Taking Back Our Rights (Part 2) The Nanny State

In this installment of “Taking Back Our Right” I will be showing you the rights that “We the People” have allowed to be taken away from us in the name of safety. We do this as if those in leadership of this country are some how smarter or can somehow foresee hidden dangers that we are to blind or smart to avoid.As if they have some special hotline with those in the medical and science academies about different causes of injury or death.

Now let me qualify myself first. Is there laws that the government should create to protect people? Yes. There of course situations that they need to regulate the different industries to protect the people. For example, having the drug companies place safety caps and seals on all medication is a law that makes sense. It makes sense because without it we could have another murderous tempering like the Tylenol tempering that killed a number of people in the 80′s. Another example is the laws that all meat must be inspected for disease or spoilage before it can be sent to the market. This makes sense because unlike the early part of the country people now live hundreds of miles away from the slaughterhouses. As such proper inspection is need to prevent people from becoming ill from spoiled or mishandled meat.

You see, those laws are there to ensure that our food and medicine are safe because the people have no way to check for themselves. It prevents deaths due to the tempering or poor quality control from people becoming ill or worse, dying. But the laws I am writing about are the ones that take the people’s God given rights away from them in the name of safety. These are the laws that tell you you must wear a seat belt, can’t eat or drink certain foods, and etc.

I know what your probably thinking, “What about the kids?”, “Well I don’t want to eat in a restaurant the allows people to smoke in it.” Well I will tell you that laws that require a innocent child to wear a helmet or seat belt is not the same thing as one telling a grown adult to wear one. the child is innocent and ignorant of the laws of physics or how really a clue to what death is. Yes those are still nanny laws, but unlike the ones that pertain to adults, kids do require some protection from adults that would otherwise not ensure the children’s safety.

So what is a nanny law that removes a right of the people? Simply put, a law that forces a person to do, eat, drink, wear, or etc that they would normally not do on their own God given free will. For example, I like riding motorcycles and believe helmets, Levi jeans, boots, gloves, and a good jacket are needed to ride safely. I don’t need the government to force me to do any of that, but I also don’t believe a grown man should have to be force to by the government. By him not wearing those items don’t remove anyone else to lose their rights, but is does give him the free will that God gave him and that the Founding Fathers placed in the Bill of Rights to protect himself or not from injury or death.

So what about the nanny laws that cover food? Living in California they have placed laws that direct restaurants to use oils that contain no trans-fats. While this may be healthier and could prevent heart disease and maybe even obesity, why do I need the government to force a company to change their products to keep me safe? It isn’t like there isn’t information out there that tells the American people that fast food is not good for us. The fact is that even with this law it didn’t stop people overeating or having heart attacks, but it did change the cost structure and taste of the companies involved. This isn’t free enterprise or allowing the people to use their free will and independence that God and and Founding Fathers promised the people. The governments role in these should have been to educate the people the dangers of the trans-fat and then allow the people to use their own mind to chose what to eat.

So what is the future going to look like? Well if New York City’s local government is a highlight of what is coming, you won’t get to chose much for yourselves. I say these because if a government can dictate how much you can drink at one sitting, then why can’t they prevent you from doing anything else. Why can’t they in some future America not perform test on you to ensure what your genetic make up allows you to eat certain foods, drink certain drinks, or even have the right to bred and with whom? Yes I know you are probably thinking that there is no way in heaven or Hell that the government could gain that type of power. But I say, what is going to stop them over time? As the government slowly changes more towards being a nanny state the more people accept the limits being placed on it.

In my humble opinion… If you don’t want to seat in a business that allows it’s patrons to smoke inside, then don’t patron that business. If you don’t want to eat foods with trans-fats or other added ingredients, don’t buy it or patron that business. In other words, stand up and be the independent individual that enjoys true freedom and liberty that the Founding Fathers gave us in the Constitution and the rights that they said no government should be able to remove from you. The God given rights that that the Founding Fathers ensured would not be violated and were passed down from God.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” ~ Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Gun Control

News Story:  Watch journalists squirm over ‘gun-free’ signs:

You have to love the fact that the same people wanting to disarm the American people are so hypocritical that they refuse to be brave enough to place a sign in their yards. They also feel the need to hire armed guards to protect themselves.  Double standards all over. Including the guards that are armed and for money protect people that themselves want to disarm him in the end.

Real Definitions of the words Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism

Because I keep getting told what the definition of Socialism is and that I am wrong. Than be given the meaning as some softball we all work together for the common good definition… Well I am posting the true definitions here.Starting with the meaning of Capitalism and ending with Communism. The reason for that order is because that is the direction it appears we as a nation are heading.

