Divemedic

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”—Amendment III, Bill of Rights

This amendment was considered important enough to be the third listed protection in the bill of rights, right after the freedom to associate with other citizens, speak out against abuse, and to keep arms to resist tyranny. One has to wonder if there was a large problem with soldiers over staying their welcome while staying in people’s homes.

It is a fairly effective form of intimidation: putting an agent of the State inside the houses of people whom the State considers “troublesome.” Having an agent of the State live with the troublemakers has an absolutely chilling effect, and most especially when the agents start abusing the power—”pushing the envelope,” as such agents so often do. This would have been known to the authors of the Bill of Rights. The Third Amendment was put there to prevent just this sort of thing.

It was impossible for the founders to foresee the advent of electronics, video cameras, microphone “bugs” and the like, but the fact remains the same: the presence of agents of the State present in people’s homes, intimidating them by their very presence, and by their presence also enforcing the State’s policies, as well as reporting (to a superior rank or office) any opposition towards the State. Whether the actual person is present, or the person is “virtually” present, the effect is the same: a chilling of the rights of the people to oppose the policies of their Government.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants 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.”—Amendment IV, Bill of Rights

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” —Amendment V, Bill of Rights

Why am I mentioning these particular parts of the Bill of Rights this morning? Because I woke to find that the police in our Nation’s Capitol are searching people, demanding their papers, and wanting to know what their business is. Even scarier, some citizens are cheering them on, demanding that the Government keep them “safe,” whatever that is.

We are searched to enter aircraft. We submit to random searches at work, school, and in our cars. We outlaw guns, “hate speech,” legislate morality, and agree to allow our email and telephone calls filtered and monitored. We submit to “random drug screens” and allow our tax rates to climb to pay for it all. Still crime increases, and the government tells us that things would only get better, and we would all be safer, if they had just a little more power.

This is how the Republic dies. Not by invasion, nor by enemy action- but to be destroyed by our own demands, sheep bleating demands for our own safety.

In the area where Great Britain used to be, there comes a story about a woman who is told that she needs a lifeguard and insurance to have a 2 foot deep wading pool in her yard. Even more disturbing is this statement:

They are even supposed to ask the council for permission before having a barbecue.

This is the system that many want to copy here in the US?

In my previous posts about St George, we discovered that cops were using their badges and guns to threaten and intimidate citizens. The mayor is an ex cop who was investigated for making sexual advances on a minor, under color of his authority as a cop.

Now, that same mayor has resigned after being charged with possession of child porn and drugs. I think the feds need to do some investigating of a certain town in Missouri.

Mike is a man like any other. He runs a business. He kisses his wife goodbye in the morning before he leaves for work. Mike has only one trait that makes him different from nearly every other human being on the planet.

You see, Mike is alive, but he should be dead.

Mike left the restaurant where he had lunch, and began to walk back to his office. That is the last thing he remembers about that day, and about the week that followed. The rest of the events of that day have been reconstructed from those who witnessed the events that transpired.

As he walked down the sidewalk, Mike clutched his chest and slumped to the sidewalk. As luck would have it, Mike’s first lucky break of the day was that three nearby citizens saw him fall, and they knew CPR. One of them called 911 while the other two began CPR. Mike received his second break when the ambulance beat the train to the crossing a block away. Had they not done so, the ambulance would have been delayed by several minutes at a time when minutes count most.

The paramedics on the scene took over CPR and placed him on the monitor. Noting that Mike was in ventricular fibrillation, they shocked him at 200 joules. He converted, as often happens, to asystole. CPR was resumed. Mike was transferred to a backboard and placed on a stretcher. The paramedics noted that Mike was again in V-Fib, and again shocked him at 200 joules. This time, he converted to a sinus rhythm, albeit with frequent PVC’s. A pulse check found a weak pulse. The medics started an IV, and intubated Mike. The medics then started a 150mg infusion of cordarone, and rushed Mike to the hospital.

He spent a week in the hospital, and during that period, Mike received an implanted pacemaker/defibrillator. He was discharged and I got to meet him again yesterday. He could not thank me enough for being the paramedic on that call. He also reminded me that March 17th was not the first time I had met him. You see, I had also taken him to the hospital 2 years ago, when he had a stroke. During that event, TPA had ensured that he had no lasting deficits.

Days like this are the reason why we become medics. To the citizen bystanders that performed CPR on Mike that day, I say: Thanks. Mike would be dead without you. To the rest of you:

Learn CPR. You might just save a life.

In yet another sign that the Feds have too much money, the US intelligence (huh?) community is data mining online games such as World of Warcraft to try and catch terrorists who try and infiltrate the online world.

My best guess here is that some analyst at the CIA got caught playing video games, and he managed to convince the chain of command that he was hunting Bin Laden by looking for him in the online gaming community.

I admit that posting has been light. A week long cruise to the Caribbean, two jobs, and a full time course load will tend to do that. Without further delay, here is the rant of the day:

On the campaign trail in Lewiston, Maine, Hillary Clinton made the following statement:

“I am the only candidate left in this race on either side who is committed to universal health care,” she said. “It is a core value, it is a human right. It is not a privilege.”

In order for something to be a right, it means that a person is entitled to it by merely existing. The right to be free from unreasonable searches, free speech, and others are rights which are due all people. Governments are established to ensure that no one tramples on the rights of others.

Calling health care a right means that a person gets health care whether or not they have the ability to pay for that care. That means that if a person cannot pay for the care that they receive, then one of two things has to happen: either the doctor (and other health care workers- everyone from the maker of the drug to the guy who mops the hospital floor) must work for free, or that people who work and pay taxes must have a portion of their pay taken from them in order to pay for it.

