Sunday, December 16, 2012


In the past week my feelings have ranged from euphoria to fury.  Euphoria because a court has finally declared the complete ban of public carry of firearms by Illinois to be unconstitutional; fury at a government who would render citizens helpless against a broken rabid dog who takes his sickness out on young children and helpless teachers and staff at a school.

I am no more “mad” at a sick broken person than I would be against a rabid dog.  I am mad at the government who would prevent me or any other responsible adults from carrying protection against the danger.  I am mad at a system of officials who would continue to deny their oath to uphold the Constitution and its people and support a Chicago Machine government agenda to keep the People disarmed. 

It makes me furious that in the high school my children attend we have some willing staff that are unable to carry weapons which they have been trained to use responsibly that could defend my kids against rabid broken crazy people, yet they are not allowed perform that function.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Commentary on Moore/Shepard v. Madigan/Illinois

A few months ago the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reviewed two cases that were similar in their merits.  One was a case by a party named Moore and the other by a party named Shepard.  In essence the argument was concerning the complete ban by the State of Illinois with regard to the carrying of ready-to-use firearms for self defense by the average citizen.  Frequently people have thought it was about concealed carry however the issues were far deeper than manner or method of carry.

This decision really has nothing to do with concealed carry.  It has everything to do with removing a complete ban of the right to “bear” arms "ready-to-use" in the public way by the private citizen for defensive or other lawful purposes.  Presently in Illinois there is a complete ban on a fundamental right to bear arms that are loaded and ready-to-use in the public way.  The complete ban has been struck down and left to the legislature to decide in what “reasonable” manner they will “allow” the “bearing” or carrying of firearms ready-to-use.  There may also be some restriction allowed for so called “sensitive” places such as schools.  I repeat the decision made NO DISTINCTION as to whether the form of carry was open or concealed that I could see.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

The Might of the State Does Not Make Right

In a truly free country, such as ours has been, the government gains its power from the consent of the governed.  The governed is We the People.  When the People have made it clear that there are laws that get no respect from the People and further they are unconstitutional then it is time for the law to go.  In the case of Illinois we have a number of those laws, especially the gun laws. 

Now there are several ways to make these laws go away, or at least have their effect neutralized.  Let’s take a look at some of the ways.  They can be repealed by the legislature.  That isn’t going to happen anytime soon because the Chicago Machine rules with no consideration for the Constitution.  Another way is for State’s Attorneys and law enforcement officials to refuse to enforce unconstitutional law.  A third way is for sitting juries to refuse to convict when in their opinion they feel the law is not good.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Reflection on the Election

I have reflected on the recent election almost constantly for the last few days.  What does this mean for the future?  Where do we go from here?  How do we right the ship, not of state, but rather the thought processes of an electorate who votes for dependency on a grand scale? 

I am reminded of the story that is told about the school teacher who was going to teach her young class about elections by having an election for class president.  A little boy candidate gets up and talks about how he would like to set a committee to help the classroom by improving the gerbil area and maybe another to set up a book loan system of favorite books for the classroom.  He was followed by a little girl candidate who stood up and simply stated I am going to have ice cream.  Needless to say she was cheered and eventually won the election.  She didn’t say how she was going to pay for the ice cream, she only painted a picture of the short term benefit.

In the same way the electorate who turned out voted for ice cream.  The ice cream takes the form of free health care, free food stamps, 99 weeks, nearly two years, of unemployment, free cell phones (absolute necessity), I don’t have the room to list all the “free” stuff.  The big question is how is all the free stuff going to be paid for?  The proposal is the taxes will be raised on the rich of course; that always sells good.  The truth is there aren’t enough rich people to pay for all the free stuff.   

Consequently the burden will fall on the millions of middle income earners just like it always has.  Other ways to raise revenue is to borrow from our children and grandchildren; borrow from China and others and let the kids pay it back and we will spend it today.  Also you can inflate the money supply.  This lets the government print and spend the money at today’s value.  By the time it filters to the People it has lost value and this is called inflation tax. 

Inflation tax is a silent but deadly form of tax that stinks to high heaven.  It affects all the people equally.  There are no deductions even for the poor, since the poor can only spend what they get on necessities it hurts them the most.  People my age (6 decades) will recall past inflation in the late 70s and early 80s.  Government will respond like it always does with wage and price controls and rent controls but it will NOT lower spending by government. 

As to Obamacare, a truly deadly decision for Liberty, it will never live up to its promises over the long haul.  You can base this on every other country that has tried it around the world.  The unadvertised truth is that it will create a dependent public who will worship at the feet of “free” health care.  The good book states the borrower is the servant to the lender.  The point is that a person who is dependent on another will always serve the one upon whom they depend, in this case that will be the government.

This deadly program will start for real in 2014.  By 2016 there will be no one who can possibly get elected that threatens repeal of this deadly program.  Therefore in my opinion you can kiss our republic, which was built on Liberty, independence, self-reliance, and Biblical principles goodbye.  The takers now outnumber the producers. 

