Archive | The Great Nanny State RSS feed for this section
May 24, 2014

You can choose what food you eat… IF the government approves



You are not in control of your own body. In fact you’re too stupid to know what food is right for you. Your so-called “healthy choices” are not government-approved; therefore you cannot eat what you want. So says the Ontario Court of Appeal in it’s decision in R. v. Schmidt.

[45] If there is an infringement of life, liberty and security of the person, the appellant must show that such infringement is not in accord with the principles of fundamental justice. The appellant submits that s. 18 of the HPPA and s. 15 of the Milk Act violate the principles of fundamental justice because they are arbitrary and overbroad.

[46] A law is arbitrary where there is “no connection to its objective” (emphasis in original): Bedford v. Canada, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), 2013 SCC 72, at para 111. A law is overbroad “where there is no rational connection between the purposes of the law andsome, but not all, of its impacts” (emphasis in original): Bedford, at para 112. The scientific evidence that I have already mentioned easily reaches the standard of “sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasoned apprehension of harm to permit the legislature to act”:Cochrane v. Ontario (A.G.), 2008 ONCA 718 (CanLII), 2008 ONCA 718, at para. 29, leave to appeal refused [2009] SCCA No. 105; R. v. Malmo-Levine at para. 133. The law does not offend the overbreadth principle by targeting all unpasteurized milk.

Dairy farmer Michael Schmidt isn’t a stupid man. In fact he’s quite a smart man. Back in his native Germany he obtained his master’s degree in agriculture.

Upon immigrating to Canada he discovered, to his shock, that as a farmer he could consume all the raw milk he wanted. Should he dare sell that same wholesome nutritious milk to his customers the mighty fist of the Nanny State would descend upon him mercilessly.

Acquitted of all 19 charges at his initial trial, Schmidt found himself at the mercy of Ontario Court of Justice Judge Tetley when the government appealed. Tetley found Michael Schmidt guilty of 13 of the 19 charges he previously was acquitted of and ordered him to pay fines of $9,150.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld that decision, deciding unanimously that Canadians have no right to make informed food choices for themselves.

Canadian Constitution Foundation staff lawyer Derek From said,

“The decision is deeply disappointing. The government should not be permitted to prevent individuals from choosing a means of promoting their own health when it causes no one any harm.”

Michael Schmidt added,

“It is indeed a sad reality that the courts do not take the issue of individual liberty serious enough in order to afford informed consumers the freedom to choose.”

Mere citizens are permitted to make crazy and dangerous choices all the time.

One such activity is alpine skiing. You might remember this is how Michel Trudeau, the youngest brother of would-be prime minister Justin Trudeau, died in 1998. He died in an avalanche that swept his body into Kokanee Lake, where it was never recovered.

Did we ban alpine skiing in the wake of Michel Trudeau’s untimely death? Of course not. That would be stupid. Free people make their own choices and pay their own prices. In Michel’s case he paid with his life and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s the cost of being a free person.

Drinking raw milk is a far cry from alpine skiing, yet informed consumers are refused permission to make a healthy choice for themselves and their family.

From the article “The Health Benefits of Raw Milk

Few people are aware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the last century. That’s right. Milk straight from the udder, a sort of “stem cell” of foods, was used as medicine to treat, and frequently cure some serious chronic diseases. From the time of Hippocrates to until just after World War II, this “white blood” nourished and healed uncounted millions.

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that. What’s in it that makes it so great? Let’s look at the ingredients to see what makes it such a powerful food.


Our bodies use amino acids as building blocks for protein. Depending on who you ask, we need 20-22 of them for this task. Eight of them are considered essential, in that we have to get them from our food. The remaining 12-14 we can make from the first eight via complex metabolic pathways in our cells.

Raw cow’s milk has all 8 essential amino acids in varying amounts, depending on stage of lactation. About 80% of the proteins in milk are caseins- reasonably heat stable and, for most, easy to digest. The remaining 20% or so are classed as whey proteins, many of which have important physiological effects (bioactivity). Also easy to digest, but very heat-sensitive, these include key enzymes (specialized proteins) and enzyme inhibitors, immunoglobulins (antibodies), metal-binding proteins, vitamin binding proteins and several growth factors.

