Archive for the ‘Economy’ Category

Reform School

Posted: September 2, 2011 in Americana, Capitalism, Communications, Economy, Freedom, Media, Oppression, Politics, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Reform” is a common concept in government. My experience has been that whenever government reforms something, it will inevitably be worse. The nine-letter word “reforming” coincides with the nine-letter result: Imscrewed. Big government statists cannot resist increasing government size or power. That is one stark illustration of why the so-called “War on Drugs” has been a forty-year failure. Government and its political enablers have an addiction problem that is much more harmful for the nation than any individual’s reliance on an illicit substance. The only government program that has succeeded at any measurable level is the “War on Liberty” that was begun with little fanfare one century ago.

 

You may recall the “Tax Reform Act of 1986.” That overhaul was a result of an agreement between President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill. The President agreed to some tax increases in the “reform” bill in exchange for sizable spending cuts in subsequent budgets.  As usual the spending cuts never materialized and a radical transform of the tax code went forward. Prior to the 1986 tax bill interest expenses were deductible, but after passage, credit card and non-mortgage, non-business interest payments were no longer allowed as tax deductions. Personally, interest deductions are not important for me. I would rather eliminate the income tax altogether and eliminate the incessant tinkering and tweaking that costs taxpayers more money while Congress rewards its favored groups or companies.

 

So, as a brief summary of the prologue, reform generally represents more of the same though worse. As an example, please join me in a “quickie’ review of Ohio Sub. HB 194…of the 129th General Assembly.

This so-called election administrative reform bill is similar to many other bills under consideration by our legislative bodies. Its provisions resemble tentacles as they weave and wind around so many facets of Ohio election law, and yet….this purportedly comprehensive overhaul ignores a gorilla in the room…a gaping intentional oversight in violation of a court order. The aspect of ballot access for minor parties was never addressed, thus allowing the existing law to stand which had earlier been declared unfair by the court. Similar to Obamacare and so many legislative initiatives, Sub. HB 194 addresses several areas of concern that could result in some unanticipated problems because of the breadth of the bill.

 

The Ohio bill must have some merit because President Obama’s campaign is opposed to it because of its stricter provisions regarding voter identification…..could possibly limit cheating, and thus, is not Obama-friendly. The legislation covers a broad scale of issues affecting Ohio elections such as we “cannot assume that poll workers erred.” Proof must be submitted before allegations or assumptions are allowed. Clearly the Voter I.D. provision is the lightning rod of the bill as liberals, progressives, Marxists and cheaters are fearful that a photo I.D. would minimize their opportunities for stealing elections.

 

An omnibus bill that purports to reform a broad swath of law is inherently doomed. Unintended consequences will cling to the legislation like flies to road kill. Opponents will target one or more aspects of the legislation and may seek judicial intervention. Forecasting what some judges would do is similar to predicting when and where a first raindrop may land. Broad based initiatives allow the dedicated public servants to crow about their major accomplishments, and at the same time, condense the heavy lifting of formulating meaningful legislation. This in turn generates more free time for lobbyist-funded meals and adult beverages.

 

Admittedly I am a skeptic and a cynic, but I do suspect that some omnibus bills are staff-created legislative shortcuts for elected officials. If there is a sincere intent to dramatically change the status quo, the omnibus bill does provide some cover in the sense that changes that may inspire opposition could perhaps, maybe, theoretically, possibly get lost in the weeds of a broad undertaking. In addition, a huge bill that deals with various facets of state law (elections for example) has many sponsors, co-sponsors and amendment sponsors so that disgruntled citizens or groups may find it difficult to place blame for what they believe to be an egregious legislative result. While the omnibus bill may provide a cloak of anonymity for its advocates, it may also lead to glaring oversights….legislators and staff members become so enamored with the forest that individual trees lose their identities.

 

As the kind trusting person that I am, I will assume that the “too-broad, glaring-omission” explanation is the logical one for the failure of Sub. HB 194 to address the issue of minor party ballot access. Clearly, the elected members of the Ohio General Assembly believe in the Republic and the rights of citizens to freely elect their representatives. Obviously the members of the Ohio House and Ohio Senate would do nothing that intentionally enables a continuing duopoly of power, thought and avarice. After all, the two old parties have shared power, meals and drinks for more than 150 years so it cannot be possible that third-party competition would be seriously challenging to them. Right?

