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 2^nd 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: carry@pike912.org.

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: editorials@pike912.org.

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

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.
July 29, 2011

     Discussion about the interpretation of the 2^nd 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 14^th 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: editorial@pike912.org.

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.

Governmenticin Overdose. . .

Tea Party / 9/12 groups had a substantial influence on the recent elections.  What is excellent is that these groups, including the Pike County group, are made up of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents.  Our common interest relates to the 9 Principles and 12 Values (www.the912project.com/the-912-2/).  This, and the concern that somehow our country has gotten off track and our chosen “Parties” are now largely a part of the problem rather than a means of solving the problem.

I would ask that those of you within your respective parties who have a care and concern for the future of our great land, approach the elected officials within your party and GET THEIR ATTENTION and let them know that they are being watched very closely and that you expect to see them pay true allegiance, and due diligence to the Constitution of the United States and to the Constitution of the State of Illinois, which they have sworn an oath to uphold and defend.

I know so many local people who have some substantial measure of influence at higher levels.  It would be my hope that you will stay in your party and become an instrument for correcting deficiencies and supporting those who you know to be supportive of constitutionally authorized legislation and dump those who continue to resist the founding principles.  Remember, we the People granted to our government certain powers and NO MORE.  Governments at all levels have chosen to ignore the boundaries set by the People.

Our legislators have chosen to pass any piece of legislation that they thought might help them get favor with a “voting bloc” of their constituents regardless of constitutional authority or constitutionality.  A perfect example is the new US Senator Elect Kirk (R) with his vote for Cap and Trade made as US Representative.  He stated that, “it was good for his district;” that is why he voted for it.  Then he stated that it would not have been good for Illinois as a whole.  Therefore if he had been in the Senate he would have voted against it.  These congress critters love to say “it’s necessary for the children” or whatever cutesy little catchy name makes it sound good.

I say, “Show us where you have constitutional authorization to impose Cap and Trade.”

I say, “Show us the authority for forced Government Healthcare” - if you can’t find it then get busy and repeal it…!

I say, “You need to SHOW us your integrity by sticking within constitutional bounds or face the wrath of the People!”  We don’t care what party you are in; we care that you are living up to your oath!

Do we really need this huge monstrosity of a government to tell us what we can eat, what we can’t eat, what we can smoke, what we can’t smoke, what we can drink, what we can’t drink?  I don’t smoke, does that give me the right to tell my neighbor whether he can or can’t?  I don’t think so, unless you are a guest in my home or in my business or unless you are blowing it on me in my personal space.  Part of liberty includes people making their own choices regardless of whether those choices are in their own best interest from my point of view.  Along with that choice comes taking the responsibility for your own decisions.

I am telling government to get out of my face, my space and my life and treat me with benign neglect.  I am telling government to follow their own rules and authority laid down by the founders.  I have had all the seat belt checks that I want.  I have had all the road blocks that I want for the rest of my life.  I say leave my banker alone to do what he does best.  I say leave my doctor alone to do what he does best.  I say, let the government mind its business and I will mind mine.  I have been wondering how this country ever got started and then survived without OSHA, DEA, FBI, IRS, ad nauseum, and now forced government health care for the first hundred years? 

I wonder how our country happened to be close to 98% literate in the founding era of our country.  After all they didn’t even have public schools with “no child left behind.”  We should all be dead cuz back in the “olden days” we didn’t have the public health department to keep the dishes clean and make sure the septic systems were laid out just so. 

In my best medical opinion there is a good chance that we could all die from an overdose of Governmenticin!

The Lesser of Two Evils. . .

My Republican friends want me to vote for Mark Kirk for United States Senate. My Democratic friends want me to vote for Alexi Giannoulias. Each of them claims that their particular person is the “Lesser of two Evils.” I haven’t had anyone tell me why one of these is a great choice.

Mark Kirk has proven that he's willing to vote for unconstitutional measures by voting for Cap and Trade, popularly known as, “Cap and Tax.” He has stated that for his particular constituency at the time that it was a good thing for his district. Therefore, it justified a yes vote on that issue in its time, even though it might not be good for the rest of the state. However, as United States Senator for the state of Illinois, he would have had to vote no, since that would be a better benefit for the state as a whole.  Where is the authority for this in the Constitution? He has stated that he won’t fight for repeal of Obamacare either, just tweak it.

