A right to food?

One of our state representatives has proposed a new amendment to the Constitution of Maine.  From LD 783:  

Constitution, Art. I, §25 is enacted to read:

 Section 25. Right to food. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to

food and to acquire food for that individual's own nourishment and sustenance by

hunting, gathering, foraging, farming, fishing or gardening or by barter, trade or purchase

from sources of that individual's own choosing, and every individual is fully responsible

for the exercise of this right, which may not be infringed

I find this amendment problematic as written.  No one has a right to food, unless they have procured it honestly themselves.  No one has a right to never be hungry. They have a natural right to grow food, to buy it, to barter it, but unless the laws of nature have changed, and there will never be a bad growing season, there will never be a teamsters strike, there will never be a famine, in other words unless there will never be circumstances that limit the food supply, then there is no right to food any more than there is a right to health. We have a right to seek after these things without being infringed upon, but as soon as you say someone has a right to food, you're saying they have a right to take from someone whom they perceive has more than they. It's a complete abrogation of property rights, and without property rights, there are no rights at all.

The amendment is not a recognition of an unalienable (i.e. God-given) right; it actually would establish a right that didn't exist before. It's another entitlement. Human nature being what it is, there will always be those who would say, "I have a right to food, therefore give me yours because you have more than I do." It will make no difference that you worked your butt off to grow it or otherwise obtain it, it will be theirs, and the amendment will lend credence to their demands. Are all people like that? Definitely not, and I think farmers, particularly small farmers, are the least likely to think like that.  However, unless you have your eyes shut tight, you cannot help but see the results of the entitlement society we now live in.  All those entitlements exist because government has the power to take from some and give to another.  This is not what our country was founded on, but sadly what it has become.

Power comes from the people, but the people cannot rightfully give to the government what they do not have.  Does a person have a right to someone else’s property, including food?  Does a person have a right to demand from their neighbor food, clothing, housing, or any of a number of other needs?  No. Therefore, they cannot rightfully give that power to government.  The voice of the people is not always righteous.  The voice of government is always harsh because government rules by force.  As attributed to George Washington, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquent.  It is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. ”

I would like to see the first clause struck so that the amendment reads “Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to acquire food for that individual's own nourishment and sustenance by hunting, gathering, foraging, farming, fishing or gardening or by barter, trade or purchase from sources of that individual's own choosing, and every individual is fully responsible for the exercise of this right, which may not be infringed.”

One can have the right to seek food without having the right to food itself, because the first is about earning it, and the second is about having it without a lick of work. 

In a compassionate society, and by God’s command, we must help others, but it must always be voluntary.  I often have extra produce from my garden, and I know people who need it.  I don’t sell it to them; I give it to them, and we are both satisfied.  However, if someone came to my garden and demanded my produce, I’d send them packing.  There is a big difference. 

Kent State University

43 years ago today, 4 students were shot down by the National Guard on the campus of Kent State University, Ohio.  I will never forget the stunned disbelief that I felt, and 43 years later, if feels like yesterday.  So much has happened since then, so much government corruption and power grabs.  As I sit here tonight, I hear Eric Holder saying, in answer to the question, "Will our troops ever fire on U.S. citizens?", "Absolutely not."  But it has already happened.  I hear the voices of government saying, "The Military Commission Act is not going to apply to U.S. Citizens", but that, too, has already happened:  The Boston bomber is a naturalized citizen, entitled to a civilian trial, not a military trial.  Should Timothy McVeigh have been labeled a terrorist and denied a trial?

As I remember the Kent State shootings, I'm heartsick.  Too much has happened, too much liberty lost.  Lest we forget, lest we forget...

On Changing America

Powerful video commentary from The Washington Times.  Best viewed full screen.