I know most of my liberal friend tell me how bad Capitalism is because the rich just get richer and the poor get poorer. But that is not the case at all. In fact in a true Capital system all people have the chance to create new businesses that can be profitable. Basically, if you have a service or product that someone else requires or wants you can sell it to him at a profit. But no we do not have a true Capitalist system but really a system that is over regulated, note I didn’t say that no regulations are needed but over regulated. This makes the products more expensive and cost the consumer more in the end. Funny thing is that some of these people keep trying to run a private business for profit yet want a Socialist government…

Those same liberal friend will then tell me how Socialism is a much better direction because there is no rich and everything is equally distributed among the people. That the work they put in means a equal amount of financial pay. Sure the doctor will be paid more than the trash collector, but because the teacher is more valued to the community than the trash collector, the other service are also distributed in the same matter. So if the trash collector gets sick and goes to the new social doctor he will wait in a long line while the teacher get in a shorter and faster line. So where do you think the unemployed or disabiled fit in the long?

Once the government system is fully turned over, then comes Communism. While Socialism allows some small businesses, Communism controls just about all business. Take Venezuela as an example; they started as a Socialist country and now are considered to be Communist. They have taken over the majority of industries and the poverty levels jumped as pay went down under government control.

True meaning of words per Dictionary.com:

cap•i•tal•ism
? ?[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

capitalism (?kæp?t??l?z?m) — n Compare socialism free enterprise , Also called: private enterprise an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions

socialism (?s?????l?z?m) — n
1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system
3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need
so•cial•ism
? ?[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. .

com•mu•nism
? ?[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. ( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

communism (?k?mj??n?z?m) — n
1. advocacy of a classless society in which private ownership has been abolished and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community
2. any social, economic, or political movement or doctrine aimed at achieving such a society
3. ( usually capital ) Marxism Marxism-Leninism See also socialism a political movement based upon the writings of Marx that considers history in terms of class conflict and revolutionary struggle, resulting eventually in the victory of the proletariat and the establishment of a socialist order based on public ownership of the means of production
4. ( usually capital ) a social order or system of government established by a ruling Communist Party, esp in the former Soviet Union
5. chiefly ( US ) ( often capital ) any leftist political activity or thought, esp when considered to be subversive 6. communal living; communalism

Welcome to the United Social States of America

Today we have seen the Supreme Court of a once great nation rule that socialism is the new law of the land. They ruled that the government can force it’s people to buy insurance against their will or be taxed. In 2014 that tax will be $284 per family but raise to $2084 in the year 2016. They ruled that private insurance companies can’t create a provide the policies that would allow them to run their companies as they see fit. They can’t provide insurance according to the amount of risks and cost of services that a person may require due to their past and current health conditions, so you will see your health insurance go up to help cover the loss of profit caused by being forced to cover everyone at the same rate. And now, if your company provides you with health insurance you may also find yourself on the government health plan because it will be cheaper for them to pay the fine than cover your insurance.

With no arms we have only their side…

News Story:
Nuking our Nukes | Washington Free Beacon:

News from The Associated Press:

While I wish we didn’t have any nukes and war was only a children’s game… Well niether are true statements and we have big enemies that have and hold huge numbers of nukes and want us to be destroyed… So how in any person’s head is it a good or even a remotely small thought that disarming the US of nukes is a good thing?

Here’s a clue… It is the man that bowed down to our enemies not just figuratively.  And yes the only man in the country that has done that is Obama. He has bowed to the Chinese leadership in the past and helped those in the Middle East take over countries that have been loyal allies. So while it may be a surprise to most that Obama wants to disarm the US to the point any country could walk in and take over does not surprise me. In fact it seems as if he so wants peace in the world he is willing to throw us under the bus… Or he just wants to promote the socialist fantasyland that he believes disarming will produce. What he seems to not understand is that disarming only one side of a conflict only brings death and take overs of the the other side.

Just look at the way a mad man did in the 30′s and 40′s… Once he disarmed the people he had no opposition…

This is child abuse!

News Story: Controversial Therapy For Pre-Teen Transgender Patient Raises Questions | Fox News:

What the hell is with these people?!?!?