And then we have Alexi Giannoulias, he claims that he's the right one for the state. Yet he and his entire party has stood behind our current president who passed horrendously unconstitutional “Obamacare” ‐ at least I can find no authority within the Constitution for the government to get into the healthcare business. In fact I can find no constitutional authority for most of the bills either one of these two mainline parties have supported for many years. This is a party who, over the last two years, has massively borrowed from even our great‐grandchildren's futures.

What about self‐defense rights? And the Right to keep and bear arms? I would really like to know what part of, "shall not be infringed," these two candidates don’t understand. Perhaps they feel like it actually should be interpreted “shall not be infringed very much.” One thing for sure is there is no statement on their websites with clarification.

Now if I say to my Democrat and Republican friends, “Let's take a look at the independent 3rd party choices and see what they have to offer.” The first thing they tell me is, “you're throwing away your vote.” So it finally came to me in the wee hours of the night that even if our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself was running on the Libertarian ticket, they would tell me I'm throwing away my vote. That he is completely unelectable. Voting for the 3rd party would split the vote and let the “More Evil” party in as opposed to the “Lesser of Two Evils” party.

So now we come to the old classic definition of insanity, that being, “continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Therefore, if I keep voting for the same 2 parties, I'm just going to keep on getting the same result. One may be a little faster than the other one, maybe not.  But nevertheless, it leads to the same results, more tax and spend! In my opinion tax‐and‐spend equals slavery.  We owe our souls to the government along with our money and our property. Our country in turn has mortgaged our assets to the Chinese, among others. 

The Libertarian candidate does look kind of interesting to me. His name is Mike Labno. After surfing my way to Mike's (www.labno4senate.com) website, one of the first things I see is a quote by Thomas Jefferson:

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ~Thomas Jefferson

Now, I don't suppose for a minute that Mike Labno is our Lord and Savior, and certainly not, “the Messiah.” However, I did like his start ‐ the “chains of the Constitution” to bind government, hmm.

What a novel idea? I was taught about that when I was in school, but my children had never heard of it until I brought it up.  Sounds, ‘kinda,’well, “revolutionary” to me. Oh, that’s right, Ole TJ was a revolutionary!  He was a traitor to the King!

My message to the main parties’ leadership is, “give me a candidate that truly supports smaller government and a big eraser for the rulebooks!”  Give me a candidate that abides within the Constitution. Then I will support your candidate. We don't need all of these laws they keep creating. I don’t see how voting for the Devil or a Demon can be a right choice. How can voting for what's right, be wrong?  Voting for the “Lesser of Two Evils” has brought us to where we are now. I don’t think I am going to vote for the Devil or his Demon!

The Lesser of Two Evils . . . (The Long Version)

Illinois, where our governors frequently serve two terms, one in the state house and the other in the “pen house.”  We have the interesting dichotomy of making the choice, as my Republican friends say, of regaining the US Senate for the Republicans or leaving it in the hands of the Democrats.  We must, according to these erstwhile Repubs, get the United States Senate back under control of the Republicans for the good of the country.  Both sides say, “This is THE MOST important election in our lifetime etc etc ad nauseum.”

Well the truth is, in my estimation, that there is NO choice if you go with the “two” mainline party candidates that are running now.   My Democrat friends tell me the man for the job is Genulius, after all he is the lesser of two evils.  My Republican friends claim that Mark Kirk is the lesser of two evils.  In other words the Dems say Kirk is the devil and Genulius is the demon.  The Repubs say Genulius is the devil and Kirk is the demon.   So what is a concerned voter supposed to do? 

Well, should I look for an alternative?  How about an independent?  Maybe a Libertarian?  (What or who is a Libertarian?)  The RepubliCrats tell me, “Dr. Dan, you can’t vote for any of those or you will just be throwing your vote away, that person is not ‘electable.’”  These are the same people who continue to think they can spend more than they take in indefinitely.  After thinking about that for a while, it suddenly struck me that if our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ was running as a Libertarian, for instance, I would be throwing my vote away because I wasn’t voting for who I thought was the demon; that being, after all, the “Lesser of Two Evils.” 

I guess that means I have to go back to the drawing board and actually do some work and use my own sense of reasoning between right and wrong, because voting for the “Lesser of Two Evils” line of reasoning just doesn’t hold water in my mind.  Why wouldn’t I vote for what or who I knew to be right instead for someone who might be ‘electable?’  Why would I pay any attention to the naysayers?  How can a vote for what is right be wrong?  I guess I will just have to do my own analysis and let the ‘chads’ fall where they may.   