Occupy

I've been watching the whole "occupy" thing with some bemusement.  The Occupy movement has been the darling of Main Stream Media, the same MSM that vilified the Tea Party protests.  However, I didn't see the violence and lack of respect for property with the Tea Party protesters that I've seen with the Occupy protesters.  Certainly I never heard of any Tea Partiers relieving themselves in public as the now-famous photo of the protester defecating on a police car in Manhattan, nor have I heard of Tea Partiers leaving trash everywhere.

Do the Occupiers have some legitimate complaints?  You bet they do!  However, I believe the Occupy movement has been totally infiltrated by left wing socialist types, just as Whittaker Chambers outlined in Witness.  And by the way, I think Witness should be required reading for anyone interested in how the tenor of the country has changed in the last 80 years. The spotlight should not be on corporate dominance or Wall Street, but on government intervention in business and the economy. Without government's meddling, corporations would not even exist, since they are a creation of government (government charter). Without government's abdication of its right and duty to coin sound money, bankers could not transfer real wealth into their coffers by debasing the currency. Without government winks and nods, genetically modified products could not exist, for patents on life would not have been awarded and the marketplace would have quickly disposed of the products.  Without government subsidies and programs dating from the 1930's, which set out to diminish the number of farms in operation and bring agriculture under government control, Agribusiness could not and would not exist.

The Occupy movement does not have my support, and shouldn't have yours either, for it takes the focus off the federal government, the perpetrator of the atrocities, and puts it on the beneficiaries. 

What is a "liberal" anyway?

I was picking up a load of grain a few days ago and had a short conversation with someone that I know from a goat forum about genetically modified corn and soy, which I will not buy.  In fact, I won't buy food for myself that's genetically engineered, so why would I feed my animals that way?  What my livestock produce goes into my body.  The comment was made, "Oh, yeh, I forgot.  You're one of those 'liberal; types."  Oh, really?  I replied, "No, I'm probably one of the most conservative people you'll ever meet.'  A pause, and then "I eat just like my grandmother did, and her mother before her."

Isn't it a strange world where a libertarian is called a "liberal" because she doesn't want adulterated food?

Musings on morality and civil unrest

A lot of people are unhappy with our Congress with the shenanigans pulled to force the so-called health reform act down our throats. "Deemed as passed" in the House, without even a vote--clearly unconstitutional, and the IRS, heavily armed, our own answer to the KGB, it seems, to be the enforcement arm. I myself have no health insurance and don't want any. I will pay my own way, and if I can't make it, then no one else is obligated to take care of me, and certainly not at the point of a gun. I am dismayed, if not despairing, over the corruption in government, at all levels. I see it here on the local level, at the county level, at the state level, and blatantly at the federal level. In the midst of all this, I exchanged emails with a good friend who is about as angry as one can get. In his words, the ballot box is dead. Electronic voting machines are easily manipulated, and elections are a fraud. He sent me this quote from Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! 

I’ve been pondering this all morning.  I don't want to be part of a bloody revolution, yet I don't want to be a slave.  Our country has been sold out, our Constitution destroyed.  The people of the United States have chosen the road to destruction.  It's easy to say that the Congress did it, but that ignores the fact that we sent them there!  Most people just "don't have time" to be "involved in politics", which means, they are willing to let someone else run their lives.  I'm torn.  I can't see any way out except the hand of God, and even that won't save us unless we as a nation return to his precepts--which are embodies in the Ten Commandments. 

Funny thing about those commandments.  Thou shalt not steal seems to have been changed in the minds of the people over the years.  Thrown out, even.  And all these wars?  Thou shalt not kill (slay), seems to have many exceptions now.  Thou shalt not commit adultery?  Gee, that's pretty old fashioned, too, isn't it?  Why not whore around with this one and that?  As long as you never get married, or get married and divorced a few times, it's still okay, isn't it?  Thou shalt not covet?  Why, if we all had the same as everyone else, then we wouldn't be able to covet, so we should just share the wealth and then all would be well.  Remember the Sabbath?  Too old-fashioned.  Too much money to be made by carrying on business 7 days a week, and we'd lose our competitive edge if we did that.  And a little lie here and there doesn't hurt anything.  Sometimes we need to stretch the truth or make promises we can't keep in order to do more good.  Gotta get that foot in the door, y'know.  That's not bearing false witness, that's just playing it smart.

