Thursday, February 4, 2010

The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. God himself will not save men against their wills.

Now at LQuotes.com
The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills. – Thomas Jefferson

Would you believe…“Before Birth” Panels?

Posted by David Kramer on September 9, 2009 08:30 AM

Those “progressive” Brits are at it again. Here’s an interesting horror story from the folks whose Single-Payer Health System is what many sheeple in this country are clamoring for:
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday. Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early. They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks. In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks. The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ’standard practice’.
I’m sure Sarah Capewell is wishing that the doctors who let her baby die had been born two days too early also.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

View at LQuotes.com

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. - George Mason

George Mason is known as the father of the Bill of Rights.
Because they failed to take away our guns, they're coming after our ammo
By John Silveira

It's called the Ammunition Accountability Act (AAA). You've got to love the name. It sounds so noble. But remember the great gun writer, Mel Tappan's, universal rule of law: "The nobler the language, the more nefarious the purpose of any legal instrument."

It's been proposed in 18 states and, with some minor difference among them, here's what it will do once enacted:

* Each box of ammo you buy will have a unique number.

* Each round in the box will have a laser-etched number on the base of the bullet and on the inside of the cartridge case that corresponds to the number on the box.

* Each time you buy ammo you will have to show ID with your name, date of birth, driver's license, etc., to be recorded so the box will be tied to you.

* There will be a 5¢ tax on each and every round in the box. This "tax" will be to support the database.

* You will have to maintain records if you give or sell ammo to relatives or friends. (And the above tax would be levied on each round, again, to maintain the database.)

* Anywhere from four months to three years after such bills are enacted, depending on the state, it will be illegal to own any uncoded ammo. There will be civil and criminal penalties if you possess any with fines of anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 for each instance of violation. Ostensibly, this will mean $1,000 to $5,000 per round. Forgot you got an old box of .22 ammo on the back shelf of the closet? And the well-meaning but snoopy babysitter finds it...and turns you in...

* You're going to have to dump it or shoot it all up. And you'll get no compensation for any of the old ammo you have to dispose of.

* It will be illegal to reuse cartridge cases, so reloading will not be an option, and you're a criminal if you do.

What's AAA's intent? Ostensibly, crimes committed with a round of the imprinted ammo will be traceable back to the owner and crimes are solved just like that. But criminals already circumvent laws and have access to guns, drugs, and anything else we've tried to outlaw. If you think they won't be able to get untraceable ammo, think again. This law will create a black market for stolen and untraceable ammunition. The only people who are going to obey these Orwellian laws are...you and me. Not surprisingly, most of those in law enforcement do not support this bizarre law.

What will happen to the cost of ammunition? The manufacturers and sellers say the cost of retooling and the ammo processing itself will make ammo prohibitively expensive and put it out of the reach of most citizens. One vendor I spoke with estimates it could raise the price of ammo by as much as 2000 percent. The criminals will not be disarmed by this, but you and I will be.

Who's behind it? Oddly enough, the usual suspects—Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Mothers Against Guns, and others—are nowhere in sight. You'd think they would be. And with 70 to 80 million gun owners in this country, it should be a huge news story, but it's being ignored by the anti-gun media. But the fact is, the gun control people are keeping mum because they want AAA to look like a crime control bill, not the gun control bill it actually is. If you need more evidence consider a post to the ultra-liberal democraticunderground.org website that, a few months ago, warned, "All we need is for our three gun-grabber Dem senators to go on national TV demanding states pass this bill and we Dems can kiss the presidency good bye in the general election." They understand this is not something most Americans want, and they didn't want to be connected with it at election time.

And just how much support is AAA getting from the general public? If you google "encoded ammunition" you'll find that almost all of the comments are against it. This is not legislation the public is clamoring for, it's legislation the public is overwhelmingly against because it is transparently a sneaky backdoor attempt at gun control.

