Friday, April 27, 2012

Ted Nugent on the Ropes... at the Hands of the Feds...

Ted Nugent is the outspoken Rocker who is a truly famous figure in the Fight for Liberty.  Due to his outspoken no holds barred speech he has incurred the wrath of the Almighty Federales of America...  They will go to every end that they must to try to "crucify" this hero of Liberty...

It is important that we stand behind him in every way that we can.  Check out this must see segment from GBTV.COM. 

Public Safety vs. Liberty

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

I enjoy the study of history.  It gives us the clues that should help us avoid making the same mistakes that have been made over and over.  The old saying is, “those who fail to study history will repeat it.”  EVERY TIME!

One of my favorite and most amazing stories occurs in the early days of our country; the story of the Pilgrims.  By looking at the motivations of these early pioneers, we can begin to see what they valued more than life itself.  Let’s start by looking at what they didn’t move for.  The Pilgrims did not move for the purpose of increasing public safety, public health, education, health insurance, public welfare benefits, etc.

They were dropped on a distant shore after a hard and discouraging voyage with much sickness across the Atlantic.  Safety did not exist.  They had no shelter.  There was no way to get rich, and if they did get rich where would they spend it?  There was a shortage of food supplies and other material goods and bad weather was not far off.  There was no security.  There were wild beasts, “wild” Indians, dangers from starvation and the potential for many unknown calamities. 

So back to our question, why did these folks take their families on this arduous, hazardous voyage to an unknown continent, this land of, essentially no opportunity?  What was this most precious “thing” that would drive them into the unknown fraught with peril?  The driving force was the possibility of finding a measure of Liberty; enough Liberty to practice their faith as their conscience dictated, and not as their government demanded. 

My question then becomes, “How much of the currency of Liberty are you willing to spend for some imaginary perceived safety, security, public health insurance, public welfare, etc?  It is essential that we understand that for just about every new rule, law, ordinance and regulation that is passed we have a proportionally decreasing measure of Liberty.  Founding Father, Ben Franklin, said it best, “They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety."

My final questions, to which I have no good answer:  “What are you willing to do to prevent a government, even our own county government, from inadvertently, and perhaps though meaning well, robbing you of any more Liberty?”  Will you get out and vote? Will you go to committee meetings, even though it is possible those you have elected to represent you will ignore you?  Or, will you just complain as the government throws off the chains of the constitution and in turn binds We the People with regulations for: the children, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor, so called public safety, and the ‘you-name-it.’ 
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”  (Samuel Adams, Founding Father)
One hundred percent Public Safety is an illusion.  This illusion requires a Ruler, who is human with the normal motivations of humans, which include greed, compassion, and all the like feelings and temptations humans have, to oversee We the People.  My opinion is that the People are the best Rulers of themselves.  There is too much temptation for the average person to resist in the process of Ruling.  One look at the history of Illinois governors makes it clear.  The classic Illinois joke is our governors serve two terms, one in the State house, and one in the “Penhouse.”  As Citizens do not be lulled into approving well meaning rules by well meaning rulers, that ultimately steal your Liberty.

In addition to the Chicago Machine, I have been hard on our local officials recently.  I don’t believe for one instant that our county board has one bad intention.  I do believe they have good intentions.  They work hard for no significant pay going to, many times boring, committee meetings.  Attending other functions; answering many phone calls with complaints about all types of things.  However, I believe that inadvertently We the People and our local leaders can get in a trap that continues to try to get government to fix every issue.  The real truth is every issue cannot be fixed by government.  The People have to roll up their sleeves and fix it themselves or accept some risk, such as bad lettuce, a faulty cooler door seal, a trashy neighbor, or any of a number of other issues.  If We the People continue to say, “There ought to be a law;” then we will pay the price of being overburdened by government.

Just for fun, ‘google’ “dumb laws in Illinois.”  You will find a lot of laws that are truly stupid.  Laws like the City of Normal, “It is against the law to make faces at dogs.”  Or, Ottawa, “Spitting on the sidewalk is a criminal offense.”  And many others…  Remember though, that while these are funny, all laws are enforceable at the point of a gun.  That is not funny.  Therefore maybe we ought to have a law against enforcing ignorant laws…  (grin).  You can legislate against stupid, but that ain’t gonna fix stupid.
For comments feel free to contact me at:

The War on Food Borne Illness

The Pike County Board, over the objection of every citizen who spoke, that was not directly associated with the Pike County Health Department (PCHD), passed the licensure requirement for restaurants, etc.  I kind of wonder, “Why bother with the hearings?” 

