Less Free, Less Safe, Less Secure--Nanny State Future

The nanny state mentality promises security and safety -- a false, deceptive promise.

• LESS FREE--that is obvious. Bureaucrats and elected officials make decisions about how we will live our daily lives, raise and educate our children, stock our kitchen, what toys to buy, who we will associate with, how to "protect" our health, etc. We are responsible for following thousands of laws, many that are just stupid and insult our common sense.
• LESS SAFE--they are wrong more often than right! Government resources (and our $$) are expended on issues that we are more than competent to handle and decide for ourselves. There are unintended consequences to far too many of these dictates. Example--fuel efficiency increases dramatically physical risk from accidents in smaller cars--we learned this by experience in the 70's. After the OPEC embargo, we were forced into smaller cars and paid a horrible price in auto death increases. But it looks like this decision is going to be taken away from us as the gov dictates to Detroit what cars it will build. Efforts are underway to take away our options for self defense in our homes as Congress makes it more difficult to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. Thomas Jefferson: The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. Perhaps Mexicans are dying at the hands of drug cartels because gun ownership is outlawed in Mexico??
• LESS SECURE--Security comes, in part, from planning and directing our own futures. But we can no longer anticipate the intrusive arm of government. We know that the spending levels cannot be supported by the top 1% or 10% or 50% of the population--taxes must rise--dramatically. We know that SS and Medicare, the most egregious examples of nanny state, are severely underfunded and will not be able to pay out benefits for which we Paid but nanny state spent the $$ for current operations. Jefferson warned us: A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. For a reminder and primer on the foundations of our republic, revisit the quotes of Thomas Jefferson.
  

Nanny State is a false, empty lie which we must cast in the light of truth.

Eastern Michigan Univ Ousts Master's Candidate for not changing her Christian beliefs

The Nanny State dictates what "belief systems" must be held in order to graduate from a public, tax supported university. And EMU even has the "thought police" squadron in their School of Education. (Will have to look up 1984 to see what Orwell called them)

Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, dismissed Master's Candidate Julea Ward from the school's counseling program, preventing her from getting her degree, because she would not agree to change her Christian beliefs. EMU requires students to affirm and validate homosexual behavior; Ms. Ward was required to change her "belief system" to conform to the university's views or be dismissed from the program. She requested a hearing in which she clearly explained what her stance was and why, was denigrated by the faculty and kicked out of the program. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund for Academic Freedom filed a lawsuit on Ms. Ward's behalf. The Ann Arbor News covers the story in depth, with links to the court documents. David French, ADF attorney who filed the lawsuit, refers to this as the policy of "Thought Reform" being practiced at higher institutions.

Regardless of your views on homosexuality, the very idea that a public university would require that a student forfeit 1st amendment religious rights and denounce her religious beliefs is beyond comprehension. So Christians need not apply to EMU because they can never be certain that their "belief system" will not be in conformity with the university's views. SCARY!!

Faculty on the Formal Review Committee included Dr. Irene Ametrano, Dr. Perry Francis, Dr. Gary Marx, Dr. Suzanne Dugger and Dr. Yvonne Callaway, the initiator of the dismissal. The dismissal was upheld by the Dean of the College of Education, Dr. Vernon Polite. EMail as before listed: iametrano@emich.edu; pfrancis@emich.edu; gmarx@emich.edu; shobson@emich.edu; ycallaway@emich.edu; vpolite@emich.edu
An email to each of them expressing your opinion on their findings and the way they conducted the review hearing might encourage them to open their own minds--which were obviously closed tight to any views that differed from theirs.

Interview with Frank Beckman, WJR further explaining what happened.

Zero tolerance equals ZERO common sense, too often

According to the Delaware News Journal the Christina School District, Delaware's largest school system faced down truly dangerous threat-- A 5th Grader with a Cake!

Their Student Code of Conduct, P. 47 details a policy as follows: "Dangerous Instrument(s) Possession/Concealment/Sale: Regardless of possessor's intent, any unauthorized possession/concealment, sale of an instrument, article or substance which is readily capable of causing serious physical injury or death. If the full blade of a knife is less than three inches, the item will be considered a dangerous instrument. First Offense includes police notification and filing of charges, as well as 5 days suspension. The have a "zero tolerance" policy.

