Category Archives: Civil Rights

Quick! Who’s Position is This…Bush or Giuliani???

images.jpg images1.jpg

 

Okay, time for a little fun. Can you guess who said the following regarding various issues??? 

U.S. Policy toward Africa

He said the United States should focus its policy toward Africa on increases in trade. “U.S. government aid is important, but aid not linked to reform perpetuates bad policies and poverty.”

In May 2007, he was informed that he held between $500,000 and $1 million in investments in companies that work in Sudan.

U.S. Policy toward India

He views India’s rapidly growing economy as a potentially lucrative market, saying the United States should “take advantage” (CNBC) of the “large number of consumers that are emerging in India.” In particular, he said, the U.S. stands to “make a lot of money in India” in new energy technology.

Military Tribunals and Guantanamo Bay

He said he supports the detention camp at Guantanamo. He said in a June 2007 interview with the Wall Street Journal that he believes the allegations of prisoner mistreatment at Guantanamo have “been grossly exaggerated, and many of the reports that I see are that it’s not terribly different from any other prisons.”

Domestic Intelligence

He defended the domestic spying initiatives, saying “he did it to protect our national security and to try to find out information about people that might attack us and might be preparing an attack on us, in order to secure us, in order to protect us.” He said in September 2007 that electronic surveillance should not be “unrealistically” limited.

War on Terror

He responded to John Edwards’ criticism of the war on terror, saying in June 2007, “This is not a bumper sticker; this war is a real war.” He generally refers to “the terrorist war against us,” lately, rather than the “war on terror,” he told TIME.

Democracy Promotion in the Arab World

He believes in a larger goal of a democratic (AFP) Iraq and Middle East. But, he says, stability takes precedence over democracy. “Democracy can’t flourish unless people are safe. You can’t have democracy when people are being killed,” he said in January 2007.

Energy Policy

He has ties to various energy companies, many of which are fossil fuel-oriented including Duke Energy Corp., the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, Valero Energy Corp, and FPL Energy. He has supported increased use of nuclear power.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

He has held up Israel as “the only outpost of freedom and democracy in the Middle East and the only absolutely reliable friend of the United States.” (Haaretz) In a 2002 speech, he stressed that Jerusalem must “remain the undivided capital” of Israel. He also said at that time that the Palestinian Authority is not a “moral equivalent” to the Israeli government, because “there is a difference between a nation based on law and democracy and one that harbors terrorism.” He called on the Palestinian Authority to create “institutions of political and economic freedom and religious toleration.” More recently, he said that in his view it “makes no difference” whether the Palestinian Authority is run by Hamas or Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. At a March 2007 fundraiser, he also said that the United States should “not push any peace process” until the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel’s right to exist and condemns terrorism.

North Korea Policy

He supports the policy of China placing pressure on Pyongyang. “I think the strategy has produced enough results so far that you have to stick with it,” he said. He indicated it remains unclear whether Iran or North Korea is further along in developing a nuclear weapons program.

Cuba Policy

He is critical of Castro, which he made clear recently in a speech over whether or not to return Cuban child Elian Gonzales to Cuba in 2000 (He was an outspoken voice for keeping the boy in the United States).

He also attacked Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez for following Castro’s “model.” (AP) Speaking to a group in Florida, he said the United States must build an alliance with Mexico and Colombia to counteract the shift to the left of Latin American governments.

U.S. Policy toward China

He has not made many public statements on his views of China. However, he said in an CNBC interview that limiting China ’s ownership of U.S. debt is “generally a bad idea and generally self-defeating.” He said that the U.S. should build industries that we can sell” in China.

Defense Policy

He has called for an “offense-as-a-defense” (Journal-Register)strategy towards al-Qaeda, backing the U.S. troop surge and continued presence in Iraq.

He fully advocates the addition of thirty-five thousand troops to the army’s current level of 512,000 (AP).

In September 2007, he said the United States should pursue a nuclear missile defense system, as “America can no longer rely on Cold War doctrines such as ‘mutual assured destruction’ in the face of threats from hostile, unstable regimes.”

