The Federal Government could use a few lessons from the Chicago Machine….

The federal government needs to take a seminar from the Chicago Machine.  They are after all, the ones who designed, authored, and conceived of the diabolical Article 1, Section 22, of the Illinois Constitution which states, “Subject only to the police power the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” 

A classic attorney trick in the court room is to ask a series of several questions that are obviously answered with “yes” then throw in a question that requires a “no.”  The witness then is droning along answering yes, yes, yes and is then tricked into answering yes to a no question.  Then the attorney will pounce on the witness’ mistake and try to impugn his character, or memory, or to cast doubt on his credibility and integrity.

In Illinois the authors of the state Constitution placed the RKBA section at number 22 unlike the founders who placed it 2^nd.  At that point the general public got sucker punched ‘cuz’ they just didn’t read it that far.  If they did, by then they were just hurrying through like the guy sitting on the witness stand answering yes, yes, yes.  I mean this is the Bill of Rights, not even the Chicago Machine would screw with that, would they?  

At this point the Obamunists are determined that any church organizations such as hospitals and colleges and schools will have to include abortifacients (life terminating drugs), contraceptives, sterilization services, among other things that directly oppose the moral and religious convictions of many Catholics and protestants.  If the Obamunists would get together with the Chicago Machine they surely could have got this through in a lot more subtle manner.  After all, as far as I know, until I started fussing about the term “Subject only to the police power” nobody seemed think it was any big deal.   The Feds need to import some of our Chicago Rulers who are artists at sugar coating the poison pills.

Now, it is amazing how the Feds have managed do some pretty good tricks of their own.  I am still trying to figure out what slight of hand the Obamunists are going to use to force the People to buy health insurance.  Can you force the People to sign and enter into a contract?  Any contract signed under duress or threat is null and void on its face.  I forgot the government seems to think it can make its own rules and then change them in the middle of the game. 

I guess one smart thing that the Obamunists did is to give everyone a year to “figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Archbishop Timothy Dolan.  I suppose giving everyone time to contemplate just what the consequences are to violating federal law might encourage one to go along with the program.  Well we will see.  Although the more I think about the eternal consequences to violating God’s law. . . that might outweigh even the Obamunists and their Obamunistic plans. 

I suppose if judges can turn “shall not be infringed” into meaning “shall not be infringed very much,” they could surely turn, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof” into, “For the most part Congress shall make no law . . .”  Yeah that ought to handle it.  After all, no right is absolute.  What seems to be absolute is that the “compelling interest” of the state shall not be infringed, at all!  Thou shalt not infringe the compelling interest of the state, no matter how many fundamental rights have to be infringed. 

I guess that pretty well takes care of abridging freedom of speech and the press and peaceable assembly and petitioning the government for redress of grievances.  Shoot, while we’re at it we can certainly moderate the other rights as well; I mean after all the whole purpose of government is in the interest of maintaining public safety!  Or, is it?

I think the out-of-date and antiquated document called the Declaration of Independence in part reads this way: “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights among those are the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men.   Ooops, it looks like the whole reason for government is to secure Rights endowed by our Creator, not for the primary purpose of maintaining public safety.  Don’t worry; the Chicago Machine can teach the Feds how to get around it.  I got faith!

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

Poitical humor in one liners . . .

 Life is too short not to have a little humor.  Enjoy. DrD

• Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you. ~Author Unknown 

• If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates. ~Jay Leno 

• Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. ~John Quinton 

• Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. ~Oscar Ameringer 

• I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them. ~Adlai Stevenson, campaign speech, 1952 

• A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country. ~Texas Guinan 

• Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so. ~Gore Vidal 

• I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians. ~Charles de Gaulle 

• Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks. ~Doug Larson 

• Don't vote, it only encourages them. ~Author Unknown 

• There ought to be one day - just one - when there is open season on senators. ~Will Roger

Revoluton or Reformation

Here is a great post by Enola Gay.  I think she really has some great thoughts this topic.  However our Founders said from time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of both tyrants and patriots.

