Monday, December 19, 2011

An Open Letter to my Children

Autumn, Kody, Carson & Kit,

     Times are a changin’ kids.  I am at the same time optimistic and spooked.  For the first time in a long time I feel that the “environment” is right for the People of our country to begin to reassert that which is right, by restoring Constitutional government and, consequently, an increased measure of Liberty.  As you know I have struggled a long time with fear of the complete overthrow of our US Constitution.  Not by one major coup but rather by the inch by inch encroachment of so called politicians robbing us of our liberty using phrases such as: “It’s for the children,” and, “In the name of public safety…,” and, “due to terrorism we need to be able to snatch and grab and detain even American citizens as long as we want without charges pressed…,” “spy on our citizens’ bank accounts etc…”

     However with election of our current president a great awakening is occurring that is sweeping across the land.  In this awakening the People are beginning to search for the truth.  They are beginning to ask hard questions of the politicians who have been robbing the People of their Liberty.  Questions like, “just how far can the Feds go under the so called authority of the “commerce clause?”  “What does the phrase, “shall not be infringed” mean?  Who is watching the so called “watchers” to see that they are doing right?  Does the government really have the authority under Article 1, Section 8, to tell me what kind of bulbs I can use, what I can eat, or drink? Questioning authority is becoming a national pastime.  That, kiddos, is good thing.

     I can remember as a kid some of the comments about World War II when the big “excuse” for killing people by the millions in Nazi Germany was, “I was just following orders.”  Many of our police officers are in the same boat.  Well, not killing people, but many of the laws they enforce are blatantly unconstitutional.  These are police officers who take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  On the good side, I see a great awakening and possibly some of the “lack of knowledge” is being cleared up as the People begin to do their own research.  Just following orders was no excuse years ago and is no excuse now for enforcing unconstitutional law.

     As you kids know I have been involved in what I call a fight for clarity on certain issues involving Liberty.  I felt that one day you kids would ask me, “What did you do to preserve Liberty in your lifetime for us, Dad?”  As you have seen, I have been joined by many other Liberty loving citizens in an attempt to preserve some measure of Liberty by making the second amendment (2A) clear to our citizens and enforcers as to what the 2A means.   These same People are asking the same questions, “How do I preserve that which I know to be right, in the sight of God, my children, the Founders, and the man in the mirror?

     In Illinois unscrupulous or maybe they were well meaning “do gooders” have perverted our Illinois Constitution by using the words “Subject to the police power…” in the Illinois version of the 2A.  This travesty must be stopped.  I am confident that long term it will be, either by the courts with awakening judges and juries, or by the awakening of the People or hopefully all three.  It is not too hard to understand the term “shall not be infringed.”  Any young person understands it.  It is the old folks and highly educated types who want to rule other People’s lives that have the most difficulty.

     It is my sincere hope that our County law enforcement and other elected officials will recall their oaths and be able to look their kids in the eye and say that they did their part to uphold the oath.  My advice to you is that at all costs you choose Liberty and fight tyranny in any form that you see it.  Remember our Country was founded with the ideal of maximum Liberty and minimal government.  I like Thoreau’s comment, “That government governs best which governs least.”

Love, Dad

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Comments on Pike County Illinois Constittutional Carry of Arms

By  Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

On Tuesday November 29, 2011 the Petition for the “Constitutional Carry of Arms” ordinance of Pike County was submitted to the Pike County Clerk.  I along with Rick Rodhouse, of Pl. Hill, IL, presented the petition to Clerk Donnie Apps who reviewed it page by page and then accepted it.  It is public record and therefore subject to review by the public for a period of time.

The petition came about following the highly significant US Supreme Court cases Washington DC vs.  Heller and McDonald vs Chicago.  In essence Heller confirms that 2nd Amendment (2A) secures right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms, while McDonald stated that the 2A applies to the states.  This is important legal precedent since it now clears the way to challenge the Illinois Constitution at Article 1 Section 22 which states: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [emphasis mine].”  The term “police power” refers to the power of legally constituted governments to make laws to preserve public safety and health etc.   The term does not refer to the power of police to enforce law.