Iraq

He says we need a plan by which to measure progress but that does not include troop withdrawals. “You need statistics,” (FOX) he said in January 2007. “You need to be able to determine whether or not you’ve brought the violence down. If it doesn’t work, then you got to put more people in.”

He opposes any “artificial timeline” for troop withdrawal from Iraq, which he says would be tantamount to giving America’s enemies “a printed-out list of how it’s going to retreat (ChiTrib) to its enemy.” He is steadfast in his support for the war, which he considers part of the larger global war on terror.

Trade

In October 2007 he spoke in support of the pending Free Trade Agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, saying they “would be good deals for the United States.”

Homeland Security

In a September 2006 he stressed the need for a nuclear material detection system in the United States.

Iran

He has the United States should proceed diplomatically with Iran, but that “we will use a military option if we have to.” He said a military strike would be “very dangerous”but nuclear arms in the control of “an irrational person” like President Ahmadinejad was more dangerous.

His supporters are vocal advocates for bombing Iran preemptively in order to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons. 

Climate Change

He said he believes climate change exists (SFChron) and that something must be done to reduce pollution. However, he has not said outright that he believes climate change is caused by human activity. His statements with regard to policy on the issue have been rather vague.

Immigration

He supports some type of path (NYT) to citizenship for illegal immigrants. “If you have twelve million people, to thirteen to fourteen to fifteen million that are here illegally, it is much easier for terrorists and drug dealers to hide,” he said recently. He also said that he is in favor of a border fence and a database with which to keep track of all immigrants. 

As mayor of New York City, Giuliani opposed a law (NYT) that would have prevented illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security, food stamps and health care benefits.

United Nations

He has been extremely critical of the United Nations, which, he said, “proved irrelevant to the resolution of almost every major dispute of the last 50 years.” He says the institution’s primary capabilities are in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, but “we should not expect much more of it.”

Specifically, he said the United Nations must hold accountable states that support or condone terrorism. “Otherwise, you will fail in your primary mission as peacekeeper,” he said. “It must ostracize any nation that supports terrorism. It must isolate any nation that remains neutral in the fight against terrorism.”

U.S. Policy toward Russia

He advocates commercial engagement with Russia, but has also expressed support for the planned missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. In October 2007 he called for an increase in military spending to “send a heck of a signal” to Russia.

Recently he traveled to Moscow to promote U.S.-Russian business relations.

And the answer is [dramatic pause…]

Rudi Giuliani

So if you vote for him, you clearly vote for more of the same neo-con nonsense. 

Group Says Wearing Their ‘Peace Shirts’ on Campus Verbally Attacked by Pro-War Advocates…

 swa.jpgStudents at Cocoa Beach Jr./Sr. High are waging a war on peace by verbally attacking a group of ‘peace’ advocates.

Sophomore Skylar Stains decided to have ‘Peace Shirt Thursdays’ for her and her friend, Lauren Lorraine. They started wearing peace shirts and recruited other friends to wear them. Now, the “Peace Shirt Coalition” as they call themselves, has close to 30 students from all grades.

“We’ve worn handmade peace shirts every Thursday since the first week of school, without fail,” says Skylar Stains.

However, what started out as a light-hearted gesture soon started to be taken out of context. Students started approaching the group members and yelling obscene things at them. 

The heckling began early in the school year, according to group members. They say they were putting small posters promoting peace on friends’ lockers with their permission. They thought it was OK, because the cheerleaders and football players had signs on theirs. Eventually, though, group members say they were told by the school’s administration they could no longer hang up the posters.

“People just turned on us like that,” she said. “At least 10 boys stood up and yelled things at me at once, and we couldn’t even walk through the halls without a harsh comment being made.”

“People tore them down and drew swastikas and ‘white power’ stuff on them,” Lauren said, referring to the posters.

Skylar had similar things written on her posters.