The 11 year old, campaigning for class election, brought a cake to school, along with a pastry knife her mother sent to cut the cake. After the teacher cut the cake, the teacher (unnamed in the article) proceeded to report the little girl to the school authorities, suspended her for 5 days and filed a complaint with the State Police and the Attorney General's Office. The little girl faced expulsion and criminal charges. An 11 year old with a cake. The state police have decided to take no action and the district leaders finally permitted her to return to school.

It looks like the school district has zero tolerance for common sense. The child and her family had to experience trauma and embarrassment, the police and attorney general had to spend time on this and the accompanying time wasted by the school administration and the bad public relations makes one wonder if common sense gets deposited outside the school house. Zero tolerance has just gone far too far. And the 11 year old got a taste of what happens when you get involved with politics!!

Treasury going far too far - government overreach on pay for performance

Read H.R. 1664 Pay for Performance 2009 just passed in the House by a vote of 247/171. In essence, this bill authorizes the Treasury to have sole authority to decide if compensation for a specific individual is "pay for performance" or "excessive" based upon standards developed by the Treasury. It applies to existing employment contracts for companies that received TARP funds.

The mistrust of companies in light of the AIG and Merrill Lynch bonus fiascoes is understandable, but this bill is ridiculous, unenforceable, a waste of taxpayer money and a scary overreach by the administration. Consider these points:

• Treasury is going to draft guidelines for "pay for performance"? This Treasury cannot manage to adequately staff itself and is headed by a tax evader--it is going to issue standards that define compensation as "unreasonable or excessive" or not "directly based on performance-based measures" established by the Secretary? From where is the Secretary to get those standards?
• For decades, companies have been attempting to devise true "pay for performance" standards and have failed--the government believes it can succeed?
• Thousands of employees would fall under this legislation. Implementing and monitoring this legislation would require another expansion of the bureaucracy of government, already bloated. Can you envision clerical bureaucrats, members of civil service, union members, making this call as to "unreasonable or excessive?"
• President Obama fired the CEO of GM (making $1 per year) in part, because he believes that GM needs a new business model. I recall that John Potter, Postmaster General, makes a hefty salary (rich by Obama standards) but the PO lost $2.8 billion last year and will lose even more this year. He blames "legacy costs" -pre-funding of retiree health care benefits, for which the auto industry is being torn apart by Congress. GM is dictated to adopt a new business model but the PO is exempted--the plan for the future is as demand goes down, increase fees.
  
• Fannie & Freddie plan to pay out $210 MILLION in bonuses, but are not covered under this legislation since they didn't take TARP--yet they are massively supported by our taxpayer $$.

Bureaucrats in a government which cannot effectively run itself, the Post Office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac know better than experienced executives how to "pay for performance" and decide what is "excessive"?

I get it--NANNY KNOWS BEST

Bill to Outlaw Barbie introduced in West Virginia

I knew that Barbie was getting older (she will be 50 you know--probably needs to go on NipTuck). A State Senator from West Virginia, Jeff Eldridge (D) introduced on Mar 9 HB 2918 A BILL to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931.........relating to banning the sale of "Barbie" dolls and other dolls that influence girls to be beautiful. The purpose is stated that It shall be unlawful in the state to sell "Barbie" dolls and other similar dolls that promote or influence girls to place an undue importance on physical beauty to the detriment of their intellectual and emotional development. I am not making this up!!!! This does, however, prove that there really is a desire of the state to be "nanny" (mommy) since that's who usually introduces little girls to dolls.

Eldridge has sons--not daughters. Isn't he being sexist? If they are going to discourage girls from "physical beauty" (the language implies that beautiful girls are either dumber or less emotionally developed), don't they also have to discourage boys from action figures that encourage muscles? How about banning MTV?? I've got it--parents should list all the toys they let their kids buy & send it to the state AG for approval and licensing. Then the state could do its new job--direct parents in ALL aspects of raising their children. Plus this would be another new source of revenue for the state.

