(from Peter – in full, because it’s too important)
Courtesy of a link at Borepatch’s place, we learn that Belgium is now euthanizing – i.e. judicially murdering – the mentally ill and incompetent. The Washington Post reports:
Once prohibited — indeed, unthinkable — the euthanasia of people with mental illnesses or cognitive disorders, including dementia, is now a common occurrence in Belgium and the Netherlands.
This profoundly troubling fact of modern European life is confirmed by the latest biennial report from Belgium’s Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia, presented to Parliament on Oct. 7.
Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002 for patients suffering “unbearably” from any “untreatable” medical condition, terminal or non-terminal, including psychiatric ones.
. . .
In December, 65 Belgian mental-health professionals, ethicists and physicians published a call to ban euthanasia of the mentally ill.
Seemingly stung by these criticisms, the commission spends two of its report’s pages defending the system, explaining that all is well and that no one is being euthanized except in strict accordance with the law.
. . .
Of course, this ignores the essential objection, which is that, by definition, the mentally ill may be less capable of forming a “true will,” or, at least, that their intentions are intrinsically more difficult for a doctor — or anyone — to establish with the necessary certainty upon which to base a life-or-death decision.
. . .
Euthanasia of people with autism, depression, schizophrenia and dementia in the Low Countries represents a global moral crisis for psychiatry, and all of medicine, that can no longer be ignored.
There’s more at the link. As Borepatch points out, there are also reports that organs are being harvested from the bodies of euthanized patients. This makes it increasingly likely, in a world without meaningful morals or ethics, that someone might be nominated for involuntary euthanasia purely on the grounds of how many others can benefit from his or her organs.
I have no hesitation in calling this absolutely Satanic in its evil. Those who, by definition, have diminished rational capacity cannot give fully informed consent to such a procedure. It’s as plain as the nose on your face that someone is encouraging them, persuading them to make that decision . . . perhaps even making it for them. After all, it’s convenient for the health care system to be relieved of the burden of caring for the mentally incapacitated. If they’re euthanized, the costs and facilities that would otherwise be devoted to their care can be used instead for someone more ‘deserving’ – or not used at all, thereby saving money for the state. How utilitarian can you get?
We’re seeing the beginnings of the same thing in this country, too. Just last month, a woman in California reported that her medical insurance had refused to pay for expensive chemotherapy to treat her cancer . . . but it was quite prepared to pay for euthanasia, if she selected that option! That’s not the first time this has happened. The first case of which I’m aware was in Oregon in 2008. Think about what those insurers are saying to their policy-holders, in so many words. “You’re not worth this much of our money, but you’re worth that much . . . if you let us kill you.” Charming, isn’t it?
This was predicted back in the 1960’s by Pope Paul VI in his controversial encyclical letter Humanae Vitae. The full text is available online, but in brief:
Pope Paul [warned] that … the desire for unlimited dominion over one’s own body extends beyond contraception. The production of “test-tube babies” is another indication of the refusal to accept the body’s limitations; so too are euthanasia and the use of organs transplanted from those who are “nearly” dead. We seek to adjust the body to our desires and timetables, rather than adjusting ourselves to its needs.
Many disagree with the teaching of Pope Paul VI, and the Catholic Church, about artificial contraception: but I think there’s little doubt that this was a prescient warning. We’re seeing it in operation in the euthanasia policies of the Low Countries. Nature is no longer allowed to take its course; it’s ‘helped along’, willy-nilly.
Think about this from your own perspective as you grow older. I’m very familiar with this, after years as a pastor, so I can put myself into the shoes of a patient fairly easily. You begin to lose your ability to concentrate . . . you can’t remember things that happened fairly recently . . . you may not recognize people you’ve known for years.
One day, a doctor you hardly know starts talking to you about ‘medical options’ and ‘procedures’ and your ‘right’ to be free from pain, fear and worry, and he pressures you to sign ‘just a simple form’ for ‘further treatment’. One month later, he sticks a needle in your arm, and you ‘fade to black’.