What I don’t understand is how one man’s right can create a duty upon another. The fact that the money stolen to pay for the health care is spread across a country is irrelevant. Let me use an example:

1 A man meets me as I leave my bank, and threatens me with death if I do not give him money. Is this morally wrong?
2 That same man, it turns out, is robbing me because he makes less than half of what I make. Does that make a difference?
3 That same man gets 5 neighbors who are in similar circumstances to assist him in robbing everyone who leaves my bank. Does that make it better?
4 Those 5 neighbors become a network of 5,000 people all across the state. Is it now OK for them to rob me, and others who make more money than them?
5 What if those 5,000 become a million?

What changed? nothing. Taking money from one person, simply to give to another, in order to correct some perceived inequality of outcome is robbery no matter what spin you put on it.

People in this country have gotten the idea that equality of opportunity means that the result should be equality of outcome, and if this does not happen it means that the successful have somehow cheated and should be punished. Ridiculous.

I was reading Tam’s gloating over Tennessee’s score of 7 on the latest Brady scorecard, so I thought that I would go over there and see what my own state of Florida scored. California was the most gun banning state, with a score of 79 out of 100. We scored a respectable 8 out of 100, which makes us the 12th state in terms of gun owner freedom.

In 2006, California had a murder rate of 6.8 per 100,000. Florida had a murder rate of 6.27 per 100,000.

How are those gun laws working to prevent crime again?

While checking out the site, I saw and read a few of the articles on there. What a crock of total bullshit. This article advocates the prohibition of firearms on College campuses, because they don’t want the students “caught in the crossfire.” In Virginia Tech just last year, 32 students were killed when they weren’t caught in the crossfire. No one was able to defend anyone, due to a law requiring that the students play the part of disarmed victims. The shooter owned the guns, despite being prohibited by law from owning them. He carried guns onto campus, despite it being illegal and against college rules. He committed murder, despite the laws against it.

How did those gun laws save lives again?

The same article goes on to state that “18 year olds could carry guns to class.” That statement is a lie as well. It is illegal to brandish or open carry a firearm in Florida, except under certain circumstances like hunting, or shooting competitions, etc. Therefore, the only way to carry to class would be concealed, which requires a permit. to get this permit, you must be 21 years old.

I especially love this quote:

Plus, college gun owners are more likely than the average student to:
• Engage in binge drinking,
• Need an alcoholic drink first thing in the morning,
• Use cocaine or crack,
• Be arrested for a DUI,
• Vandalize property, and
• Get in trouble with police.

Since crack, vandalizing property, DUI, and drinking under 21 are all illegal in the first place, what makes you think that a student will all of a sudden become a model citizen when gun laws are concerned? The ones willing to buy and sell crack already have guns, that is why we need something to defend ourselves with. The solution here is not to take away rights from law abiding citizens because other citizens break the law.

I could easily say that since the Brady campaign is headquartered in DC, and DC citizens are more likely to commit crimes than citizens of Tulsa, we should restrict their right to post this drivel on the internet.

Asshats.

According to the IRS, for fiscal year 2006, the U.S. government took in $2.407 Trillion and spent $2.655 trillion. The money was spent thusly:

$955 billion was spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Social Security Disability
$504 Billion was spent on Social (Welfare) Programs (including public health)
$319 Billion was spent on Physical, human, and community development

meaning that over $1,778 Billion, (or 67%) of the total outlays was for wealth redistribution efforts.

$212 billion went to pay interest on our staggering National debt.

The remaining $675 billion of the budget paid for National Defense, Veteran’s Benefits, Law Enforcement, and general government.

The source of the $2.407 in tax money the government took in?
$1708 Billion of it was in payroll taxes
$313 billion from corporate taxes
$217 billion was borrowed
$168 billion was from all other taxes

What does all of this mean?
If giveaway programs were eliminated, the United States government could operate with the payroll taxes eliminated and replaced by a 5% sales tax. That would cost you less than what social security currently does.

Fat chance getting the people weaned off the government handout, though.

There are few things that illustrate the libertarian viewpoint more vividly than the current mortgage crisis. Thousands of home buyers buying homes that they cannot afford, and then the bank being surprised when they stop paying for them. I cannot say that the entire mess has been a surprise, with what I have seen over the past few years.
This brings us to the viewpoints of the various political camps in this country:

Liberal: The liberal viewpoint blames the lender. After all, if the lender made the loan to a person who could not afford it, even though they knew it, it is their own fault. Those evil corporations have been turning a profit off the little guys for years. The predatory lenders are now getting their comeuppance. The government should step in and protect the little guy by fixing interest rates, and finding other ways to let the little guy keep his house.

Conservative: The people who borrowed money that they could not afford are to blame here. After all, they signed on the dotted line, so why should the investors suffer? They loaned the money out with the expectation that they would be repaid, so the borrower should repay it. The government should step in and protect the assets of the lenders and their investors by making bankruptcy harder, and perhaps infusing some cash into the lenders as assistance. After all, if the banks go, so does the economy.

libertarian: The lenders and the consumers both entered into a contract. They both had opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not it was a good idea to participate. If the borrower defaults because the lender allowed him to overextend himself with an adjustable rate, interest only balloon payment that they knew could not be repaid, so be it. If the lender loaned money that they knew the borrower did not have the means to repay without resorting to financial gymnastics, so be it. The government should stay out of it, because it is not my fault that the parties involved were greedy, and were trying to trick the system. One way or the other, this will fix itself.

In the long run, the government screws up everything it touches. It is better if they stay out of it and stop trying to generate wealth through taxation, which reminds me of a man trying to lift himself off of the ground by standing in a bucket and pulling feverishly on the handle.