 

Intentional self-serving denial of opportunity in a republic is just as loathsome as a poll tax or a literacy test. When two parties hold absolute control of the election apparatus, logical reasoning would lead one to believe that power will be misapplied. Because the two old parties have controlled the election apparatus across the nation for so long, they have not been seriously challenged to account for their malfeasance, misfeasance and misdeeds. We have all been losers because of the lack of electoral accountability. Reform? Yeah, right.

 

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com   

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Tue & Wed, 6-7pm on 1370 WSPD, Toledo   www.wspd.com

Advertisements

There is a term that all career legislative politicians know and cherish. It is “voting from cover.” This is a device whereby your typical unprincipled politician can vote either way on a piece of legislation, but the leadership allows him or her to vote according to which way would most assist the politician’s re-election because the leaders had enough votes to pass the measure. In other words the politician was willing to vote for passage but voted against it because his vote was not needed. Given this frequent scenario, it is no wonder that citizens have become as cynical as their elected officials.

 

When one examines the voting record of a political professional, one often discovers some contradictory results. A politician may vote for a measure the first time around, but vote against a nearly identical version on the second pass. The suggestively schizophrenic behavior is generally an indicator that the so-called public servant was voting from cover. You may recall the legendary John Kerry statement from the 2004 campaign that he “voted for funding the Iraq war before he voted against it.” There were some commentators and of course, Republicans, who ridiculed Kerry’s apparent two-faced approach to such a vital issue. Many in the mass media, however, did not condemn Kerry because they understood that his votes reflected a total self-serving attempt to appear on both sides of the issue. They correctly understood that Kerry’s waffling…his unprincipled position…was not rare, but it was all too common among our United States’ political class.

 

At first blush an observer might seek to find some mechanism or penalty for those who choose to vote from cover to enhance their political fortunes. The problem with a remedy that directly addresses the issue is that there is no allowance for the politician who actually changes her or his position because of conscience, principle or payoff. We cannot fully trust the politician’s explanation for the position switch because so many of them are either slick liars or self-delusional. The observer can assume from the beginning that the leadership allowed the member to vote from cover if the vote was close, and the member voted against the majority. An overwhelming vote on either side of an issue is not a good barometer for testing the legislator’s principles because aside from the chicken or weasel, congress critters most often resemble lemmings. One of the first skills developed by a legislator is learning how to jump in front of a parade and pretending to lead it.

 

Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect which unprincipled politicians were voting from cover on any particular bill unless one is closely observing the roll call on C-SPAN. If the watcher knows who the Whips are for the party, they can see who they’re “babysitting” as the vote rolls in. As the numbers of “Ayes and Nays” approach finality, the Whips will release their wards to vote. If the Speaker “needs” their votes, they’ll vote for his position, but if there are a sufficient number supporting the Speaker’s stance, the captive Congresspersons will be allowed to vote consistent with their constituents’ preferences. So, what if the leaders are wrong (we have 100 years of recent history to suggest that our political leaders are often wrong)? Are our elected representatives so politically motivated that they would sacrifice principle in order to prevent embarrassing the leadership? Apparently so and historical evidence supports the premise. Certainly it is helpful if there is unity within the caucus when they are pursuing an ideal or policy that is based on principle and integrity. Unity for unity’s sake, however, when promoted and enforced to achieve damaging compromise merely reinforces the cynicism of the voters. Deal-making, deal-cutting and bet-hedging are reprehensible positions when the integrity of the nation is at stake. Yes, this type of legislating has been in place since the beginning of our Republic, but heightened scrutiny and moments of sustained crisis have illustrated the folly and damage that such an approach creates. “Business as usual” should become unusual and undesirable.