“Someone taped an ‘I Love Bush’ sign over my ‘Wage Peace’ sign,” she said. “So I tore it down, threw it away, and the whole commons starting booing.

Someone also hung a sign that said, “I Love America, Because America Loves War.”

Lori Masterson, assistant principal at Cocoa Beach Jr./Sr. High, said all students have the opportunity to form clubs and organizations on campus, but those wishing to do so must identify a sponsor and bring their written proposal to the principal outlining what the proposed group’s purpose and goals are.

“As of this writing, to my knowledge, no one has submitted a written proposal with an identified sponsor for a peace club,” Masterson said in an e-mailed statement.

But peace group members say they have submitted a written proposal and had a written sponsor.

As you might have expected, they were turned down.

Skylar and Lauren said that despite the backlash, the T-shirts and posters originally had nothing to do with politics, but the outburst from opposing groups have turned it into a political issue.

“People just kept putting words into our mouths, like we said this or that about current politics,” Lauren said. “But we didn’t say anything.”

Soon, a second group started to wear Confederate flag shirts to oppose the peace group, Skylar said. She saw shirts with sayings such as “This is America, get used to it,” and “If peace is the answer; it must be a stupid question.”

“Now there are even ‘support our troops’ kids who don’t like us because I guess they think you can’t say peace and support the troops at the same time,” Lauren said.

Skylar later passed out yellow ribbons for her group to wear to show they support the troops as well as peace.

However, Cocoa Beach Jr./Sr. High sophomores Lydia Pace and Joseph Marianetti say the Confederate shirts they wear express support for the troops in Iraq, and nothing more. Joseph said the shirts have nothing to do with racism.

For the troops in Iraq? What?

“Someone took something that stood for peace and twisted it” in regards to the swastikas (drawn by a third group) and the Confederate flag, he said.

On John Lennon’s birthday, the group held an honorary Peace Shirt day and was confronted even more than usual, eventually causing some group members, including Cheyenne, to break down in tears.

The peace group members say their shirts continue to draw negative comments from some students, but point out that other school groups don’t receive similar treatment.

“Since peace is causing other problems, the peace kids are being punished,” Skylar said.

Do you think there’s a bunch of fat, white, old time, stuff shirt, war-hawk, racist, conservatives in Cocoa Beach, teaching their kids to be hate mongers?

I believe so.

Look at the demographics and draw your own conclusion…

The People and Families of Cocoa Beach

In Cocoa Beach, about 54% of adults are married. Lots of people in Cocoa Beach live independently, in one-person housing.

Among adults, males are better represented than women in the city. People 65 and older make up an important part of the community in Cocoa Beach.

Wealth and Education

In 2000, Cocoa Beach had a median family income of $51,795. Cocoa Beach isn’t a place with a large population of people in poverty. The city, compared to most cities like it, can boast of a large population of high-income unmarried people.

Political Inclinations

In the 2004 Presidential fund-raising sweepstakes, George W. Bush came out ahead among Cocoa Beach residents, with $8,770. Residents gave more to the Republican party than any of the others.

Cocoa Beach Housing

In Cocoa Beach, 71% of the houses and apartments are occupied by the owners, not rented out. The city sports a large amount of seasonal housing, typically for vacation or part-time use.

Commuting

In Cocoa Beach, 91% of commuters drive to work.

Stand tall against the rednecks Skylar. If you need any help on the blogs, we’re here for you. Anyone who wears a Swastika or a Confederate Flag shirt is a pinhead who endorses violence and racial hatred. They are as ignorant and foolish as our current president, who I believe also endorses these very things. 

Don’t be naive Skylar. What you are doing is political, just be sure to defend your position. The legion of ‘The Stupid’ that is the Republican party and its sorted conservative knuckleheads will not give up easily because most of these people are patently stubborn and intellectually rigid by default.

Good luck.  

