Buying cold medicine. A great example of government overreacting.
Via the Terra Haute News:
Harpold is a grandmother of triplets who bought one box of Zyrtec-D cold medicine for her husband at a Rockville pharmacy. Less than seven days later, she bought a box of Mucinex-D cold medicine for her adult daughter at a Clinton pharmacy, thereby purchasing 3.6 grams total of pseudoephedrine in a week’s time.
Those two purchases put her in violation of Indiana law 35-48-4-14.7, which restricts the sale of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, or PSE, products to no more than 3.0 grams within any seven-day period.
She was arrested! Class-C misdemeanor, which carries a sentence of up to 60 days in jail and up to a $500 fine.
I’m all for stopping the production of meth – but 2 boxes of cold medicine does not make a meth lab.
But it gets better (emphasis mine).
Harpold, who is employed at the Rockville Correctional Facility for women, feels her reputation has been damaged by the arrest, and that she has been wrongly labeled as someone who makes meth.
Her police mug shot ran on the front page of her local newspaper, she wrote, in a letter to the Tribune-Star, “with an article entitled, ‘17 Arrested in Drug Sweep.’”
I have only a few personal phobias or hang ups which serve as an endless source of amusement for my family. Cotton balls, dirty hands, and bees are partial list of items that I can’t stand. Another is the movie, “A Night to Remember”, a 1950’s black and white film about the sinking of the Titanic. I saw it once as a child and since then I have never been able to watch it or any other movie about that fateful night since. The utter sense of helplessness of the passengers and a feeling of deep frustration on my part somehow always strikes a painful chord with me. One scene that is etched in my memory is where a couple is standing on the foredeck of the Titanic looking at the stars. One of them spies a large object up ahead and comments on it. The other notes the object and comments, “its just an ice cube in a large saltwater bath.” A few seconds goes by and the first again notes the object, observing that it is approaching fast. Again, her companion dismisses it with the words, “the Captain knows what he is doing.” Not long after, they both begin to notice that the iceberg is a threat but try to calm themselves with assurances that the crew are able and the Captain experienced. You can see the desperate attempt to remain calm, and the mutual feeling of helplessness the couple felt. Then the ship hits the iceberg. You know the rest of the story.
I mention this because that same feeling of frustration and helplessness has come on to me recently. The signs up ahead are not good.
In conversation with friends and family, I hear that banks are offering incredibly low interest rates on CD’s and IRA. Lower than the rate of inflation. Also, banks are now offering very low (historically low?) interest rates on loans. Both indicate that banks are awash with money and finding few willing to borrow it.
Credit union and bank failures are coming hard and fast to the point where the FDIC and its credit union companion have been forced to pull additional funds from their member banks to offset the losses.
At the Northeast Conference recently held by the Campaign for Liberty, two economists both predicted that spending jag we have been on will come back to bite us with hyperinflation. A local banker I talked to also indicated that this is a real concern in the banking community.
While Ben and company sing their siren song of “the danger has passed”, a lot of people on the street and in positions to know, are not so sure. When the media tell us our Captain and his crew know what they are doing, I can’t help but recall the scene mentioned earlier.
Is there any hope? Yes, but it will require a change of Captain, Crew, and Course before we stand a chance of avoiding the on-coming iceberg. The real question, however, is do we have time?
Tuesday evening I attended a Healthcare is a Human Right forum in Montpelier. I wasn’t expecting much, really—a few heartstring pulling stories, empty rhetoric and/or fanatical support for a healthcare overhaul from attending legislators and a manipulated question and answer session. I think I must be a prophet because that’s exactly how it played out. I wanted to go because legislators from WashingtonCounty would be on the panel. I also wanted to learn a thing or two about organizing. I was happy to meet up with a few Tea Party folks and altogether the “opposition” camp amounted to 5 people.
Upon entering we came to a long table jam packed with information and paraphernalia from the Vermont Workers’ Center, the group which has made “Healthcare is a Human Right” (HHR) a slogan known in practically every household in VT and beyond. They have adapted an iconic symbol of Rosie the Riveter into a nurse who I would not want to look at the wrong way in a bar. The VWC has impeccable branding. The red shirts and signs are everywhere. This was the second HHR event I’ve attended. They are well organized and seem to have infinite funding. They even had free bottles of water and all the Ben & Jerry’s you could eat.
