May 7, 2013 Political
Governor Cuomo of New York will launch an ad campaign in other states touting the benefits of locating businesses in the Empire State. Cuomo’s ads will air outside New York and feature the voice of actor Robert DeNiro telling folks that New York is on the rebound.
The first problem with this is that the state is using money from the federal disaster aid sent to help those who were impacted by Hurricane Sandy. That money is supposed to help those people restore their lives and rebuild their properties. While many are still without a home or power the governor is taking money meant to help them and using it to lure business to the state.
This seems like a criminal act and should be investigated. The money sent to the state came from taxpayers all over the country and was designated for use in helping victims of the hurricane. Using it for any other purpose is wrong. Why would any business want to relocate to a place that does this kind of thing?
The next issue is the environment in New York. New York is a high tax state. Many wealthy people and a number of businesses have left the state because of its high taxes. Why would a business want to move to New York when states like Florida and Texas offer more tax friendly environments?
It is also important to note that New York is not a state where freedom is honored or protected by the politicians in charge. New York City has a mayor who thinks he should dictate how much salt and trans fats a person can eat and what size sugary drink they can consume. The state has recently enacted restrictive and unconstitutional gun laws (on top of already restrictive and unconstitutional gun laws) that infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.
Why would any business want to go to New York knowing that the government there does not uphold the Constitution?
While it is true that some business owners might be anti gun and welcome that environment it is important to note that if the state is willing to ignore the Constitution with regard to gun rights then it will feel free to ignore other constitutionally protected rights. Once a business assumes all the costs involved in moving it will be held captive to a government that has no problem raising taxes and infringing on rights.
Businesses should consider tax friendly and freedom loving states instead of New York.
And Cuomo should be investigated for improper use of federal tax dollars.
Be wary business owners. The lure will be filled with honey but the result will be full of manure…
Never surrender, never submit.
May 2, 2013 Political
We already know that social media like Facebook and Twitter as well as Google’s services are used to spy on Americans (and users around the world). Law enforcement agencies scan these outlets looking for people to profile and use data, provided either by the user or by the company, to keep data bases of folks that are of interest to the agents of government.
Make no mistake, whenever there is any kind of activity that collects data or asks for information the legitimate use is not the ONLY use. Agencies keep the information.
In Maryland the site that is used by hunters and outdoorsmen collects email addresses and the site specifically states those will only be used for the purpose of whatever transactions take place. The Governor of Maryland used that database to send emails out to people in a push for support of his unconstitutional gun grab. He violated the law in using the information for reasons that are outside those stated.
This happens all the time and I would not be surprised if the federal and state governments have massive databases of people who own firearms. They are supposed to destroy the paperwork generated when a firearm is purchased but you can bet they have kept it.
All new laws being proposed by government at every level includes provisions for the collection of information and incorporation into databases. Despite what they tell you, the information is being kept.
These items are usually generated through some feel good legislation that proposes some action that seems to be in the best interests of the people. In reality, this is not the case.
In Palm Beach County Florida the Sheriff has been awarded 1 million dollars for a new violence prevention program.
Wow, that sounds great. What will they do with the money to prevent violence? Well, it looks like they will be setting up a snitch site where people can call and report anyone they feel is violent. People will be encouraged via public service announcements to report their neighbors and coworkers if there is ANY concern. So if a guy loses his temper at work or goes on a rant because someone’s dog dropped a deuce on his lawn, they could be reported to the police.
This will result in a knock on the door with concerned officers asking if all is OK? There will be no arrests, just a caring, concerned government agent asking if all is well and providing resources in case someone needs help. The people will not know who reported them or why so there will be no way to explain (as if you should have to) why you were reported.
Here is the rub. The sheriff says that this will also allow the agency to collect information:
The goal won’t be to arrest troubled people but to get them help before there’s violence, Bradshaw said. As a side benefit, law enforcement will have needed information to keep a close eye on things. [emphasis mine]
Did you get that? As a result of the campaign the police will have information to keep an eye on people. He says things but things do not cause violence; people do so he is really saying they can keep an eye on people, period.
This program sounds wonderful to the uninformed but it will do nothing more than give police information to keep in a database. This will allow them to surveil people for no particular reason and without any probable cause. It is not probable cause just because some person reported you. What evidence is there that you are a danger? What indication, other than the report of a person who saw you, is there that you might be dangerous?
Will the information be used to confiscate firearms a person might own? Will the police look at the database and determine that someone reported that they FELT you might harm yourself or others be enough for them to take away your firearms or perhaps, your children?
This is dangerous and nothing more than an escalation of the police state we saw blatantly displayed in Boston.
We already have a system where people can report something they feel is a problem. They can call the police as they have been doing for decades on end. Police can take a report and determine if some kind of crime occurred. This new program encourages people to seek out and report others who might be doing nothing more than having a bad day. It allows officers to knock on the door to check people out but most concerning is the compilation of data that can be used against people in any fashion government chooses.
Free people do not live like this.
Many of the people who have committed these mass casualty crimes were on the radar of law enforcement and nothing was done about them. So contrary to the sheriff’s claim that someone knew and could have reported it, the reality is the police knew and did nothing about it.
Therefore, the entire scheme is nothing more than a data collection operation that will provide more information on people so government can further violate their rights.