So, how do I figure this out?  The old build a logic matrix is probably as good a way as any. You know, chalk up the pros and cons side by side and use my somewhat limited powers of deduction to make a logical choice as to who I will vote for.  Of course my Repub friends and my Dem friends will probably figure that to be illogical because my matrix might show the obvious choice to be the Independent then my vote is thrown away or worse yet it becomes the spoiler for the “Lesser of Two Evils,” the demon.   The conversation would go something like this, “Now you’ve gone and done it Mefford; you have helped put the devil in this very important office. We could have had the demon.  Remember this was THE most IMPORTANT election since the last most important election.” 

I better get back to business and get started on the matrix.  The election will be here before I even get a start. 

Issues Mr. Devil Mr. Demon Mr. Christ No Guns for the People, just for cops No Guns for the People No Guns for the People Sell your coat and buy a gun. Kill Unborn Babies Kill’em Kill’em Do Not Murder Government Health Care No Repeal No Repeal Repeal Socialism and Communism represent the greatest good for the greatest number. Of Course Sort’a No More theft from our grand children so we can live better today. / Economic Stimulation Yes Sort’a No The United States Constitution Not Important Somewhat Important Like the Bible for the Christian, it is the Law for Congress

Now that I have this laid out we can begin to analyze this in a somewhat logical manner.  Let’s see now, I believe, like the Founding Fathers, that guns in hands of the People “shall not be infringed.”  Infringed would appear to me to be pretty simple language.  Fringe is the very edge of an item.  So to infringe would be to touch the very edge without even getting into the middle.  It would appear to me to be an infringement if we passed, in the interest of public safety, a law like, “all guns shall be blaze orange, so the cops can spot’em better.”   Now the Devil and Demon would probably say, ‘well that is no significant inconvenience and in the interest of public safety blah blah etc etc we NEED this law to protect the police and the public.  It is really only a very teeny tiny infringement.  After all what is the difference between, “shall not be infringed,” and “shall not be infringed very much.”

In my opinion if you can’t trust the People at large with guns, then I sure wouldn’t want to trust the government.  Who is going to watch the watchers?  On the other hand Mr. Christ, the Independent, who can’t possibly win, is completely unelectable, would probably ruin the chances of a real winner like Mr. Demon by taking votes away from him in the election process.  Oh well, I think I’ll sell my coat and buy a gun anyway.

Killing the unborn child; we need to think about this.  What is our stance going to be?  Do we need a law against this?  We know that more laws lead to more government.  We know that it might be considered an invasion of one’s right to privacy, perhaps an invasion of the doctor patient relationship and many other things.  At the same time do we stand by and let someone kill a child?  The Bible says that some crimes without enough witnesses are best left to God.  So how do we deal with this?  I for one feel strongly that to kill the unborn child is a form of premeditated murder.  Do I however, put my opinions and beliefs on someone else?  I don’t know, and I don’t expect this one to be answered any time soon.  However, Mr. Christ would seem to say, “do not murder?”  How does this compare to Mr. Devil and Mr. Demon? 

Now to the issue of repealing the government health care take over.   Government run health care has no basis in the constitution.  Therefore if Mr. Devil and Mr. Demon are for continuation of the health care option even though there is no authority for such legislation, it would appear to me that they are saying, “the People and their Constitution be ‘damned.’”  The only option on this issue, as far as I can see, is to go with the one who is in favor of repealing an unconstitutional and enslaving law.  It would appear to me that Mr. Christ is presently in favor of restoring constitutional government, at least on this issue.  Shall we go on? 

Social programs constitute a huge part of today’s government expenditures and invasions and trespasses on the People’s liberty today.  These programs range from Social Security benefits to farm subsidies to food stamps, health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid and on and on.  Social programs take from those who have received by working and investing in the economy and being producers.  Somehow the government thinks that it knows best how to spend money in the right spot so that problems can be resolved and fixed.  Some examples that I can think of quickly are the “War on Poverty,” the War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism.  So far none of these problems have gotten fixed and in fact they have gotten worse.  The War on Poverty has created a whole subset of Americans who live on the ‘system’ and raise kids that tend to perpetuate the system to the extent that poverty will only continue to get worse.  The War on Drugs has created a huge growth in the prison and law enforcement systems to the point where this whole system has become what would be termed in big business as a ‘growth industry.’  How about the War on Terrorism?  There is no end to that either.  More prisons, more military toys to keep an eye on our people at home, and our neighbors around the world.  What???  No fence to keep the terrorists out on the Southern border?  If I was an Arab terrorist I would sure use that southern border to send’em in, wouldn’t you?  I can’t seem to find any constitutional basis for any of these so called social welfare programs either.  I think I have had enough socialistic and/or communistic programs, how about you?

