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.
Jul 30, 2012 Political
Everyone knows that liberals are intolerant. If people do not believe what they believe then they attack and ban. They don’t like meat, you can’t eat it. They don’t like guns, you can’t have one. Don’t agree with their messiah, well you sir, are a raaaaacist……
Nanny Bloomberg in New York is a typical liberal. I know he changed from the Republican Party to an Independent but he has always been liberal. He is very happy to ban tobacco use, trans-fatty foods, salt and large drinks because he knows better than you how to live your life. And God knows he wants to ban guns…
I thought liberals claimed they were all for choice. If a woman wants to have an abortion then liberals believe she should be able to do so. Women should have that choice. Hell, they believe it so much so that they will not limit abortions. Women, according to liberals, should be able to get an abortion at any time, at any age, and at taxpayer expense. They even believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion just seconds before a baby is born and if by chance that child actually survives the attempt on its life, liberals think the woman should be able to choose to leave her baby on a table somewhere to die.
This is the kind of choice that women can make no questions asked and without any interference whatsoever.
Let the rest of us choose to consume tobacco, salt, fatty foods, or large sugary drinks and Bloomberg is right there to stop us from doing harm because he knows oh so much.
Ironically, the same Michael Bloomberg who thinks that reproductive choice is a fundamental human right (as opposed to the fundamental human right not to be murdered) does not think women should have free choice in how they feed their newborn babies (should they decide to choose life).
Yep, you can choose to abort your baby and that is a fundamental human right BUT if you want to feed your baby formula rather than breastfeeding, Nanny has something for you. Bloomberg is working to have hospitals lock up formula to force women to breastfeed and he wants a record kept with a medical reason for issuing a bottle and formula.
How about the idea of choice? How about if the woman wants to use formula?
Personally, I think breastfeeding is best for the baby. However, that is a choice that the mother (and in a perfect world the father) will take. This choice, unlike the choice of abortion, does not murder the child. Formula is just fine for babies but it is just not as good as breast milk (not to mention the bonding that takes place).
No matter, it is up to women to decide how to feed their children.
The left is not about choice, it is about control. It wants to control what you consume and how you live your life. It wants your guns because they can control you if you have no means to resist. It wants abortion because that controls certain demographics and ensures the feminist vote. It wants to control how you feed your child because it knows better than you how to raise your kid.
To them it takes a village (and the political elite) to raise a child.
No matter what, they are only pro choice when it comes to abortion. Choose to own a gun, consume tobacco, fats, salt or sugary drinks and they are out in full force to prevent you from making your own choice.
Liberal elitists like Bloomberg are dangerous and need to be stopped. We must ensure we remove these kinds of people from office and take away their ability to control us.
That is right. They can let us have our liberty or we can come take it.
The choice is theirs.
Never surrender, never submit.
May 17, 2011 Political
As the nation prepares for the departure of the 100 watt incandescent light bulb and children across the nation mourn the subsequent demise of the Easy Bake Oven (it uses a 100 watt bulb for the heat), the light bulb industry prepares to make a killing off unproven technology. In January 2012 the 100 watt bulb will be banned in the US and other incandescent bulbs will follow suit being eliminated by 2014.
The Compact Fluorescent Bulb (CFL) has been around for a while as a replacement for the incandescent bulbs but they come with their own problems. The bulb costs about 11 times more than the incandescent bulb and has a small amount of mercury vapor inside. The amount should not pose a problem if the bulbs are broken in a house as long as some safety precautions are observed but in quantity the bulbs present problems for the waste stream. The bulbs that were supposed to save the environment are an environmental problem.
Next out of the gate are Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs. These are available in flashlights and other smaller bulbs (like Christmas lights) and they provide a crisp sharp beam of light. The problem is that any bulb for home use requires a number of LEDs to be placed together to provide adequate lighting. LEDs are finally available in the 100 watt size but there are problems with these as well. The crowded LEDs increase the amount of heat generated and forces manufacturers to put a lot of LEDs together, something that is less efficient.
The other problem with the bulb is that it costs $50.00. Proponents of this so called “green” energy would have us believe that the cost is offset by how long the bulbs last but this is misleading. The bulbs themselves might be good for up to 10,000 hours of use and that would seem reasonable for the price. This would be about 5.75 years of bulb use assuming a use of 5 hours per day. Not bad but considering the incandescent costs about 50 cents a bulb one can get 100 bulbs for the same price. Electricity use might figure in a bit but not enough to offset the price.
Another thing to consider is that the actual life of LEDs will be much shorter because they are only good for about 2000 clicks to on. So one would have to turn lights on and leave them on or turn them on and off and shorten the life of the bulb. Not a very efficient way of saving energy and certainly much more costly for the consumer.
I have some of the CFLs at my house. I use them in areas where the lights stay on for a long period of time (like my outside door lights). Since they consume less electricity I get my money’s worth and if they break they are outside where the mercury vapor is not a concern (adequate ventilation and open space reduce the amount of mercury vapor to very low levels). The important thing here is that I took the decision to use them because I wanted them and not because I was forced to do otherwise. I think that everyone should have a choice in what bulb they use.
