More Hysteria Over a Natural Right

Recently, I was made aware of a story from somewhere in the middle of the country. A child had taken what appeared to be a weapon to school.  Another child saw it and began screaming hysterically, “A gun, a gun.” The usual overreaction ensued, and the child was suspended. The parents probably had to be evaluated by a local shrink for good measure.

A Christmas Story is an American classic, capturing childhood memories of growing up in the 40’s.  The child wanted a Red Rider BB rifle. He was 10 years old at the time. His father said he got his when he was 8 years old. The ownership of guns and training youngsters in their proper use was a staple of the American scene for many, many decades – in fact, a few centuries. There was a time in this country when the local police would come to elementary schools once a week to teach the children how to handle a shotgun or a rifle. There was a time when the elementary kids had a shooting club. One Friday a month, they would all bring their rifles to school, and they would set up a target range to do target shooting during PE time.  Nobody thought a thing about it.

What happened to us?

Details

Americans Asleep

Recently, I had a chance to meet with a close family member.  I hadn’t seen him in seven years.  We were both raised by the World War II generation with the American values of God, Country, and Family.  When we have talked on the phone, I noticed a few remarks that seemed out of character from what I knew we both believed.  He is good and intelligent, and so is his wife.

We met for lunch and chatted away.  The next day at lunch again, we got to talking politics.  We agreed on many topics, as I expected.  When I found that his wife had voted for the current guy living in the White House, I left it alone.  Eventually,we began talking about the mandate that everyone had to buy healthcare or pay a fine.   As he is not young anymore, I mentioned that I was concerned about him not being able to get the medical treatments he might need.  He wasn’t worried.  He is sure he will get anything he needs.  I pointed out the model diagram that Europe uses to decide if you are worthy of getting medical help.  Having been a member of the healthcare profession, I thought  he might appreciate the report on it that was in Lancet Magazine some years back.

After further discussion, we got onto the topic of being nothing more than a number to the government, and the fact that they might (and probably will) eventually tell you, “NO!” and not care for you.  They’ll pay for the pain pills (such compassion) so you don’t suffer as you are dying.   He said that was just fine.  I admit, it surprised me.   I asked “It’s OK if your government kills you?”

“Yeah, I don’t think about it.  If it’s my time to go, it’s OK.”

Details

The Cost of Third Parties and the Founder’s Economic System

Recently, Harry Reid, said “We must work past medical insurance, to a one payer system.”

Well I agree with him, (for once). But my one payer system is this – individuals responsible for their own healthcare.

We need to get back to pay for your services healthcare.  We need to have the third party control over our healthcare removed.  This includes the government, insurance companies and employers.

With all of these out of the way, the cost of healthcare will be subject to the marketplace, and this will allow healthcare costs to drop.  This is because the individual consumer of healthcare will now be courted by healthcare providers.  And we all know, if a business wants to attract customers, they offer a better quality product at better prices than competitors.  Costs go down and better quality services and products result.

The disconnect between patient and medical cost is what has allowed those costs to soar far beyond the pocketbook of most people.  The evolution to a system of third party payers created a situation where developers do not need to concern themselves with a product that will serve many.  They can go out and create all sorts of expensive abstract medical equipment without having to worry about whether there is a need.  All that research and development is expensive, and since there isn’t a consumer for the pie in the sky products, the cost is spread over all the other products the company offers.  I am not bashing big industry here. It is reasonable that they must cover their costs in some way.  However, in a free marketplace where they need to focus on lowering costs to attract users to their products, they will more likely choose an item that will have more usefulness.

Those of you who read history, might recall that there was a time when an injury or illness that required a doctor might include bartering for the doctor’s services.  Chickens, milk, corn, a quilt or even a return service would settle the bill.  Well, you might say things are so much more expensive now; you can’t do that. But I am hearing of local physician groups offering outside of insurance, healthcare.  Depending upon the area you live, the costs vary.  Your costs could be $100/month for entire family.  When you need the services of the doctor, you just call for an appointment.  I have heard in some other areas, its $10/month for a person.

Details

Dreaming of Shutdown

Recently, I saw an article written by a former White House drone Robert Reich. His points were the usual dribble. But I thought it might be fun to reply.

In his opening shot, he says “conservative Republicans” have shut down Congress.

Really? Is Congress shut down? It seems to be meeting and continuing its attempts to garner more power for itself. Obamacare, disarming the people, groping the people, spying on the people, taxing the people into poverty, using the IRS as a control mechanism to keep the people in line – the list goes on.

Do you see a shut down? I sure don’t. Frankly, a shutdown would be a nice change. Imagine that: no government regulations handed down from on high. The idea of a shutdown might cause some Americans to cringe in horror, but not so for some of us. The tide would still come in, the earth would still spin, and without Congress pulling, the clouds would still roll by. We would keep right on breathing  –  maybe more easily!

But I must get back on topic here and address more silliness I see in the scribbling before me.

In his article, he laments that states are passing more and more legislation locally. That is by design. The states are sovereign, and should indeed be producing laws and regulations according to their own citizens’ needs and desires. If the citizens of Vermont want local school boards to decide on curriculum for their children, that is their business. If the citizens of Utah elect representatives to delete any need for conceal carry permits, that is their business. If the citizens of Arizona want to defend the international border they have by rounding up law-breaking aliens and sending them back to the country they came from, it isn’t the business of the busybodies in DC.

Mr. “big government is good” seems to have a problem with the idea that the states created the federal government. They are OUR servant. The states agreed to give only very limited powers to the federal government, and to abide by a broad set of principles. They did not agree to acquiesce to the demands of a far distant and greedy central government.

Details

Second Pennsylvania Constable Pledges to Protect Second Amendment

Across the U.S., we’ve seen local officials stepping in to affirm their commitment to the Second Amendment.