I highly recommend you read the entire article. It’s quite informative and enlightening, and it has detailed citations for all its sources.

Another credible source on raw milk is Chris Kresser. In his article “Raw Milk Reality: Is Raw Milk Dangerous” he makes a point both the government and media repeatedly “overlook”:

According to the most recent review of foodborne disease outbreaks in the U.S. in 2008 by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), seafood, produce and poultry were associated with the most outbreaks. Produce is responsible for the greatest number of illnesses each year (2,062), with nearly twice as many illnesses as poultry (1,112). Dairy products are at the bottom of the list. They cause the fewest outbreaks and illnesses of all the major food categories – beef, eggs, poultry, produce and seafood.

We live in a world where government demands control over our every move. We can do whatever we want, provided we get permission from the Nanny State.

That permission is not extended to food choices, making me question yet again… How free are we really?


For a full background on this case please visit The Canadian Constitution Foundation, aka Freedom’s Defence Team.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 22, 2014

Facebook Photo Equals Child Abuse? When a Firearm is Visible… Absolutely!

Mike Ackermann, Robert Bailey liked this post


Imagine the scenario.

You post an innocent photo of your son holding a rifle on Facebook. Your son is 11 years old. He is well trained in firearm safety by you. His finger is off the trigger in the photo, just as it should be.

Some pathetic crybaby sees the photo online and calls the New Jersey Department of Children and Families who, in turn, contact the police.

Both agencies raid your home and attempt to search it. They demand to see your gun safe and all your firearms for “inspection”. When you refuse to accede to their ridiculous demands because they don’t have a search warrant these so-called authorities label you “unreasonable” and “uncooperative” and say you act “suspiciously”.

Imagine that.

Stand up for your rights and you are “unreasonable”.

Demand police respect your rights and you are “suspicious” and “uncooperative”.

Rights are inviolate. Police thugs hate that. Good cops don’t, of course, because they respect your rights but those aren’t the type of police at your door late this night.

However, the police finally do leave, but not before threatening to take your children away from you.

This is no fable; no mere story.

This is precisely the violation Shawn Moore, an NRA-certified firearms instructor and range safety officer, faced last year when some whining little ninny saw a photo on Facebook of Shawn’s son holding a rifle.

In their rush to abuse a law-abiding firearm owner these police state thugs failed to obtain a search warrant. Actually, the more likely scenario is no judge with functional brain cells would issue a search warrant based on such flimsy and absurd “evidence.”

Clearly all common sense vacated the puny brains of the minions at the New Jersey Department of Children and Families and their counterparts in the police department.

Nanny State Minion Kristen Brown, aka spokesperson for New Jersey Department of Children and Families, parroted the usual tripe about “duty” while not comprehending the meaning of the word.

“The department has a child abuse hotline for the state of New Jersey and anybody can make a call to that hotline. We are required to follow up on every single allegation that comes into the central registry. In general our role is to investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect.”

An anonymous phone call complaining of a Facebook photo of a child holding a rifle is considered an allegation of child abuse?

How absurd.



If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 12, 2014

Literary Hypocrisy Tramples Freedom of Thought and Religion


Fred & Louise Hamilton Elementary School has what’s called “Read To Myself” time. One might reasonably expect that “Read To Myself” time is when you can, you know, read to yourself from any book you want. It’s your time, right?


While you can read “Hunger Games” at Fred & Louise Hamilton Elementary School during “Read To Myself” time, don’t you dare try reading The Bible. That simply will not be tolerated.

literary-hypocrisy-tramples-freedom-of-thought-and-religionAn unnamed female student attends Fred & Louise Hamilton Elementary School. A few weeks ago during “Read To Myself” time this child discovered the error of her ways when her book of choice, The Bible, was removed from her hands by her teacher.

The teacher felt The Bible was inappropriate for this girl to read yet had no issue with other children reading “Hunger Games”.

“They are letting them read the Hunger Games, that’s kids killing kids, why can’t she read the Bible,” said parent Jennifer Muse.

If The Bible is so “inappropriate” for a child to read, why is there a copy of The Bible in the school’s library?