The turnout was lower than I had expected. The MontpelierHigh School auditorium holds 600 people. I’d estimate the room was about ¼ full. I’m not sure if this is considered good for this type of event but seeing as there was little to no public advertising (and I found out through the Tea Party list) I would give it a thumbs up in that area. I have a feeling the opposition turnout would have been slightly higher had the forum not been scheduled for what was GOP caucus night in most towns around the state.
A long line of tables was set up on the stage for the legislators. There was also a podium with a microphone and a desk next to it with a mike. The organizers provided interpretive services for the hard of hearing which I thought was a great touch. However, after the initial introduction I don’t recall seeing the interpreter signing.
Above the legislator table on the back curtain were 5 placards with the words “Universality”, “Equity”, “Accountability”, “Transparency” and “Participation” printed on them. All of the legislators from WashingtonCounty were invited but some did not attend (most notably Republicans). Seated at the table were Senators Bill Doyle and Ann Cummings, and Representatives Paul Poirier, Mary Hooper, Janet Ancel, Tony Klein and Topper McFaun. The meeting began at 7pm, Rep. Tess Taylor arrived at the table at 8:10.
The introduction consisted of a short welcome followed by a summary of Article 25 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For those unfamiliar with this Article, here it is:
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
On the surface, who could argue with these noble assertions? That is until you follow the slippery slope that these folks are treading down the paths to universal provision of food, clothing and the very broad “social services”. Many of us would not consider the labor of one to be the right of another but I digress.
Following this we heard from 4 speakers. One gentleman had had a life threatening kidney problem which forced him to make the unconscionable decision between his money and his life. He went on to discuss how he had ended up negotiating with the doctors and hospital because he was uninsured. He ended up making a deal on the price of his surgery. He was even granted the option to pay as he could afford after the services were rendered. That’s something that a lot of these HHR people seem to forget—when you need services you get them, regardless of your ability to pay at the time.
The next speaker was a self-employed carpenter who has been uninsured most of his adult life. Health insurance that he could afford came along with a $10,000 deductible. And you know, I could kind of sympathize with the guy. I’ve been uninsured before, too. But I bet he wasn’t going to the doctor for a sniffle as many people with “good” insurance do, just because they have it and want to get their money’s worth. But again I digress.
What I found most shocking about his testimony was his assertion that the United States lacks creativity, innovation and ingenuity because people don’t have health insurance. Really, that came as quite a surprise to me. I had never drawn a parallel between the two before. That must explain the dip in my collage-production during the time I was uninsured. Apparently, using his logic, the fact that I haven’t created a really good collage in the last few years is directly related to my lapse in health insurance coverage.
After this revelation we heard from a woman who was diagnosed with lupus and given just a short time to live. Her testimony was very heartfelt. She’s a single mom and had to make the hard choice that so many have to make—medication or sustenance and shelter. I genuinely sympathized with this woman. I’m not cold and greedy, I think the health insurance situation in this state needs to be reformed. But I still don’t agree that the labor of a health care provider is a human right.
The fellow who came after her gave a brief, somewhat inarticulate description of what the principles on the placards above the legislators meant. I don’t fault him for not being able to move beyond the talking points, though. There is an overwhelming lack of detail in these arguments.
The legislators were then asked if they felt that health care is a human right. Bill Doyle was emphatic in answering in the affirmative and also stated that health care must be transparent. I somehow missed what Ann Cummings, Mary Hooper and Tony Klein had to say about this specifically. Poirier said that it is a "basic right" and that people ought to have equal opportunity and access. He also let us know that H.100, the House version of the single-payer healthcare bill is “going nowhere.” Mary Hooper stated that health insurance needs to be discussed more and that it should not be tied to employment.
Janet Ancel said that health care is a "basic human right" and recited talking points that left me a little glazed over. So it was a good thing Tony Klein was next. He was a fireball, ranting about how the problem is money and that “we” need to get people out of the way who are making the money. As you can imagine this got the crowd going and he got the biggest applause of the night on this one. Later in the conversation he assured the crowd that he would threaten Shap Smith with revolution if this issue didn’t get a fair shake in the legislature. And they call US radicals!