 

Our political system has become so corrupt and decayed that fixing it seems nearly impossible. I am convinced that most of those who are first elected to Congress or their respective legislatures enter with high hopes and sincere desires to make a difference. They become part of the system without realizing how compromised they are. Voting from cover is just another example of how unrepresentative our political system is. If you recall, 22 House members voted against Boehner’s sell-out deal on the debt ceiling, but the real number of steadfast fiscally-responsible patriots is 19. Three Members were being herded by Whip Kevin McCarthy until the vote was “locked.” They were willing to vote with Boehner, but because there were sufficient votes, they were “allowed” to vote for principle. I’m still trying to confirm who those three were, and they do not merit inclusion in the roll call of courage and conviction. There were 19 Spartans standing at the gates as the Persians advanced. There were three opportunists standing behind them….under cover….away from the arrows. Luke’s Gospel is good. Lukewarm is tepid.

 

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com       or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Crisis Creation

Posted: August 3, 2011 in Capitalism, Communications, Economy, Media, Oppression, Politics, Rants, Taxes, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If you have been on this earth for any significant time, you have probably and painfully learned that there is a difference between thoughtful consideration and procrastination. Dithering does not qualify as deliberation. Certainly prudence demands that we examine our options to determine which one will yield the most favorable outcome. Undoubtedly you are familiar with the term, “paralysis by analysis,” wherein over-examination of a difficult decision leads to a failure to act or respond. These scenarios are common for most of us, and we recognize the pitfalls that arise because of our inability to respond. These are some of the rules of life, but in certain quarters the rules are suspended. Take career politicians for example.

 

Most professional politicians suffer from an aversion to critical decision making. As you know, on an issue that is prominent and divided, the politician risks annoying or infuriating a large portion of his constituents no matter how she or he may vote. As a result, many crises in our affairs of state arise because of the career politicians’ refusal to deal with an issue promptly and forthrightly.  Issues become problems that beget crises that cause nervous handwringing and intense arm twisting. Generally, the politician succumbs to expediency and meekly follows the leadership to a minimalist response to the moment to escape the volcanic wrath of the electorate. Thus, the “can” of concern is kicked further down the road only to rise again at a later time with consequences far greater.

 

Abscessed characters and absences of integrity are too common among the careerist political class. The most self-centered among them weigh every decision on the scales of electoral expediency. In some respects the self-serving types are preferable to the indecisive cowards because their positions are so predictable. Whatever vote or pledge has the greatest potential for maintaining or advancing the politician’s career is the one that is taken or cast. The concept of a principled vote or position is alien to the class of politician who is consumed by opportunism. It is the expedient politician who has helped to elevate his class on a par with used car salesmen and snake oil peddlers in the popular views of the people.

 

Another factor besides the personalities and preferences of the politicians for the sense of crisis that seems pervasive is the sheer size of government…at all levels. Their consistent expansion and overreaching for the past century has resulted in bloated monstrosities that are ineffective and impossible to manage. Factor in the overlap and redundancy elements of many governments, and we often find ourselves in crisis mode because of competing bureaucracies or sectors of interest that are unaddressed because the various bureaucracies remain stuck in “turf-protection” gear. Large sluggish enterprises are inefficient and ineffective. Large public sector institutions are much worse than their private sector cohorts because it is nearly impossible to dismiss incompetent or lazy workers. So the massive organizational structure of government is a primary contributor to the frequency of crises in our public discourse.  Government agencies often overreach and frequently under perform. Either of those response modes could germinate a crisis.

 

Closely associated with the unrestrained growth of government is its insatiable need for operating funds. With Big Brother and Nanny State gobbling more control of our lives and our commerce, the financial requirements escalate. So, it seems there is a constant crisis for funding…at all levels of government. Their incestuous relationships and complex network of grants and mandates place an increasing financial burden on the taxpayers. When the bureaucrats and political class decide that additional funding is required, they claim that a crisis is imminent, and the funds are vital for averting a catastrophe.

 

There are two aspects of crisis that may not have so large of a domestic human component in the chain of causation..…attack by foreign entities and a natural or commercial disaster. Time and again our government’s response to a provocation or natural disruption has been too little, too late. Often when lives were saved, it was the heroic actions of individuals—some from the public sector and others just ordinary citizens—whose actions were the most helpful and effective. We may never know what involvement government had in the generating of the crises, if any, because of foreign policy, the inadequate construction and repair of levees, unrealistic environmental restrictions that limit the building of water-breaks and dams. The point is that people, local people, respond more quickly and effectively in many cases than does the government-controlled response agency. Does the memory of thousands of unused FEMA trailers for the Gulf Coast ring a bell? Many of those trailers were sources of breathing problems because the gaseous releases from the interiors….typical.