Michael Berry, senior counsel with the Liberty Institute, says the alleged incident happened about two weeks ago.

“So if it’s appropriate for their own library, why on Earth would it not be appropriate for their own students?”

The hypocrisy is almost too much to bear!

The school board is “investigating the incident” and already issued a statement rationalizing the removal of The Bible from a student, saying books read during “Read To Myself” time must fit certain criteria they define as “just right“.

Un huh.

The family wishes to remain anonymous to avoid any retaliation, but contacted The Liberty Institute to pursue their case.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

May 8, 2014

Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff

Attila Vaski, Mike Ackermann liked this post


Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto by Matt Kibbe is an excellent treatise on the state of liberty in the 21st century and a roadmap back to our precious Rights and Freedoms. 

While written to an American audience, the principles he outlines apply equally to we freedom-loving citizens here in Canada.

In this essential manifesto of the new libertarian movement, New York Times bestselling author and president of FreedomWorks Matt Kibbe makes a stand for individual liberty and shows us what we must do to preserve our freedom.

Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff is a rational yet passionate argument that defends the principles upon which America was founded—principles shared by citizens across the political spectrum. The Constitution grants each American the right to self-determination, to be protected from others whose actions are destructive to their lives and property. Yet as Kibbe persuasively shows, the political and corporate establishment consolidates its power by infringing upon our independence—from taxes to regulations to spying—ultimately eroding the ideals, codified in law, that have made the United States unique in history.

Kibbe offers a surefire plan for reclaiming our inalienable rights and regaining control of our lives, grounded in six simple rules:

  1. Dont-Hurt-People-and-Dont-Take-Their-StuffDon’t hurt people
    Free people just want to be left alone, not hassled or harmed by someone else with an agenda or designs over their life and property.
  2. Don’t take people’s stuff 
    America’s founders fought to ensure property rights and our individual right to the fruits of our labors.
  3. Take responsibility 
    Liberty takes responsibility. Don’t sit around waiting for someone else to solve your problems.
  4. Work for it 
    For every action there is an equal reaction. Work hard and you’ll be rewarded.
  5. Mind your own business
    Free people live and let live.
  6. Fight the power
    Thanks to the Internet and the decentralization of knowledge, there are more opportunities than ever to take a stand against corrupt authority.

These 6 rules are simple, but as with most things “simple”, they are not easy. 

Defending Rights and Freedoms Takes WorkOur own complacency is the first roadblock to kick in.  Someone else will do it.  I don’t have time.  I’m too tired… the excuses we make for our own inaction are endless.  The very first thing we must do is kick ourselves in the behind and do what is put in front of us to do.

That’s all.

Fighting for our Liberty takes effort.  It takes time.  It often takes money, too.

Each and every one of us must prioritize what is most important to us and act accordingly.

If defending Liberty is important to you it, your actions will show it.  If your actions are not showing your commitment, then you and only you can do something about it.

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

January 14, 2013

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee – How did this America-hating, anti-gun zealot get elected in Texas?


Texas, at least in my mind, is the one place where the Liberty mindset still resides in America.

The famous phrase “Don’t Mess With Texas!” is one I’ve heard more times than I can even remember and it instills in me a sense of pride, knowing there is a place on the planet where stupidity can’t take root.

My own memories of Texas back in the late ‘80s are some of the fondest I have, and the people I met there were proud, Liberty-minded folks who would give you the shirt off their backs if that’s what you needed. Those Texans were some of the finest human beings you could ever hope to meet.

Given that experience, when I see a chucklehead spouting off on the evening news that Americans should “just turn in your guns”… the very last place I would think this chucklehead calls home is Texas!

Yet, sadly, that’s precisely the case.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee wants you to turn in your guns

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee
wants you to turn in your guns

The chucklehead I’m referring to is Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat (I’m shocked!) who somehow managed to get herself elected in the Lone Star State despite her misguided notions of what Texas and Liberty stand for.

I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” she said.

Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America,” she added.

Ah yes, the beauty of “the politics of inclusion” where you’re only included if you agree with Liberal stupidity.

The implication this woman is making is quite clear. If you own guns, you’re no longer “part of America“.

If you’re not offended by that, please check your pulse.