Topper McFaun, who has often bucked his party over health care reform stated that health care is "not a right but a public good" which should be handled similarly to the Police or Fire Departments. He said health care should be a non-profit industry and the government should ensure that everyone is covered. But his party affiliation did come through to some extent when he asserted that Vermont ought to have waivers which would allow the state to do what we want to do rather than what Washington wants.
Following this a Q & A session commenced. Written questions were to be submitted and then a moderator posed the questions to a designated legislator or the legislator of her choice. One question was what the roadblocks are to meaningful reform. An overarching theme (or just the natural result of having politicians speak one after the other) was the lack of political will. (This was when Tony Klein threatened revolution.) Bill Doyle kindly let the crowd know that they should be targeting the Health and Welfare and Government Operations Committees. One of the gals that I sat with had submitted a question asking the panel how they expected for these VT bills (H. 100 and S. 88) to work when universal coverage was passed in Massachusetts and is failing. The Q & A was conveniently wrapped up right after her question (the last, I believe) was submitted and disregarded .
We did, however, get a chance to speak with the legislators after the event—which was respectful and (mostly) intelligent and overall was much more satisfying than the forum itself. For the most part the legislators were approachable. McFaun and Poirier seemed to be the only 2 that really had their heads wrapped around the issue and were more than willing to engage now and in the future. Others, notably Mary Hooper, seemed to have a much looser grasp on the big picture and was caught contradicting herself a few times.
After all was said and done I left impressed by the organization of the event. The tone was very civil though that could be due to the fact that the “opposition” was very much in the minority. There are more of these going on around the state. I doubt the events will be any different wherever they are but I would encourage you to attend, if for nothing else than to observe the organization and talk to your legislators after the forum.
However there were an awful lot of unanswered questions—how would this undertaking be financed (McFaun offered up a sales tax, otherwise the only mention was on the flyer in a summary of the bills: “system of broad-based taxes”)? Would the “principle” of participation force compliance? The bills want every resident of Vermont to be covered. Would someone who moved to the state uninsured instantly be covered? Findings which support the creation of this bill mention the lack of sustainability in the current health care model. How would these bills fix that? How exactly would health care quality improve with a universal system?
You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. – Winston Churchill Fellow Americans we live in a time when to have enemies or to wage active opposition to the oppressions of our would be masters is to invite ridicule and scorn and in some cases outright prosecution and/or assault at the hands of our self proclaimed betters. Our legislative and czarist oppressors and their sycophants at large amongst the population have occupied the self appointed seat of “they who know better”. All we need do is acquiesce to their demands and we shall be taken care of. The new aristocracy aided and abetted by a willing media, Marxist “social” organizations and a Federal government bent on unifying all power unto itself have promised to meet your every whim, fulfill your every desire though first you must surrender your liberty to them. You must surrender individualism, freedom of expression and thought, the wages of your labor and your very body to the regime. Upon surrendering your birthright you will receive trinkets in the form of federal subsidies, universal healthcare, housing assistance, fuel assistance and any other desire the state can satisfy by first stealing from one and giving to another. This used to be called theft; today it is called equitable redistribution. In the end it is called tyranny.
Ultimately these people are not liberal’s, they are not centrists; they are not unifiers or the adjusters of social equity. They are the enemies of America and everything this nation stood for. Left, right, centrist, conservative, liberal. They are none of these. They are ENEMIES of the Republic. They do not stand for freedom, they do not promote the individual as sovereign, nor do they stand for liberty or the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). They are statists at best, Marxist collectivists at worst. They and their thoughts, ideas, philosophies have already been proven wrong. One need only study the dust bin of history to see where their desires lead. They lead to pogroms, internments, mass graves the neutralization and ultimate elimination of liberty. Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Stalin’s Soviet Union. All promised the great lie; Freedom via slavery which resulted in the deaths of untold millions and the outright crushing of the human spirit.
In the final analysis they will never surrender their quest to subjugate mankind to their totalitarianism. They will legislate, they will berate, they will use organized thugs and in the end they will use animal like force to achieve their aims.
