Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Whose job is it to fight the battle of the belt line?

As the Leviathan grows daily - a fact bolstered by the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling which declared Obamaare constitutional - leaders of the Nanny-slash-Police-slash-Authoritarian States of America are now blowing wide, gaping holes in the Bill of Rights and individual liberty with impunity. We here at NaturalNews like to present a wealth of information challenging conventional wisdom on a wide range of health-related and food-related issues. Our founding editor-in-chief, Mike Adams, has dedicated his time and treasure to this noble endeavor and, judging by the expanding readership of this site, he has hit on a niche that, if you're pardon the pun, Americans are clearly hungry for. That said, we never try to preach or lecture here, and all the information we give you is presented in a way that provides you, the reader, with choices. Here's how we like to approach our subject matter: This is the information; now you decide what you want to do with it. Ultimately, what you do - or don't do - with what is presented on these Web pages is up to you. But a disturbing trend has begun to get "fashionable" in the United States, and that is the tendency for more and more elected leaders to make your choices for you. That's not good for the preservation of individual liberty. Using the obesity epidemic to exert more control Nowhere is this trend more evident than when it comes to the issue of obesity. Granted, obesity is a large (and growing) problem in the U.S. (sorry - double pun there). But when elected (and unelected) officials begin taking it on themselves to impose their own "solutions," we have a problem with that. Consider New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's recent call to ban restaurants, delis, cinemas, and stadiums from serving "sugary drinks" over 16 ounces. While that sounds outrageous - and it is - he's hardly the first official to do so. Others from around the country are waging their own personal war on obesity by enforcing "moratoriums on new fast-food outlets in certain neighborhoods," and requiring "eateries to print calorie counts of menu items," reports the Christian Science Monitor. School officials have removed certain foods from school cafeterias. First lady Michelle Obama has advocated for removing French fries from school and restaurant menus (though she admitted to students in Cape Town, South Africa in June 2011 that they are one of her favorite foods). So, while the intent might be honorable - though there is no indication that it is - how about the method these and many other officials are using to go about making changes? Is it okay to use the force of law to change habits, or should elected leaders stick to the bully pulpit and advocacy? In other words, whose job is it to fight the battle of the belt line? Nanny state versus individual freedom - that's what it comes down to "Those who say obesity is the public's business note that it has a greater effect on the prevalence of chronic illness and on rising medical expenditures than does heavy smoking or problem drinking. In 2008, obesity-related conditions accounted for nearly 10 percent of total US medical costs, or $147 billion, with taxpayer-borne Medicare and Medicaid assuming a large part of the burden," said the Monitor. Fair enough. And while that may be true, is it the role of government to act as nanny and control personal choice and behavior for everyone - especially the vast majority of Americans who do not rely on taxpayer funds for their health care? Mayor Bloomberg and like-minded politicians think so. "[T]here's an epidemic in this country of people being overweight. We've got to do something about it," he told MSNBC in a recent interview. "Everybody's wringing their hands saying 'We've got to do something.'" What there seems to be an epidemic of, actually, is that of politicians seeking to use any issue they can to exert more control over your life. One more thing. The high court's ruling this week that Congress has the authority to order you to purchase a service or product (in this case, health insurance) has thrown open wide the door to more nanny state abuse. If you think otherwise, think about the implications of the law and, moreover, the fact that if you don't comply you will be penalized. Freedom of choice is dying in America, one issue at a time. Sources: http://www.csmonitor.com http://nation.foxnews.com http://www.nbcnewyork.com http://www.naturalnews.com

No comments:

Post a Comment