The Fiscal Times: Opinion: Edward Morrissey: Why Michael Bloomberg’s Nanny Campaign Will Fail: The Nanny Statist on the Loose

Nanny State

The Fiscal Times: Opinion: Edward Morrissey: Why Michael Bloomberg’s Nanny Campaign Will Fail

The New Democrat on Facebook

The New Democrat on Twitter

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

New York, New York, what a city.  Trust me, that sounds funnier with my fake New York accent than it does with my fake Philadelphia accent, for some reason.  New York might be the only big city in America except, perhaps, San Francisco that produces popular politicians who believe that it’s their duty to protect their constituents from themselves.  And that they do not get any negative political feedback as a result.

Maybe New Yorkers believe that they are too dumb to decide for themselves what or how much food and drink they should consume or whether or not they should smoke or when they should go to bed. Should they be able to smoke marijuana or have to go to jail for their own good if they do smoke or possess marijuana. Should they be allowed to look at pornography or not? Should they be able to gamble their own money or not?  What’s the next NYC prohibition, sex before marriage or sex with someone of the same sex?

Only in New York and perhaps San Francisco could big city politicians get away with trying to micro-manage the lives of their constituents. Just about everywhere else they would be seen for what they are which are nanny statists. You think the welfare state is too much government. Well some of those high taxes you would pay would also be directed towards the nanny state. Having cops on the street to put people to bed at night or take cigarettes or Doritos out of their mouths does not come for free.

Read Full Post »

Chris Brandt: U.S. Representative Steve Cohen Schools DEA Official at House Oversight Hearing

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

I agree with Representative Steve Cohen that marijuana prohibition is definitely a joke and overwhelmingly hurts ethnic and racial minorities compared with Anglos and Caucasians.  It is a war on freedom to criminalize what people do to themselves, especially when we are talking about a drug that can’t kill you immediately, unlike heroin or cocaine. We are really talking about a drug as it relates to health aspects like alcohol.  It is actually far less dangerous than tobacco, which is legal.

Read Full Post »

The Young Turks: Jimmy Dore & Ben Mankiewicz: Simple Weed Question Destroys Deputy Drug Czar

U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer, D, Oregon

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

This video is the perfect example of why the U.S. Government whoever is in charge since the creation of the so-called War on Drugs, why they have lost credibility. And no longer have much credibility on the War on Drugs. Especially with young adults let’s say early fifties and younger, but adolescents as well. When the Deputy Director of National Drug Policy Michael Botticeli can’t or won’t answer a simple basic question of whether or not marijuana is as dangerous as cocaine, heroine or meth.

Representative Earl Blumenauer Democrat from Oregon who I like and respect, but do not agree with him on everything. Asked National Drug Policy Deputy Director Michael Botticeli who probably has all the information about the dangers of these illegal drugs as well as legal drugs and may even know this information by heart. Because it is a big part of his job. Was asked point-blank by Representative Blumenauer, “is marijuana as dangerous as meth or cocaine or heroin.” And Mr. Botticeli dodged the question, can only speculate why not being a mind-reader. But he must know the answer, but refused to share that information.

Representative Bluemenauer also made another great point that we’ve reduced the use of tobacco in this country. Not by locking people up, but by educating Americans about the dangers of tobacco. And then people seeing and knowing that and if they aren’t currently smoking, not getting into tobacco. And if they are current tobacco smokers getting off of tobacco or getting help for it. Which is exactly what we should be doing as far as how we deal with marijuana in this country.

Read Full Post »

CSPAN: Andrew Sullivan vs Dennis Prager- Same-Sex Marriage (1996)

Source:CSPAN– the House Judiciary Committee holding a hearing on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
Source:The New Democrat  

“The House Judiciary Subcommittee heard testimony concerning the Defense of Marriage Act from activists, state legislators and others.”

From CSPAN

Source:CSPAN– Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, arguing against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, at the House Judiciary Committee in 1996.

If you believe in freedom of choice and even individual freedom and liberty, as well as marriage, and that people who are in love with each other should be get married, then you shouldn’t have a problem with same-sex-marriage, if you’re also a constitutionalist. Because marriage whether it’s straight or gay is about uniting a partnership between two people that are in-love with each other.

If your politics if defined by your religious and cultural views and not by the U.S. Constitution and your religion and politics are fundamentalist, then of course same-sex-marriage is going to be a problem for you. Hell, if you’re a religious fundamentalist, you probably don’t believe that gays should be allowed to freely walk the streets, let alone be in-love with each other or get married.

I look at same-sex-marriage and homosexuality the way I look at all freedom of choice issues: does someone’s else personal choice affect me in a negative way or not. If the answer is no, then what do I care if gays want to get married or do anything else with each other, just as long as they’re not hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing.