Samuel Adams said, "It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."
Samuel Adams

So I agree in part that the reformation or revolution, if you will, began in the minds of men first:  
     "What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760–1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington." (John Adams)

"No oppression was ever overthrown by a bunch of readers  and philosophers. Liberty is usually dirty and bloody work, and if we don't have the option of providing our masters with a real  fight, then they will perennially call our wussy  bluff." Quote from Boston T. Party's Boston's Reply to Critics of "Molon Labe"
http://www.freecolorado.com/2004/02/bostonreply.html 
Paratus Familia Blog: Revolution or Reformation?

Second Amendment Clarity

I was just thinking of the confusion that arises in the minds of our Law Enforcement folks.  What a dilemma?  On one hand the State of Illinois is telling them that Subject only to the power of the legislature the Illinois citizen has the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).  “We the legislature make the rules and the citizens are to follow our laws.”  “The police are to enforce our rules!”  On the other hand some chiropractor and a host of petitioners from Podunksfield, way south of Chicago where the important Rulers live, is telling them that the RKBA is a fundamental right that shall not be infringed by any government agent, local, state, or Federal.

Now that is a fair question.  It deserves a reasonable answer!  So let’s see what we can come up with… 

The officer is just trying to do his job, which can be really risky, then go home to his family and try to be a good dad or mom that their kids and family can look up to.  Now the State in all its wisdom comes along and says you must ENFORCE our edicts.  You are to leave the thinking part to the elected officials and/or bureaucrats and judges who are to determine how you think.  The honchos say, “you will enforce the FOID act and Unlawful Use of Weapons Act because it’s the law.  As an officer of the law your job is to follow orders.”  

Each officer is charged to uphold and defend the Constitutions of Illinois (IC) and the US.  Therefore you have to read the US Constitution (USC) and Bill of Rights or the IC and its Article 1 Bill of Rights.

Then you have this chiropractor, with no law degree, trying to say that he and all mankind have a fundamental, God given right to keep and bear arms and that the FOID card and all laws disarming the law abiding public are void.  So it is a fair question.

The Second Amendment (2A) to USC states, “…the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  The Illinois Bill of Rights states, “Subject only to the police power (power of the legislature), the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Here is our first conundrum.  The 2A has no enforceable preface, while the Illinois Constitution states, “Subject only to the [legislative power]. . .  So which one has authority when there is a clash?

We better have good authority or we will be in trouble.  The answer is found in the Sixth Article of the USC, paragraph 2, wherein it states:

“This Constitution . . . under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

So it would appear that any laws made contrary to the Constitution of the United States are void.  At least that is the way it reads to me.  Since the Illinois Constitution is more restrictive, then it should be safe to say that the USC will prevail.  Further see McDonald vs. Chicago and you will see that the US Supreme Court agrees that 2A applies against the states.

Let’s pretend for moment that a judge has written an order of protection on behalf of some threatened soul.  Now in this order it states, “The property of Joe Schmoe shall not be infringed by Iam Sly, widget maker.”  Now that is simple enough.  Even for a chiropractor with no law degree.  The order states, “shall not be infringed.”  Now you, as Law Enforcement Officer, need to enforce this order. 

Now how far is Iam Sly allowed to step or encroach onto Joe Schmoe’s property?  Is it one inch or four feet?  Or perhaps he can go up to the door?  Or maybe one step into the house?  What constitutes an infringement?

Infringement – A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a. . . right.  See also Encroachment; Trespass. (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

So if you are to enforce this order, how far onto Joe’s property is Iam Sly allowed to go?  You are a sworn police officer, with training, and the respect of your friends and family and the general public.  You passed certain criteria in the course of your training.  You must have exhibited some measure of common sense.  However I, a legal amateur, would say he is not to even touch the property line.  Isn't this order written so that Iam Sly, a widget maker, can understand it as well?

That brings us to the FOID card, and all these unconstitutional laws that the Chicago Rulers have foisted on the People.  What are you, the Law Enforcement Officer, going to do when it comes to enforcing what is an obviously unconstitutional law?  Will you say, “My commander said to enforce it no matter what?”  My boss said, “You will follow the law of our Chicago Rulers no matter what.” 