But starting in January we will lose choices and we will continue to lose them as the nanny state government forces us to comply with its green agenda by legislating behavior. Keep in mind that if it was so wonderful they would not have to force you to do it through the use of laws. If it was good then people would do it on their own. But government is trying to influence behavior and compel us to do what it wants regardless of what we think is in our best interest.
And their intrusion will cost us thousands of dollars in new bulbs and eventually new appliances that will be able to use the bulbs mandated by government.
The best way to combat this is to stock up on incandescent bulbs right now. They are inexpensive and people should be buying them by the hundreds. Buying enough each week to build a stockpile will ensure that you have all the bulbs you want and need long after the government bans them. It will allow you to continue using cheap bulbs until better technology comes along that can compete with the cheap bulbs we will soon lose.
Start buying the 100 watt bulbs now because they go away the soonest. Then work your way down until you have enough to last a lifetime…
Of course there would be nothing stopping the government from sending the storm troopers to confiscate incandescent bulbs. I would not put it past the government to do this.
We use to be free but now they tell us what kind of bulbs we are allowed to use. In my book, that makes it a dictatorship…
Never surrender, never submit.
Mar 11, 2011 Political
A law is being considered that would require that alcohol detection devices be installed on cars to keep people from driving while intoxicated. The interlock devices must be blown into and an alcohol level below a determined limit (the article states 0.03) must register before the vehicle will start. The devices are designed to require the driver to blow at intervals to ensure that a sober person did not initiate the original air that allowed the vehicle to start. If a person is over the limit six times the car will no longer start.
Interlock devices are sometimes court ordered for DWI offenders as a condition of keeping their licenses.
Installing these devices on all vehicles is a bad idea. The nanny state is now trying to force all drivers to prove they are not over the limit before starting a car. This would be another loss of freedom in this country. Forcing the millions of people who do not drive while intoxicated to do this because a relatively small number of people drive drunk is ridiculous and another infringement into our lives. Since the records can be downloaded it is another way for Big Brother to see what you have been up to. I can imagine a future where the records are pulled each time a person goes to renew a driver’s license and that person being denied because they tried to drive after a few too many.
I have no problem with people who have DWIs being required to have one of these on their cars. That would be a condition of their being allowed to continue to drive. They drove drunk and they have to pay the price but why does everyone have to pay the price with preemptive breathalyzer tests before they can operate a vehicle?
These things are not easy to operate and it takes time to get use to them and even then it is time consuming. Suppose some woman is getting into her car late in the evening and she notices a group of nasty looking men heading her way. On any given day she could lock the doors, start the car and leave. If she is delayed because of the device or the device does not work then she will be at the mercy of potential attackers.
Who will be responsible for that?
I am tired of the nanny state. We have laws against driving while intoxicated and we have police officers to look for those who do so. We do not need to infringe on the rest of the driving public to make some do gooder feel good about himself.
We do not need to be told what to do and we do not need to be monitored in all aspects of our lives.
Most of us are smart enough to do the right thing.
And we have laws to take care of those who are not.
But Big Dog, what if this would have saved a family from being killed by a drunk driver. That will be little consolation to the family killed because a person was busy reblowing while driving so the machine could ensure a drunk was not behind the wheel.
And how often are people killed or injured by drunk drivers? The number is small compared to the number of non impaired accidents and other ways people die.
Stay out of our lives you nanny state morons.
As for me, I will rebuild my vehicle from the ground up before I buy a new car that must have one of these and I don’t even drink.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jan 5, 2011 Political
The nanny state is alive and well. Nanny Pelosi spoke after a group of Democrats presented their views on repeal of Obamacare. They gave the standard lies and some said how much it would cost to repeal, standard stuff one expects from the nanny state but Nanny Pelosi took the case.
In this video from The Blaze (linked from WBAL Radio) Pelosi states that even if everyone in America was happy with their health care and it was affordable for all, the government takeover was necessary because the system was not sustainable.
Listen to what this moron is saying. She indicates that even if EVERYONE had health care and liked it and it was affordable she and her nanny state Democrats would have had to take it over because it was not sustainable.
Excuse me while I laugh. OK, I am back. If everyone has what they want and they can afford it then the system IS sustainable. The system is and has been sustainable but according to Pelosi even if the system was completely ideal and everyone had coverage they liked and could afford, the government would need to take it over.
This is more proof that the takeover had nothing to do with the stated goals and everything to do with involving government in our lives.
It is absolute proof that this is about one thing and one thing only. CONTROL! They want to control us and they know it will be easier if they control our health care.
I have an idea. Government as we know have it is unsustainable. Spending is out of control and we are 14 TRILLION dollars in debt. We have a bloated government that is simply unsustainable.
So let’s take it over. It is necessary and, according to Nanny Pelosi, the proper thing to do.
We started today and if the Republicans don’t do the right thing we will fire them and replace them with people who will. We will keep replacing these people until we get folks who will do what is right by this country and the people who make it work.
Never surrender, never submit.