I thought the PCHD officials did a great job of presenting their own case for why it WASN’T ‘necessary’ for a food licensure law.  They stated that statistically there are approximately 3.5 million meals served per year in Pike County.  Out of those meals there were, statistically calculated, 15 food borne illnesses (FBI).  I inquired what the actual number was, since I am under the impression that FBI is a reportable condition – the Citizens present heard that the actual number of FBIs was 2.  Regardless, the point they were trying to make is that we need licensure to be able ENFORCE compliance with the Rules. 

Now my impression is that new laws are to address a real need, or correct an imminent real problem.  Somehow I found myself impressed with what a great job that the PCHD is doing with the tools (I think “tools” has nicer sound than hammers, chains, steel pry bars, guns, etc) already at their disposal.  I failed to see how adding a new law, another layer of bureaucracy, an additional theft of just a little bit more Liberty, was going to make any meaningful improvement to public safety.

I would remind the board that all laws, even this simple little law, is ultimately enforced by the barrel of a gun.  Imagine if you will a restaurateur who has a little flaw in his refrigerator door seal.  The inspector says, “correct it or else.”  The owner says, “it is insignificant.”  The war is on.  If the owner continues in non-compliance long enough, and resists enough that he would rather die than close the business, then eventually there will be a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) or SWAT team who will be dispatched to take care of the “problem.”  All of this over a door seal.

Now I realize that this example might be considered extreme, but I would argue that it is no more extreme than trying to eliminate 2 FBIs out of 3.5 million meals served.  That is like sweeping up a pile of 3.5 million grains of sand but somehow 2 grains escaped us so we need to pass a law to eliminate 2 grains of sand.  In the case of FBIs, it could happen from lettuce that came from outside the county and all the licenses in the world will not stop that.

My hope is for a reconsideration of this additional encroachment upon that “Jewel of Liberty,” as our Founders would term it.  Where does government stop?  Liberty by its very nature has an element of risk.  The Declaration of Independence made the purpose of government clear, “…[We] are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights… that to SECURE these RIGHTs governments are instituted among men…” (emphasis mine).   I didn’t see a thing about “public safety” there.  Preserving our rights to Liberty exceeds public safety.  I don’t think anybody objects to reasonable regulation; however 2 grains of sand out of 3.5 million just isn’t reasonable, in my opinion.

I am convinced that the PCHD means well.  I am convinced that their purpose is NOT to steal our Liberty; I believe that they are trying to gain tools to do their job more efficiently and to meet their mission of increased public safety.  I commend them on a job well done, however there is a logical limit, and I think this new licensure law exceeds the logical limit for the whole People.  In the process the new law fails to add real and meaningful increased public safety, while it encroaches on Liberty.  The county board, comprised of our elected officials, is a guard to our Liberty and should pass only necessary laws. 

If you would like to correspond with me, Dan A. Mefford, D.C., on this topic contact me at: or or leave a message at 217-285-2134.

Monday, April 9, 2012

This article written by Robert Ringer got my attention…

It may seem a little gloomish and doomish, but he has a point.  He states the following:

“Let us not lose sight of the fact that the reason we have come this far down the road to serfdom — be it in healthcare or any other aspect of our lives — is because most of us want redistribution of wealth.

That’s right, when push comes to shove, the majority of Americans are more than happy to ignore the Constitution and live in a redistribution-of-wealth society — so long as they believe they are getting the better of the swindle.”

What do you folks thinks of this?  Is he right have the People lost the will to rebel?  Are the People more interested in redistributing the wealth of others as long as they are on the receiving end?  I wonder??


Read the whole article below…  Regards, Dr. Dan



Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare: Does the Supreme Court’s Decision on Healthcare Really Matter?

By Robert Ringer - Wednesday, March 28, 2012

As the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of Obamacare plays out, I’m probably one of the few people who is not biting his nails over the outcome.  In fact, I’m dismayed that a majority of Americans are actually taking this media-hyped event so seriously.

First of all, as Thomas Woods has often pointed out, the whole idea of an arm of the federal government ruling in a case where states are suing that same federal government is perverse.  Let us not be na├»ve.  The Supreme Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch are all part of the same team.  It’s true that the Court may occasionally rule against the government, but, nevertheless, there is an inherent conflict of interest.

Second, the nine judges who rule on major issues such as the constitutionality of government-run healthcare are lifetime presidential appointees.  When a true conservative is in the Oval Office (which is rare), he may get to appoint one or two conservative judges.  And when a progressive or socialist president is in the White House, it is a 100 percent certainty that he will appoint far-left judges when vacancies occur.

Thus, the Supreme Court’s decisions have nothing to do with right or wrong, moral or immoral, or just or unjust.  We all know how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade.  Did that make it right … or moral … or just?  Nevertheless, if the court says something is so — e.g., that killing unborn babies is legal — it becomes accepted as a legal fact of life that only “extremists” would dare challenge.

