Archive

Archive for February, 2010

Why we don’t trust "food" from boxes, bags, or cans

February 25, 2010 Leave a comment

Here is just another reason our family is trying to stay away from processed (store-bought) “food” as much as possible; and grow or raise our food ourself.

9 Food Label Lies

The healthiest food often has the least marketing muscle behind it. The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently published a comprehensive report on the subject, a persuasive indictment called “Food Labeling Chaos.”

Here are nine of the most common ways food labels lie, so you can prepare before your next trip to the grocery store.

“Made With Whole Grains”
Unbleached wheat flour is still the main ingredient; whole wheat flour is further down on the list, indicating that the product contains relatively little. One truth — the presence of whole grains — masks another; that whole grains make up an insignificant portion of the food.
Another factor to keep in mind is the presence of potassium bromate, a dough conditioner found in commercial bakery products and some flours, which is a major, but hidden cause of thyroid dysfunction. This ingredient may be used even in whole grain breads. For more information, please review this previous article.
Ingredients
Even if the first ingredient listed isn’t sugar, the product may contain more sugar than anything else. How is it possible? Just add up all the sugars that go by different names, such as sugar, corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup and white grape juice concentrate.
Serving Size
There are 2.5 official servings in a 20 ounce soda bottles, meaning that 100 calories per “serving” is really 240 calories per bottle.
Omega 3
Everyone knows omega-3 fats are healthy, but that doesn’t mean every product emblazoned with the word is a healthy source of it. The FDA allows certain foods that are rich in two of the omega-3 fats to advertise that they can reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, but only if they’re also low in saturated fats or other risk factors. Which is why some unhealthy foods use a bit of marketing misdirection: the packaging has the word “omega-3,” but nothing specifically about heart health.
“Made With Real Fruit”
Usually the only thing approximating fruit is concentrate (sugar). If you want real fruit, buy real fruit. If you want candy, buy candy.
“0 Trans Fat”
Many reformulated foods are basically just as bad, but they scream one truth: “0 trans fats!” to obscure another: “still bad for your heart!”
“Free Range Eggs”
This means chickens must be granted the luxury of exactly five minutes of “access” to the outdoors every day. Those eggs you buy may have been raised ethically, with room enough for hens to roam the yard. But there’s no guarantee in the “free range” label.
Fiber
The fibers advertised in many foods are mainly “purified powders” called inulin, polydextrose and maltodextrin. These “isolated” unnatural fibers are unlikely to lower blood cholesterol or blood sugar, as other fibers can.
Tastes Like Medicine!
The FDA allows food manufacturers to make certain pre-approved “qualified health claims” about the health benefits of nutrients in food. But marketers have stretched this inch into a long mile. For instance, food makers can’t say that their product “helps reduce the risk of heart disease” without FDA approval, so they say that it “helps maintain a healthy heart.”
That’s why several public health groups, including the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society, have voiced concern about this trend.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

Republicrats, Democans…. they’re all the same

February 23, 2010 Leave a comment

Like I said before – I’m not impressed by Senator Brown, and I’m not surprised by his vote on yet another unconstitutional, big government, money wasting program. If we keep electing big government, Republicrat/Democan politicians we’ll just keep getting big government. How could there be anything different?
***************************************
WASHINGTON, Feb 22 (Reuters) – A modest job-creation bill advanced in the U.S. Senate on Monday as the chamber’s newest Republican bucked his party and sided with Democrats on a $15 billion package of tax cuts and highway spending.
Republican Scott Brown joined four other Republicans, 55 Democrats and two independents to overcome a procedural hurdle that sets up a final vote later this week.
Brown was widely hailed as a conservative hero after his surprise victory in Massachusetts last month gave Republicans enough seats to block most Democratic legislation.
His election prompted President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats to call for increased bipartisanship, and an earlier version of the bill was written with Republican input.
But key Republicans withdrew their support after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scaled it back.
Brown said the bill was not perfect but would help put people back to work.
“I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington,” he said in a statement.
The bill includes a tax credit for businesses that hire unemployed workers, subsidies for state and local construction bonds and $19.5 billion to shore up a highway-construction fund.
Much of the cost is offset by a crackdown on offshore tax shelters.
************************************

Until next time…………….