Your organs are harvested for distribution to others (at a fat profit to the hospital, but none to your estate), and your relatives divide your money and possessions between them. Most of them probably won’t bother to come to your funeral. They’ll be too busy fighting over the spoils.
Welcome to our brave new world.
Okay, just to be clear…
(and this is NOT a bleg!)
I’M NOT POOR
But, it IS a matter of relativity.
I know folks who could go out for expensive steak dinners every night of the week! And doing so would have no serious consequence for them (except perhaps gout!).
I know others who generally ‘get by’ on what they bring in. Going overboard for Christmas perhaps, and playing games with five credit cards in an effort to stay solvent. Maybe playing a little too much at the Indian casinos(?) But they are treading water.
A few of my friends have good jobs, and have for many years. And often help friends and relatives in need. Sometimes even including yours truly.
But, I remain on SSDI (Social Security Disability Income), coupled with a small stipend (17% of the total) from private health insurance I was lucky enough to purchase when I was employed. And even though I was placed on the ‘disabled list’ due to one affliction, I am blessed with additional ones.
This is of no consequence to the bean counters.
I recently applied for supplemental Medicare insurance (I got Medicare with my SSDI). I’ve been on SSDI for five years, but have never applied for a supplement before. Between the complexities of the system and fear a supplement would cost more, I never did it before. Guess what? I will be penalized financially for NOT having applied in the previous five years!
Fortunately, I found an independent insurance agent who researched my options and helped me walk through the Gordian knot of rules and regulations. Sadly, he asked me to apply for assistance in paying for my prescriptions from Social Security, and they declined.
See? I’m NOT poor. The government says so!
Currently, I pay full price for my prescriptions, averaging $85/month. And without a secondary insurance, Medicare is 80/20. Meaning if I go in to see my primary care physician, a specialist or have a ‘procedure’ done (like the recent endoscopy), I owe 20%.
Which I do not have.
To be clear, I get to go out to eat (with my roommate), pay for TV satellite, rent and groceries. (She pays for the other stuff, like mortgage, electric and Wifi.) I suppose if we didn’t ever go out (usually fast food, pizza (etc.), never steak), and we didn’t have satellite TV, Internet, etc., I could afford the 20%.
We are NOT Syrian refugees, to be sure.
My 17-year old Oldsmobile clunker is other evidence. She still runs, albeit poorly. And I cannot afford regular maintenance.
Theoretically, my new plan will cover 80% of my prescriptions! And has some vision and dental coverage, as well. (Of course, the government is tacking on $20-30/month because I had to audacity to not have applied sooner!)
I’ve seen on the Internet, one cannot be fat and poor. I was once 350 pounds. I am now 233 – 50 or so more to go…
Everything is relative.
Continue to fight the good fight.
Republicans have The House – the purse strings
Republicans squeaked by in keeping The Senate.
This is important.
Just because Republicans have both the House AND the Senate doesn’t mean statist gun-control types are finished!
Keep checking your six, and keep your powder dry.
Oh, yeah – DONALD JOHN TRUMP IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I wish him well, but have no allusions he’s for stopping all the wars, the TSA, rendition, drone strikes on U.S. citizens, no-knock warrants, NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens, sobriety checkpoints and supports open and CCW everywhere!
Or that he can get his own party’s support to built a wall.
Not that many years ago, he was for gun control and a so-called ‘assault weapons ban’. He claims to have changed his stripes. People can change. Hillary was once a Goldwater Republican. Charlton Heston (in the distant past) supported gun control.
AND DJT remains a big government statist populist. (Although, he likes McDonald’s and drove his own car during the campaign, sometimes). Hillary hasn’t driven her own car in 35 years? Remember Bush marveling at supermarket scanners? Out-of-touch, much?
Regardless of party labeling, we should continue to watch ALL the Republicans (and of course the Democrats/Progressives/Socialists).
AND, the White House.
It’s not specific parties that are evil.
The Legal Brief has continued to build upon its successful launch into a fantastic no-nonsense resource for the gun community. Attorney Adam Kraut, an associate at the Firearms Industry Consulting Group and Prince Law Offices, P.C. takes the years required to earn his J.D. and boils critical legal topics relevant to the gun world into practical snippets.