So in this game of judicial musical chairs, it all gets down to who happens to be on the Supreme Court when any given case is heard.  To underscore this point, it’s ridiculous that one man — Justice Anthony Kennedy — is going to decide whether or not to allow the president and Congress to ignore the Constitution.  And once Justice Kennedy casts his vote, no matter how immoral or how anti-constitutional it may be, U.S. judges will forever refer to the outcome as “case law.”

Third, while the media crowd is all atwitter talking about what the Supreme Court’s decision might ultimately be, the truth is that it doesn’t matter.  Many readers will not like my saying this, but the reason it doesn’t matter is because government-run healthcare, even if Obamacare is overturned, is our future.

In fact, we already have lots of government-run healthcare.  It’s called Medicare, Medicaid, and free emergency-room services.  And more — much more — is on the way, no matter how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare.  Like all other insidious government programs, government-run healthcare only gets bigger with time.

While it’s true that a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court might buy us a little time, the long-term result is inevitable:  government control of every aspect of America’s healthcare system.

If the Dirty Dems lose the current battle, I can promise you that they will immediately roll up their sleeves and implement the Alinsky strategy yet again — meaning they will resort to even more audacious, illegal tactics to institute additional government-run healthcare services without regard to the Supreme Court ruling.

Further, if Obama wins next November, look for a slew of “executive orders” to give new life to Obamacare.  But what if a Republican wins?  Do I really need to answer that question?  Wasn’t it a Republican president that gave us No Child Left Behind, TARP, and, yes, more government-run healthcare in the form of a prescription-drug benefit?

And what about that long-forgotten “conservative,” Richard Nixon, who gave us the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970?  Or the most popular conservative hero of our time, Ronald Reagan, who granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens in 1986?

Most Republicans, even those who want to repeal Obamacare, are talking about a better way to “reform healthcare.”  Other than Ron Paul, who has had the courage to step forward and point out that it is not the government’s job to become involved in healthcare in any way, shape, or form?  Healthcare reform is a euphemism for more government involvement in healthcare.

For those of us who still believe in the Constitution — and, even more important, in Natural Law and natural rights — the fact that Obamacare was allowed to come into existence in the first place shows just how far we have moved away from our founding principles.  The sleight of hand with which it was forced into law is more proof of how corrupt our politicians are, how unafraid they are of usurping the Constitution, and how unwilling we, the people, are to rebel.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the reason we have come this far down the road to serfdom — be it in healthcare or any other aspect of our lives — is because most of us want redistribution of wealth.

That’s right, when push comes to shove, the majority of Americans are more than happy to ignore the Constitution and live in a redistribution-of-wealth society — so long as they believe they are getting the better of the swindle.

To end on a positive note, I do believe there are some constitutional saints among us, but you have to look long and hard to find them.  And the first place each of us should look is in the mirror.  If you don’t see a constitutional saint staring back at you, you know what you can do right away to start helping the cause of freedom.

The awful truth that few people are willing to come to grips with is that the choice is between servitude and all-out revolution.  Understanding this reality is far more important than what the Supreme Court decides about Obamacare.  Count on it, universal healthcare is coming — unless enough Americans are willing to resort to all-out rebellion.

You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

A Matter of Presumption…

The Legislators of the State of Illinois have made two (2) presumptions, at least when it comes to the Firearms Owners ID card (FOID). 
  1. All Illinois Citizens are untrustworthy.
  2. All other Americans are trustworthy.
The State, or in reality, the Chicago Machine, in my opinion, has presumed that if you reside in Illinois you are so untrustworthy that to increase public safety you must be vetted and approved by the State to bear an arm or to buy ammunition or armament.
The State has further presumed that if you are an American who resides outside the borders of the State of Illinois, then you are a perfectly honorable upstanding Citizen and need no vetting process to determine if you are upstanding enough to carry an arm, or purchase an arm or ammunition.  It is enough that you are NOT an  Illinois Citizen.
Senator Sam McCann has proposed a law to repeal the FOID card SB3340 – he needs others sponsors to help carry this repeal process forward.  I would encourage the People to call their Senators ASAP to request that they get on board as cosponsors of this.  This is your opportunity to ask them why they DIS-trust the People of Illinois, but TRUST all Americans from other states and territories.
A similar proposal is in the Illinois House of Representatives, so while you are calling your legislators, call your Illinois Representative and discuss your concerns about this with them.
All have my express permission to spread this far and wide.  If you would like to use it and send to your own newspaper, as a Letter to the Editor, over your own name you have my express permission to do so.  Just get it out there and get the pressure going!
I may be contacted at:, for further discussion.
Dan A. Mefford, D.C.