Sheila Jackson Lee clearly has never read the United States Constitution, nor did she comprehend a single word of the Oath of Office she swore… you know… that pesky little statement where she swears to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is offensive to everything America stands for. That she calls Texas home only heightens that offensiveness.

As for Dick’s Sporting Goods, they are not “being part of the solution”, they’re pandering to political correctness.

Out of respect for the victims and their families, during this time of national mourning we have removed all guns from sale and from display in our store nearest to Newtown and suspended the sale of modern sporting rifles in all of our stores chainwide.”

What Dick’s Sporting Goods is saying by “boldly” stating they will no longer sell “modern sporting rifles” to law-abiding Americans is an insult to any rational human being.

A mentally-ill criminal went on a murderous rampage in Newtown, Connecticut, and Dick’s Sporting Goods solution is to hold every single law-abiding person in America responsible for that crime.

That is insulting. That is offensive.

I will never spend a single penny atDick's Sporting Goods.

I will never spend a single penny at
Dick’s Sporting Goods.

I just added Dick’s Sporting Goods to my list of businesses I will never patronize.

Any company that willingly vilifies hundreds of millions of innocent people for the heinous crimes of one mentally-ill criminal is not a company I want anything to do with.

They will never see a single penny of my hard-earned cash, and I would suggest they never see a penny of yours either.

By straddling both sides of the fence they show themselves for what they are: cowards terrified of their own shadows willing to pander to the very forces that would put them out of business.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

Millions of law-abiding Americans didn’t shoot anyone yesterday.

We didn’t shoot anyone today.

We’re not going to shoot anyone tomorrow, either.

And we’re NOT going to stand idly by while Constitution-haters like Congress-Critter Sheila Jackson Lee and the cowards at Dick’s Sporting Goods try and hold us responsible for the crimes of others.

Deal with it.

Now you can have my handgun

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 28, 2012

Canadian Sheeple are just as silly as their American Cousins!



On December 4th, 2012, I wrote an article titled “30% of Americans are Nanny State Sheeple” in which I asked the question

What’s become of the “Greatest Nation on Earth”?

In that article I discussed my abject horror with a study showing over 30% of Americans would willingly submit to oral, anal and vaginal cavity searches if it meant they could board an airplane.

What is so distressing about that statistic is it shows just how far America has fallen from the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave. As I wrote in that article,

Happy-Sheeple-250x181What has happened to the fabric of America, that former bastion of Liberty and Freedom, when this many Americans would willingly submit themselves to cavity searches, stun bracelets and sexual assault by government agents just so they can hop on an airplane?

I find it ironic that a few short weeks after writing that, a study asking Canadians if they are willing to give up any of their Liberty for Freedom should come out…

The poll, conducted by Leger Marketing on behalf of the Association for Canadian Studies (download presentation) showed Americans and Canadians were pretty much equal when it came to their willingness to be terrorized by the State if it meant they could feel more secure.

Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies, came to the very dubious conclusion that

“Canadians are very protective of their rights. They value their rights to a considerable extent and are reluctant to make compromises.”

That’s a very generous interpretation of the data.

While newspapers across the nation trumpeted how “Most Canadians not willing to give up civil liberties to combat terrorism,” the politest thing I could say is that these newspapers took great liberty with the definition of the word “most”.

Sixty percent is hardly “most”. It’s barely a majority.

Thirty-one percent of Canadians said they were willing to give up their liberty for the illusion of security. That’s almost one third of the nation! Eleven percent of poll respondents chickened out completely, saying they didn’t know (9%) or didn’t want to say (2%).

Stupid-Sheep-250x248When 31% of Canadians are willing to give up their Rights and Freedoms just so they can “feel” secure, I have to wonder what’s happened to the fabric of our great nation.

I know that some Canadians are very protective of their Rights and Freedoms. I know that some Canadians are “reluctant to make compromises” when it comes to their Rights and Freedoms. You’re reading this article right now.

As for “most” Canadians… not by a long shot… Which means the task of educating our fellow Canadians about the importance of our Rights and Freedoms and why we must defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, may just be a wee bit bigger than originally thought.