As for the rest, well, why should we have only one God?  We can have government as our god, or money, or whatever we choose.  God is whatever we make it, right?  We don't have to make an graven images--that one we'll keep--we'll just pick and choose our god from day to day.  Take the name of the Lord in vain?  Where would we be without a good epithet to express ourselves?  "Mickey Mouse" or "Golly darn" just doesn't cut it when I'm really ticked off.  I'd honor my father and my mother if they weren't so...so...so HUMAN!  They have FAULTS for goodness sake!  I can never forgive them that! 

There's always a "good reason" to turn our backs on morality, and our founding fathers warned us that the Constitution would never suffice except for a moral people.  They told us we needed to be involved.  They gave us a federation of individual republics and told us to beware of factions that would tear us apart.

We've ignored both God and his emissaries.  We are reaping what we have sown.  I don't think even a bloody revolution would help without a change in the hearts of the people, and I wonder if that's even possible now.   As a nation, we're neither brave nor moral.  The military consists of the mindset that will fire on its own citizens, and the citizens are either too cowed or too apathetic to get involved politically.  How do we take our country back, and restore the Constitution, if no one wants be involved?

I think we have a lot more to go through before this is over.

2010 Census

It's a new decade, and the U.S. Census Bureau is gearing up to send agents around collecting information.  Now, since I'm a genealogist of sorts, I'm happy to find information on family from past censi (or censuses).  However, the Constitution authorizes and enumeration for the purpose of calculating how many representative each state gets in Congress.  Anything more than that is simply information gathering.

A few years ago, the U.S. Census Bureau started sending around the American Community Survey, which is "conducted under the authority of Title 13, United States Code, Sections 141 and 193", according to the ACS FAQ.  A more intrustive "survey" you'll never lay eyes on, and the "law" threatens you with substantial fines if you don't answer.

However, there is a way to answer both the ACS and the Census truthfully, completely, and still maintain your privacy.  Any questions that pertain to the First Amendment, that is, religion or anything pertaining thereto, can be answered, simply, "First Amendment".  Anything else besides your name and address and number of people in the household can be referred to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees (not grants, because this right is given by God and not government) your right to privacy.  The actual wording of the Fourth Amendment can be found here.

Rights that are not claimed are not rights at all.  To remain a free people, it's imperative that we "remind" our government that the U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law of the land and that Congress cannot change it merely by passing a law.

A Victory for Raw Milk

U.S. Dept of Agriculture, the FDA, and various state governments have been waging a war against raw milk for years.  Swat teams hold women and children at gunpoint wihle they haul away "evidence" and "contraband" (raw milk, computer records, dairy equipment) and consumers are treated like children who can't make decisions for themselves.   This, of course, is all under the auspices of "protecting" us against our own stupid decisions.  Like other socialist policies, this looks well-meaning on the surface, but the loser is always the private citizen, and the winner is always corporatism and agribusiness.

A recent ruling in a Canadian court is a ray of sunshine in an increasingly bleak landscape.  Michael Schmidt, an Ontario farmer, was acquited of 19 charges brought against him by the Ontario Ministry of Health.  Schmidt had been running a cow share program to provide raw milk to those who would prefer their milk and cheese unpasteurized.  You know, the way it's been consumed for millenia.

In today's world, common sense takes a back seat to hysteria and corporate interests, and the uninformed eagerly nod their heads in acquiescence, thankful for Big Brother's solicitude.  Others, like myself, see what is happening to our food supply, investigate claims made by public health officials, and compare that to historical data.  I, for instance, concluded that raw milk, raw honey, and other raw foods can't be the threat we're told or the human race would have died out long ago.  Obviously that didn't happen, despite the lack of officialdom looking over our shoulders and monitoring our every mouthful until the recent past.