The China You Will See is Not the China That Is…

 7vcxgzcaqb0blacalu28yscauo0cotcaon0h0xcarhq23hcamiqjb5caxfcimwcauf4fu2ca9e50l2caup10z7ca3in49jca7ib8zpcalnpmm2caccfrllcaf3mo2ncaxe6a7gcamzl2n1ca1ps5zp.jpg

Next summer’s Olympics will showcase a China as a modern country of skyscrapers, and Western culture. However the government behind this facade, the same government that has built China into what it is, has acheived modernization by imprisoning political activists, restricting religious freedoms, tightly controling the media and Internet, exposing it’s citizens to deadly pollution, unsafe food and consumer products, and violating international trade treaties with the U.S.

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), consisting of nine U.S. Senators and nine members of the House, noted Communist Party leaders authorize political and religious persecution “Against persons the Party deems to pose a threat to its supremacy…” and that party “officials wield the legal system as a harsh and deliberately unpredictable weapon…” 

Here is their overview…

The Commission observed ongoing human rights abuses and stalled development of the rule of law in China during 2006-2007. The Commission also observed increased repression in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) and Tibetan Autonomous areas of China, stepped-up harassment of legal advocates, and increased restrictions on Chinese reporters. In addition, across the areas the Commission monitors, the following general themes emerged: (1) Chinese leaders’ increasing intolerance of citizen activism and greater suppression of information on urgent matters of public concern (including food safety, public health, and environmental emergencies); (2) the instrumental use of law for political purposes; (3) the localization of dispute resolution in order to insulate the center from the backlash of national policy failures; and (4) the influence that China’s linkages with the rest of the world have had on some aspects of its domestic rule of law and human rights development.

With the 2008 Olympic Games only months away, China is is under intense pressure from foreign activists to comply with international standards across a broad spectrum of issues. from the workplace to air quality. The CECC not only cited recent issues including food and product safety, which also affects foreign consumers of Chinese exports, but also complained of “inadequate and inconsistent implementation, corruption and a lack of regulatory incentives.” Moreover, the panel found that the Chinese government discourages consumer organizations and harasses people for reporting problems with consumer products. Environmental reforms have been hampered by uncooperative local authorities and outright suppression of green activists that demand the free flow of information. 

Human rights also came under fire by the CECC. Chinese communists continue to detain and imprison democracy activists as well as those attempting to organize workers in labor unions not approved by the government. Police routinely detain people for days without formal charge.

Sound familiar?

2006 saw a tightening of the screws on religion, with communist officials continuing a “campaign of persecution” against the Falun Gong spiritual movement. Protestant church gatherings that didn’t register with the government were shut down, and Catholics were blocked from contact with the Vatican. Independent clergy were also detained, while Tibetan Buddhists faced greater repression. 

Foreign reporters were granted greater freedoms, however Beijing have increased government restrictions on domestic journalists in the interest of preserving order and control before the games. The CECC concluded that, “Developments during 2007 suggests that the prospects for a free press in China remain dim.” 

The Internet has also threatened the Communist Party’s monopoly of information.

In response, it has restricted access to many websites and imposed licensing requirements aimed at curbing politically sensitive data, with the goal of tracking  and arresting online government critics. Chinese officials also continue to impose prior restraints on publishing, and publication of critical books. 

Senator Byron L. Dorgan, the commission’s chairman, said the 360-page study was “sober reading,” a sign that repression is getting worse in China”, despite promises of reform. He called the report a “wake-up call” as well. 

The Chinese Embassy in Washington was called for a comment, but officials did not respond to it.

Western journalists know full well what China is really about as do our political and business leaders. The latter choose to ignore human rights abuses in the name of economic expansion on the backs of Chinese peasants, using their belief in the need for a global economy to cleanse their collective conscious. 

Our actions and reactions as a nation are unconscionable.

I call for a protest and boycott of the 2008 Olympics in China as an act of solidarity and demonstration of support for Chinese people, who are suffering under the yoke of opressive and deadly Communist rule. For humanity sake, we must take a firm stand. 