As you may already know, every week I publish the Canadian Rights and Freedoms Bulletin, a weekly roundup of the good, the bad and the ugly about the state of affairs for our precious Rights and Freedoms.

Spreading the word about the Canadian Rights and Freedoms Bulletin is one small way you can help me educate our countrymen and women about what we’re losing, what we have already lost, and the battles we face in defending our Rights.

Yes, it’s a big battle, but many hands make light work…

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 5, 2012

When Compliance with the Nanny State is More Important than Education



Andrea Hernandez just wants to get an education. She is, by all accounts I can find, a good student. She’s also a human being who understands we must never allow ourselves to be tracked like pieces of meat in a grocery store.

Andrea-Hernandez-protests-RFID-tracking-chips-250x198Andrea Hernandez decided that when her high school issued mandatory RFID-enabled high school ID cards, she would not be a sheep. Andrea Hernandez objects to the tracking chip for many reasons, including her personal right to privacy and also for religious reasons. For that Andrea is to be commended.

Andrea, backed by her parents, wrote a letter to the school expressing her Christian religious objections and was promptly told by school officials that “there will be consequences for refusal to wear an ID card.”

As a result of Andrea’s determination to be a free American citizen, her high school threatened to kick her out. For that, the bureaucratic thugs at John Jay High School ought to be ashamed of themselves.

In today’s Brave New America we are absolutely intolerant of individuality.

John Jay High School is one of many schools who want to track students’ every move inside school facilities. Why is beyond me, since kids have managed to get educated for centuries in America without being tracked like… well, like pieces of meat.

It makes sense to track pieces of meat through our food supply chains. Should something go horribly awry at the meat processing plant we can track down each and every bit of contaminated cow and destroy it.

That actually makes sense.

But tracking the movements of kids throughout the school, every minute of every day? Is this really necessary?

NO, it is not.

Unconditional obedience to the State is not an American value. In fact it’s the exact opposite of an American value, and that’s precisely why the incessant tracking of our children must be fought everywhere it rears its ugly Nanny State head.

Once found, that head should be cut off and mounted on a stick for all the world to see, perhaps with a sign underneath that says “Liberty Lives Here”…

It’s just a thought.

In reality, this isn’t actually about tracking the kids at all. Not really. It’s about money. Government money. And being good little bureaucratic minions, the San Antonio School District wants more government money. The path to that mythical pot of gold runs directly through student attendance records. The more kids they can prove are attending class, the more money they can beg from the government, hence the intense push to track the movements of every single student in John Jay High School.

The Rutherford Institute took on Andrea Hernandez’ case and filed a temporary restraining order against the high school. A Bexar County judge agreed, and for the moment Andrea is “allowed” to attend classes without the mandated RFID chip tracking her movements.

“The court’s willingness to grant a temporary restraining order is a good first step, but there is still a long way to go—not just in this case, but dealing with the mindset, in general, that everyone needs to be monitored and controlled,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“Regimes in the past have always started with the schools, where they develop a compliant citizenry. These ‘Student Locator’ programs are ultimately aimed at getting students used to living in a total surveillance state where there will be no privacy, and wherever you go and whatever you text or email will be watched by the government.”

John Whitehead isn’t wrong.

This restraining order is only a temporary measure, however, and there is a long legal road ahead of Andrea and the Rutherford Institute.

If you feel strongly about the issue of personal privacy and wish to support Andrea Hernandez’ case, please contact Nisha Whitehead at the Rutherford Institute directly.

There is one final tidbit of hypocrisy to report, of course.

School officials quietly tried bribing Andrea Hernandez with an uninterrupted education if she would just wear a badge that did not contain the tracking chip so everyone would see her “compliance” with the Student Locator Project, as it’s so lovingly called.

My question is the obvious one, of course.

If it’s okay for Andrea not to wear the tracking chip ID card, why should everyone else wear one?

Oh silly me. What was I thinking??? Think of all the money they’ll lose of every student refuses to comply, just like Andrea!

How will we train kids to be good little automatons if we allow them to think for themselves, protect their personal privacy and have their own thoughts on religion?

How very anti-Nanny State of me.