Remember, our founding documents were written to be understood by the common person with common understanding.  How much more clear can it get?  Will you the Law Enforcement Officer tell your children, or the guy in the mirror, “I was just following orders?”

It states, "Shall not be infringed."  How is that for clarity?
 

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

Why do out-of-staters have more rights in Illinois?

It has recently come to my attention that a nice little town in Montana, a lot like Pittsfield, IL., where I live, has had a beloved school teacher abducted and presumed murdered.  The story is that a few days ago a teacher in Sydney, MT, may have been abducted or any number of things along the road she usually ran for exercise.


In Montana you have the right to carry for any lawful reason.

While your are at it you may want to view this Youtube video of a cop who encourages carrying a defensive firearm on a regular basis... WARNING, this is a very audibly disturbing video with an elderly defenseless lady on a 911 call.  She is being brutally beaten to death.  You will not want children present as this is viewed due to the audible component.

Somehow we need to become aware that in Illinois only out-of-state people are allowed to carry a gun with no FOID card.  Illinois residents are not allowed to carry or own guns without a FOID card.

I would like to know what makes out-of-staters such trustworthy folks but Illinois residents are so horrible?  Ask every legislator this question, ask every judge, every official that you meet why Illinois citizens are so suspect that they must ask permission of the state to own or carry a firearm?

Further, only out-of-staters are allowed to buy ammo with just a drivers license showing they are from out-of-state.  Same question... It is time to get in YOUR FACE with these people...

If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.

Is Government My Brother's Keeper?

     In the Good Book an “expert in the law” asked a pivotal question of Jesus, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus turned the question around on him and said, “How do you read the law on this question?”

     The response was, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

     “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

     But the expert wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

     At this point Jesus tells a story about the Good Samaritan who helped an injured, beaten and robbed man who had been abandoned and left lying in the road bleeding.  The victim had been passed by a preacher and another leader in the Law.

     The question was then asked of the “expert,” Which of these three do you think was the neighbor to the victim?

     The expert replied, “The one who had mercy on the on the victim.”

     Jesus said, “Go and do likewise.”

     I see nothing here about calling together a committee of the legislature to pass a law to take money from some citizens to help the down trodden. 

The American Dream

     I keep hearing People talk about the American Dream.  The “Dream” is often referred to as nice home on some acreage with a two car garage and a couple of kids and a decent job with a pleasant wife or husband.  Well that sounds good to me.  However I can’t help but let my mind wander back into the recorded early history of our country. 

     We have just celebrated another Thanksgiving Day a few weeks ago.  Were the Pilgrims and others who came to the New World looking for a nice home on a little acreage too, you know with a few stalls in the barn?   Or what really brought them through a long and burdensome voyage with little to eat and severe hardships.  What was the dream?  It was the yearning to be free.  Free to worship and live their life in the manner of their choosing.  They had no assurance that they would have any decent home.

     Their dream was to escape tyranny and hopefully find a measure of Liberty.  Their only assurance was that the road they had committed to was going to be hard and they may die.  However if they died, they would die free.  They would die following their conscience.  They would not die in shackles or burning at the stake.  The tyranny they faced in the New World was the honest hardship of hacking out a new life in wilderness, facing “savages,” and maybe wild beasts.  These uncertainties were preferred over fighting the shifting political winds of change over the method and manner of their particular exercise of faith.

     As we enter the New Year it is my sincere prayer, it is my sincere hope, that the People will closely scrutinize the candidates and figure out who is most likely to return our Country to Constitutional form of government.  The defeat of tyranny was achieved by a rag tag motley crew of down home grassroots backwoodsmen.  I fear if we don’t raise up a host of People who have the original American Dream in mind that this great experiment in Liberty will be swept into the trash can of history as one more failed form of government.

     Our kids and grandkids deserve our very best attempt at restoring Constitutional government.  We must study and learn so that we will have some of the same knowledge that the Founders acquired.  Hopefully we can begin to put the ‘out-of-control’ state and federal governments back in their chains.

     If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134, or follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com.