Freedom is not free. It costs a lot in blood, sweat, and tears. It costs way too much to give it up without a fight…
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 25, 2013 Political
New York Imperial Mayor Michael Bloomberg is anti American and a tyrant. Mr. Bloomberg has gone against our Founding and the US Constitution when he made a recent statement that sometimes the government knows better AND that sometimes government should infringe on our freedoms.
“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom,” Mr. Bloomberg said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban — just shot down by the courts — and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth. Washington Times
As a veteran and a patriot let me just reply to Nanny Bloomberg this way:
THERE IS NEVER A TIME WHEN GOVERNMENT SHOULD INFRINGE ON OUR FREEDOM.
Governments at all levels in this country receive their power from the people. We have a document in our history called the Declaration of Independence in which our Founders clearly stated that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. Nowhere in that document did our Founders say there were times when it was OK for government to infringe on our freedoms.
In fact, the infringement on our freedom is one of the reasons we felt it necessary to draft the document in the first place.
Bloomberg is a very wealthy man who has a 10 million dollar home in Bermuda and eats very expensive steaks (and other foods full of the fats he banned in New York). He is now going to use millions of his own dollars to violate our Constitution and try to take our guns away because, as Bloomy would tell you, the government knows better and sometimes it should infringe on your freedom.
As I have clearly stated, there is never a time that infringing on our freedom is OK. How would one decide? Where does it end? If it is OK for government to infringe when it comes to the size of a drink, the fat in food or the firearms people own because these issues are opposed by the tyrant in charge then it will be OK for the tyrant to infringe on anything he opposes. All future tyrants would be able to use the same criteria (I don’t like it) to infringe.
What happens if Bloomberg or some future tyrant decides that he does not like interracial marriage, or homosexual relationships? What happens if the tyrant does not like video games or fast food or any number of other things?
If the previous tyrant was allowed to infringe because nanny knows best then it will never end.
Giving up any freedom will result in the further loss of freedoms. No matter how YOU feel about an issue, allowing the infringement on freedom will eventually affect YOU and an issue that matters to YOU.
People who give up their freedoms become slaves.
Bloomberg knows that and in addition to being a tyrant, he wants to be the slave master.
Stop the tyranny by opposing this little Nazi known as Bloomberg.
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 11, 2013 Political
It came down to the wire. Tomorrow many businesses in New York City would have been required to stop selling large sized sugary drinks under rules from Nanny Bloomberg. A judge invalidated the law. It appears as if there is no problem with banning sugar but the implementation and penalties were all over the place.
In any event, the ban is not in place as of right now. This is a good thing and the only thing that would make it better would be for a judge to rule that it is none of government’s business what size sugary drink one consumes.
Bloomberg believes it is government’s business and that it has the right to tell a free people what and how much (of a legal substance) they may consume. This is an overreach because it is none of government’s business.
Of course, when people decide that government is responsible for health care then government can make the claim it can regulate what you do if it affects your health.
Free people can eat and drink what they want. If they get sick or die then that is on them. If insurance is a problem then charge them more for coverage if they are unhealthy. But they need to make sure that they are charging more for people who are higher risk and not just because they consume things that government or insurance companies do not like. There are plenty of healthy and active people who eat and drink what they want.
As an aside, ever notice government does not crack down on the size of containers that alcohol comes in? Perhaps it is because most of the politicians are boozers. No matter how you look at it a bunch of quart bottles of beer are much more harmful than the same amount of soda.
Back on point. Bloomberg has been running roughshod over New York for a while now and the sheeple there seem to bend over and take it without much of a fight.
Sure, some businesses found ways around the ban (like having customers add their own sugar to large coffees, etc) but that does not solve the problem of government overreach. Certainly government would eventually pass laws to address those methods of skirting the law…
Many other businesses spent quite a bit of money getting rid of stock that would be unlawful and in buying new glasses that met the new standard.
Those businesses should now sue the city for the costs they incurred because of the nanny state overreach.
Bloomberg is an idiot who needs to mind his own business. Free people can take their own decisions. We do not need morons in government telling us how to live our lives.
New York made a big mistake electing this buffoon. They made a bigger mistake by taking his abuse with little fight.
Give them an inch and they will take a mile and Bloomberg has taken many miles…
Funny, Bloomberg says it is not a ban but portion control. New York had a portion control with term limits on mayors. Bloomberg did not like that so he had it changed so he could run again. The portion controls put in place by the people were not to his liking but then again, he is a liberal elitist…
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 20, 2012 Political
Paul McCartney of Beatle fame has weighed in on an American tradition that has its origins in the pilgrims who left Paul’s homeland to escape religious persecution. Yes ladies and gentlemen, a Brit is weighing in on an American holiday that was started by people who escaped oppressive Brits.
Sir Paul does not want us to eat turkey this Thanksgiving. He wants us to consider cruelty free items on our menu and leave the turkeys to gobble around on farms somewhere.
Paul McCartney, a vegetarian, wants you to give peas a chance.
Here is what I say. If you want to eat turkey, eat turkey. If you don’t want to eat turkey, don’t eat turkey. Furthermore, I promise not to tell you what and what not to eat and you make the same promise to me.
This is the problem with liberals. They don’t like guns then no one can own a gun. They don’t like SUVs then no one can own an SUV. They don’t eat meat then no one can eat meat.
Sir Paul is the typical liberal though we might have to give him a little slack. He is probably suffering from years of drug abuse. Maybe he thinks we are back in the USSR…
As for the turkeys, it sucks for them to be on the lower end of the food chain.
Never surrender, never submit.