I’m sure the censors will be coming for me shortly…

If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

December 4, 2012

30% of Americans are Nanny State Sheeple



The TSA, surprisingly, does not currently perform oral, anal or vaginal cavity searches, but the shocking statistic that 30% of Americans would willingly submit to body cavity searches by TSA agents horrified me.

The poll, conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of, showed that an astronomically high percentage of Americans would willingly submit themselves to degradation by TSA agents.

The phrase “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” has clearly lost its lustre.

In the same poll, a shocking 37% of respondents said they would willingly wear a stun bracelet just so long as they could fly the friendly skies with little delay. A stun bracelet is similar to a taser, but it can be operated remotely and can immobilize a single passenger at will.

What kind of sheep would willingly don such a device?

American sheep.

In this poll over one third of respondents (35%) said it was “completely acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable” for TSA agents to touch the genital areas of passengers.


What has happened to the fabric of America, that former bastion of Liberty and Freedom, when this many Americans would willingly submit themselves to cavity searches, stun bracelets and sexual assault by government agents just so they can hop on an airplane?

The America of my youth, or at least the America I fantasize existed in my youth, would never allow this garbage to go on, but in the 21st century thoughts of Liberty and Freedom seem far from the minds of many Americans.

Today’s American appears to be willing to sacrifice any amount of Liberty and Freedom for even the slightest perception of “security”.

Where have all the real Americans gone?


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

November 14, 2012

Libby Davies and the Nanny State Sodium Squad



The Great Nanny State will take care of you. At least that’s the plan if NDP health critic (and Nanny State Nutbar) Libby Davies gets her way.

Like all good socialists, Libby Davies believes the answer to every problem is the expansion of the Nanny State. In her eyes there is no such thing as a problem that another government bureaucracy can’t solve.

Her latest Nanny State notion is the creation of a bureaucracy to, get this, manage the eating habits of Canadians so they don’t eat too much salt. Libby’s Lunatic Fringe wants this bureaucracy to force all food manufacturers to register their food products with them, along with the amount of sodium they contain.

Davies tabled Private Members Bill 460 to implement what she calls a “national sodium strategy” to combat high-salt diets. The bill’s full name is “An Act Respecting the Implementation of the Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada”, but it really ought to be called “An Act to Implement Nanny State Oversight of Your Kitchen.”

Her plan would force food producers to add warning labels to food packaging, just like cigarette manufacturers must place on cigarette packages today.

“I mean my bill says that basically the labeling, making it clear that they’re not meeting the guidelines and that they’re contributing to cardiovascular diseases and so on, would have to be 50% the size of the lettering of the product,” Davies told reporters this week.

It would also create a “Sodium Reduction Advisory Committee” that would report to Canada’s Minister of Health.

Sodium is the new Satan in Libby Davies’ mind, and she won’t stop until she’s prevented every single Canadian from reaching for the salt shaker.

If it sounds like I have nothing but utter contempt for Libby Davies, the Nanny State and this ridiculous bill, it’s only because I do.

We’re not a nation of 4-year-olds, and it is high time idiots like Libby Davies figured this out.

Any person with an ounce of common sense (which clearly excludes Libby Davies) would look to education to teach people about making healthy food choices. Education actually makes sense, so that’s why Davies does not want it. Why educate people when you can create a new government bureaucracy to control them instead?

Brian Lilley made a great comment on his blog, Lilley’s

“Pierre Elliott Trudeau famously said that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation, but today Canada’s progressive left thinks they should be running every other part of our lives.”

Sadly, the majority of Canadians love Nanny State bureaucracies like Libby Davies’ proposed Salt Police. Canadians, by and large, are happy to abdicate their personal responsibility in favour of being told what to do by some faceless government bureaucrat.

Brian Lilley went on to say exactly what was on my mind when I heard of Libby Davies’ Nanny State Nonsense:

“Quite frankly, I’m tired of other people telling me what to do and how to live and to be honest, these people aren’t smart enough to run my life.”

Will this sort of stupidity ever end?

Yes, it will. It will end when we employ our Canadian Common Sense and tell government to stay out of our kitchens, as well as the rest of our lives.

Just Say NO to the Nanny State.


If you enjoy the articles I write here on, how about buying me a coffee to show your appreciation?

Go To Top
Get Adobe Flash player