Police State vs. Nanny State

Liberals always think it's all about them.

They are so important the vast machinery of the US under a Republican administration is out to get them. Earlier post here. Here's the latest bloviator in the Tribune, another lawyer "Fighting for YOU" in the war on terror, concerned about his own and his friends conversations being tracked:

There must be clear restrictions to ensure the information is used only for the intended purpose, and not to harass, intimidate, blackmail and embarrass citizens because of their religious, political, sexual or other personal beliefs or activities.

So liberals fear a police state, (no worries at all about being blown to bits by terrorists in one of our cities) while shoving a nanny state down our throats, with their incessant hectoring on guns, smoking, the type of food we eat, the size of car we should drive, probably next on the list is the kind of lawn mower we buy (recent NY Times story) or whether we should be allowed to barbecue in the backyard.

What kind of state do YOU think is more likely here?

And what evidence do we have of the abuse of this power in recent memory?

Hillary and the Clinton administration--- the missing and misappropriated FBI files.

But if they're really worried, why not join with us conservatives to reduce the size of government. It's an historic opportunity.