Not a YouTube fan? Watch it here: https://vid.me/xZDX
Not a YouTube fan? Watch it here: https://vid.me/xZDX
If a Colorado initiative gets its way 49 other states are going to be looking like anarcho-capitalist havens. Initiative 29 or the “Preservation of a Natural childhood” could make selling smartphones, tablets, and any sort of handheld wireless technology to anyone aged 13 and younger illegal which is anything but natural.
The title attempts to conjure up delightful images of a childhood free from responsibility, being driven to hockey practice, playing late into the night, and the parental figures providing all of life’s necessities. Initiative 29 capitalizes on feel good impressions, disregarding thousands of years of personal advancements.
However, this image is very unnatural. Neither electricity or cars are part of a natural childhood, and as comedian Jim Gaffigan puts it neither is using the bathroom indoors. We are surrounded by the unnatural. Colorado Initiative 29 capitalizes on your feel good impressions, disregarding thousands of years of positive advancements.
Expectantly the announcement has raised concern over state paternalism, but there are much more meaningful and deeper issues at play. Advocates are overlooking huge benefits of these technologies and are seeing smartphones as the cause of idleness rather than as the symptom. They are turning families and businesses into criminals overnight.
This is one of those topics that is going to bring about a lot of strong opinions in both directions. Like, on one hand, this technology is, in fact, the future of our nation and these innovations are moving fast. The kids in this area are going to be terribly behind the times without at least some limited access, and will be behind their peers when they leave for college. On the other hand, these kids may have a leg up in developing personal relationships and handling people face to face instead of forcing people to only communicate with them via text.
We all know, however, how this is actually going to work out, and how this is all going to be a useless mute point. Let’s say the law passes. Great! Now mom goes in and buys a phone, tells the sales person the phone is for her, and when she gets home she passes it off to Little Johnny anyway and tells him not to look at porn, now leave mommy alone while she has some wine.
The same as it is right now. Because when is the last time you saw a 13 year old buy their own $900 iPhone anyway? The only thing that is changing here is that parents just won’t tell the sales people that the phone is for their kid. It isn’t actually going to accomplish anything.
“Charlie suffers from a mitochondrial disease that destroys the muscles and the brain,” explained Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, on Thursday. “There was no available treatment in the United Kingdom, and so Charlie’s parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, raised $1.6 million to fly him to the United States for an experimental treatment. But the hospital argued that the treatment wouldn’t help Charlie, and would prolong his suffering, and that they knew better than the parents who had to suffer through his illness and care for him every single day. Thus, the hospital argued that it would be in Charlie’s best interest to die.”
I’m sure a lot of you have already seen this story. But I wanted to talk about it anyway. I’m not an emotional person, I’m not a parent who gets the feels when they see an article about a sick child. But this one is really bothering me. I am literally tearing up as I’m writing this because I can’t stand it. I feel so awful for this baby and his poor parents that I could just scream.
And if you think this isn’t headed straight for the USA, you aren’t paying attention.
We have a treatment for this – experimental or not – because our system allows for medical innovation. The single payer system doesn’t allow for as much innovation.
Aside from that, think about what happened here. These parents raised $1.6 million dollars to get their child over here for this treatment, and the government in the UK with their single payer system decided they were not going to allow the parents to do this. Nevermind that the parents worked to raise the money. Nevermind that people cared enough about this child to help. Nevermind that there is a treatment available that could potentially help the child. And I’m sorry, whether it ends up helping him or not, the parents have a right to try. They have a right to do everything in their power to save their child. If the child dies anyway, fine. But at least they did everything they could for their child.
This is why I want government our of my healthcare. We’ve had horror stories from our readers and collected stories from around the internet. I told you folks one time about my friend in Canada who had to bring his mother here for hip replacement after their system kept telling her “18 more months,” all the while she was in screaming agony and couldn’t walk. I’ve told you about how, if government is funding a single payer system, they’d have the right to tell you how to live your life, what activities you could take part in, what kinds of cars you could drive, and they could deny you care based on an objection to your lifestyle of choice. And because it is taxpayer funded, they’d have every right in the world to do so.