Categories: Uncategorized

Civil Disobedience and the Census

February 17, 2010 Leave a comment

How we’ve chosen to handle this year’s census.
The feds have no place asking me how many flush toilets are in my house, or what time I leave for work (see page 5 question 8 and page 10 question 33 of this document http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/SQuest09.pdf)
So, we will not be answering any questions that are beyond the scope of the census bureau’s constitutional jurisdiction. Below is how we plan to handle our census.

Civil Disobedience and the CensusBy Robert Greenslade © Nitwit Press
July 27, 2009
I recently heard someone say the time has come for some civil disobedience and the intrusive nature of the Census makes it the perfect place to start. I could not agree more. The American people need to draw a line in the sand and tell the reprobates in the federal government we will no longer tolerate their usurpations of power.
If the American people are going make a stand and go toe to toe with the federal government, then they need a basic understanding of some constitutional principles because these principles are universal and pertain to every power exercised by the federal government.
Constitutional Principles
Principle No. 1. The Constitution established a separation of power between the States and their federal government. James Madison explained this principle in Federalist Essay No. 45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security.
In the New York State Convention debating ratification of the proposed constitution in 1788, John Jay, who was one of the authors of the Federalist Essays and would later become a justice of the United States Supreme Court, expressed this principle as follows:
What are the objects of our state legislatures? Innumerable things of small moment occupy their attention; matters of a private nature, which require much minute and local information. The objects of the general government are not of this nature. They comprehend the interests of the states in relation to each other, and in relation to foreign nations.
Thomas Jefferson discussed this principle in various writings throughout his political career. In 1816 he wrote:
The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it… Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the state governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the state generally…
The best key for the solution of questions of power between our governments is the fact that ‘every foreign and federal power is given to the federal government, and to the states every power purely domestic. * * * The federal is, in truth, our foreign government…
The federal government was empowered to deal with foreign affairs and relations between the States while the States would concern themselves with domestic affairs.
The powers of the federal government are commonly known as delegated powers because when that government was established, the States delegated, not surrendered, a portion of their sovereign powers to the federal government. The powers not delegated to the federal government are known as reserved powers.
Principle No. 2. The Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers. Under this system of government, every power not granted to the federal government and enumerated in the Constitution is denied. This principle is the foundation of the Constitution and exists independent of the Tenth Amendment. That Amendment is merely a secondary level of restraint on the powers of the federal government.
In Federalist Essay No. 14, James Madison wrote that adoption of the proposed constitution would not grant the federal government general legislative authority throughout the United States:
[I]t is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects…
Alexander Hamilton addressed the principle of limited government in Federalist Essay No. 83:
The plan of the convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended.
The federal government only exists within the sphere of its delegated powers and is constitutionally powerless to act absent a specific grant of power. It should be noted that there are no implied powers beyond the delegated powers. For example. Congress has been granted “the power to establish post offices.” Therefore, Congress can pass any law necessary to the establishment and maintenance of post offices. This would include such incidental powers such as printing stamps, affixing their value, appropriating money for postal trucks, etc.
Members of Congress constantly attempt to reverse this principle. I have lost count of the number of times I have watched one of these clowns hold up a copy of the Constitution and claim their powers are unlimited except in those instances were the Constitution places a restriction on their power. These individuals are either corrupt, incompetent, or both.
Principle No. 3. Constitutionally, the federal government cannot use its delegated powers to encroach on the powers reserved to the States. In other words, the federal government cannot convert its federal and foreign powers into domestic powers to do things not entrusted to that government, i.e., use principle No. 2 to circumvent principle No. 1.
Constitutional Provisions for the Census
The provision for the Census is found in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. It is confined to determining the number of Representatives [in the House] and imposing direct Taxes among the several States.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Number… The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
The reader will note the power to make laws concerning the Census is restricted to the “actual enumeration.”
In the case of direct taxes (a direct tax is a tax on property based on ownership), this provision requires Congress to apportion the tax among the individual States based on population. For example. Let’s say in 1790, two years after the ratification of the Constitution, Congress prepared a budget and decided to impose a direct tax to raise the needed revenue. And, based on the Census, Virginia had 30% of the population of the United States. Under the rule of apportionment, Virginia would have been responsible for 30% of the tax. The States collect the tax and turn the money over to the federal government.
Direct taxes are inherently unfair because one State, with ten percent of the population, might be one of the richest States while another State, with the same percentage of the population, might be one of the poorest. Yet, under the direct tax formula imposed by the Constitution, both States would be required to pay the same amount. The Founders feared the use of direct taxes so they created a system to discourage their use.
Since direct taxes must be apportioned based on population, an enumeration is needed to determine the percentage of tax for each State.
The Federal Government Distorts the Purpose of the Census
On their web-page, the Census Bureau explains the purpose of the Census as follows:
The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2) mandates a headcount of everyone residing in the United States. The population totals determine each state’s Congressional representation. The numbers also affect funding in your community and help inform decision makers about how your community is changing.
The reader will note that the federal government’s statement of purpose does not comport with the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Since decisions about our communities are not within the class of powers granted to the federal government (see constitutional principle No. 1), the reader will not find a reference to it in the limited powers granted to the federal government (see constitutional principle No. 2).
No More Census Long Forms
On their web-page, the Census Bureau states the long form used in the past has been replaced with a new short form:
In the past, most households received a short-form questionnaire, while one household in six received a long form that contained additional questions and provided more detailed socioeconomic information about the population.
The 2010 Census will be a short-form only census and will count all residents living in the United States as well as ask for name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure – taking just minutes to complete.
The more detailed socioeconomic information is now collected through the American Community Survey. The survey provides current data about your community every year, rather than once every 10 years. It is sent to a small percentage of the population on a rotating basis throughout the decade. No household will receive the survey more often than once every five years.
The reader will note that the additional information requested on the 2010 form will have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.
The American Community Survey
As stated above, the Census Bureau will be using the American Community Survey to extract personal data that it previously received on the old long form. Once again, this information will have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.
Authority for the Census and the American Community Survey
On their web-site, the Census Bureau claims the American people are “required by law” to provide the information requested on either form and our response is “mandatory.”
For the Census, they cite the provision of the Constitution referenced above as their authority to request the information.
For the American Community Survey, they cite Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 141 and 193 as their authority to request the information.
Section 141 (d) states, in part: …the Secretary, in the year 1985 and every 10 years thereafter, shall conduct a mid-decade census of population in such form and content as he may determine…
Section 141 (e) (2) states: Information obtained in any mid-decade census shall not be used for apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, nor shall such information be used in prescribing congressional districts.
Section 141 (g) As used in this section, “census of population” means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.
Section 193 states: In advance of, in conjunction with, or after the taking of each census provided for by this chapter, the Secretary may make surveys and collect such preliminary and supplementary statistics related to the main topic of the census as are necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.
The first thing reader should note is the difference between the statement of authority for the 2 surveys. The Census falls under the Constitution while the American Community Survey is merely based on a statute passed by Congress.
The second thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the reference to a mid-decade census of population. There is no constitutional authority for mid-decade census. See again Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
The third thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the statement that the information obtained from the mid-decade census cannot be used for the constitutional purpose of the actual Census.
The fourth thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the statement that the mid-decade census is being used for housing, and matters relating to population and housing. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 does not contain a grant of power concerning these subjects.
This takes us to the other section cited as the authority for the American Community Survey. Section 193 restricts census surveys and the collection of preliminary and supplementary statistics…to the main topic of the census…necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof. Constitutionally, the only topic of a census is a head count for apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 does not contain a grant of power for any other census. The other ones referenced in section 193 fail to meet the constitutional topic of the only census enumerated in the Constitution.
Note: See again the first 2 constitutional principles discussed at the beginning of this article and then apply them to the American Community Survey.
Penalty Provisions for Failure to Comply with Either Survey Request
On their web-site, the Census Bureau states the penalty provision for failing to comply with either survey request is found in Title 13, U.S.C., Section 221.
Pursuant to this section, refusing to provide the requested information or neglecting to complete either survey subjects you to a fine of not more than $100.00. Willfully giving information that is false subjects you to a fine of not more than $500.00.
Then, in what I believe is a blatant attempt to misrepresent federal law and install fear in the hearts and minds of the American people so they will provide the requested information, the Census Bureau included the following statement after their reference to the section 221 penalties referenced above:
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers from a fine of not more than $100 to not more than $5,000.
A review of Title 18 shows it is entitled:“CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.”
Section 3559 is entitled: “Sentencing classification of offenses.” Section (a) states: “Classification.—An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.
Section 3571 is entitled: “Sentence of fine. Section (a) states: “A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.” Section (b) states in part: “…an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—(7)for an infraction, not more than $5,000.” This is the only reference to a fine in the amount cited by the Census Bureau that matches the provision in section 3559 above.
The $5,000.00 fine referenced in section 3571 is a post conviction fine that only applies to an individual who has been charged and convicted of a criminal infraction as defined in section 3559. Unless an individual has been charged and convicted of some criminal offense connected to the Census and the crime is classified as an infraction, this $5,000.00 fine does not apply. Thus, their assertion that these sections changed the fines in section 221 to $5,000.00 is…you fill in the blank. In my mind, it’s a blatant lie that borders on fraud.