The Andrew Sullivan-Dennis Prager debate about same-sex-marriage and perhaps homosexuality in general, is about the Constitution, freedom of choice, and individual liberty, versus religious fundamentalism and perhaps nationalism and the idea that these fundamentalist values are so powerful, that everyone else should be forced to live under them, even if they disagree with them.

Read Full Post »

CBC News: ‘Canada Reacts to Quebec’s Charter of Values’

Source:CBC News– a Quebec man being interviewed about Quebec’s Charter of Values.

“The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French: Société Radio-Canada), branded as CBC/Radio-Canada, is a Canadian federal Crown corporation that serves as the national public broadcaster for both radio and television.[4] The English- and French-language service units of the corporation are commonly known as CBC and Radio-Canada, respectively.”

From Wikipedia

“Organizers are hoping thousands of Quebecers will turn out tomorrow to protest the Parti Quebecois’s proposed Charter of Values. The Charter would ban public employees from wearing religious clothing and symbols at work. Today – two federal ministers launched their own form of protest. And the Montreal Board of Trade warned it could harm the city’s reputation.
And people right across the country said the Charter would create a national chill.”

From CBC News

This is what statism from the Far-Left looks like at its worst. And I say this is coming from the Far-Left, because Quebec is an overwhelmingly socialist province. Statism in Canada at least to this extent with government telling people what they can and can’t wear in public. With what I at least would call Fundamentalist Atheism. (Which is what Communists tend to believe) Which is not only anti-religion, but intolerant of religion. And doesn’t believe individuals should be able to make these decisions for themselves.

This State-Atheism philosophy comes from the Far-Left, generally. And had this been a story about Mississippi, an overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christian state in America, perhaps the capital of the Christian-Right in America, I would’ve called this statism from the Far-Right. We are talking about people who tend to be intolerant of non-Christian religions. With Islam being a big target of there’s. But what is going on in Quebec is clearly statism from the Far-Left. And shouldn’t be tolerated, or any type of religious bigotry coming from government.

Canada is obviously different from America. With their own national identity, culture, way of doing things, Constitution and just about everything else. And they’re a bit left-wing, typically to begin with. But Quebec is even further left than Canada as a whole and probably the most socialist of any province in Canada. So they need to figure out these issues for themselves in their own country. Based on their values and Constitution. But this would clearly be unacceptable and unconstitutional in America and thrown out.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »

Chris Littleton: Statism

Source:Chris Littleton– statism: pro-state, anti-freedom.

“Statism: Ideas so good, they have to be mandatory. I had a couple people shoot me a message, and say – don’t you think that picture is a bit extreme?
My answer: No. And, I asked them this very important question – What happens if you refuse to pay taxes or follow some kind of silly or unjust law?
They probably fine you or ticket you first. If you don’t pay these things, they will arrest you. If you resist arrest – they will use whatever force is needed (yes, that means guns, SWAT teams, etc) to bring you into submission, incarceration or kill you while resisting.
When you think of a new law, fine, tax or anything else created by government, remember – it only works through mandate and mandates are enforced through brute strength and the threat of violence.
I am not ok with a world that operates in this manner, and I seek to change it.”

From Chris Littleton 

“The principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. Support of or belief in the sovereignty of a state, usually a republic.”

From Dictionary

This is exactly what statism is a bad idea because it is anti-freedom and is based on the fact that government or a faction of people better know how individuals live their own lives, better than individuals themselves.

Whether statism comes from the Far-Left or Far-Right, both sides ho tend to be paternalists and people who so believe they know what the country should be like and people should live, that they want to force those beliefs on the whole country through law. And their proposals tend to be unconstitutional rather than just bad ideas.

Read Full Post »

The Rachel Maddow Show: Dan Rather- ‘This is Demolishing The Trust in Government’

Interesting to hear Rachel Maddow ggo off on big government power (for perhaps the first time in her entire life) when it comes to civil liberties and national security, which I agree with her on. But it would be very interesting to hear he give an editorial as a so-called Progressive (as she says she is) give and editorial about governmental power when it comes to economic policy. And to hear if she believes if the Federal Government has any limits when it comes to economic policy at all.

Read Full Post »

Sam Seder: Federal Judge Blocks 6-Week Abortion Banning Bill

Source:The Majority Report– pro-choice activists on abortion.

“A federal judge in North Dakota has issued a block on the country’s most restrictive abortion law, the “fetal heartbeat” ban, stating it is unconstitutional…

This clip from the Majority Report, live M-F at 12 noon EST and via daily podcast at:The Majority Report.”

Source:The Majority Report

I don’t love it, but I do find it amusing, even sadly so when I hear people who call themselves fiscal Conservatives, who claim government is too big and spends too much money and yet they spend taxpayer dollars on bills that if they don’t know that they’ll get thrown out on constitutional grounds. Their lawyers at the very least are smart enough to know that. And yet taxpayers still have to pay for the costs of them writing their bills and paying for staff’s work and everything else. North Dakota and their anti-abortion bill, that bans abortion after six-weeks of pregnancy, is a perfect example of that.

