Better Than Drudge

recent posts

about

Here Comes Peter Cottontail Hopping Down the Statist Trail: Feds Fine Missouri Farmer $90,000

  2052845_low By Selwyn Duke

The definition of “totalitarian” is: “of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. [Emphasis added.]” And while we’re not quite there yet — we still do hear other (mostly stupid) opinions — read the following and tell me if our government doesn’t meet the italicized portion of the above definition.

Rural Missouri farmer John Dollarhite was just fined $90,000 by our central government for engaging in a commercial endeavor. 

Was he an illegal alien running drugs across our border?

No, such people benefit from a Department of Injustice that takes their side against Border Patrol agents.  

Was a prostitution ring being run out of his home?

No, such people are rewarded with reelection to Congress.

Rather, Dollarhite’s dastardly sin was that he started a business selling rabbits.

Read the rest here.

Posted in , , , ,

2 responses to “Here Comes Peter Cottontail Hopping Down the Statist Trail: Feds Fine Missouri Farmer $90,000”

  1. Philip France Avatar
    Philip France

    I take exception when Selwyn (and others) refer to “liberals” as “liberals”. Sure, I realize that everyone knows what he means and toward who he is referring to but overwhelmingly, “liberals” are NOT “liberal”.
    The term “liberal” has its roots in the word “liberty”. For centuries, American patriots (as well as patriots to other nationalities – albeit less so than in the United States) understood liberty to mean “so long as my liberty does not impinge on yours, I should be free to do whatever I please”.
    The modern “liberal” is only “liberal” with regard to sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll, as well as a sympathy-for-the-devil attitude regarding crime; so long that the crime was committed by a favored victim group (and so long as the victim of the crime was not identified as a member of a MORE favored victim group).
    Other than these exceptions, the modern “liberals” are actually Illiberal. They are statists. They are Marxist control-freaks. They wish to impose their will unilaterally and universally. Why is the anthropologically-correct term “Negro” verboten? Why shouldn’t I enjoy a Chinese-cuisine meal laden with MSG? Why should I not enjoy the liberty to eat a meal laden with Trans-fats? Why should I not be at liberty to drive my car without having to fasten a safety belt (speaking as one who SURVIVED a severe car-crash PRECISELY because I was NOT wearing one at the time)?
    So how does one term the modern “liberal”? As a “progressive”? I think not. The modern “progressive” is not progressive at all. In fact, they are more retrograde than they accuse “conservatives” of being. Their ideas have all been tried before and their ideas have consistently proven to be wanting, if not patently and absurdly false. The words “statist” and “leftists” are apt, but they do not invoke a vivid mind-picture. I would prefer the term “psychopath” and/or “sociopath”.
    There will be those that believe that I am being harsh by recommending these one-word defining terms. To those I ask: Name ONE “liberal” policy that stands up to simple logic and contributes to one’s genuine liberty? (I will reject any claims to the Civil Rights movement because the heavy lifting was done by Evangelical Christians and religious Jews – the movement was hijacked by the left after it achieved it main goals and has been exploited by them ever since).
    Most of Selwyn’s readership that are familiar with my previous comments (and this one) would label me as a “conservative” but I disagree with that label for I do not wish to “conserve” bad ideas. In reflection and consideration of my socio-political ideology, the best single term that best describes me is, well, a liberal.

    Like

    Reply
  2. red state blues Avatar
    red state blues

    “Why should I not enjoy the liberty to eat a meal laden with Trans-fats? Why should I not be at liberty to drive my car without having to fasten a safety belt (speaking as one who SURVIVED a severe car-crash PRECISELY because I was NOT wearing one at the time)?”
    I can relate. I’m more than a little afraid to have a wreck for fear of what the airbags might do to me.
    I’ve taken a libertarian view on other issues for most of my life because I believe functional adults should be able to live in the real world with all its potential dangers. That being said, I have come to modify my views on things like drug use because some drugs have such a devastating effect on the person doing them as well as the people in that person’s life. You have to have priorities.
    As for food additives and healthy eating, how many times are studies contradicted? I don’t mind consumer driven changes at restaurants and in grocery stores but government legislation of ingredients that aren’t poisonous unless you consume insane amounts, forget it. I suspect the rabbit rancher was a victim of some kind of legislation regarding animals produced for food, btw. Though I can’t comprehend how anything could add up to $90.000.

    Like

    Reply

Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!