"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
- Thomas Jefferson
It's getting more obvious that our government wants to make some personal decisions for us and our children. As an example, has anyone else noticed that parental authority is slowly being eroded. If you think that I'm making something out of nothing, please note this from Liberty Council Action, April 11, 2013: "Recently U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that home schooling is not a parent's right."
So there you have it - straight from the from the mouth of the attorney general of the United States. What it means is that the right of the parents is trumped by the U.S. government. One might think that he may have made a mistake - a slip of the tongue, so-to-speak. However, it goes on to say:
"The Administration openly acknowledges that parents who attempt to home school face their children being taken away, declaring there is no universal right to home school."
They could take your children away? That's what it says. It says the government, not mom and pop, can make certain decisions for their children.
But does our president really feel that way? Well, let's look further so we are sure. We don't want to accuse our administration of something that is not true. The following will shed a little more light:
In his State of the Union speech of Jan. 26, 2012, President Barack Obama said, "So tonight, I call on every state to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn 18." Certainly, I believe in and encourage a good education. But I believe that it should be a family decision- not a government decision.
Recently, we have become aware there is another personal decision that is not ours to make, because the administration has already made the decision for us. It is now telling us what kind of a health plan we should have. Insurance companies have found it necessary to cancel policies because they do not meet government standards. If you chose a policy because you believed it was a policy that will meet your needs, it could be canceled because our government said it's not a good policy - it knows best what's good for you. So that's another instance where a personal decision has become a governmental decision.
It goes on. You may remember this from the New York Times:
"New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity."
Of course, Mr. Bloomberg, those large glasses of soda are not good for children or anyone. But neither is ice cream or doughnuts. Cake and pies are loaded with sugar and calories. Then there is candy. Most everyone loves candy.
So, Mr. Bloomberg, should we put limitations on all of the "junk" food?
Of course, know our government certainly wouldn't go that far - or would it?
So where does it stop? Where do we draw the line?
If we believe it is all right for our government to ban just a few of the things that it has decided are not good for us, then I'll say it the way Al Jolson would have said, "Folks, you ain't seen nothin' yet."