If you can forget about the unconstitutionality and big government aspects of the bill, with the state stepping in to make health care decision for competent women, you can also dislike the bill for the waste of tax dollars that come with it. Money that could be used to pay for schools, roads, hospitals, law enforcement, jails, prisons, or lowering property taxes, is being spent to pass a bill that will eventually get thrown out. And that is before you add up the costs of what it will take to defend the unconstitutional law in the first place.

But the politics and politicians don’t take positions too many times to be consistent and accurate. But to meet short-term, political goals. Which is why they’re not leaders, but sheep trapped in herds instead.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »

Edward Morrissey: ‘Why A ‘Too Big to Manage’ Government Should Downsize’

Source:The Fiscal Times– welcome to The White House.

“To listen to press secretaries and Congressional hearings, one might think that an epidemic had erupted in the nation’s capital – an epidemic of incompetence and absentee leadership. Practically no area of government has immunity from this disease, whether it’s at the White House, the State Department, the IRS and Treasury, or at the Department of Justice.

Let’s start with the White House, which may well be the epicenter of the disease. The administration faces at least three major scandals – Benghazi, the Department of Justice’s snooping on reporters for the AP and Fox News, and the IRS targeting of conservative groups for harassment and procedural blocks on their tax-exempt applications.

To hear Jay Carney answer questions from the media, no one at the White House knew anything about any of these issues in the executive branch they manage, at least not until they heard about it on the television news. (Presumably, this is a big compliment to CNN.)”

From The Fiscal Times 

“Government planning and detailed control of economic activity lessens productive innovation, and consumer choice. Good, better, best, are replaced by ”approved” or ”authorized.” Friedman shows how ‘established’ industries or methods, seek government protection or subsidization in their attempts to stop or limit product improvements which they don’t control. Friedman visits India, Japan and U.S. Discussion Participants: Robert McKenzie, Moderator; Milton Friedman; Richard Deason, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Donald Rumsfeld, President, G.D. Searle & Company; Helen Hughes, Director of Economic Studies, World Bank; Jagdish Bhagwati, Professor of Economics, MIT.”

Source:Free To Choose Network– from Professor Milton Friedman in 1980.

From Free To Choose Network 

Professor Milton Friedman had a theory about big government and was the main reason and cause of it and he related it to the problems with a big, centralized, national government. And argued the bigger and more centralized a national government is, the more waste that you’ll have it, the fewer people that it will be able to serve well, and the more bought off politicians that you’ll have in Washington. Because all the lobbyists and political activists will always know where to go to get some politician in Congress or in the Administration to for them exactly what they want them to do for them.

Professor Friedman’s solution to big government was a compromise: he argued that if we’re going to have all of these Federal social and domestic programs (because he rather see them eliminated) he said that the best way to run these programs is to get them out of Washington and back home to the states, localities, and people that could actually use that assistance. His compromise solution to big government was essentially federalism.

If you don’t like any of these so-called scandals that are going on in the Obama Administration right now and you don’t trust Congress (even with a Republican House) to deal with them, you should be arguing for federalism and decentralization of the U.S. Government right now. You decentralize Uncle Sam, you kick out a lot of Washington lobbyists and force them to perhaps go work for a living and find something else to do, hopefully not at taxpayers expense.

Read Full Post »

PBS: NewsHour- ‘Five States Move to Restrict Access to Abortion Services’

Source:PBS NewsHour– Ilyse Hogue from National Pro-Choice America.

“The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America’s Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House.”

From Wikipedia

“Five states have moved to adopt tighter abortion regulations, including North Dakota, which has the nation’s strictest abortion regulation, outlawing abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected. Jeffrey Brown gets perspectives from Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life and Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice America.”

From the PBS NewsHour

All of these abortion restriction laws are coming in red states that like to complain about big government and government interfering in our lives and so-forth and yet they write laws that do exactly that. And interfere with the most personal of decisions that Americans will ever make which get’s to our healthcare.

In this case women’s healthcare and who decides whether women give birth or not after being pregnant. Apparently big government in red states is government they do not like mainly as it relates to the economy. But big government that they do like as it has to do with our personal lives is okay, because: “It’s in our national interest to have government making these decisions for us. Rather than individuals have the freedom and responsibility to make these decisions for ourselves.”

And then you get to the constitutional and legal aspects of this where these laws will be ruled unconstitutional. Because of the rock solid pro-choice majority on it. And you have states defending laws in court with taxpayer funds that will be ruled unconstitutional. Money that would’ve been spent for other things that would not get thrown out.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »