, studying, thought, deliberation and careful consideration, I have decided that it is time for me to become more active in politics. No. I’m not ready to run for office, nor do I consider myself to the consummate politician, as I speak my mind too much and I don’t have enough pragmatic bones in my body.

However, I believe that I can help be part of a movement to retake this country from the progressives, of both major political parties, as they try to institute even more nanny state controls and continue to put the final nails in the coffin of our Constitutional system of government.

Just as our Founders believed that government closet to the people would be the most accountable to the people, we must start taking back our local governments and start breaking our fellow citizens of the “What can government do for me” mentality that has come to dominate our politics.

Just as the quote attributed to Andrew Tytler says: Read the rest of this entry »

Courtesy of Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air:

Sheesh.

I heard this wonderful little snippet that I had to rewind and hear about twenty times just to make sure I heard it come out of the President’s speech tonight:

A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.

In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.

I will agree with the statement that hard work and responsibility SHOULD be rewarded with “some measure of security and fair play” in that if you work an honest days work, you should find yourself better off. SHOULD. There is no guarantee, never has been. Living is risk. Doing anything carries risk. You can work your butt off and circumstances could pop up and “BAM”, everything you worked for is gone. OR things go really, really well, and you are comfortable and wealthy beyond one’s wildest imagination. That is our history.

Not the GOVERNMENT having to come in to “help deliver on that promise”, though I’m not sure what the “promise” was.

And THEN he has the guts to come out and say that this is the way our “progress” has always been, using FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society as examples of “always”. Yeah. Don’t go back to the Founders, but just back into the progressive era of this country where the foundations of socialism were set, where the soft tyranny could begin, complete with the nanny state we will all enjoy. This is a slow creep. Though it seems that the snowball has picked up momentum in the last few years or so…

We have gone from equality of opportunity to equality of results. We must now guarantee a certain level for each citizen to enjoy, regardless of effort or circumstance. And we must take away from others in order to do this. Once again, our Founders did not intend this.

Bah. I fundamentally differ with this man, and the majority of his party and supporters. They believe in “leveling” the playing field, implying that adversity, and overcoming it, are their jobs and not each individual citizens.

Before some lefty troll jumps in and starts sqwaking that I am talking all crazy anarachist here, let me say that the government, local, state and federal all have their roles, with the federals the weakest as far as what it should be meddling in. That being said, if laws are being broke to the detriment of one, then ofcourse the government steps in to the fray to correct it.

And how the U.S. Constitution is being violated here requiring the use of federal power to correct a violation of a right is lost on me, and is just ignored as a non-issue. Because only those crazy Ron Paulians or nutty libertarians give a rats arse about that withered old parchment anymore. Shoot, there is a NEEEEEEEED. People are HUUUURRRRTTTING! Going BAAAAANKRUPT! Blah. Blah. Blah. I don’t say this to be harsh or cold, but the people spewing these sob stories are doing so not because they want me to help them, but so that I will let the government step in and help them, by taking away my choice and freedoms, confiscating more of my wealth and property, all to further their agendas that they can’t pay for. Yeah, that was a run-on sentence, I’m pretty sure, but I’m on a roll, so screw it.

On Fox, they’re discussing the cost, and how the President is pretty much got 10 pounds of crap stuffed into a 5 pound bag with his figures on how to pay for it. Not just the evil Repubs, but even Obama supporters are saying that he’s off. On CNN, they’re stuck on lamenting the “LIE” outcry during his speech that got Pelosi’s eyes bugged out and her hot under the collar, and anything else but the costs. I won’t even turn over to MSNBC where Matthew’s leg is quivering, Olbermann is frothing at the mouth, and Maddow, well, I can’t even look at her much listen to her smug Adam’s apple.

The question I have is, how are we going to fight this when it passes. And it will pass, in some form. Public option or not, the government will show its tentacles in the bathing suit areas of our liberties. Will the states say enough! We reassert our rights under that dusty and ill-used 10th Amendment, and since this has nothing to do with interstate commerce, you can go pound sand D.C. Or will individuals say that they’re rights are being violated because the federal government has come and ORDERED them, under penalty of law, to purchase a product. And this is NOT like auto insurance. IF I don’t own a car, I don’t have to purchase auto insurance. When this happens, and our freedoms continue to be whittled away for our own good, when is enough enough? And where do WE go to find freedom again?