My Rules and Plan of Attack

Here are the 3 basic rules I follow when I receive requests for personal information on the Census and/or American Community Survey forms.
* I never destroy or deface the forms.
* I never put false information on the forms.
* I never partially complete the forms. If I am going to make the assertion that the requested information does not apply to me or the requested information exceeds the government’s constitutional authority to request the information, I return the form with a cover letter explaining why.
Here is my plan of attack for the Census and American Community Survey forms.
When I receive the 2010 Census form I will return it with a cover letter. In the letter I will give them the number of people residing in the house and state that pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution that is the only information they are empowered to request. My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau has the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress. Period end of story.
When I receive the American Community Survey form, I will return it with a cover letter. The letter will simply state that since the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers and that document does not grant them the general power to request the information, I am under no constitutional obligation to provide it.
If they attempt to distort the law and threaten me with the bogus $5,000.00 fine, as discussed and exposed above, I will send a letter to the Justice Department and request prosecution of the individuals making the threat.
The Coup de Gras to their Unconstitutional Information Requests
Even though I do not like to cite court cases, I either attach this one to my letter or hold it in reserve to support my refusal to comply with their bogus requests because it usually ends the discussion and any threat of a fine.
“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [insert Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190. We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life. As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others. Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’” [The bracketed words added for clarification]
Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)
Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.
If the federal government had been granted the general power to make inquires into the private affairs of the American people through the Census or a congressional mandated survey, then the Supreme Court could not have made this statement.
Now that we know the federal government was not granted the constitutional authority to make general inquires into our private affairs under the umbrella of the Census or a survey, I hope the American people will consider engaging in some civil disobedience and refuse to comply with these unconstitutional requests.

Until next time…..

Categories: Uncategorized

"Sheriff First" Bill

February 17, 2010 1 comment

Kudos to the intelligent folks in Montana! They realize the importance of the county Sheriff in protecting the citizens of their state, and have introduced legislation reaffirming the inherant right to protect its citizens from encroachment and harassment by federal law enforcement officials. The “Office of the Sheriff” being the chief law enforcement officer elected by the people of each county in each state, it is imperative that this authority not be usurped by federal law enforcement officials. As “Chief Law Enforcement Officer”, the sheriff is elected by the people to be the last protector, standing in the gap, to guard our freedoms at the individual level. The sheriff is the ultimate defender of the Constitution.
I’ve written my local state representative with a suggestion that he introduce similar legislation, and even included a copy of the bill revised for our state. Have a read, and if you like what you see; write your representative and suggest the same.