Unfortunately, I am late to publishing one of his latest Briefs, a review of the legal basis of modifying one’s firearm. Mr. Kraut, Esq. breaks down the due process that one will go through post defensive encounter and basically so long as one used their weapon in legal self-defense, one is free to modify their weapon as they see fit.
That said, if one is charged there is the potential that one’s modifications could be used to show the intent of the shooter, but its nearly unheard of (Adam states he’s never heard of one, which as a firearms attorney is a significant statement).
The key is, as always, the totality of the circumstances is the key. A modified firearm, assuming the modification does not cause a negligent discharge, is only a minor issue, if its an issue at all.
My take? Modify away on functional bits such as triggers and non-functional aesthetic options such as colors. However, stay away from items that could be construed to show intent such as a “Smile, Wait for Flash” on the crown of a barrel, etc.
Of course, there is the additional caveat regarding the brand, style, and type of ammunition. Your attorney’s defense team may need a firearms legal expert (like Massad Ayoob) to explain to the folks who were unable to avoid jury duty why you were carrying ‘cop-killer bullets’, or Black Talons or some other ‘evil sounding’ named ammunition. And why the extra rounds? (magazine(s), speedloader(s))? Were you planning to ‘fill ’em full o’lead’?
And, at least some of this depends on geography. Is your prosecutor in gun-hating New York or California, of gun-friendly (generally) Arizona?
Also, do you want your special, custom, smith-worked-on machine to be held in a dusty evidence room until after the trial? Some folks shoot their custom guns for fun, but carry stock guns they won’t miss if they are stored away in a gov’t evidence room (from which evidence has been known to have been played with, tampered with, and/or disappear?)
Many things to consider when you carry. And what you carry?
Or MORE crooked?
Or, is it just the Directors? (You choose)
Hoover’s FBI was (in)famous for being anti-communist, anti-civil rights, and very much ends-justify-the means (black bag jobs, COINTELPRO, illegal files on EVERYONE. Assassination?)
So much so when ‘Open Territory’ occurred (code for Hoover dying), it was reported the secret files were destroyed (yeah, right) and Congress passed legislation limiting the FBI Director’s job to ten years. (Hoover was the FBI Director for 48 years!)
And we went through 10 directors since Hoover’s death, the eleventh (and current) being James Comey.
And post-Hoover we had illegal wiretapping, intelligence gathering, false flag operations, Ruby Ridge, Waco ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
But, according to the TV show (the FBI) and the movie (the FBI Story), the FBI was alleged to be a band of stalwart patriots, fighting communists, anarchists and criminals with equal aplomb.
And now we have Comey, a blue-ribbon candidate who seems to have dropped the ball on prosecuting Secretary of State Clinton.
from Free North Carolina:
Of course the Obama administration was not going to prosecute Hillary Clinton
When considering the recommendation of Federal Bureau of Investigation director James B. Comey against a prosecution of Hillary Clinton over the e-mail scandal, bear two things in mind.
First, for all their pretensions about the insulation of law enforcement from politics, the FBI and the Department of Justice are agents of the executive branch. As a matter of constitutional law, the power they are delegated to exercise is the president’s, and they wield it at his pleasure. The highly ambitious men and women in coveted executive-branch leadership posts always have the option of honorably resigning if they find the president’s bidding too unsavory to do; but if they remain, they do what is expected of them.
The ‘national fiction’ continues regarding the Republic’s pre-eminent law enforcement agency.
from Free North Carolina
History shows that all successful revolutions established an alternate ‘shadow’ government
during the uprising. Many of those unsuccessful also did, but weaker, less competent, or
just as corrupt as that which they opposed. It was and is, a hallmark of the Communists.
The noise of the internet shows no such activity among the ‘Patriot’ or ‘Freedom Forces’.