Fine the so-called parents are lesbian, but they need to let this child grow up and the hormones run the normal course. If he choices that he is gay then so be it. But to stop the hormones from changing this kid to be the person is nothing more than child abuse.  And here is why:

1. Side affects that even the doctors are unsure of in a child.
2. Bullying because unlike his counterparts he won’t start to change from a child into a teenager boy.
3. Without the hormones naturally changing him, how in the hell will anyone know if he is making the decision he would make with the hormones? How can blocking the natural process help him become what he is going to be?

Bottomline: Let this kid grow up naturally so he knows exactly who he is. Stopping the natural process is nothing more than preventing the boy to know who he really is.

Uphold the Law

News Story: Obama Justice sued for picking which laws to enforce:

When a government only does what it wants it is no longer a government for the people but a dictatorship. It does not matter if it is the elected officials passing laws that the people overwhelmingly voiced and protested against (ObamaCare) or laws already on the books and passed. A President does not get to pick and choose which laws he enforces. If he does not like them he can and should propose Congress to create a new law or request the Supreme Court to over turn them. But to out right refuse to enforce the law might as well allow the police to arrest and imprison or shoot a person that they feel are guilty of a crime without due process.  And yes it is the same thing. In either case it is going against the will of the people.

Already have problems getting work?

News Story: Obama floats plan to tax cars by the mile – The Hill’s Floor Action:

Taxes in gas prices: Gas Taxes:

Average mileage per age: Average Annual Miles per Driver by Age Group:

Are you ready for an increase in your taxes? Don’t worry, it isn’t a raise in you income tax… Because we know that BHO said he wouldn’t raise the income tax on people that makes less than $250,000…. Nope he is proposing a car mileage tax.

This car mileage tax is supposed to help raise money for the highway maintenance. But gee didn’t we hear how SSI tax was only going to be for the SSI? Yeah then they moved that money to the general fund and SSI is now going bankrupt…

Lets face it ladies and gentlemen, this is his way of raising taxes on everyone. Businesses and individuals, rich and poor alike. About the only people who won’t be affected by this tax will be those that still drive horse and buggies…

We already pay for our driving in the form of a gas tax, heck that means even a person that only uses a gas chain saw gets taxed.  No matter what state you live in you have a federal gas tax of 18.4 cent per gallon. Then in most states you must also pay a state gas tax too. If you drive more or have a bigger vehicle you pay more in a year. So now BHO wants to increase what you pay each year to do normal things like going to work, school, the store and etc.

You may think that it isn’t that bad but I doubt you really take into affect everything you do that will be affected by this tax or how much driving you may actually be doing. Per the Federal Highway Administration the average male in this country between the ages of 20 – 34 drives 17,936 per year. If the tax is set at $ 0.01 (one penny) that would be a total of $179.36 a year. But come on, when is a tax only a penny? So at $0.10 per mile that same guy would be paying 1,793.60 a year. Then if you take a married couple with the total average of a male and female in the same age group that would be $2994.  Not exactly what a new couple needs when planning a family.

Now for those of you that still think that $2,000 dollars added to your annual expenses is ok… Your not thinking about the increases to food and goods or the added expenses companies will pass on to the customer. Anything that is transported will have the increase. If you buy it in a store or it has to be shipped, you will feel the increase.

So much for not taxing the poor and middle class… The ones who drive more miles just to get back and forth to work and school.

Read the bill… Why us? Were Congress.

News Stories: Baucus on Reading Bill: We Hire Experts for That > Northern Broadcasting System, Inc..

Will Congress Read Bills Before Voting? – Political Hotsheet – CBS News.

So… the so called author of the Obamacare still has not read what exactly he “authored”. But he sure as hell fought to have it passed and before any of the really responsible Congress members had a chance to read it.

Oh and yes there were a few that did actually read the bill. My Congressman did. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R) did read it, I know because as he read it he would update his Facebook status with comments about it.

Either way, Those that didn’t read it are now having to explain the bill that they passed and hope to answer question about it… That is if their “Experts” have gotten to that section and have explained it to that Congressmember. But my point of this post is to inform the voting public that they need to find out if their Congress and Senate members actually do their jobs or rely on others to do it for them… Then vote out those that don’t and those that go against what the people want.

Not Concerned about Constitution

News Story:  CNSNews.com – Gibbs Says He Doesn’t Know if White House Has Reviewed Constitutionality of Forcing People to Buy Health Insurance:

So, the White House is not concerned about if the health care bill that forces people to buy insurance is Constitutional or not!! Last time I checked the oath of office for all government elected, military service member, judge, and government employee states that they must protect and defend the Constitution. But not this White House, nope they aren’t worried if a law breaks the Constitution or not, maybe that should tell people something about the current White House.