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT REGULATING ARRESTS, SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; PROVIDING THAT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SHALL OBTAIN THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S PERMISSION TO ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZE; PROVIDING FOR PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES VIOLATING THIS ACT; REJECTING FEDERAL LAWS PURPORTING TO GIVE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES THE AUTHORITY OF A COUNTY SHERIFF IN THIS STATE; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.” BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA:
1. Purpose. It is the intent of the legislature to ensure maximum cooperation between federal employees and local law enforcement authorities; to ensure that federal employees who carry out arrests, searches, and seizures in this state receive the best local knowledge and expertise available; and to prevent misadventure affecting North Carolina citizens and their rights that results from lack of cooperation or communication between federal employees operating in North Carolina and properly constituted local law enforcement authorities.
2. Declaration. The elected sheriff of each county is the senior law enforcement officer of that county and is the most authoritative law enforcement official in the county. The primary duties of the sheriff are to keep the peace in the county and to secure and protect the liberties and security of the residents of the county.
3. County sheriff’s permission for federal arrests, searches, and seizures — exceptions.
(1) A federal employee who is not designated by North Carolina law as a North Carolina peace officer may not make an arrest, search, or seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff or designee of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, or seizure will occur unless: (a) the arrest, search, or seizure will take place on a federal enclave for which jurisdiction has been actively ceded to the United States of America by a North Carolina statute; (b) the federal employee witnesses the commission of a crime the nature of which requires an immediate arrest; (c) the arrest, search, or seizure is under the provisions of 46-6-411 (close pursuit) or 46-6-412 (customs and immigration); (d) the intended subject of the arrest, search, or seizure is an employee of the sheriff’s office or is an elected county or state officer; or (e) the federal employee has probable cause to believe that the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure has close connections with the sheriff, which connections are likely to result in the subject being informed of the impending arrest, search, or seizure.
(2) The county sheriff or designee of the sheriff may refuse permission for any reason that the sheriff or designee considers sufficient.
(3) A federal employee who desires to exercise a subsection
(1)(d) exception shall obtain the written permission of the North Carolina attorney general for the arrest, search, or seizure unless the resulting delay in obtaining the permission would probably cause serious harm to one or more individuals or to a community or would probably cause flight of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure in order to avoid prosecution. The attorney general may refuse the permission for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.
(4) A federal employee who desires to exercise a subsection
(1)(e) exception shall obtain the written permission of the North Carolina attorney general. The request for permission must include a written statement, under oath, describing the federal employee’s probable cause. The attorney general may refuse the request for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.
(5) (a) A permission request to the county sheriff or North Carolina attorney general must contain: (i) the name of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure; (ii) a clear statement of probable cause for the arrest, search, or seizure or a federal arrest, search, or seizure warrant that contains a clear statement of probable cause; (iii) a description of specific assets, if any, to be searched for or seized; (iv) a statement of the date and time that the arrest, search, or seizure is to occur; and (v) the address or location where the intended arrest, search, or seizure will be attempted. (b) The request may be in letter form, either typed or handwritten, but must be countersigned with the original signature of the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff or by the North Carolina attorney general, to constitute valid permission. The permission is valid for 48 hours after it is signed. The sheriff or attorney general shall keep a copy of the permission request on file.
4. Remedies. (1) An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure in violation of [section 2] is unlawful, and individuals involved must be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurred, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurred, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurred, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The individuals involved must also be charged with any other applicable criminal offenses in Title 45. (2) To the extent possible, the victims’ rights provisions of Title 46 must be extended to the victim or victims by the justice system persons and entities involved in the prosecution. (3) The county attorney has no discretion not to prosecute once a claim of violation of [section 2] has been made by the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff, and failure to abide by this mandate subjects the county attorney to recall by the voters and to prosecution by the attorney general for official misconduct.
5. Invalid federal laws. Pursuant to the 10th amendment to the United States constitution and this state’s compact with the other states, the legislature declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state.
6. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.
7. Severability. If a part of [this act] is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of [this act] is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.
-END-

Until next time…..