More Proof Ron Paul is a Racist…

paul2.jpg

To add to my previous post, Ron Paul and his position on racism…

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

This explanation is lucid and relevant, but it fails to address the fact that white people enslaved an entire race of black people, then proceeded to systematically rob them of their civil rights and wealth for another 100 years after they were freed! Only in the last 40 years have many people of color been able to lift themselves up economically and socially, as a result of affirmative action and other common sense programs that have averted an all out racial war in this country. The very policies Ron Paul opposes are still needed to battle institutional racism today.

This explanation by Paul might also provide some insight as to why he is the darling of white supremacists.

It’s no secret that until he became the horse for the anti-war crowd, Ron Paul extensively pandered to racists. He’s been endorsed and has ties to Larry Pratt and Pat Buchanan. He has a 100 percent approval rating from the John Birch Society. We have already exposed his newsletter on this blog and the statements that most black men were criminals, welfare recipients or looters. He’s also blathered on about Jews controlling America and Asians embezzling the banks.

At the Storm Front website, a white supremacist web site, and in response to an article from the David Duke website (a well documented racist), racist Ron Paul supporters couldn’t heap enough praise on the man.

Some examples…

Cheimon: Ron Paul would collapse the Jewish infrastructure in this country.

AllWhiteAllRight: Anyone who doesn’t vote for Paul on this site is an ass clown. Sure he doesn’t come right out and say he is a WN, who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we “get there” without having to raise hell, who cares; as long as we finally get what we want. I don’t understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.

Pat Buchanan’s book “Where the Right Went Wrong” is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn’t have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.

Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Storm Front, for God’s sake David Duke is behind this guy!

Woodsy: I believe Ron Paul represents a true opportunity for most of America. He’s the real McCoy. A humble, educated, honest and determined man who is a real, patriotic American. You want business as usual? Cast your lot with Giuliani the Mayor of Jew York or Obama the dark horse from Minnesota (?). This coming election represents the Internet vs. the Jew-controlled mass media.

President of Peach: Step foot outside of your cave/basement and start looking at the big picture: Ron Paul is the last chance the white race has for just 10% of its survival, much less America… And how do you know that’s not his priority? Remember: the game is rigged. Paul can’t come out swinging.

Ron Paul on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964…

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

More analysis here…

Ron Paul’s comments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are unfounded and a bit foolish.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not drafted or passed to promote racial harmony as Ron Paul claims, it was passed to correct inherent injustices that were leveled at the black population at the hands of white conservatives in the South.

By defending the rights of property owners at all costs, he is implying that people have the right to be racists.

By claiming the act robbed people of individual liberty, Paul reveals his ignorance regarding people of color being able to vote, ride in the front of the bus, use public restrooms, marry white people, own certain properties, or eat at the same lunch counter as white people. I guess none of these things qualify as individual liberties in ‘Ron World.’ No pursuit of happiness here, huh Ron?

More to come on why Ron Paul is not fit for president…

California’s New Anti-Smoking Law Needed to Legislate Common Sense Yet Again…

cigareete1.jpg 

There would be no constitutional debate over California’s new anti-smoking law, SB7, that bans smoking while children are present in the vehicle. Smokers are in an uproar. I have an answer for them. Stop infringing on your kid’s civil rights by forcing them to inhale second hand smoke against their will. Use your head. Smoking poisons your body and that of your children. Get over it!

The American cancer society just released new information that cancer among all Americans has been steadily decreasing by about 2% every year since 1990, when it peaked. One can point to several things that have contributed to this progress. Since Richard Nixon declared a war on cancer in the early 1970’s, researchers and health professionals have been pecking away at treatment options, preventative measures and discovery of probable causes that fuel the disease. One of the universally accepted risks that is at the root of the most deadly cancer, that being lung cancer, is smoking. No one with an ounce of common sense can deny this. It has been well documented. Large cigarette corporations have been sued over it, health professionals have proved it and thinking people just know better. The fact is that studies suggest that smoking in cars is 10 times more risky than smoking in your home.