By the way you better stock pile guns and ammo because the Supreme Court will end up being stacked against the citizen and with the government and gun control.  Government traditionally hates an armed populace.  Never turn them in.  We are about to follow classic historical patterns.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention to the Rescue

“Public safety” as pushed by the legislature is to prevent some type of injury to the public and individuals.  Thousands of laws are passed supposedly to improve public safety.  Another aspect has occurred to me, we might benefit more by a Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention.

Perhaps we could discuss the great harm caused through financial and mental distress that occurred to some of our local business people by the OSHA in the last year or so.  While no injury occurred to persons or property from supposed dangers to persons or property by violating some OSHA regulations, an injury nevertheless occurred to the local businesses and owners.  In one case I am familiar with, a window was being repaired by a worker elevated on a forklift with no safety restraint, no surrounding safety guards or bars, and further there was no safety meeting with a supervisor to plan the repair of this little pane of glass.

Of course there was no discussion about the financial injury caused by the insistence of having a safety meeting with supervisor and machine operator and worker in a two person company.  All of which would have turned a $75 dollar job into a $250 plus job.  All of this would cause an additional injury to the customer by having to pay the added expense.  Perhaps if the true cost was known in advance the customer would have elected to do the job himself costing the glazier the injury of lost business and the community the injury of a loss of the economic activity.  Perhaps the nonprofessional customer would have been more susceptible to physical injury due to his lack of expertise in glazing repair.

Or what about the physical harm caused to a public who is prevented from providing their own personal protection by carrying a weapon of their choice.  Somehow government deems it too expensive to provide personal police protection for all the individuals as they go about their daily activities, but then turn around a say that you cannot protect yourself unless, for example, you use a nail file, or try to vomit on an offender (advice to women being raped from the ISP website at one time) among other ignorant suggestions.  You cannot have a cop with you all the time, yet the public will be injured by being arrested and charged by police and the prosecutor if we carry a truly equalizing weapon.

I am sure that the stories are endless of the injuries caused by so called government safety programs.  While I think the intent is good, what happens is that the bureaucracy loses common sense in its mindless attention to the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law.  You cannot expect a bureaucrat charged with enforcement to ignore the letter.  His job depends on finding issues that justify his paycheck and his pension.  How many businesses leave a little flaw somewhere, like a dirty sink, just so the inspector will have something to write up.  Yep, it happens.

Our Founders instituted a method to solve issues of negligent behavior, that is called a justice system.  The Good Book makes it clear that the one who is responsible for the injury covers the cost (Exodus 21).  If there is a repeat negligent injury the penalty goes up substantially.  We have recourse to settle for an injury to our person or property by another person.  If the government injures via its Public Safety Agencies, just try and collect against an agency with an unlimited budget for legal fees.  Now you’re talking serious injury.  For that injury we need the new Bureau of “Public Safety Law” Injury Prevention.  Just in case a legislator is reading this please don’t take the suggestion of this new bureau seriously.  One more bureau really won’t help.  I am just trying to make a point.

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming.  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:

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Is Public Saftey Important?

I enjoy getting comments on my writing.  Two people called for clarification on my letter last week; they followed the theme, “Is any public safety important?”  My comments could have been taken to mean no attention to public safety is necessary.  That isn’t what I meant.  So let’s take this apart a little more.

What did the Pilgrims move to America for?  Was it for: better streets, better neighborhoods, safer environment, better working condition laws, improved sewer system, better police protection, etc?   No, they moved to no streets, an unsafe neighborhood, maybe environmentally safer if you don’t count wild Indians and wild animals, worse working conditions, no sewer system, no police protection.  So what did the Pilgrims value above public safety?  The answer is Liberty.

They moved to a distinctly risky environment, with no public (governmental) amenities or services.  They moved from an area of increased public safety and tyranny, but minimal Liberty, to an area of substantially greater risk for something we call Liberty.  The Pilgrims cherished Liberty above all of the previously stated government ‘services.’ 

Our Founders did not fight a war for independence for the purpose of gaining increased public safety; they fought a bloody war for increased Liberty.  What we find as we delegate more and more importance to a host of bureaus to increase public safety and security is that each one removes one more piece of Liberty.  So where does it end?

This week in the news we find a school in Florida is contemplating putting in cameras to see if students throw away their veggies in the school lunch program.  At what point will the powers that be decide to penalize adults if they eat too much of the wrong food, like say pizza, and not enough broccoli?  With the advent of Obamacare the government now has a vested interest in seeing what you eat, how much you eat and whether or not we are in full compliance with the recommended daily hygiene list. 

Thomas Jefferson said it best, “that government governs best that governs least.”  So what government services are absolutely essential?  Do I want to do without peace officers?  Well no, not really.  What about OSHA?  All I can say is Liberty has an element of risk.  Do I need government inspections to see if my business is clean enough for its intended purpose?  No, the public will determine that.  The People will vote with their dollars by taking them elsewhere, if my business doesn’t suit them.  If your eating establishment is filthy, don’t count on me eating there. 