 

In every crisis for the nation, governments play an instrumental role. Sometimes government’s failure to act initiates the problem or makes it worse. On other occasions government’s response is inadequate or inappropriate and may exacerbate the problem. Finally some issues may be precipitated by government so as to assume more power and control over the population. In summary, big government and crisis appear to be synonymous. Friends, we have a crisis, and as Rahm Emanuel advises “we should not let a crisis go to waste.” Continue putting the heat on them, jump on your pony, Patriot, and let’s get control of this monstrosity.

 

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com      or      www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Dear Congress

Posted: July 27, 2011 in Capitalism, Communications, Constitution, Economy, Finance, Freedom, Media, Oppression, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Taxes, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Majority Leader and Members of the House Republican Caucus,

You have been returned to the majority because most of the people of this nation have recognized that our country is facing a severe economic, social, fiscal and political crisis. The majority of voters in November of last year discerned that the Democrat majority under former-Speaker Pelosi had relinquished any semblance of fiscal responsibility that they may have ever held. In addition to their profligacy, their legislative agenda undermined the liberty of our citizens and generated more tension between the taxed and the beneficiaries. You were either elected or re-elected to stop the madness and to turn around from the disastrous direction that our United States of America clearly is headed.

We understand that many of you are career politicians who lust for office and the accolades that shower you. We understand that many of you may be honest and moral, but you appear to lack the finely honed principles that should guide you. You have taken an oath of office………

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

We have some questions for your consideration. Did you take the oath seriously? Do you understand the oath? How would you define “support and defend the Constitution?” Have you done so during your political career? Is a “good idea” necessarily Constitutional? Where do you personally draw the line about when to support the Constitution and when to ignore or dismiss it? Have you willingly violated your oath because the nation has needs that are not addressed by Article 1 Section 8? Or have you violated your oath because the Constitution has been abused by Congress for so long that it cannot be fixed….you know, that toothpaste back into the tube dilemma?

We know that Democrats lie, cheat and steal (votes) to move their agenda. We are grateful that, for the most part, you seek to fulfill your duties and obligations with honor and integrity. We want you, however, to be bold, courageous and principled….fight constantly and consistently for Constitutional principles and the restoration of personal liberty for all citizens of the United States. You appear to have resisted advancing ideas, strategies and legislation that would challenge this incremental march toward personal and economic tyranny because they might fail. I might add here that the incremental march has become a gallop. Why are you afraid to fail on a matter of principle? You should know that your vote to repeal the healthcare fiasco was appreciated, but we know that you have made no serious effort to defund it. In fact, during this debt ceiling/budget cuts kabuki dance, the President declared that his opening gambit for socialized medicine was “off the table,” and we hear nothing…….crickets from the House of Representatives. Many of the people who have supported you are sorely disappointed that your actions have been so feeble and so hesitant. We frankly do not care if Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi does not like you in fact we prefer it that way. Only a few of your members seem to understand that “business as usual” is no longer a viable option. The conditions in our country are no longer usual, they have become critical.

If you are reluctant to battle on principle because you may not have the votes, or the Senate will shoot it down, please note that when an underdog football team has a powerhouse on the schedule, they show up, get dressed and play the freakin’ game. They do not hide on the bus or refuse to leave the locker room. Their opponents may be faster, stronger and better coached, but once in a while the underdog wins. You cannot win if you refuse to get off the bus. I understand that expecting career politicians to be courageous could be classified as wishful thinking. I also understand that desiring you to stand for principles and Constitutional integrity may be asking for more than you are capable of delivering. I am aware that a principled Constitutional position may jeopardize your chances for re-election. Are you aware that some 235 years ago some men pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor? And you are worried about your image, your polling or your next election? If so, that is shameful. It is also a symptom of why we are in this current mess.