On June 15,  Constable of the 3rd Ward of the Borough of Perkasie, Pa. added to the chorus, becoming the second state constable to sign a Second Amendment Preservation resolution.

 I, Andrew Rumbold, Constable of the 3rdWard of the Borough of Perkasie, Bucks County, declare that all federal, state, or local acts, actions, orders, resolutions, rules, or regulations regarding firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition – past, present, or future – shall be in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article 1, Sections 1 and 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and violate the rights and duties of lawful citizens and were and are null and void from their inception and will not be implemented,enforced, or otherwise supported in this Commonwealth by the Office of Constable of the 3rd Ward of the Borough of Perkasie,

FURTHER, in keeping with my oath to support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, I hereby express my commitment to interpose this office and stand in defense of all persons including citizens and lawful residents of the United States within this Commonwealth, against any and all attempts by any agents of the government to subject the people to unconstitutional seizure of their firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition…”

In Pennsylvania, constable is an elected office with a six year term. The office falls under the executive branch and the governor, but ultimately constables answer to the people. They are considered “peace officers” and have arrest powers.

Local resolutions send a strong message to lawmakers in Harrisburg and increase the chance of passing state-level legislation blocking violations of the Second Amendment. When officials like Rumbold and towns like Holly Springs take a stand, it also lays the ground work for the next step: city and county ordinances nullifying unconstitutional federal gun laws.

Details

Off to Rick Perry’s Desk: Bill to Nullify Warrantless Drone Spying

AUSTIN, Texas – A Texas bill that would nullify warrantless drone spying gained final approval this week and now heads to Gov. Rick Perry’s desk for his signature.

HB912 would virtually eliminate all warrantless drone spying in the Lone Star State and criminalizes all drone use outside of carefully prescribed parameters.

The Texas Privacy Act states that “a person commits an offense if the person uses or authorizes the use of an unmanned vehicle or aircraft to capture an image without the express consent of the person who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image.” The offender would be charged with a Class C misdemeanor if they were caught violating this part of the law.

The bill then outlines acceptable application of drones, including pursuant to a criminal warrant.

Data gathered by law enforcement illegally ‘may not be used as evidence in any criminal or juvenile proceeding, civil action, or administrative proceeding’ according to the bill and ‘is not subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for its release.’ This incentivizes police to not misuse the drone technology unless they wish to risk jeopardizing their entire investigation.

House passed the bill by a vote of 128-11 on May 10, and the Senate gave a slightly amended version its approval 29-1 a week later. HB912 then went to a conference committee and both chambers approved the final version.

Details

IRS an arm of the Fed

Reflecting on the story of the Internal Revenue Service targeting groups with names that included tea party, patriot or any other name that marks a group as pro Constitutional, pro Freedom or pro Bill of Rights, leads us to consider the history of the IRS.

Why would you even approach the IRS for blessing?  Your group is, itself considered to be an enemy of the Fed to which the IRS owes allegiance.  Any way they can, the IRS will cause opposition to its perceived enemy.   Did the American army ask the enemy governments to finance them for WWI or WWII?

The federal income tax was created in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th amendment to the Constitution.  Before that time the Fed ran on “tariffs.”  Using only tariffs was wise, it kept the government constrained to its Constitutional duties. There were some high tariffs, which did cause some anger and resulted in the “Tariff of Abominations,” but even that was not so high as to stifle the free enterprise system.  And the Fed had plenty of money to run what is properly within its scope.

In arguments during the consideration of the 16th amendment (1909), Representative Samuel McCall (Mass.) stated “….leads me to believe that the chief purpose of the tax is not financial, but social. It is not primarily to raise money for the state, but to regulate the citizen and to regenerate the moral nature of man. The individual citizen will be called on to lay bare the inner-most recesses of his soul in affidavits, and with the aid of the Federal inspector, who will supervise his books and papers and business secrets, he may be made to be good, according the notions of virtue at the moment prevailing in Washington.”

Details

TSA – is Groping of the Public in the Constitution?

Remember the guy in Portland Oregon who went naked at the TSA checkpoint to protest the federal frisking policy?

I see he has been fined $1,000.  And get this: the TSA said they fined him for breaking their rules.  THEIR rules?  Apparently they have a series of rules that We the People must follow: “no person may interfere with, assault, threaten, or intimidate screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties.”  (What was a naked man threatening them with, one must wonder. But I digress.)

And now for some humor.  The TSA representative said “All of TSA’s policies and procedures comport with the law and the Constitution.”

I have my Constitution out. I don’t see any delegated power indicating the feds may fondle people for simply wanting to travel.  Ah, here it is, in the Fourth Amendment.  “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Details

Executive Orders: The Constitution Doesn’t Authorize Legislation by Executive

When the most current occupant of the White House was thwarted by Congress (as well as preempted by many states, aka Nullified before the fact) in his attempt to further remove the natural right of bearing arms, he decided he would write Executive Orders.

So what are Executive Orders?  The Constitution does not clearly give the President an authority called “Executive Orders”.  However, in Article II, Section 1 and in Section 3 we do see phrases such as “[the President] take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.   The purpose is generally thought to mean these orders would be the means by which the President would direct the heads of departments in carrying out the laws or regulations enacted by Congress.

President Washington, issued 8 of what are now called executive orders; President Lincoln issued 48; President T Roosevelt; issued 1,081;  Franklin Roosevelt produced 3,522 and Mr. Clinton created 364.

Have some Presidents used the “Executive Orders” to end run around Congressional checks and make law by fiat?  We all know of the infamous Order number 9066 wherein Franklin Roosevelt delegated military authority to “remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone”. The authority delegated to General John DeWitt paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.

Details