Lots of gabble about local resistance, and resisting Mil/LEO oppression, all of which sounds
great over a beer and a bag of wings, but not so pretty good the deeper we get into this
The Confederacy established, from the get go, a legitimate central government, with legal
authority to act in defence of the Southern States. Unfortunately, as a confederation of
sovereign states, it lacked the power to make its laws stick. Lesson there for would be
secessionists. Common cause is insufficient to ensure common effort. Various States
went their own way, leaving Richmond to scrounge, scrabble, and root hog or die.
North Carolina and Georgia were two that withheld critical supplies from troops of other
states, in dire need.
Appomattox saw thousands of starving, ragged, barefoot rebels stack arms, while tons of
supplies were held back, including 80,000 pairs of shoes, thousands of uniform jackets,
and rations were left to be taken up by Yankee soldiers or freed slaves. Lee had to beg
rations of Grant while warehouses in certain states were full.
In the American Revolution, New England, once the English were removed from Boston,
pretty much forgot about the war, busy selling foods and produce to the enemy; and handed
it off to Southern States to fight. Royal Navy ships had no difficulty receiving water, meat,
vegetables or grain from the Yankee ‘rebels’. At Valley Forge, the Army starved while good
Pennsylvania farmers supplied the British with beef, poultry, and all the sustenance needed.
The occupying forces of Philadelphia and New York never went hungry.
So, from our own history, we have key lessons in the conduct of a War for Independence.
Not everybody on your side is on your side. Beware the convenient “Patriot”. Beware of the
personal jealousies, selfishness, and downright ignorance of your ‘fellow patriots’. Know that
better than two thirds of Americans did not participate in the Revolution. Know that more than
a few ‘Southern Gentlemen’ avoided service with the Armies. Know that many just up and left
for Europe or Mexico, to save their precious skins. Know also that the war against Dixie was
largely fought by Irish and German immigrants, recruited for the purpose by Lincoln’s agents.
The idea of the Noble American, brave and true, is mostly a *fiction created after the fact. Yankee
states recruited ex- slaves in occupied territories and counted them against their quotas for draftees
Yankees bought ‘substitutes’ in Europe rather than get down and dirty in Southern mud and blood.
Draft dodging didn’t start with Bill Clinton. *I disagree. The War Didn’t End At Appomattox
So, all this leads to this . . . my fear is that somebody somewhere will start a fire he can’t put out.
Unprepared, unplanned, unorganized, unsupported, unwanted, the rising will be crushed locally,
and the result will pogroms against anyone suspected of harboring dissident ideas. And America
will cheer the slaughter. We don’t need another Shay’s Rebellion, nor another Whiskey war, nor
The Bundy Ranch incident was heartening, after a fashion, but know that DotGov is rounding up anyone they can identify for punishment. The Refuge seige is getting the same treatment. Neither were Lexington or Concord, nor Manassas. DotGov demonstrated at Waco that they will kill anyone, anytime with no reason at all. Ruby Ridge demonstrated that they will manufacture a reason if necessary, and get away with it.
I think that we’d be better off establishing a shadow government to assume control once the whole bankster bomb explodes. When the federal government expires of its own weight and criminality, somebody will pick up the pieces. Somebody better have a revenue plan ready to implement, a plan to pay the emergency services, and the troops they take under command. A plan to secure territory and resources. Someone will be doing that, the question is, “Who do you WANT doing that?”
Maybe Trump can pull this rabbit out of the hat, but I doubt it. I wish him all the best and pray for my country. But all the will in the world didn’t keep ‘Titanic’ afloat; all the will and prayers didn’t save the Confederacy. We too long ago let that wildcat out of the bag and nobody’s gonna get him stuffed back in.
YIKES! Is this what everyone is NOT talking about? Do these folks truly believe the American Republic is on her last legs. And will the Progressive Oligarchy who pretends they are the ongoing American Republic see the above as secessionist speech? Or worse yet, HATE speech?
And will lovers of Liberty everywhere continue to turn a blind eye to the every-increasing power of government, straighten the brim of their aluminum fedora, and retreat back to the warren wherein they reside? With cases of energy drinks and sketchy Internet access?