You know a little stimulation now and then can be a good thing.  It can kick things into gear, kinda like the football coach giving a little ‘reaming’ to his team when they are getting cocky and overconfident.  Or, the coach might stimulate them by springing for pizza after the next win.  I wonder where the constitutional authority comes from for economic stimulation.  I guess just the big boys with the big toys like Government Motors that can’t fail, and big banks with the big bucks for lobbyists get the stimulation.  My little business coulda stood some stimulation real well.  I don’t think I would have spent the big bucks on a bonus either.  I think I would have invested in some debt reduction and improved efficiencies in my business first.   Somehow it would seem to me that there is a process of natural selection.  It appears that the bigger you are and the more you spend on perks for congresscritters the more naturally you are to get selected, for some stimulus that is.  Still, I looked and really cannot find any constitutional authority for taking money from those who are producing and succeeding and giving it to those who are failing and not succeeding. . .  Kinda makes me wonder a little bit, how about you?  Oh well I guess the congress can just keep borrowing the money from us, our children and grandchildren, so we can have a nice life now.  This Mr. Christ though, he doesn’t go along with that, still he isn’t electable, at least according to the experts in the Republican and Democratic parties.

Hmmm, that brings us to the United States Constitution.  Surely this 200 plus year old document can’t be taken seriously in the space age, and the computer age where thoughts are communicated at the speed of light.  This is an ‘enlightened’ society so much smarter than the Founders who wore these weird looking wigs with powder all over them.  It is kind of like that 80 year old guy in the Bible who led the Children of Israel out of Egypt, I think they called him Moses.  He came out of the woods and wilderness after talking to a burning bush and carrying a stick.  He came out of the wilderness and said things like, don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t lie about your neighbor, and a bunch of other stuff that surely cannot apply to today’s modern enlightened society.  When it comes to the government, can you really imagine a modern civilized government here in America getting out of control? 

In your wildest dreams can you imagine that this modern day civilized government would infringe on a fundamental God given right such as the right to keep and bears arms, or the right to the free exercise of religion in schools or public places or……. Woops.  I may have gotten carried away.  Actually you can practice your faith as you believe it in public places and schools as long as it is not Christian.  The evolutionists, the wiccans, the Muslims, among others, can practice their faith freely, ‘cuz that goes along with tolerance, and that makes it alright.  You can have your right to keep and bear arms, as long as the right is not infringed ‘too much.’  Perhaps the Founders didn’t really mean what they said.  Or, maybe the states that ratified the second amendment just forgot to put “too much” on the end the second amendment.  I sure would like to hear from the real authorities, the judges, about just what does, “shall not be infringed” mean.

As we can see there is no end to the analysis but I really think that I have enough for me to make an informed decision.  I think that rather than vote for evil at all, I will vote for the Independent, even though he is unelectable, even though he might take votes away from Mr. Demon.  I think I will vote for what is right.  I hope that I can maintain my integrity and vote for the man and not a party.  It is time to get in the face of the party leadership and confront them with a massive message of integrity first and foremost.

Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils just has not worked well for mankind since voting started a few thousand years ago.  Instead vote for what is right!

Conceal Carry Now ? How 'bout Constitutional Carry Now!

In 1995 my business was the subject of a burglary.  At that time I wrote a letter praising the local city and county police in solving that crime.  I continue to stand by that letter.  I also made the following remark:

“It is encouraging to see the ‘system’ work as it is supposed to.  Many times it is easy to say “where are the police when you need them?”  However they cannot be everywhere at once.  We would not want them everywhere at once.  After all who needs a police state?  Not I!”

Fourteen years have passed and we have more police than ever and are closer to a police state than we have ever been.  The police still cannot be everywhere, thank God.  However our rulers, Chicago Machine, say the common people, citizens of Illinois, cannot be trusted to own a firearm without their blessing via the FOID card.  I say that is garbage.  It is time that the people realized that our rulers wish to keep the people disarmed because the rulers are afraid of an armed citizenry, not concerned about “the children.”

