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."

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: pike912.blogspot.com/ or editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134. 

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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: editorial@pike912.org.