We heard you say many times during the last campaign that you had learned a lesson from the last time you had a majority, and the voters reacted with fury. I do not believe you. Learning a lesson should propel you to take bold action for the nation. Nibbling on the margins suggests that you are merely doing so for appearance’s sake. We suspect that many of you resent those of us who want smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom. Some of you believe that we are “kooks” or “wackos.” We love our country, and we do not want to watch anyone destroy it….or simply stand by while it disintegrates. Please be bold. Be courageous. Be principled, and follow the Constitution…or have the guts to amend it. We, and I, will be watching you. Remember your oath or affirmation. Our nation is at risk, and we cannot afford to have you piddling around any longer.

Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com or http://www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Left Versus Right: Statistical Distributions Applied to Geopolitics

Posted: July 22, 2011 in Americana, Banks, Campaign Promises, Capitalism, China, Christianity, Communications, Constitution, Dianne Feinstein, Economy, Faith, Finance, Freedom, Freedom Talk Netcast, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Indocrination, Jimmy Z, Media, Military, National Defense, Oppression, Orwell, Politics, Pro Life, Quotations, Rand, Rants, Religion, Second Amendment Rights, Security, Taxes, Technology, Tyranny, Uncategorized, War
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Left Versus Right: Statistical Distributions Applied to Geopolitics

by Michael Stollaire

You hear time and time again that we are a center-right country, correct? So, I automagically remember my college statistics classes and the infamous “normal bell curve,” because we come to the conclusion that the average person in America has center-right geopolitical thinking.

However, I think we are approaching a different sample distribution, with a peak on the left and on the right, which is a mini version of what went on during The Civil War, and the civil rights riots in the 1960s, which paints a totally different picture of the average citizen’s political thinking, does it not? Doing the same Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), we have the same geopolitical/ideological average, indicating that America is center-right on the political spectrum; however, we see that America itself is transforming into a nation divided.

Normal Distribution and Probability Distributions ~ Defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

We’ve got some cognitive dissonance going on in everyone’s head, because the Liberal Socialists and the Constitutional Conservatives have radically different definitions of “right” and “wrong” and “abnormal” and “normal.” Therefore, all of us are disturbed, wondering why we’re upset at what’s going on in the country. All of “us” are saying to ourselves, that something is obviously wrong with “them.” This is a perverse form of brainwashing that has transpired since circa 1900, via the mass media, alternative media, new media, etc. Indeed, we might view the vast majority of the content on television, the radio, corporate controlled internet websites and so forth as an extrapolation of Joseph Goebbels and his “Big Lie” propaganda technique. The reality is that most Americans believe what is in the news, simply because it is in the news. This is my cue to quote The Gipper.

“Trust but VERIFY!” ~ Ronald Reagan

Cognitive Dissonance ~ Defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

If we allow this trend to continue, we will see the economic and geopolitical issues present in Greece and parts of The Middle East to invade our own shores. If you think this cannot happen in America, you have taken your liberty and freedom for granted, as it certainly can and will. There is no reason to panic, but there are plenty of reasons to stand together and fight for what you feel is correct. The Great American Experiment is about allowing men and women to govern themselves, whereas the statist progressives would have you believe that you are all little children that need to be taken care of, via regulation of every aspect of your lives. San Francisco’s removal of McDonalds Happy Meal toys is an example: Should America allow people like Nancy Pelosi to decide what food you eat? I think the answer is a definitive NO, as if we allow them to regulate our food intake, they will take even more steps towards a Nanny State paradigm. What’s next? Letting them tell you what clothes you will wear, and so forth?

Draw the line in the sand, and take your country back, before it is taken from you. If your freedom and liberty is lost, it will be lost forever. We The People… UNITED WE STAND!

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” ~ Ronald Reagan

God bless you, your family and friends, and God Bless America!

Let’s get to work!

God Bless America and As Always…

Stay Strong,

~ Michael Stollaire

Original Post:

http://www.michaelstollaire.com

http://www.michael-stollaire.com

https://michaelstollaire.wordpress.com

Safety First

Posted: July 22, 2011 in Capitalism, Communications, Constitution, Economy, Finance, Oppression, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Nanny State cares about you. The Nanny State wants you to live life without facing any adverse situations….well, without facing difficulties that have not been caused by government. You see, when life throws you curve balls, those are bad. When government throws you bean balls, those are called “shared sacrifices.” The Nanny State is committed to protecting you from every type of imaginable or potential harm…except for the damages inflicted by the government. Even when I personally resent the Nanny State’s annoying meddling in my life, I could, at some level, understand the insatiable desire by the government to control so many facets of my life if they were not ideologically and agenda driven constraints. Many of the limitations and regulations do not make sense from an economic or a safety point of view, but do satisfy some misbegotten ideological purpose.