As of this writing, it's already died in 7 of the 18 state legislatures where it's been introduced, including New York, Rhode Island, and Indiana. They tried to pass this in California, the state that passed microstamping (where all new semiautomatic handguns sold have to microstamp spent cartridges). But it didn't make it out of the legislature. This law is too crazy even for Californians.

If, somehow, AAA passes anywhere, expect it to face constitutional challenges on several fronts, among which will be that it's an obvious effort to nullify the intent of the Second Amendment. It will also be challenged on the basis that it's an ex post facto law (essentially a retroactive law) since its provisions direct that ammunition legally obtained prior to the law would have to be "disposed" of—with no compensation to the owners. It is the danger of ex post facto challenges that have made it necessary for proposed gun-bans to "grandfather" previously owned firearms. But worse is that if it passes the "sniff-test" in any state, expect it to be introduced into the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Though it appears AAA is failing, in the future we have to remain ever-vigilant because the gun control crowd is going to come back again and again and again, like zombies in a grade B horror flick. Bet on it. And expect them to be even more creative the next time.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

A frugal government shall leave [men] free to regulate their own pursuits.

Visit LQuotes.com, today!

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. - Thomas Jefferson


Did You Hear the One About...
by Floy Lilley

Did you hear the one about bobbing heads on Sunday agreeing that the cause of the Great Depression was the absence of government guidance? "The Great Depression would never have happened if there had been any economic regulations," agreed the policy wonks.

Oh, really?

So you think a free society generated that monstrosity?

It is accurate to say that in 1900 a free society did exist. The government still approximated a minimal state, exerting minimal guidance, and commanding minimal economic regulation. But, after 1900, virtually all public policy proposals called for more extensive governmental guidance.

Perhaps the television talksters could benefit from a bit of homeschooling. An excellent source of data is Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episode in the Growth of American Government by Robert Higgs (1987). The time frame of the period up to and into the 1920s, in other words those years before the Great Depression, included WWI. That dramatic episode birthed government expansion and intervention, much of which remained in regulatory force after the generating crisis had past.

A partial list of interventions – those government economic regulations – would include:

* Bureau of Corporations (1903)
* Interstate Commerce Act major amendments (1903, 1906, 1910)
* Meat Inspection Act (1906)
* Pure Food and Drug Act (1906)
* Corporation Tax (1911)
* Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1913) (Income Tax)
* Federal Reserve System (1913)
* Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)
* Federal Trade Commission (1914)
* U.S. Immigration (cut to a trickle during 1915–1920)
* Adamson Act (1916) (railroad labor wage rates)
* Shipping Act (1916)
* National Defense Act (1916)
* Army Appropriations Act (1916) (later took over railroads)
* Selective Service Act (1917)
* Espionage Act (1917)
* Lever Act (1917) (food and fuel) (prohibited alcohol)
* Overman Act (1918) (executive powers)
* War Finance Corporation Act (1918)
* President’s Mediation Commission (1917) (labor relations)
* Federal Control Act (1918)
* Sedition Act (1918)

Does this look like a laissez-faire list?

Higgs summarizes just exactly how guided and regulated all economic activities were:
The two years, 1916–1918, witnessed an enormous and wholly unprecedented intervention of the federal government in the nation’s economic affairs. By the time of the armistice, the government had taken over the ocean shipping, railroad, telephone, and telegraph industries; commandeered hundreds of manufacturing plants; entered into massive economic enterprises on its own account in such varied departments as shipbuilding, wheat trading, and building construction; undertaken to lend huge sums to businesses directly or indirectly and to regulate the private issuance of securities; established official priorities for the use of transportation facilities, food, fuel, and many raw materials; fixed the prices of dozens of important commodities; intervened in hundreds of labor disputes; and conscripted millions of men for service in the armed forces. It had, in short, extensively distorted or wholly displaced markets, creating what some contemporaries called war socialism.

Additionally, Higgs documented that,
The public debt, which had been slightly more than $1 billion before the war, was over $25 billion at the end of the war and remained almost $17 billion as late as 1929.

While their heads were bobbing, my head was shaking.

This all had to have been a joke. Right?