I have reviewed all four of the Illinois Constitutions and could find no reference to the bearing of arms in the first three.  Only the fourth constitution had any phrase regarding arms that I was able to see.

The concept of passing the ordinance was conceived by me while the authoring of the ordinance was a collaboration of several people including myself, Dick Metcalf of Barry, IL, a constitutional scholar and historian who taught on the history of the Constitution at Cornell University, and some others, who reviewed our work. 

The petition quickly became a popular one in Pike County since there are so many self reliant and independent minded people.  Volunteers to collect signatures came from all parts of the County and collected an amazing 1300 plus signatures in just a few weeks.  What these people seem to have in common is the desire to have the same rights as the founding fathers had and that criminals have today.  That is the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, friends, and property. 

Criminals do not ask permission of government to keep and bear an arm.  They are not subject to a waiting period, a caliber, or particular style of weapon.  They do not ask permission to carry a knife or gun or baseball bat.  When a criminal needs to defend himself he does not need to call 911, since he is already armed.  Only the law abiding people need to jump through the hoops to see if they are fit to keep and bear an arm.

Illinois is the last state in the entire Union of States to not have a concealed carry law.  Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming have joined Vermont in the Constitutional Carry of Arms, which is in essence no infringement at all.  Other states are considering this as well.  The Constitutional Carry of Arms refers to the acceptance that the founders intended that there be no infringement of the people to carry arms.  That is what the simple language, “shall not be infringed” means.  I am not sure how you interpret “shall not be infringed” other than, “shall not be infringed.”  In the 2A the founders did not choose to say, “shall not be infringed very much.”

What the people must understand here is that we are dealing with what the founders termed an unalienable right.  That is a right endowed by our Creator or a right that you are born with.  It is a right that is natural and fundamental to be able to live in Liberty.  It is no different than the right to breathe air.  The very fact that we have unalienable rights denotes that we have a right to defend those rights. 

Tim Nerenze, a libertarian, states in his blog:  “…guns are the only product or service mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.  While we also clearly have a right to keep and bear food, healthcare, clothing, shelter, and many other necessary things, the framers did not deem any of them important enough to warn the government against any form of infringement – only guns.  Think about that.”

We are the only country in the world that I know of who recognizes that unalienable rights are granted at birth and not by government.  What a government can grant, government can take away.  In Illinois the Chicago Machine leads the People by the nose.  It is time for them to leave us alone.  Remember the Second Amendment does not say “Subject to the police power!”

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

What are some of the Sheriffs up to around the Country?

      I don't have time right now to comment but the Sheriffs of this country have a power and authority that many do not fully comprehend.  However if they want to keep their toys from the Feds they may run into trouble...  some articles below are worth reviewing, in my opinion.

      This next article is very detailed listing authorities and sources etc.  It also is based on very recent issues.  Some sheriff's do have balls!

U.S. Sheriffs Rise Up Against Federal Government: Sheriff Threatens Feds With SWAT Team ~ Grass Roots Take Charge!


Nevada Sheriff Tony DeMeo Stops Federal Government: Feds Engaging In Illegal Confiscation Of Cattle And Water Rights Of County Property Owner.


Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Taking a Stand

     On Christmas day 1776 George Washington’s army had collapsed from 30,000 to 2,500 men.  One third of those men wrapped their feet in burlap and marched many miles in the snow, leaving a trail of blood to finally cross the icy Delaware River in a snow storm.  These dedicated men finally captured the trained professional army of German soldiers.  That took guts.  Now if George Washington and his men had been living in Illinois they would have had to ask the government for permission to keep and bear an arm, by acquiring a FOID card so they could buy a gun and the ammunition to go in it.  Unless, of course, they are from ‘out-a-state,’ in which case they don’t need no ‘stinkin’ FOID card.  How many think he would have been granted a FOID card if King George would have been in charge?
     Within a few days we will be turning in our Petition to place Pike County’s version of the 2nd Amendment, commonly known as the “Constitutional Carry of Arms” ordinance, on the ballot so that we have some semblance of a chance of exercising a God given right to keep and bear arms in the manner of our forefathers.  I have been told repeatedly by various officials that County law cannot supersede state law.  I agree.  However no law, including state law, can supersede the US Constitution (USC).  The USC secures, via the 2nd and 14th amendments, the right to keep and bears arms to every individual.  It says, “Shall NOT be infringed.”  The FOID card and all laws requiring permission of government or King George, to exercise a fundamental right to keep and bear an arm are blatantly unconstitutional.
     As with George Washington’s men, who stuck it out with him in the worst possible conditions, we may have to call on the People of Pike County to come out in the worst weather and at inconvenient times, to stand together and see this thing through, to help the officials understand by sheer numbers that “shall NOT be infringed,” does not mean, “shall not be infringed very much!”  I suspect that none of us will have to stand with our feet wrapped in burlap. 
     I defy any attorney, any official, no matter how high up the honcho line they go to tell the People of Pike County with a straight face that any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence should have to ask permission of Pat Quinn or the like for a FOID card so they can own and carry an arm in defense of themselves, their family, their friends and their Country.  That was a mouthful; however the People of Pike County are just as “equal” in the fundamental natural rights as any of the signers.  The signers pledged their very lives, their sacred honor and their fortunes that we might have Liberty.  Many of the signers lost it all except their honor in that war for Independence.
     If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at:

Saturday, October 8, 2011

If The Foundations Be Destroyed. . . ?

     “If the Foundations are destroyed, what shall the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3.  This country was begun on a simple but solid footing, that being, all men are equal in the sight of our Creator and that each individual has equal rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, among others.  All other government systems in the world, other than perhaps, ancient Israel, were based on rights being granted by government, such as a king or emperor, or whatever.  The consequence of basing the footing and foundation on these fundamental principles means that no mere man or government is allowed to take these unalienable rights away.
     The whole emphasis of our form of government is to grant certain powers to government in order that justice may be served, and to provide for the common defense of the nation.  In order to do this a list of powers or functions which government was to oversee was made by the Founding Fathers (FFs) and listed in Article 1, Section 8.  Beyond these powers the congress could not go.  The same procedure was used for the states.
     The chief concern of our FFs was that the general government would eventually shatter the “chains” of the Constitution and move into usurpation of powers and then tyranny.  Can there be any doubt in anyone’s mind that the Federal government and even the State governments have easily become what the Founders feared the most.  It has happened through the ho hum attitude of the People.  As much as we would like to blame the legislators the real truth is that We the People have been asleep and allowed the rulers to rule with impunity.  The Declaration of Independence states clearly that the People will prefer to suffer while Evils are sufferable, however if we don’t wake up and call a halt to the theft of Liberty by the legislators we will continue our downward spiral into the abyss of totalitarian rule by government.
     Politicians think that the People are too stupid to figure out what is best for them.  Consequently they come up with stupid laws such as seat belt laws and how many lights you can have on the side of your vehicle and laws such as “no humming allowed on public streets on Sunday” (Cicero,IL).  We have all heard of and a laughed at some of the stupid laws that have been passed and thought how stupid or dumb can these people be?  But the truth is that even these laws no matter how silly they seem carry with them a potential sentence of death, if they are intensely enforced and subsequently resisted.
     In order to exercise our Liberty we need to be able to live our life as each individual chooses with minimal interference from our neighbor or our government.  Our right to choose should only be limited at the point we begin to interfere with our neighbor’s right to enjoyment of his rights.  Liberty is about choice; choices on how to live one’s life, even if the decision is a potentially destructive one in most people’s opinions. 
     Now we come to who is charged to preserve our Liberty?  If the legislators fail who do we turn to?  It has to be the courts.  I have read many court cases that had to do with a claim by an individual that some law has “taken” a fundamental right.  The courts will state over and over that the state has the duty and responsibility to preserve “public safety.”  Meanwhile the court may never mention that the higher calling is the preservation of fundamental rights of the individual.  It appears so much of the time that the courts would look for every possible excuse to preserve the law intact at the expense of a fundamental right.  We can have so much “safety” that we have no Liberty.  What is safety without Liberty?
     I have come to appreciate this quote from Ayn Rand a Russian escapee:
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  "Atlas Shrugged
     The way I see it our judges have a trust, an obligation, a duty above all to preserve individual fundamental rights, against the state, except in the truly important issues.  The state/government has no end of reasons why it is important that the person in a private vehicle, for instance, should wear a seat belt but our kids riding in school buses don’t need one.  Try and reason that one out.  The courts must preserve the Foundations or Liberty is lost. 
     This is a subject whose time has come.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  Follow my blog at: or or leave a message at 217-285-2134.

Friday, September 23, 2011

A Danger to America....

I received this quote in an email.  I don't know who to attribute it to but think it is worth posting here.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Guilty, Until Proven Innocent!

September 20, 2011
The story going around is that the “Feds” have come!  Well, that is the truth straight from the “coffee shop.”  Yeah, well, as the story goes the Feds are handing out tickets right and left at Florence, IL and other places for farmers not having DOT (Dept of Transportation) “numbers.”  The Feds cannot be involved unless there is some connection that has to do with “interstate and foreign commerce” (I&FC).  The Feds say, “The farmer might, or could reasonably suspect that his grain could be shipped out of Illinois therefore he comes under the definition of I&FC. 
Now if I sell my car to somebody and it travels across a state line, am I involved in I&FC?  Do I need a federal permit?  Do I need license from the Federal government to transact that deal because I should have suspected that it might cross the state line?  I don’t think so.  If I sell my coat at the yard sale and my old deer stand or my “you name it property” to an out of state hunter and he hauls it across the line, and I further “reasonably suspected” that it might be carried across the ‘line;’ do I need some kind of federal permit because I suspected that the purchaser might reasonably be expected to take the item across the state line?  I don’t think so.
My son, Carson, is quite the goose hunter.  Now if the federal game warden were to find in his possession one too many geese, the officer might have some evidence to prove that he had indeed exceeded the limit.  However to use the alleged DOT reasoning; if the officer were to see Carson had 4 rounds of ammo and the limit was 2 geese then officer could write Carson because he might or could be expected to shoot more than 2 geese, therefore he would write him a ticket for exceeding the limit.  It would then be up to Carson to try to prove that he would not have exceeded his limit on geese.  If he couldn’t prove that he would not have exceeded the limit then he would be guilty and have to pay the fine.
The truth is, our farmer’s grain might just as easily be used right here in Illinois.  Now according to Mrs. Helen Harmon, my American History teacher and my civics teacher Mr. Jim Sanderson, in the US of A a person is innocent until proven guilty.  So I suspect that if I am accused of intentionally and wantonly engaging in I&FC that the burden of proof should be on the Feds.  Perhaps someone could help me with my line of reasoning.  Maybe even the Feds who are running around allegedly terrorizing the farmers could explain how the burden of proof suddenly shifted from them to the farmer.
Shouldn’t the Feds have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my grain crossed the line into I&FC commerce? 
It would appear to me based on an unusual thought process, common sense, that the farmer is selling his private property to someone else, and once that transaction is complete, the property now belongs to the purchaser, and the new owner assumes the responsibility for where the grain moves to from there.
One other argument that seems to be made is that the farmer might be guilty of intrastate commerce if he is involved in a share crop agreement.  This reasoning is faulty as well if you realize that the farmer has all care and custody of the crop.  This is just another form of rental agreement in which the landowner leases his land and paid based on production.  In other words if the crop makes 200 bushel the landowner gets half the proceeds as rent either in kind or in cash.  The landowner may be required to pay half the cost of some aspects of production as well.  Overall it is a rental agreement that is good for the farmer since he pays based on production and not a set rental fee.  In a good year both parties do well and in a bad year everyone shares the pain. 
This reminds me of the Declaration of Independence, wherein Thomas Jefferson is declaring the reasons leading to the revolution.  One of those reasons for separation is that King George “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”  Has anybody noticed “Swarms of Officers” here-‘abouts’ lately?  Can you say OSHA, IRS, DOT, DEA, FBI, IRS, BATFE, FMSCA, ASCS, how many pages do I need to fill?  "SAFETY WITHOUT LIBERTY IS TYRANNY."
This is a subject whose time has come.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  Follow my blog at: or or leave a message at 217-285-2134. 
By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

What Makes America Exceptional?