The core issue is that Americans aren’t very big on common sense! We continue to prove that almost on a daily basis…sooooo…legislatures are essentially forced to engage in the business of legislating common sense (which I patently disagree with by the way). But what other choice do we have? How can anyone look at their kids with a straight face and say…”Junior, I going to smoke in the car and you will inhale second hand smoke because you are my child and that is my choice. I have my rights and those rights supercede your health and well being.” It’s absurd to even think in those terms! I wouldn’t have to worry about that conundrum personally, because my wife would just knock me out with a frying pan if I ever tried it…and she should. That choice is just plain selfish. It just seems to reinforce the old saying that cigarette smoking is for the stupid. I agree.

As far as the constitutional argument goes, I feel it is without merit. You only enjoy civil rights and personal freedoms in this country as long as those rights and freedoms do not come at the expense of others. This has been established by the courts and the legal precedent is sound. We are not talking about the government controlling where you can smoke. If there are no kids in the car, smoke all you want and slowly poison yourself – that is clearly your choice. But imposing your destructive habit and the associated health risks on those who are in no position to control their own health situation is inherently wrong. 

“Who is the state to tell you how you can and cannot raise your children?” asked Robert Best of Ventura, state coordinator of the Smoker’s Club Inc. They are a smoker’s rights group. “There’s a fine line between protecting my child and moving in to raise my child,” added Best, who is not a parent. “A car is private property. … What will they do next, say you can’t smoke in your home if you have kids in it?”

Another opponent, Walter Williams, a conservative commentator, said even if smoking around children is a bad idea, it isn’t the government’s job to stop people from doing it. “If we justify things on the basis of what’s good for people, there’s no end in sight,” said Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Williams, a smoker himself, asked if government should require an 8 p.m. bedtime for children, or educational television over video games.

I say to Mr. Williams, for every one responsible parent that doesn’t need the state to legislate the very common sense you speak of, I can show you fifty that do! Just look at the obesity crisis in this country. Some estimates have child obesity as high as 60%. Is that an adequate demonstration of common sense? We fail 30% of our high school seniors every year. Do really think parents are on top of things? I think I can make a pretty good case that they’re not. Sure this law takes a small bite out of your civil liberties and privacy but what do we – just let all of these people bombard their children with carcinogens until they develop asthma or cancer later on, in the name of that privacy? Maybe conservatives like you should just own up to the fact that smoking is a disgusting habit and basically a stupid activity to engage in and just quit. In the end, we wouldn’t need such draconian measures.  

Smoking ban author Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long Beach, said prohibiting smoking in a car in public view is not an invasion of privacy, and she scoffed at the “nanny government” tag.

“When we’re talking about children’s health — life and death — I do think there’s a role for government,” said Oropeza, a liver cancer survivor who resurrected the ban after two previous failed attempts. “It’s foolish and irresponsible to do anything less than we can to prevent exposing children to this carcinogen.”

A ban proposed in Connecticut was suggested by a fifth-grader.

“If you can’t eat or drink or talk on a cell phone while driving a vehicle, how can you still smoke?” asked Justin Kvadas, 10 years old, of East Hartford, who testified before his state’s legislature. “I think the government should have a say because of all the dangers,” Justin said in an interview. “Kids breathe faster and are inhaling more of the toxic chemicals.”

Citing studies by the U.S. surgeon general and the California Environmental Protection Agency, the American Lung Association says babies’ and children’s exposure to secondhand smoke contributes to asthma, lower respiratory tract and ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome.

Arkansas and Louisiana passed similar laws last year, and the city of Bangor, Maine, followed this year. Other states including Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana and Utah, are considering the law as well according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

With any luck, the ban will take root nation wide. Let’s keep our eye on the ball people. Eradicating cancer and protecting the health of our children out-weighs a smoking habit. If Americans would ever grow a brain, accept that, and do the right thing, such laws wouldn’t be needed. In the meantime, we need to protect the selfish and the stupid from themselves once again.