A glaring example that we have previously discussed on these pages is the banning of the incandescent light bulb in favor of the compact fluorescent variety. For the moment the House has suspended the implementation of the policy, but government never gives in, never gives up. The insanity of an ideological unproven “global warming” scare leading Congress and the EPA to ban a tried and true technology and replace it with a toxic-laden substitute illustrates the folly of much government regulation—particularly the ideological-driven rules. The collectivist attitude is blatantly apparent in this regulatory fiasco….preserve the planet from a theoretical future of global warming, but put individuals at risk with more expensive deadly products.

When any child loses his or her life, it is a tragic circumstance. According to the Product Safety Commission, in the last ten years 32 children have been mortally injured by baby cribs with sliding adjustable sides. With the publishing of the data the PSC has arbitrarily determined that ALL parents are too stupid or lack discernment to choose a crib for their children that is not so risky. So, they have banned the sliding-side infant crib, and forbade reselling of older models at garage sales and thrift shops. We are waiting for a definitive rule that bans “giving” the lethal cribs from one family member to another as has been the historical norm. While 32 deaths are regrettable and heart-breaking, the banning of the crib can, to some degree, affect nearly all of the 308 million residents of the nation.

Unlike the infant crib regulatory ban, RU-486, the “morning after pill,” is ideologically and politically correct. The statists promote unrestrained abortion, and resist any attempt to curtail the deadly industry. It is apparent that ideology trumps safety when the impact of RU-486 is examined. According to analyst David Alton of Great Britain, roughly 5-8% of RU-486 users experience severe complications…including death. So, the obvious question is “why are sliding-side baby cribs banned because of their dangerous potential when RU-486 has a much higher level of malfunctioning?” Clearly the answer is that Big Government and the Nanny State are driven by ideological considerations. Aborted children and their deceased mothers are an acceptable risk to preserve the right to destroy children at will according to the government’s priorities.

As the government and the multiplicity of agencies, bureaus and departments roam the country looking for ways to make my life better and safer, the unspoken factor is that every little regulation that makes my life safer also limits my freedom. Many would argue that the comprehensive examination conducted by the TSA at our airports is necessary to protect us from nefarious characters. We know, however, that their “so-called” random extensive observations have no basis in reality other than mere statistical happenstance. Profiling is forbidden because it may be deemed as discriminatory whereas groping small children and little old ladies in wheelchairs is considered acceptable. Once again, the Nanny State’s efforts to enhance our safety do little to make us safer and do restrict our personal liberty.

Finally, this observation does not involve product safety or the efficacy of pharmaceuticals. I wonder how can a government that is so concerned with the potential safety of every citizen when they interact with the private sector, be so nonchalant about high-level bombing using aircraft and drones? The resultant collateral damage from those sorties exceeds the losses by far from some of the issues they seek to regulate. Does our federal government practice gross discrimination by assuming that Libyan civilians or Afghanis are not as valuable as U.S. residents? Or is it that Nanny State’s real concern is for the power to control us? Our actual safety and well-being are secondary considerations. Every little regulatory element places another nail in our boxes. The motto of the new order is “safety first, liberty never, state forever.” Enjoy your safe trip toward tyranny, because it will be nearly impossible to come back.

Comment:   cearlwriting@hotmail.com     or     www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

The Jimmy Z Show ~ Reality Check Commentary: “Time To Cut Up The Credit Cards!”

Posted: July 14, 2011 in Banks, Capitalism, Communications, Constitution, Economy, Finance, Freedom, Jimmy Z, Media, Politics, Rants, Tyranny
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Jimmy Z Show: Michael Stollaire’s “Reality Check Commentary”

SIMPLY CLICK ON THIS LINK TO LISTEN TO ME DURING HOUR ONE!

THE SUBJECT: Raising The Debt Ceiling ~ TIME TO CUT UP THE CREDIT CARDS!!!