Assault weapons ban passed at heated Senate hearing

Speaking directly to Feinstein, Cruz asked: “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing to the Second Amendment, in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment? Namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights? Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?”

Visibly angry, Feinstein shot back.

“I’m not a sixth grader,” she said. “I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it.”

“It’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution, I appreciate it,” she continued, staring at Cruz, who glared back at her. “Just know that I’ve been here a long time, I’ve passed a number of bills, I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well-educated and I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this [bill] does not prohibit — you use the word prohibit – it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that other people use in close combat? I don’t think so. So I come from a different place than you do.”

As Feinstein spoke, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and other Democrats also stared at Cruz, nodding in agreement with her.

Feinstein later apologized to Cruz for her heated response: “You sort of got my dander up,” she said.

via Assault weapons ban passed at heated Senate hearing.

Hunger – Nature’s Great Motivator

Hunger is one of nature’s greatest motivators. If you repeatedly feed a man who does not work, he will surely be less inclined to do so.

There is a limit to every man’s generosity when he himself must labor to obtain the surpluses by which his generosity is made possible. While he may choose to feed a poor man one day, the poor man has no guarantee that he will find food the next. As a result, the poor man will always strive for a means of supporting himself.

There is hardly a limit or end to the hand-outs from a government who has the ability to steal. This arrangement of endless reward for leisure distorts the natural balance between charity and dependence toward dependence.

One of the greatest liberal myths

I’d like to put to rest one of the greatest liberal myths with a bit of sound reasoning and basic economics. The myth goes like this. Taxation and government welfare are a good thing because they help the needy and anyone who disagrees obviously has no compassion for the less fortunate. Those who call for less taxes and a decrease in the amount of money the government spends are stealing food out of the mouths of babies.

Ask yourself this simple question. Is there a greater chance for need when there is less stuff or more? Of course the answer is simple. The more stuff there is the less likely that there will be need for stuff. How does stuff come to be? Well, people produce stuff. So, the more people who are producing stuff the more stuff there will be and the less likely it will be that there will be shortages of the stuff we need.

What happens when government takes from people who produce stuff and give it to people who don’t? Less stuff gets made. This is true for two reasons. One, the producers have less capital to invest in growing production, and two, the people who receive have less incentive to become a producer.

With the producers producing less and less people producing it’s no wonder that more people are in need of stuff.

When property rights are respected, and the market is unhampered by overbearing regulations, the chances that there will be more stuff is greatly increased. As a result of more stuff being produced, the prices for stuff will generally decrease. This means that those who can’t afford stuff will be better off because stuff will cost less and people who have enough stuff will be more capable of helping those who don’t.

So it’s easy to see that those who proclaim to be compassionate and desire to help the poor by growing the societal safety net ( welfare state ), are actually supporting policies which hurt the very people they intended to help.

Now who’s stealing food out of the mouths of babies?

What constitutes due process of law?

The Fifth Amendment states:

No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

What does the “due process of law” really mean? What ever it is, it is the thing that allows the government to deny the individual of life, liberty, and property. As such, I feel compelled to understand it.

The fourth amendment states that The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated without a warrant. To get a warrant law enforcement officials must prove “probable cause”.

So Constitutionally speaking, a warrant is the first step in the “due process of law”.

But the fact is, law now permits search and seizure without a warrant.

“The Supreme Court has held that searches and arrests can be performed without a warrant under some circumstances. Most notably, arrests and searches can be performed if the officer personally witnesses the suspect committing a misdemeanor, or has reasonable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a specific, documented felony.”

This essentially moves the starting point of “due process” back a level – from warrant to probable cause. Clearly Unconstitutional.

But it gets worse…

“A police officer may search people and places when the officer has probable cause or “REASONABLE SUSPICION” to suspect criminal activity”

“Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside.”

So no longer is a warrant or “probable cause” the prerequisite to the initiation of force, but suspicion alone. Suspicion of wrong doing has now become the beginning of “due process of law”.

Sure the courts might decide later that evidence is inadmissible, but by that time, what are the chances that No person will have been deprived of life, liberty, or property?