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.
September 12, 2011
     As I write this it is the “The Day After” 9/11.  I discussed last evening with a friend that the all important difference that makes America an “exceptional” country is the observation of fundamental rights as a birth right.  We have the only country I know of that has ever had this difference other than, perhaps, ancient Israel before the kings.  That all important difference was conceived, calculated, and brought about through the guiding principles studied by the Founders.   The difference is that the Founders recognized individual fundamental rights.   These rights are received at conception or birth, depending on how you look at it.  All the other countries operate on the principle that rights are granted by government.  Only the ruler or sovereign had all rights.  We know that what the government ‘granteth’ the government can take away.  What the Creator grants no government has a right to take away.
      The Founders recognized that natural rights represent the difference between a free man and a subject or slave.  A subject or slave can do only that which is permitted by the sovereign or master.  The Founders wanted the People to be free in every sense that was possible.  Their basic thought process was that liberty was a right of the People but that the People could grant certain powers to the government and beyond those bounds government could not go. 
     The government formed by the People was a Republic which in the case of the USA was designed using a constitution, a form of contract or trust, which spells out the powers granted to the new government.  It directed that representation was chosen democratically.  The constitution spelled out the ways and means by which a representative form of government was to make laws.  It further laid out the court system by which justice could be maintained.  It also intended that the administration of necessary laws occurs through an executive branch.  Most importantly, the Bill of Rights was agreed upon to secure those rights which a runaway government is most likely to usurp or infringe upon. 
     Presently encroachment by government on fundamental rights is blatant beyond belief at this point in time.  Every time it happens there is always some special need touted by the powers that be such as – “it’s for the children” or some other excuse that will tear at your heart strings.  I am reminded once again of the saying by William Pitt, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” 
     This year the Supreme Court of Indiana decided that unlawful entrance by the police into a private home without permission could not be resisted by the resident.  That is a 4th Amendment infringement of a fundamental right.  There is no room to give the facts of the case; there was some concern for the potential for violence, but no “hot pursuit” and no evidence of a crime more than yelling.  When the officer came in, after being told not to, the resident pushed the officer against a door.  In essence the court said, “We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
     Why bother having a 4th Amendment?  I would like to see them tell that to Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, or George Washington and the men and women who spilled their life’s blood on the battlefield fighting the tyranny of the king.
     The 4th states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
     The Amendment uses the term “unreasonable” with regard to searches and seizures.  There is provision for an “exigent circumstance,” which would be an emergency involving high potential for loss of life and limb etc.  In this case there was no evidence of exigent circumstance.  Yet the Court stated, “We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”  There is no right to resist unlawful entry?  Are these judges serious?
     The court in essence stated that the officers should be allowed to infringe the right to be secure in one’s home and that the resident should press charges later.  What the court left out of consideration is that it costs a lot of money to sue a policeman.  It costs the police nothing unless found guilty.  My contention is that with regard to a fundamental right, the courts and officers of government should err on the side of preserving fundamental rights for the People except in the most “exigent circumstance.”  I repeat the phrase of the most highly decorated police officer in the Phoenix PD, Jack McLamb, “When tyranny comes to your door, it will be wearing a uniform.”  The police are not above the law.  We must preserve liberty in our lifetime or our children will be subjects to government instead of the government subject to the People.  This is a topic whose time has come.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Natural Rights – Natural Limits