Categories: Uncategorized

The Miracle of the Market

February 16, 2010 Leave a comment

lifted from http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=615

The Miracle of the Market
By Jacob Hornberger
Published 02/16/10
In preparation for the two recent back-to-back blizzards, D.C. residents were emptying the shelves of neighborhood grocery stores. Notwithstanding the pre-blizzard panic buying, what’s interesting is that no one was freaking out about whether the stores would be adequately stocked after the blizzards.After all, think about it: there is absolutely no government planning that goes into what is stocked in grocery stores. No federal Department of Food. No local or state planning commission. No grocery boards. No bureaucrats or bureaucracies. No laws requiring grocery stores to be well-stocked. No rules and regulations dictating how much of each food item, including bread, milk, and chicken, needs to appear on the shelves.So, how in the world do grocery stores get stocked without government planning or direction? How is it that so much food appears, almost by magic, within a day or two after most of the shelves have been emptied? Indeed, how do grocery stores manage to have more than enough food for people throughout the year given that no government department or agency is doing the planning and issuing food directives?
Let’s look at the situation another way. Suppose that in 1900, it was decided that food was just too important an item to be left to the free market. To ensure that there would always be enough food for people, state and local governments took over the grocery-store industry, just as they took over the education industry. To provide support for grocery stores, the U.S. government established the federal Department of Food to provide grants and set standards for the grocery stores, just as the U.S. Department of Education does for state and local public schools.So, imagine that we’re here in 2010, having lived under more than 100 years of a system of government-run grocery stores. Wouldn’t people be incessantly complaining about the shoddy quality of products and services, as they constantly do with the state-run schools?
Along come libertarians and say the same thing about the grocery business that they say about the education business. Get government out of the grocery business, at all levels — local, state, and federal. Abolish the federal Department of Food. Sell off all the grocery stores. Abolish all the taxes needed to run the grocery stores. Separate food and state, just as our ancestors separated church and state. Let the free market reign in the grocery-store industry.What would today’s statists say?
They would say the same things they say when libertarians call for the same solution in education. “Where would the poor get their food? There would only be grocery stores for the rich. How could we count on the free market to make sure that there was the right amount of food for each grocery store? What if some grocery stores went empty while others were plentiful? How could we be sure that each grocery store received the correct quantities of each item? You libertarians are dreamers. Do you honestly believe that you could leave something as important as grocery stores to the free market?”
Yet, today no one gives a free market in food a second thought. Every day, people have a wide range of grocery stores from which to choose, each one vying for his business. Practically every day — blizzards being a possible exception — every one of those grocery stores is packed with food, all with a dizzying array of choices.And it’s all accomplished through the miracle of the market, with no government planning or direction. And no one gets freaked out about the fact that it all happens without government intervention. People just take it for granted.
Now, while we’re on the subject of a free market in the grocery-store industry, can we talk about the same thing in the context of the education industry?

Until next time…..

Categories: Uncategorized

Is it spring yet?

February 8, 2010 1 comment

Is it spring yet?
Originally uploaded by baldwinmk

Seeds came today!!! Yipeeee!! That’s a sure sign that spring is on the way, right? We’re all VERY tired of the cold, snowy winter that “global warming” has caused (note hint of sarcasm). Can’t wait to get some food growing in the ground. We’re trying something new this year – heirloom varieties. You make 1 investment, save the seeds, and have veggies year after year. Yes, it costs more than the .49 cent packs at China-Mart, but you shouldn’t have to ever buy that variety again.
You can’t replant the hybrid seeds, well you can, but it’s a waste of time. We tried last year with some romaine lettuce – it came up just fine; but it only got about 2 inches tall. It was a neat proof of concept to see if we could in fact successfully save seeds – yes we can.
This is just one more step away from the corporate agro-mess – the Monsanto Monstrosity….. Watched a very scary documentary last night called “Food Inc”. Check it out; but don’t expect to be hungry for a long time……
Anyway; we’re counting the days ’til planting time!!!

Until next time…..

Categories: Uncategorized