If every judge were as thorough as Ontario Judge Paul Kowarsky, it would be a better, safer world.  Those who want to drink pasteurized milk would be free to do so, and those who like raw, would be safe from gestapo tactics.

Food protection advocates energy would be better spent protecting us from genetically modified foods, contamination of open-pollinated crops, and providing labeling laws that allow us to know just where the threats in our food actually lay.  Instead, they harass small farmers and private food coops, discourage the buy and eat local movement, and work to convince the European Union that GM products don't really need to be labeled, using the long arm of the U.S. government to further the interests of Monsanto et.al.

As for me, I plan to continue drinking my own raw milk and making my own raw cheeses.  I have my very own raw milk machine, and she's a lot friendlier than agribusiness.

Legacy of Shame

I'm about 2/3 of the way through Legacy of Ashes, a book by Tim Weiner about the CIA.  Truly, the book should be renamed Legacy of Shame.

Well written and informative, if a bit biased, the one question that isn't directly addressed is:  Should the U.S. even have an intelligence branch?  The answer has to be yes.  No nation can exist without knowledge of the world around it, and even during the American Revolution intelligence operations were necessary.

But another more pressing question is whether the U.S. should throw out its moral foundation to interfere in other governments under the guise of national security.  My vote is NO.  There is NEVER a good reason for assassinations, fixing elections, and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations.  The whole mindset has led us to where we are today: hated and despised by the rest of the world, feared even by U.S. citizens.  We are bankrupt in more ways than one.  The CIA needs to be eliminated, and a new intelligence agency that provides information only--even by placing people in sensitive positions--needs to be formed.  Then all we need is operatives and politicians with moral fiber.  Yeh, right, if that's even possible in today's America.

Thoughts on a Snowy Day

It's snowing.  Has been since sometime during the night.  As I look out the window, I see the chickadees making runs to the birdfeeders, snatching seeds then flying off, to return again a minute later.

It's very quiet, not the sound of a motor anywhere.  A perfect day to stoke up the wood stove, curl up with a book, and let the world go by.  I watched the end of a movie this morning, Delhi 6.  Good movie, even though it was subtitled thoughout.  As I sit here in my quiet corner, I wonder how people can live in such teeming masses, all of humanity crowded next to each other.  Yet even as I say that, I'd love to go to India and experience it.  I'd like to experience life on many planes, but this one, the one I have today, is the one I want to always come back to: enveloped in quiet, surrounded by warm furry and feathered bodies:  cats, horses, goats, chickens, and anything wild that comes through on wings or feet.

I was reading The 5000 Year Leap, by W. Cleon Skousen, this morning.  Chapter 15 covered The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, one of the foundations of our Founding Fathers' economic and political philosophy.  We've left that far behind.  For the first hundred years, America embraced Smith's ideas and the U.S.A. became the wealthiest nation in the world.  We produced the most goods, grew the most crops, and exported the greatest amount.  Real wealth, that's what America gave to the world, and though there was still poverty, it was not the glaring abject proverty that's seen all of the rest of the world.  Americans opened their hearts and their wallets and became possibly the most generous people in the world.

That's all changed now.  In the early 1900's, by slow degrees, free market capitalism began to fall into disfavor, as Marxism slowly encroached through the offices of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and almost every president since 1950.  What I find particularly telling an 1865 editorial by Lord Goschen in the London Times: 
"If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe." Hazard Circular - London Times 1865 (emphasis added)

Is it any wonder that our economy has been under attack, that the Constitution has been undermined, that the "dollar"--which used to be defined as 372.5 grains of fine silver--is almost worthless?  We're now fighting over the last 2 or 3 cents, and hyperinflation is breathing down our necks.