     Natural rights or what is called fundamental rights sometime seem like big terms that are difficult to understand.  In essence a natural right is a right that comes as a part of being human.  Without these natural rights you would potentially be a slave to anyone who was strong enough to take them away.  An example of a natural right is, let’s say, the right to breathe.  Obviously without the right to breathe you could not exist.  Where did the right come from? Well it came with birth, and I prefer to say, from God, or our Creator, some would say, Universal Intelligence.  Regardless of where you might think it comes from our Founding Fathers (FFs) would say these “natural rights” exist. 
     The FFs recognized that certain rights are extremely important to be able to preserve liberty.  Therefore they “enumerated” certain of these rights as being key to maintaining liberty.  Hence the “Bill of Rights” came about.  The “enumerated rights” included the right to: free speech, free press, free exercise of religion, keep and bear arms, be secure in our persons, houses, effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, to name a few.
     The 2nd Amendment secured the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA), in defense of oneself, one’s family, friends, property and country, is considered by many to be the “First Freedom.”  Without this key natural right all other rights could be seized by a stronger party, usually in the form of government.  I always appreciate Jack McLamb’s (most highly decorated police officer in Phoenix, Arizona) phrase in which he states, “When tyranny comes to your door, it will be dressed in a uniform.”  The founders clearly stated that a standing army is to be feared.
     Recognizing this, the FFs instituted the Bill of Rights.  Some key rights are free speech, free press, and free exercise of personal conscience and it has been said that the pen is mightier than the sword.  However if the politeness of free: expression, press, conscience, and appeals to reason, do not have the desired effect in deterring tyranny, then one must, as in the case of the American Revolution, be prepared to use the sword.
     It is inconceivable to me that the FFs would somehow say you must get permission of the government that was trying to disarm them by seizing, disarming and destroying the ability of the American’s to make their own gun powder, arms and munitions.  I guarantee you the founders didn’t write the 2A to preserve a sporting purpose.  These people were all about preserving their liberty against a tyrannical government.
Earlier I mentioned “enumerated rights.”  There are many other natural or fundamental rights which are not listed referred to as “un-enumerated" or rights retained.  Some examples of these rights would be the right to: travel, marry, procreate, work and earn income, accumulate property, breathe, etc. 
     Now these natural or fundamental rights should not be confused with the false, or government created rights, or what are referred to sometimes as civil or legislated rights.  These so called rights are created and granted by government and you will recognize them as the right to an education, right to a home, right to a living wage, right to a job, right to “free” healthcare.  Here is how you can tell the pseudorights (pseudo = false) from the natural, God given rights.  If the government grants it, the government can take it away.  If the government pays for it, it took the money from someone else to give to another.  Not so with natural rights.  You are born with the natural right to: seek an education; seek a job; business, or profession; seek healthcare, etc. 
     You have a right to live free, and to the results of a substantial portion of the proceeds of your endeavors.  You have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another. 
You cannot have a good conversation about natural or fundamental rights without mentioning responsibilities.  Each of these natural rights generally has some responsibility attached to it.  An example would be you cannot yell, FIRE! in a crowded theater just to watch people get trampled.  You cannot exercise freedom of the press by telling falsehoods about someone.  You cannot sacrifice your child to the Sun god in a religious ceremony, because you would be stealing the child’s natural right to life.  You cannot exercise your RKBA by brandishing your weapon causing endangerment to those around you.  Each and every natural right has a natural limit.  All natural rights have natural limits which start when you interfere with someone else’s natural rights.
     Normal people do not require a nanny state to explain those limits.  The people who are responsible don’t need it explained and those who are criminal won’t care.  Consequently we do not need permission from the government to keep and bear arms.  Only the law abiding will obey the unconstitutional laws.  The criminals are not going to ask permission from the government to keep and bear arms. Your comments can be directed to:

Monday, August 8, 2011

Liberty and the economy and reality………

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.
     Let’s take a moment and look at our national debt…  Certain portions of economics are relatively simple.  It really doesn’t matter how big the unit is, the laws of economics do not change.  Many things in nature are the same.  Light from a little bitty flashlight travels the same speed as a massive spot light used to light up the night sky. 
     If an individual spends more than he makes he will go broke. The same applies to family, a business, a business “too big to fail” or a country.  Now it is true that the bigger the entity more people there are that have an interest in preserving the entity and more efforts will be made to prevent failure, but no matter how big, if the “law” is broken, the end result will eventually be broke.
     Liberty is the same.  It begins with the individual.  If you have a free individual then you have liberty.  If you have a free group of individuals then you have liberty.  The group can be as big as you can imagine.  It can encompass a nation.  Our country began this experiment in Liberty by essentially declaring the individual to be a sovereign or you could say a king.  Kings are considered free.  Each king in this country rules over one, himself.
     Free men have the ability to make choices.  They can choose to work or not work.  They can choose to be responsible or not.  They can choose…. you name it.  The sticky little part is that they must bear the responsibility and/or consequences of their choices.  No one else is responsible to ‘pay’ for their choices.  The rewards and penalties are meted out by nature and nature’s God, if you will.  These consequences of action had the natural effect of creating responsible people. 
     In today’s society and economy the government has assumed the place of softening the blows of the natural cause and effect.  It has become, what is so aptly termed, the “Nanny State.”  The result of softening the consequences is costly.  In the long run the Nanny State has now become the Master and the citizens have lost their sovereign status and assumed the place of the subject, slave, or servant. 
     When you lose your ability to make choices, even poor choices, then you have lost a portion of your liberty.  Remember the famous William Pitt quote, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”  In America the same people who stand or sit in Washington have said we know what is best for you in nearly every aspect.  We will create OSHA to make the people safe.  We will create the EPA and tell you what light bulbs to use (what a joke?).  We will let you have a gun, if you get on your knees and beg for them.  Only certain guns of course, after all there are a handful of irresponsible people who shouldn’t really have them.  Therefore everyone must jump through our hoop so government can determine who is allowed to have them.
     Our masters in the Chicago Machine and Washington, D.C. are the ‘geniuses’ who think they can defy the basic laws of economics.  They think they can spend more than they take in and escape the consequences.  That is not going to happen indefinitely.  They think they can decide how much liberty we the People are able to exercise safely.
     Now it is time to get off our donkeys and elephants and get good successful business people to run for office and dump the candidates who are supported from ‘on high.’  We the people have to realize if we keep doing what we have been doing we will continue to get the same stinking consequences.
I may be reached for comments at:

What is the Meaning of "Shall Not Be Infringed?"

