Tag Archives: EPA

LaHood to push for disabling cell phones in cars

I wrote last year about Ray LaHoods desire to “coerce Americans out of” their cars. His plan is to make driving as uncomfortable, inconvenient and expensive as possible.

So now he wants to prevent the use of cell phones in cars due to the “distraction” factor. He says the technology is out there to disable phones in cars. I keep asking myself, is this what the progressive left really want? Do all those college students who support the Obama agenda really want to give up their phones?

And where do distractions in cars end? How many parents will be leaving their kids at home because the “Mom! he’s looking at me again!” screeches from the backseat are a distraction?  How about a bottle of water while you’re driving, not to mention a burger and fries? Or God forbid – a cigarette!!!I don’t want my family out on the highway without a cell phone. Hell, I don’t want to be out on the highway without mine.

Where does it end? At $10/gallon gas? Not only will that “coerce” us out of our cars but out of the grocery store and malls, too. Which in turn, means job loss to millions more.

A year ago LaHood was talking about chips in cars that would monitor gas consumption which would then be taxed as part of the carbon footprints BS, which in turn would be part of crap-n-tax that the EPA will be trying to enforce on us, all the while walking around congress.

Oh, what a tangled web they weave . . .Non-elected officials writing laws that will dramatically and fundamentally change our lives and our nation.

It’s all about protecting us right out of our jobs, our healthcare, all our civil liberties in what has become an obscene desire to control every aspect of our lives, by the ruling class. They know better than the rest of us how to spend our money and what’s best for our health and welfare. How many rights will be enough? When do we finally say enough?

2 years of this has been scary. Another term with this regime will mark the end of America as we’ve known and loved it.


Deconstructing some media bias

from USNews.com:

In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue.

Dontcha just love this media bias? For whom is the Second Amendment controversial? And why is it? It’s pretty clear to anyone who is literate:

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.

But the media love to throw in these buzz words and phrases – like controversial – to confuse and/or manipulate the readers thought process. And isn’t it kinda strange to call anything in the Constitution “controversial”? I don’t believe that the Founders intended for that document to be “controversial”. I really believe that they wanted the people to understand it, wrote it so that the people would understand it and they didn’t expect that over 2 centuries later we would need constitutional attorneys to explain it to us.

But hey, that’s just me.

The decision was a huge victory for the National Rifle Association which just seven days ago asked that the EPA reject the petition, suggesting that it was a back door attempt to limit hunting and impose gun control. It also was a politically savvy move to take gun control off the table as the Democrats ready for a very difficult midterm election.

This is the real reason that the EPA dropped this whole thing. The NRA had nothing to do with it, even though they are absolutely correct that this is nothing more than the first step on the ladder to gun control. It was the administration that sent word to the EPA to lay off the bullet thing in order to make it easier on the Democrats who are swimming against what we all hope and pray will  be a tsunami this election year.

And then there’s this from ABCNews.go.com:,

A conservative Alabama Democrat often criticized for backing Nancy Pelosi as House speaker dodged a question about supporting her again next year by saying she might get sick and die before he has to decide.

If someone is going to say something tasteless, rude or stupid, it will have to be someone with the CONSERVATIVE label before their name, whether they are Democrats or pachyderms makes no difference. The media is going to make damned sure they work that word in, anytime they can smear those who have a conservative ideology.