Bah. I’m going to bed…

Oh hell no:

No matter how good it first sounds, if it contains a Health Choices Administration or something like it, Obama’s “compromise” will just be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If you don’t know what a Health Choices Administration is, you haven’t studied the legislation. It would be an “independent” (oh, sure) agency created in the executive branch, headed by a “Health Choices commissioner.” Its job would be the “establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards …” Even if Obama drops the controversial “public option” that puts government in the insurance business. And retention of an HCA-style agency still would represent a nationalization of health care.

The agency wouldn’t be some kind of advisory panel; it effectively would define what falls within “generally accepted standards of medical or other appropriate clinical or professional practice” worthy of being insured (or not insured). What amounts to a health czar backed by a big, new bureaucracy would set national health standards, root out “non-compliance” and enforce its own codes with the power to impose fines and boot out insurers that don’t meet those standards. If this is not an overly broad grant of power to a brawny new federal agency, then nothing is. No wonder people are scared into thinking the Health Choices Act provides for “death panels.”

Via the Talking Points Memo we get this gem:

Unreal.

“Our ability to put the extremists into perspective helps us frame our narrative”.

Because anybody who stands up to Obama and his plans for this country is an extremist and gets in the way of the party “narrative”. And we all know what needs to happen to those who get in the way of the party narrative don’t we? Through stereotyping, ad hominem attacks, and by reporting to the “party” those dissenters spreading “disinformation”, we’ll shut down dissent.

So please Mr. Congressman, put your head in the sand. You know what is best for your constituents, and they don’t know what is good for them. If they show up and get into a heated discussion with you, sometimes even getting loud and screaming in their anger, well, they’re probably not your constituents, but simply right-wing radical “tea-bagging” plants who should just be ignored.

Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt….

Perhaps they would be better off reading this piece from Victor Davis Hanson as opposed to a talking points memo from Health Care for America NOW! (whatz up with the caps and the exclamation point anyway?)

One other note, Health Care for America NOW! lists itself as a national “grassroots” organization, with such grassroots, mainstream, as American as apple pie and momma groups such as ACORN, National Council of La Raza, MoveOn.Org, Americans United for Change, SEIU, Planned Parenthood Foundation for America, National Abortion Federation, and, my personal favorite, the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance.

Just the group I want fundamentally changing my country….

Would someone please explain to me how Congress has the power to pass this law that can prohibit this behavior?

Rachel Merrill, mother of three, was holding innocuous-seeming contraband in her hand at an Arlington Goodwill store earlier this month: a 1971 edition of “Little House on the Prairie.” This copy of the children’s classic had just become illegal to resell because of concerns that some old books contain lead in their ink.

Legislation passed by Congress last August in response to fears of lead-tainted toys imported from China went into effect last month. Consumer groups and safety advocates have praised it for its far-reaching protections. But libraries and book resellers such as Goodwill are worried about one small part of the law: a ban on distributing children’s books printed before 1985.

Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the power to do this? How does this fit into “interstate commerce”? If the book is not sold and then shipped across state lines, I am having a hard time determining exactly how this is possible? I mean, other than the fact that our Congress-critters have since decided that they can do whatever they damn well please as long as they tie it into protecting their flocks of sheep.

Sure, this is just a little thing. Children’s books and whatever. But they’ve also told me what kind of light bulb I can use in my house. They’re working on telling me what kind of insurance I need. I’m getting increasingly pissed. I am seeing these broad grabs at power, and I am afraid at what my country will look like in 50 years. If we continue to allow our federal government to make these power grabs, we won’t have a federal government anymore, other than in name anyways…

because of crap like this:

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.

“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.

Wonderful. Representatives no longer read the bills that they then vote on but are dependent on “staffers” to spoon feed them the Cliffs Notes version. What exactly do we play these no-talent a-clowns for again? The same reason there is no real “filibuster” anymore with everyone sitting there listening to one dude read the phone book, because our Representatives are lazy, money-grubbing politicians bent on their own selfish desires, or so it seems by their collective, single-minded behavior.
Read the rest of this entry »