Until the Dream of a Constitutional Republic conceived in Liberty collapses under the morass of her own laws…
Inquiring minds want to know. On second thought, I don’t want to…
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable!
…or your mustache or surfboard. Your choice. :-)
(from Free North Carolina)
Aristotle taught that “To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements, for none of these things retain their natural power when they are too large or too small.”1 In this paper I want to explore Hume’s views on the proper size and scale of political order.
Size and scale are not the same thing. The scale of a thing is the size appropriate to its function. Scale for human things is the human body and its capacities. Classical architects have longed explored the relation between the human frame, its sensory capacities, and the proper size of doors, windows, courtyards, gardens, the width of streets, plazas, and so forth.
What is the proper size and scale of political order? The answer depends on what we think the function of political order is. Plato and Aristotle thought the function of political association is to achieve human excellence. Since virtue is acquired through emulation of character, face to face knowledge is required of political participants, and this places a limit on the size of the polity.
Aristotle said it should contain “the largest number which suffices for the conduct of life, and can be taken in at a single view.”2 Another classical measure was that one should be able to walk across the polity in a single day. The ancient Greek republics were of this human size and scale.
I’ve asked this question previously. What is the function of political order? (government?) Is it to ‘nanny’ the population into some pre-determined ideal – pre-determined by the (almighty, all-knowing) government? Or is it to allow individuals to be FREE; free to make their own choices and mistakes, and perhaps learn from them? Or not? THEIR choice?
And allow them to follow whatever path they choose, as long as it doesn’t impinge on the ability of others to follow THEIR path?
Sadly, I believe most Americans are so fed-up by the ongoing political machine that they don’t care. And, anyway, they are too busy trying to eke out an existence for themselves and their families, with the ever-present demon of surveillance and taxation wolves at the door. Or already inside.
How many different taxes and fees are you forced to pay? And how many agencies are recording your movements, actions and attitudes, through direct physical surveillance, monitoring email, cell phones and social media? Information many times given up by you voluntarily.
What kind of political order do YOU want?
And do you even have a choice, anymore?
Much like interaction between neighbors, I believe interaction between nations is similar. In short, politics is like the rules of the street.
If you encounter someone out-and-about trying to rob/rape/burn a third party not known to you, you may choose to walk away, or engage.
If a nation takes force against another, you can make the same choice. Or not.
HOWEVER…we don’t exist in a vacuum, either as members of society or as a Republic!
(from Mike @ Cold Fury)
War is the health of the State.
Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly £200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. The state intervened to prevent the citizen from eating adulterated food or contracting certain infectious diseases. It imposed safety rules in factories, and prevented women, and adult males in some industries, from working excessive hours. The state saw to it that children received education up to the age of 13. Since 1 January 1909, it provided a meagre pension for the needy over the age of 70. Since 1911, it helped to insure certain classes of workers against sickness and unemployment. This tendency towards more state action was increasing. Expenditure on the social services had roughly doubled since the Liberals took office in 1905. Still, broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.
All this was changed by the impact of the Great War. The mass of the people became, for the first time, active citizens. Their lives were shaped by orders from above; they were required to serve the state instead of pursuing exclusively their own affairs. Five million men entered the armed forces, many of them (though a minority) under compulsion. The Englishman’s food was limited, and its quality changed, by government order. His freedom of movement was restricted; his conditions of work prescribed. Some industries were reduced or closed, others artificially fostered. The publication of news was fettered. Street lights were dimmed. The sacred freedom of drinking was tampered with: licensed hours were cut down, and the beer watered by order. The very time on the clocks was changed. From 1916 onwards, every Englishman got up an hour earlier in summer than he would otherwise have done, thanks to an act of parliament. The state established a hold over its citizens which, though relaxed in peacetime, was never to be removed and which the second World war was again to increase. The history of the English state and of the English people merged for the first time.
Funny how so many “temporary” wartime measures turn out to be anything but. But the truth is that power glommed by the government, and liberty stolen from the people, are two of the most permanent things in existence.
