Again, anti-freedom, but boy do they squeal when THEY get oppressed!
Miracle of miracles: The New York Times finally has found an industry regulation it doesn’t like. The other day the gray lady denounced “Britain’s Press Crackdown,” which it described as an “attempt to rein in [Britain’s] reckless tabloid newspapers”—but one that would “chill free speech and threaten the survival of small publishers and Internet sites.” Such regulations, the paper said, “would do more harm than good” because “an unfettered press is essential to democracy.”
To put things mildly, this is not the standard posture for The Times—which currently is pounding away in an editorial series demanding more regulation of guns and gun owners. And when America’s No. 1 paper is not treating the Second Amendment like No. 2, it is demanding tougher regulation of the banking industry. And the food industry. And power plants. And home-care aides. And on and on. “Government regulations,” the paper declared in an editorial last year on “The Phony Regulation Debate,” “keep the air and water clean, improve the safety of consumer products, reduce workplace hazards, and prevent destructive financial practices.”
In short, regulation is great—except when it comes to the press….After Hurricane Sandy struck last fall, “Today” reporter Jeff Rossen did an exposé on how some contractors were “preying on” homeowners. How? By performing repair work without the proper licenses. Rossen found several contractors who lacked home-improvement licenses, but only one consumer who had been taken advantage of—and that was two months before Sandy struck. His big story boiled down to the fact that some Sandy-related tree removal and home repair work was carried out without prior government permission….It was a similar story with The Washington Post, which recently ran a lengthy, front-page article on the dangers posed by Virginia’s ostensibly too-lax standards for small family child care businesses. The paper termed those home-based businesses “unlicensed, unregulated, unmonitored, and perfectly legal.” But what about the reporter, Brigid Schulte? Does she have a license to report the news, or think journalists should be licensed? She didn’t answer those questions, either.
This is a prime example of “Useful Idiots”, Nanny-state fans LOVE the idea of the Nanny state because they THINK they get to be the Nanny. Pro-freedom activists know that the number of nannies needed in a Nanny State is quite small, so supporting it is wrapping chains around their own neck.
Well then there’s that whole caring for others, thing. I’m for gay marriage, but I’m not gay. I’m for legalizing drugs, but for me a Martini is really all I need to unwind. I’m for keeping abortion legal, even tho I see it as murder of the unborn, but I also see it as an easy black-market crime that will kill many more healthy women than save babies.
I like to point out how furious anti-gun people get when we start talking about “Car Death” instead of “Gun Death”…they hate it because THEY OWN CARS! They don’t own guns, or own guns so ill-used that they’d hardly notice if they were confiscated, or feel their political connections will protect their guns. Hey but CARS, man don’t come for my CAR!!!
Oddly enough these anti-freedom activists think they can pick and choose from the bill of rights, and that if you can shoot a deer or a duck with a caplock muzzle-loader then “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. If a person can be searched by the police for walking down the street or entering an airport then The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”….but that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” will totally protect them because it means what it says….well except for the part where Christians and Jews are allowed to worship, because they HATE that part!
Good luck guys!
h/t Mrs. Weer’d