In response I will remind them that we are a nation born of rugged individualism and fierce independence. I will remind them that we have been here before and faced an equally able enemy who bested us in military force, economics, and in popular support. I will remind them that as little as three percent of our colonial forefather’s fought actively on the side of liberty and ultimately prevailed.
We will continue to redress grievance and use every peaceful means available to defeat the statist juggernaut seeking to crush and destroy our nation. However make no mistake; we will not surrender our liberties without a fight.
We declare this day, the 12 of September 2009 that we will not surrender one more inalienable right.
Environmentalist Advocates Ending the Modern Economy
Posted on July 13th, 2009 by Lee Doren in Bureaucrash HQ
What does an entire generation that has never faced evil do to justify its own existence? It simply invents an evil and devotes its energy forcing everyone else to fight it. Of course, I’m talking about radical environmentalism.
Previous generations had clear struggles to overcome. The greatest generation overcame Nazism and Fascism. The civil rights movement fought draconian laws that excluded entire segments of the population from participating in the economy. Now, with Communism defeated, how does a citizen progress? Well, if you’re on the political Left, you simply fight a gas that all humans exhale and force millions to believe that our very existence on this Planet is evil. That way the struggle is endless because Utopia is the ultimate goal.
Sadly, many people around the world who consider themselves environmentalists never actually read, or listen to, the ideas spouted by those who currently lead the green movement. While, most people want clean air and water, few in the “compassionate majority” would support what the radical minority seeks to accomplish. In fact, I just read an editorial that articulates the minority viewpoint quite well, “Taking Shorter Showers Doesn’t Cut It: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change,” by Derrick Jensen, Orion Magazine. posted July 13, 2009.
Unlike Carol Browner and others currently in power, Jensen does not hide his true intentions; although his views still permeate the green profession. Notably, Jensen begins his editorial by equating environmentalism with the struggle against Nazism and Fascism:
Would any sane person think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?
It takes someone with enormous intellectual depth to analogize the fight against throwing people in gas chambers to the fight against SUV exhaust. Like I said earlier, if there is no evil to fight, and no struggle to overcome, simply invent one. Also, it is rather disturbing that Jensen implicitly supports the Communist Revolution by identifying with those who fought the Tsars. History has demonstrated that the Communists made the Tsars look like saints despite the Tsarist oppression.
However, like the Reds of old, the Greens of today require everyone to support their cause. Jensen articulates this viewpoint quite well:
“[I]f we avidly participate in the industrial economy—we may in the short term think we win because we may accumulate wealth, the marker of “success” in this culture. But we lose, because in doing so we give up our empathy, our animal humanity. And we really lose because industrial civilization is killing the planet, which means everyone loses. If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses. The third option, acting decisively to stop the industrial economy, is very scary for a number of reasons, including but not restricted to the fact that we’d lose some of the luxuries (like electricity) to which we’ve grown accustomed, and the fact that those in power might try to kill us if we seriously impede their ability to exploit the world—none of which alters the fact that it’s a better option than a dead planet. Any option is a better option than a dead planet.”
So, Jensen advocates remaking the entire economy, even calling electricity a “luxury.” I am sure those siting in hospital beds around the country, who are alive today because of high-tech electrical machines, would appreciate knowing that environmentalists advocate limiting electricity. Of course, Jensen’s argument is that if we do not follow his lead, the apocalypse is on the horizon so those dying in hospitals should sacrifice for the good of humanity.
It has in all objective measures become a religion. But, unlike most religions, environmentalism is allowed in our public schools and citizens generally tolerate forced adherence to its tenets. Jensen concludes with the Nazi analogy to remove all doubt that he truly believes in the moral equivalence of Nazism and environmental degradation:
“The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.”
Overall, it is extremely important that the public is aware of environmentalism’s true goals. It is not about saving the Environment. Instead, it is about rapidly changing everyone’s way of life and scaling back the prosperity that took thousands of years to create.
I have heard your arguments, warnings, and claims, ad nauseum, regarding why we should have governmental intrusion into health care. You refuse to listen to your constituents, like myself, and continue on in your disobediant ways. Since, you seem more than willing to disregard the voices of millions of Americans, I have been forced to call upon one of the great minds of 20th Century America who will make our position clear and hopefully he will be able to break through to you.