A few weeks ago my son was badly injured in a horse accident.  He was transported to the hospital for emergency treatment and examination.  His pain was so great that morphine was administered for the pain.  However inadvertently the amount of morphine he was given was well in excess of what should have been given.  He became violently sick and was sick for several days from the overdose.  Now I don’t say that we should “outlaw” morphine, I would recommend that the overdose be corrected to an amount that is beneficial without harming the patient.  Another example is Warfarin or “rat poison,” administered in judicious amounts it can be beneficial.

The same is true for what I have called “Governmenticin.”  A judicious level can be good, too much and you have an overdose.  I say that we currently have an overdose in our country of Governmenticin.  That overdose is producing a very sick economy and a culture of people who have become dependent or addicted to Governmenticin and are very ill economically and/or socially because of it.

Thanks for the comments, keep them coming.  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:

A Comment from Blackstone

Our Founders read and studied writings by Sir William Blackstone.  He wrote a four volume “Commentary on the Laws of England.”  Blackstone had a gift for clarifying the laws and the reasoning behind the laws.  I have been fortunate to acquire the four volumes.  I have not been able to completely read them and digest all of the ‘arcane’ language. 

This particular quote from Blackstone caught my interest lately: 
“… that the whole should protect all its parts, and that every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole: or, in other words, that community should guard the ­rights of each individual member, and that (in return for this protection) each individual should submit to the laws of the community; without which submission of all it was impossible that protection could be extended to any.”

Now this is interesting because on first reading it would appear that the People should be “obedient” to all the laws.  Then Blackstone turns around and clarifies by saying the community or whole should guard the “rights” of the individual.  Obviously after studying this we can see that the whole can only pass laws which do NOT steal or usurp the fundamental, God given rights of the individual.  Therefore it would appear to me that in order for a law to be just it must also refrain from infringing on a fundamental right.  Natural law does not infringe fundamental rights and would include such laws as: do not steal, do not murder, do not rape, etc. 

With that mouth full we can see that it is the responsibility of the legislator to see that he/she passes only those laws that are absolutely necessary for society to function without infringing the rights of the People.  We also need to remember that the true function of government is to secure the rights of the People, not to make sure they have safe food and safe jobs (OSHA) etc.  We are more likely to lose our fundamental rights from bureaucratic notions of public safety.  The theft of Liberty tends to come with all the thousands of so called “necessary” little stuff.  If they were so necessary then how could America have even gotten started without them?

We need to review, once in a while, the list of reasons in the Declaration of Independence that led to the American Revolution.  One stated reason to think about for today as a most important reason is:  He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass (sic) our people, and eat out their substance.”

Thankfully we do not, at least as far as I know, have any officers close by wanting to pass laws against selling politically incorrect drinks larger than 16 ozs.  You can guess it could be coming though if some zealous bureaucrat could get away with it.  I believe if we guard our Liberty, then peace and safety of society will follow.

I have had several attorneys tell me there is no such thing as society with absolute exercise of fundamental rights.  That may true, but I say, “There is no such thing as a society with absolute safety,” which is what so many of the useless Liberty stealing laws in the real world attempt bring about.
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:

Monday, September 24, 2012

The Question...

As our national elections heat up and the fight starts to get downright ugly, I keep hearing that the question asked, “Are you better off in your wallet than you were four years ago?”  That is a good question and for most the answer is no.  However I would like to say that a far more important question is, “Do you have more Liberty now than you had?” 

With the addition of hundreds of new “programs” on the federal and even state level I would have to say no.  That can be said of each successive president that has come along since the turn of last century, and even before.  I will say that the seated president has, at least in my opinion, taken the formation of new levels of bureaucracy to an unprecedented high, or maybe I should say a new low.  Each of these programs will have new bureaucrats writing new regulations which are equivalent to law.  Each and every American is responsible to not break any of these laws.

I recently was having coffee with a man who is now retired from the “system.”  His comment was that they were considering passing a regulation that stated, in essence, that “everything is illegal unless we say it is legal in his particular department.”  So if you don’t know, or are not sure, about the exercise of some particular thing, just assume it is illegal until you find out that it is not. 

So my question for the public is, “do you feel more free or less free?”  Do you feel like the government at all levels is preserving your freedoms or taking your freedom?  Does it make you sleep better at night to know the government feels like it is more important to keep a tighter watch on its own Citizens than on the borders, or embassies, or the terrorists?  Do you feel like the best thing the government can do is prevent Americans from owning the means of self defense without the blessing of government?

Personal responsibility and choice remain the hallmarks of Liberty.  These have an element of risk.  When you make a mistake it hurts.  Liberty, it is what has always separated America from the rest of the world.  Will we be able to keep Liberty?  Maybe, but only if we begin to repeal some of the chains that the bureaucrats have wrapped us in.  The new question should be how did we build our country and survive without the Department of Blank?  You fill it in.  God bless.