(Via Jay Nordlinger)
Do no-knock warrants (The War On Drugs), or sobriety checkpoints (Alcohol), or metal detectors @ airports (Hijacking) have a ring? Or The Patriot Act or the NDAA, the TSA, Homeland Security (or any of their bastard children) post 9/11?
Don’t you see? EVERYTHING is countenanced as a WAR by government! And, as such, demands these extreme measures for the government to combat them.
And the only way they relinquish any of their ill-gotten power is through long, hard-fought legal battles. Like courts now requiring warrants for cell-phone access.
Or, I suppose, through another choice.
Also to be hard fought.
See what I did there?
Regular readers (thank you!) know I am pro-law enforcement. However, just as I promote the entire history of the United States (warts and all), I believe in reviewing all efforts by the police (good and bad).
A Washington Post article regarding the police came to my attention.
For the time constrained, here’s the juicy part…
A Washington Post review of 2,000 warrants served by D.C. police between January 2013 and January 2015 found that 284 — about 14 percent — shared the characteristics of the one executed at Taylor’s apartment. In every case, after arresting someone on the street for possession of drugs or a weapon, police invoked their training and experience to justify a search of a residence without observing criminal activity there. The language of the warrants gave officers broad leeway to search for drugs and guns in areas saturated by them and to seize phones, computers and personal records.
In about 60 percent of the 284 cases, police executing the warrants found illegal items, ranging from drug paraphernalia to guns, The Post found. The amounts of drugs recovered were usually small, ranging from residue to marijuana cigarettes to rocks of cocaine. About 40 percent of the time — in 115 cases — police left empty-handed.
Ah, The War on Drugs (and Guns) strikes again. How many folks are incarcerated for possession of a joint, and how many cops are employed to locate and incarcerated such folks?
And if The Second Amendment is indeed an individual right (as the Supreme Court has stated)…yatta, yatta, yatta.
“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” – English jurist William Blackstone
Sometimes, there is a meme ‘under the radar’. It doesn’t make the national news, but keeps peaking out from behind the curtain on the Internet.
Something I’ve been noticing in my electronic travels of late is government(s) not only want to know how much money you have, and be able to tax it or steal it, as they deem necessary, but also THIS:
(in part from Travis McGee)
It’s about the war on cash, of course, the exchange medium which permits a citizen to exercise a little of whatever privacy remains in a world gone mad with surveillance. Put a pack of Trojans and a copy of Esquire on your card and you’ve given any government cop with a sympathetic judge enough to peg you as a sex maniac and, therefore, probably hot for trafficked humans. Charge a Colt 1873 at an antique sale and get on the no-fly list.
The latest comes to us from Europe where the central bank has just snuffed the 500-Euro note because — it says — Bin Laden used them. (So do, I’ll bet, European Central Bank bigwigs when they are fooling around with Roman bimbos, but that’s beside the point.)
Enter the United States of America and one of it’s leading gadabout economists, Larry Summers, the guy who almost became secretary of the treasury under Obama and is undoubtedly on the Hillary and Bernie short lists for the same job.
He wants to kill the $100 Federal Reserve Cartoon because bad guys like drug dealers use them. And what a brilliant idea based on astute observation, there, Larry. I can’t imagine Jalisco Cartello, in Tijuana to make a buy, would ever think to fill two brief cases with 50s when it becomes illegal to have one brief case with 100s.
‘course, then you can outlaw 50s, then 20s, etc., then, presto! 24/7/365 Mr. Orwell’s Telescreen is in your wallet.
And there you have it. The CASH AS MALUM PROHIBITUM meme! No need for governments to monitor paper money transactions when everything is to be mandated electronically, and Euro-notes and the (former) greenbacks are no longer allowed!
So much for the thousands I’ve stored in my mattress, the phony compartments in the top of my hollow-core doors and Ziplocked in the freezer! Soon, it’ll all be worthless.
And readily accessible by governments (electronically) whenever they want!
Of course, it’s worthless, so I’ve fooled them! :-)
(and truth is I have nothing – and am barely able to make rent and I drive a barely-running year 2000 Oldsmobile!) 🙂