The main platform of the Progressives is that you are all sheep, too stupid to make decisions for yourself. They are well versed in using taxpayer dollars to lobby against those that don’t follow their agenda. They speak loudly about those evil corporate lobby groups but say nothing about the ones they fund with tax payer dollars designed to control every aspect of your life.
Started out as a noble cause, but now has been perverted into a neo-prohibitionist movement.
Even MADD’s founder, Candy Lightner, has lamented that the organization has grown neo-prohibitionist in nature.
“[MADD has] become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned …,” Lightner is quoted as saying in an Aug. 6 story in the Washington Times. “I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving,” she said.
Unfortunately, the tax-exempt organization has become so enmeshed with government it has nearly become a formal government agency. MADD gets millions of dollars in federal and state funding, and has a quasi-official relationship with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In some jurisdictions, DWI defendants are sentenced to attend and pay for alcoholic-recovery groups sponsored by MADD. In many cities, MADD officials are even allowed to man sobriety checkpoints alongside police.
This neo-prohibitionist movement is now interjecting in Family Court.
MADD is also pushing its agenda onto family laws, including a zero tolerance policy for divorced parents. Under the bills MADD is trying to push through state legislatures, a parent caught consuming one beer or glass of wine before driving could face penalties that, according to MADD, “should include, but are not limited to” — “incarceration,” “change of primary custody,” or “termination of parental rights.” This means that if you take your kid to the game, have a beer in the third inning, then drive home, you could very well lose your rights as a father.
CDC has interjected its recommended tax funding.
From 1999-2004, most states will receive a combined average of $41 billion from settlements with the tobacco companies. The median CDC funding estimate for all the recommended programs is $14.5 billion, or 35.4%. For small states (less than 3 million people), $7-20 per person would cover the costs of implementing all of the CDC recommended programs. In large states (more than 7 million people), this cost would be lower: $5-16 per person. Perhaps funding for these programs is simply a matter of legislative priorities.
These neo-prohibitionist groups call for bans on private property, yes a business is still private property in America. These bans are based on questionable science that would not hold up in a court of law. The sad part of this they even admit to it on page 21 of the 2006 Surgeon Generals report.
L. Osteen, Sr., in the North Carolina Federal District
Court criticized the approach EPA had used to select
studies for its meta-analysis and criticized the use of 90
percent rather than 95 percent confidence intervals for
the summary estimates (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative
Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 857 F. Supp. 1137 [M.D.N.C. 1993]). In
December 2002, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
threw out the lawsuit on the basis that tobacco companies
cannot sue the EPA over its secondhand smoke
report because the report was not a final agency action
and therefore not subject to court review (Flue-Cured
Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-2407
[4th Cir., December 11, 2002], cited in 17.7 TPLR 2.472
Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
this methodology to summarize the available data
when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
by conventional statistical indices, because of
biases either within the observational studies or produced
by the manner of their selection.
Yet tobacco control presents these findings as scientific fact. It does not matter that a federal court and the Congressional Research Service did not concur with the findings. They have gotten away with their junk science for so long that they are brazen about using junk science. Yesterday Dr Michael Siegel (a former member of Tobacco Control) Posted on his blog.
Today, I am revealing that an anti-smoking research group in California has admitted, in its grant application summary itself, that the purpose of the research is to generate data that will support a pre-determined conclusion that thirdhand smoke is toxic to exposed nonsmokers in order to promote smoking bans in private homes.
Yet anti-smoking activist like founder of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) John Banzaf calls for the use of this junk science in child custody cases.
In addition, in many of the states which now protect foster children from tobacco smoke, smoking is banned in the home even when the child is not present, another indication of the need to protect children from third hand as well as second hand tobacco smoke, says Banzhaf.
Indeed, says Banzhaf, who heads Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), as the dangers of tobacco smoke residue become more widely known, both judges and legislators are likely to extend to nonsmokers the same protections from third hand tobacco smoke the law now extends regarding tobacco smoke itself.
The food police have taken lessons from Tobacco Control
“It will be much more difficult to establish internationally binding instruments or conventions like those achieved in tobacco control. Nevertheless, their importance in bringing about changes in national behaviour should not be under-rated,” they say.
Potential international standards might cover issues such as marketing restrictions for unhealthy food products, restrictions on the advertising and availability of unhealthy products in schools, or potential price or tax measures to reduce the demand for unhealthy products.
“The public attention generated by the discussion and formulation of such standards may set general standards for corporate conduct without being potentially unacceptable and even generate enough political capital for national legislation,” they conclude.
Bans on food are already showing up across the nation. Salt,transfats and one of America’s favorite beverages the soft drink.
Are we doomed to be a Nanny State Nation, and should our tax dollars be used to lobby against freedom and us.
Obama Care gives them even more power, even the the left leaning ACLU sees the danger.