This goes beyond the pale for stupid legislation!!! Regardless of how you feel about Barbie, do we want government officials making decisions about what influences girls to be beautiful?? I think not. Plus it angers me that politicians collect our tax $$ to spend developing and promoting this type of stupid legislation, which doesn't (I hope) have a prayer of passing but still soaksup resources that should be spent on the issues they are elected to legislate. If you want to tell Eldridge what you think about his ideas: Capitol phone (304) 340-3210; Eldridge phone (304) 522-8699. E-mail: Speaker.Thompson@verizon.net



.

To protect children we MUST expand HR 45 to federally license electrical outlets

According to politicians, Americans cannot be trusted to purchase, store and protect children from handguns without the oversight of the federal government. Then we should expand HR 45 to cover electrical outlets.

Children are at far more risk with electrical outlets in the home than handguns. Why?

• They can stick instruments into the outlet (paper clips, hairpins) and get electrocuted.
• The electrical outlets cannot be locked up and put in a safe.
• How can we be certain that the parents have gone through classes to instruct them on the safe handling of electrical outlets?
  
• We cannot trust parents to instruct children.
• We cannot be certain that parents (or grandparents) will purchase electrical outlet covers.
• And we probably have adults who are stupid enough to stick something into an electrical outlet and get zapped. Where are the warnings on outlets?

Electrical outlets are DEADLY!! And how can we be certain that people know how to safely put in light bulbs? What if they stick a metal instrument into the outlet? By God-they could be killed!! And if they fail to dispose of the CFLs correctly, or break them, they can create a WMD. Do they know they have to evacuate the room if they break a light bulb? As I think about it, I am not even certain that people can be trusted to change their own light bulbs--we probably need a new federal agency and a new training and licensing requirement from the EPA.

I propose that the provisions for handguns in this legislation be expanded to electrical outlets in the home and that federal licensing, fees and inspection be applied since this is a far greater, more pernicious and dangerous exercise of liberty than the 2nd Amendment. We cannot give people in America free rein to use electricity--the risk is just too great to all of us. Stop it before it goes too far. License Electrical Outlets. LEO IS THE MANTRA FOR SAFETY IN THE AMERICAN HOME. Save our children!!

HR 45, introduced into the US House of Representatives by Rep Bobby Rush (D IL) (founder of the IL Chapter of Black Panthers) to create federal licensing of handguns with onerous requirements, which will cost $$, time and inconvenience to the owners of handguns. The criminal penalties are stiff (2 to 10 years prison plus fines) for not getting licensed or not following the dictated processes. The Attorney General of the United States, no less, will be the issuer of these licenses, to be renewed every 5 years. Hummmmm..glad I can trust our government to never misuse private information. But criminals, which we purchase handguns to protect ourselves from don't worry about conforming to these laws--I don't think they will worry about carrying a federal license. Local governments do a good job of registering handguns--so why let the feds muck it up? The legislation is another backdoor attempt to limit 2nd Amendment rights and disarm the Citizens of the USA.

HAVE YOU TRIED THE CFL LIGHT BULBS CONGRESS DICTATED FOR US?

I have and the results suck. Using these bulbs, dictated by our Congress for our use by 2014 will increase our household costs. Just threw 2 of them away (after researching all over web on how to do it with the mercury danger). The bulbs didn't last for more than 3 or 4 months--so much for lasting 10 times longer!! They didn't provide enough light. So let me get this straight--now we have to buy bulbs more often, pay a LOT MORE $$ FOR THEM and have more lights in the room. And this saves energy? Senator Poe gave the best summary of why this legislation stinks. But our brilliant 110th Congress passed it, and President Bush signed it. Check out the vote of your Senators and Representatives. Michigan Senators Levin (D) and Stabenow (D) and my Representative Rogers (R) each voted against it. I warn you to stockpile incandescents--but I haven't yet checked out what the penalties will be. I guess we will have the "light bulb" patrol knocking at our doors in the middle of the night to find our cache and haul us away. Bye Bye Edison. Hello More Nanny State.