This is another side effect. The government can now tell you that, regardless of whether or not you have the money, we’re not going to allow you to get treatment because we don’t approve it and think we know better. Maybe it’s your lifestyle, or maybe it’s because it wasn’t our own country’s innovation or treatment. Whatever it is, the government says no, even if it means certain death.
And if you think it won’t happen here, you are a damn idiot.
The Democratic base is growing increasingly frustrated with former President Barack Obama’s actions after leaving office, including a seemingly endless tour of millionaire and billionaire luxury retreats, according to Democrats and activists contacted by Fox News.
Sit back for a minute and mark this day in your calendar. I’m about to defend Obama.
Point 1: He isn’t anyone’s president anymore. His time is done. It isn’t his job to energize the base, win votes, influence politics, etc. His job is done, over. He no longer needs to pander to the masses.
Point 2: The man has already done numerous speeches and I am sure he’ll have butt tons more coming down. He’s got books out, and I’m sure he’s got more coming down there, too. I don’t know if he got any money by questionable means, that isn’t for me to decide or speculate on. But he’s got the money. It’s his. He can do with it as he pleases.
Point 3: Your opinion on how he spends the money, what kind of vacations he is taking, etc. are completely irrelevant. As long as the tax payer isn’t funding the damn things, it isn’t your business. I’m sure we are paying something because I’m sure he has security with him, but the bulk of it is coming from his own pocket now. That part is none of your business.
Point 4: The only reason people whine about how “rich” and “luxurious” someone else’s lifestyle is is because they are jealous as all get out. That’s the problem with 98% of the people who complain about the “1%” and demand anyone making more than $250,000 a year pay their “fair share,” which seems to increase exponentially every time it is brought up. They aren’t making that kind of money and are jealous as all get out. Look, I’m not making nearly that much, either. My jobs have all been pretty low paying. The difference is, I don’t begrudge anyone else their wealth. It’s yours. Live the life.
Point 5: Unless you can prove to me that he is stealing from someone else or hurting someone, I don’t give a crap about how much he is spending on vacations. And you shouldn’t, either. If you are tired of seeing the pictures, stop following him. No one is forcing you to look.
Point 6: If you are jealous and can admit that to yourself, then go out and get you some. It may take a lot of work, and you may never actually get there. But no one is stopping you from trying.
“The City failed them when they adopted a policy of restraint and issued stand-down orders, caring more about the public perception that they feared would result with increased police presence than preventing what were clearly preventable riots,” the lawyer for the businesses suing the city said.
If you recall, during the riots, the police were told to stand down and we were all told we had to let people protest as they see fit because they were angry.
In the meantime, businesses in Baltimore bore the brunt of it. Businesses that were not involved in the death of Freddie Gray, could not have helped him, and were not voicing opinions on the occurrence.
These business owners had to sit back and watched their businesses were busted up, looted, burned to the ground, etc. as the cops stood by doing nothing to stop the riots or defend the businesses. These were real people that paid the price for something they were not involved in, because the USA’s snowflakes have decided that the best way to protest is to destroy their own towns, communities, and neighbors, and then cry about their situations later.
Personally, I wish these business owners the best and I hope they win.
The court voted 5-3, in Murr V. Wisconsin, a closely watched Fifth Amendment property rights case. The case arose from a dispute over two tiny parcels of land along the St. Croix River in western Wisconsin and morphed into a major property rights case that drew several western states into the debate before the court.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a scathing dissent, wrote that ruling was a significant blow for property rights and would give greater power to government bureaucrats to pass rules that diminish the value of property without having to compensate property owners under the Firth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
“Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet,” said Holger Münch, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office.
Sounds like a liberal paradise to me.
This isn’t my idea of a “free society,” and if you are reading this, chances are, you agree. But when you let one group decide what is hateful and what constitutes violence, this is what you get… a tyranny where the people still think they are free.
And if you think this isn’t the goal of our current set of SJW snowflakes, you have your head in the sand. Thank God we have a Constitution and a Supreme Court that, so far, are keeping us from getting to this point. But it could be in our lifetimes that Germany’s idea of a “free society” comes here to the USA, making us far less free.
If you think it’s far off, ask Wild Bill for America how his trip to Canada went.