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.
July 29, 2011
     Discussion about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution began to rage in the 1930s when restrictive federal firearm legislation was passed.  Finally the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has made two very important recent findings in this regard.  Many within the gun culture who have studied this topic for years felt certain that due to the tremendous body of literature expressing the founders intent that the outcome of intense scrutiny by the Court would vindicate what we have been saying all along; 1. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, 2.  The right is a fundamental right applies via the 14th Amendment to the states, and 3. That the phrase, “shall not be infringed,” actually means what it says. 
     At this point in time the first two issues have been determined as they should have been based on the historical intent.  As I see it, this leaves us with one last major issue or phrase to deal with.  That is the phrase “shall not be infringed.”  The average person might actually believe that the founder’s intent was that the phrase meant what it says, however those who I call the enemies of liberty, would have us believe that the phrase actually means, “shall not be infringed, very much.”  The rules of legislative interpretation are fairly simple, in a complicated sort of way (grin).  The rules, in essence say, that the meaning is what it says in plain language.  Each word has meaning.  It should be clear that each word means what the common meaning is at the time the legislation was passed unless otherwise defined. 
     So I simply went to Black’s Law Dictionary (BLD) and looked up the word “infringe” to get started.  Well it is not in the latest edition of the premier legal dictionary in the U.S.  The latest issue of Mirriam-Webster might be close enough.  Somehow I don’t think this word has changed its meaning in the last couple of hundred years. 
     Infringe means: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another. So then what does the root of the word mean, “fringe?”  Several meanings here, but the ones that seems to apply are, ‘edge’ and ‘periphery.’ 
     The word ‘encroach’ seems important here as well so let’s have at it.  Encroach means: “1. To enter by gradual steps or stealth into the possession or rights of another, to trespass or intrude. 2. To gain or intrude unlawfully upon another’s lands, property, authority.”  (BLD).  I would have to say that to intrude on another’s “rights” could fit in right here. 
     I have said all of this to say that any scheme that would require an individual to get permission from government or jump through some government hoops is an “infringement” of a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.  Presently law abiding people are the only ones who obey the current FOID schemes and government schemes.  The criminal elements are going to continue to get their firearms the way they do now, through theft or straw purchases (purchased by another “legal” person).  Or as in the case recently, with the assistance of that trustworthy bunch in Washington, D.C., the BATFE.  Haven’t they just been caught helping criminals get guns to the Mexican Drug Cartel?  Let’s see, they don’t trust us?  Well I don’t trust them!
     Somehow I have trouble picturing our founding fathers, such as Samuel Adams, and George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, asking permission of the government for a FOID card in order to purchase an ‘arm’ or to carry or bear an ‘arm.’  William Pitt said, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”  Slaves must go to their masters for permission to do anything.  Our Chicago Machine Rulers would have us believe that it is necessary for their minions to review or investigate each individual to see if they are fit to keep and bear a gun.  I say anyone should be able to obtain a gun without permission of government.  If one has forfeited his right through true violent crime against humanity, then when caught he should pay dearly.  Presently the violent criminal is armed anyway, it is the law abiding who are punished and inconvenienced by laws that do not disarm criminals.
     Forty-nine other states have a form of carry for self-defense purposes.  Only our Chicago Rulers seem to think the people in Illinois are not good enough, honorable enough, or responsible enough to carry a weapon.  Vermont has never had any restrictive legislation and now other states are beginning to follow suit.  Eight states at this point in time have adopted Constitutional or Vermont style carry as it is called.  There are people working diligently on solutions on several fronts.  This includes lawsuits against the State of Illinois challenging the Constitutionality of our present highly restrictive rulers.  There is movement on the County level as well.  Please watch the paper in the weeks to come for more information on other possible solutions.  This is a subject whose time has come.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Socialized Medicine - Obamacare

For my office newsletter I prefer to write about the exciting “newsy” advances in the wonders of modern chiropractic I can’t help but place the concerns I have for the health of our great Republic on the front burner.  These issues, at least in my mind, have special bearing on whether our children will even have the liberty to seek out and pay for their choice in preferred health care.  If the National Health Bill ever gets implemented the government will decide who gets what. 
The most massive amount of health expenditures occur in the last 20 years of life.  In the last 20 years of life people are, in general, not as productive in society, economically speaking.  They do not pay as much in taxes however they consume the most health care.  Consequently a flow chart will be used by those in charge of “approving” and paying for procedures.  The easiest way to cut health care costs will be to limit the health care to those who are “past” their prime income producing and therefore tax producing years. 
For example if you are 70 years old and you need open heart surgery the flow chart would be activated.  You’re 70 years, you pay no taxes, and the country has no hope of getting any return from you.  The cost would be $500,000 plus for an uncomplicated surgery and all you would do is live and collect more benefits with no offsetting production.  You would be denied the service as too expensive for no return to the economy. 
If you were 35, you would likely pay taxes, be productive within the work place, you would be around to help support your children and might or could pay taxes for many years therefore you might get the surgery.  It sounds cold and cruel but that’s how it will be done if we dump our capitalist system for a socialist / Marxist nation. 
Inversely, as demonstrated in other countries with nationalized health care, people will go to the doctor for health concerns which they never would have in the past  ( a hang nail for instance), because it doesn’t cost them anything anyway.  These issues will clog the system and utilize valuable system resources decreasing availability for the truly sick.
In some of these countries, even if you can afford to pay for your own health care, the physician is not allowed to take patients outside of the system or the Dr. will go to jail.  Hopefully you would be able to go to Mexico just as the Canadians and many others from all over the world come to America now.