Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Pennsylvania Man Told to Take Down His Cross and Follow Nanny State Rules

The United States of America is supposed to be a free nation. But our legislators at every level seem to want nothing to do with that idea. They’re far too busy nitpicking at every area of our lives that they can to pay attention to little things like constitutional rights.

While country after country in the Middle East are trying to take a stand against blatant oppression (no comment on how well they’re going about it or how some of them are apparently perfectly fine treating other people like dirt in the process), American lawmakers are softly inching their way into dictatorship.

It’s easy to focus on the unconstitutional power plays by the federal government and, to a lesser degree, by each individual state.

But what’s happening at the county level is just as important. After all, the further we allow our local representatives to overstep their boundaries, the more we’re conditioned to not notice or care when it happens elsewhere.

Carl Baldwin Stands His Legally Purchased Ground

Take the case of Carl Behr, a Baldwin, PA resident who is being told he has to take down a 25-foot, lighted cross from his property.

Not gonna happen, he says. “Somebody’s gotta make a stand against these people and I’m here to make it.”

From the looks of things, he’s taking the issue as religious persecution, but from the details CBS Pittsburgh gives, I’m not convinced that’s so. I think this is just one more case of plain vanilla nanny state-ism in play.

According to the local council, Behr didn’t apply for a permit. And even if he does break down, fill out the paperwork and pay the (assumed) fee for permission to treat his property how he chooses, a recently passed lighting ordinance gives authorities the right “to place restrictions on residential lighting that would be deemed a nuisance.”

In other words, they can say no.

Lighting Today; What Tomorrow?

But who gave them that right? Who decided they could encroach on another citizen’s legally purchased property and tell him what he can and cannot do with it?

More than likely, they did. Or their predecessors. For little better reason than that they could play dictator and so they did.

So where does it stop?

It might seem silly to get up in arms over a non-life threatening instance like this, but it also seems silly to legislate such a non-life threatening issue in the first place.

So, again, where does the “silliness” stop and the frightening begin?

If we look around the nation and what this continuing push towards nanny state socialism has already taken us, it appears that we’ve already crossed that line.

Freedom – in all of its varieties – is on its way out.

No comments:

Post a Comment