More Nanny State Intrusion
Apr 14, 2014 Political
New rules will go into effect this July and those rules will ban all junk food from schools. We are not talking just banning the food in vending machines or in the cafeteria (the food served there) no sir, we are talking about no junk food on the premises.
This means that school children will not be able to take a candy bar or bag of chips to school whether it is part of the lunch they brought or not. It means that parents have no say at all in what goes into their children’s lunch. This is the nanny state.
It is up to parents to decide what to give their children. If the school wants to ban the vending machines or cafeteria that is the school’s business but what a child brings to eat is between the child and the parents.
I see no problem with so called junk food being part of a balanced lunch so long as that is not the only food. Chips or pretzels go well with a sandwich and children can burn those calories off. If they want to encourage children to be healthy then they should put recess back in school.
In any event, how will this square when the school wants children to sell candy bars or pizzas as part of fundraising activities? Will the girl scouts who use the school for meetings be able to sell (and eat) their cookies?
Parents and students should decide and do as they wish no matter what the school says.
It would also be good for them to refuse to participate in ANY fundraisers (regardless of what is sold) to make a point about the entire process.
Source:
The Weekly Standard
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: intrusion, junk food, nanny state, recess, schools
How Far Will Government Intrude Into Our Lives?
May 24, 2011 Political
The federal government under the watchful eye of Barack O’Bama (nobody is more Irish you know) is making sure that no one spreads lies about the Dear Leader. Now I don’t really care if the O’Bama regime is out there monitoring the Internet but I also know that the lies end up being anything they do not like about O’Bama. The one thing I want to know; is the person hired to work in the White House Communications Department to specifically build Obama’s online presence and squash negative stories paid for with taxpayer dollars? If Jesse Lee, the Director of Progressive Media and Online Response is being paid for with taxpayer dollars he better not be doing anything that deals with reelecting O’Bama, which is what this position is described as. Keep an eye folks, if your money is being spent on campaign items it is a violation of the law.
So with O’Bama’s spies watching to make sure you do not talk badly about Dear Leader, there is another intrusion into states rights and our lives by the federal government. The federal government wants to pass a law to force motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Before some loon liberal jumps in here let me make it clear. I think that wearing a helmet, just like wearing a seatbelt, is a smart thing to do but I also feel it is up to states to decide and if states do not take a decision then it is up to the individual. It is as simple as that. The federal government does not belong intruding into our lives this way. Like I said, I think it is smart to wear safety equipment but I feel it should be a state issue or an individual issue. The only thing I think regarding this is if people decide not to wear a helmet or a seatbelt and those people get injured in an accident then they should have to pay the costs that insurance does not and if they die their families cannot sue. Other than that, be free.
As if this is not bad enough, the federal government wants to install black boxes on all new cars.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is expected to issue new regulations next month that will require a black box style data recorder be fitted in all new cars. DVICE
The devices will record data about speed, seatbelt use, and brake application prior to accidents. The details being worked out now are who can access the data and when. This is a bad idea and it is Big Sis prying into our lives. There is no reason for them to know my speed, whether I used my seatbelt (see above) or how my brake was applied before I ran into something.
I understand that they can use the information to figure out what happened and who was to blame but that is not a good reason to allow the intrusion into our lives. If they had everyone’s DNA it would be easier to identify remains but that does not mean we should all provide a sample. Like DNA collection, the black boxes and the information they contain can (and will) be abused. The military collects DNA and when that program started it was ONLY for identification of remains as the result of conflict or other service connected deaths. Now the information is part of the national database.
How long will it be before the government decides to track our movements or issue speeding tickets based on information in the black boxes?
The federal government does not belong involved in our lives. How long will it be before the people push back?
Sadly, many will be silent as their rights are taken away and government intrudes into their lives.
And that kind of apathy is what allowed a group of people to be marched into gas chambers.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: black boxes, government lies, helmets, intrusion, Obama, Privacy, rights, seatbelts
Republican Lawmaker wants to Inhibit Free Speech
Mar 10, 2008 Political
Republican Tim Couch of Kentucky is introducing legislation making it a crime to post to the Internet anonymously. His bill would make it a crime for a person who runs a website to allow anonymous comments and would require people to register with the website using their real names.
Couch proposes a first offense $500 dollar fine to those who allow anonymous comments. Subsequent “violations” would cost $1000. Couch states that this is to cut down on online bullying which he claims happens a lot in his home state.
The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law that abridges free speech. Couch is a member of his state legislature and it would have to enact this law which would abridge free speech. Certainly he is not in the US Congress but he would be part of a government body trying to curb free speech. If a website owner wants to delete bullying comments or ban commenters then that is the web site owner’s prerogative. The government (state or otherwise), on the other hand, is forbidden from doing this by the First Amendment.
Couch might believe that this would stop online bullying but I have my doubts. I also doubt he is strictly motivated by the bullying “problem.” People could register using any name that appears legitimate. How would a webmaster know? Why would a webmaster be fined because John Doe commented? We don’t get the names of every person who joins a protest and some of the signs they carry have messages that could be considered bullying and certainly some of their actions amount to bullying. Will we require those who carry disparaging signs to disclose their names?
Couch is trying to stifle free expression and that is a violation of our Constitution. Perhaps the bullying he refers to comes from those who write about the stupidity of members of government, such as say….Tim Couch.
It is not the job of government to be the nannies of all Americans whether at the state or federal level. The government works for us, not the other way around. We have the right to express ourselves as we wish and website owners are free to police their sites as they see fit, not as Mr. Couch sees fit. Perhaps Mr. Couch would better serve his constituents if he did some serious work rather than try to play nanny to Kentucky citizens who can do quite well without an intrusive government or its officials.
As Ronald Reagan once said; “We are a nation that has a government – not the other way around.” One could substitute state for nation and it would still be just as meaningful.
Maybe Mr. Couch should reexamine his conservative values and either straighten them out or switch parties.
Source:
Action News WTQV
Tags: free speech, intrusion, tim couch, unconstitutional