In the name of ‘safety for the children’ and a plethora of other so called necessities, I, a citizen of Illinois in good standing, must crawl to the rulers to ask for permission to own and carry a gun in Illinois.  At the same time the police cannot be everywhere to “protect and serve.”  Many police are my friends, but I don’t want them everywhere.  The rulers have made it increasingly clear that keeping the peace is now secondary to being “Law Enforcers,” carrying out the edicts of the rulers.  Really important laws like, seat belt laws, have actually become an excuse to stop and check for other violations, and generate revenue.  Many police don’t feel good about it, but they are just doing their job.  If they don’t do it they will be hunting a new job.

Many Illinois citizens are now begging that the rulers let us carry concealed firearms.  The truth is the people have a God given fundamental right to carry guns.  Now it is important to understand that the term ‘fundamental right,’ or ‘inalienable right,’ is a right that you are born with.  A fundamental right is NOT granted by any so-called law making body or any constitution.  The constitution secures and guarantees and recognizes these inalienable rights, the constitution does not grant any rights whatsoever.  Therefore a fundamental right cannot be taken away by any law making body accept at the risk of the wrath of the people (some would say sheeple).

These rights should not be confused with “civil rights.”  Civil rights are rights, supposedly granted by the government.  An example would be something like the “right to an education.”  Nobody is born with a right to an education.  Another might be a “right to a minimal income.”  Nobody is born with a right to be supported by others.  Any civil right can be taken away.  I always enjoyed my old colleague Illinois Senator John Davidson when he would breathe fire and yell at the rest of his fellow chiropractors, what the government giveth the government can take away.”  He would follow it by a speech to support financially those legislators who supported our cause.  Then he would say at the top of his voice into a microphone, “money is the mother’s milk of politics and don’t you ever forget it!”  My point is, the right to keep and bear arms is NOT a civil right that can be voted away and don’t you ever forget it!

For example there is no dispute that the people have a right to freedom of speech un-infringed by laws made by some ruling government body.  The individual has the right to exercise this freedom up to the point at which it infringes on some other individual’s right to enjoyment of life and liberty.  The old classic is that you are free to talk about someone as long as it is the truth, even if it might not be in good taste.  If you begin to lie about, defame and libel someone then you have crossed the natural limit to the exercising of that fundamental right to freedom of speech.  All rights have a natural boundary that the honest, moral, and reasonable person can recognize without the assistance of government.  No one would dispute that if the government were to pass a freedom of speech license that it would not be right or constitutional.  In other words you would be able to express yourself as long as you purchased a “speakers license.”  Then you could speak as much as you want, at least as long as your speech was, of course, “politically correct.”  Well you can see that obviously the government has taken a fundamental right to free speech and converted it into a privilege and is now charging a tax (license fee) for it.

Now let’s apply this to the firearm issue that is currently a hot topic among many in this state and in our country as whole.  I, as member of the human race, have been born with the right to “keep and bear arms,” as have all other humans.  Remember, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men… are endowed… with certain inalienable rights….”  The right to keep and bear arms cannot be voted away by an act of congress or an act of the Chicago Machine House of Rulers.  This is recently affirmed in the Heller US Supreme Court case.

Now the rulers come along and say, for the children, for the old folk, for the safety of the police, etc. etc. it is necessary to approve of and make sure that the person who owns a gun is not a criminal.  Therefore we will require them to apply for a permit to exercise their God given fundamental right to bear arms in defense themselves, their family and others.  They have taken a God given fundamental right and converted it into a privilege and are charging a tax for it.  It is no different than the example above with regard to freedom of speech.

In the case of firearms, the rulers have it backwards or as one astute fellow told our county board last Tuesday night, “the government has it upside down.”  I and all my fellow humans have the God given fundamental right without the rulers’ permission to keep and bear arms.  The limitation to exercise my right to keep and bear arms can only be legally and constitutionally “taken” if I were to act irresponsibly in the exercising of my right.  Just as the person who is free to exercise their free speech is limited at the point at which it invades some else’s right to enjoyment of their liberties, my right is limited when I approach the point that I infringe another’s right to enjoyment of their liberties.  In other words if I exercise my right by brandishing my gun to steal another’s property then I have over stepped my natural boundary to exercise my God given fundamental right. 

Now many gun owners in this state are humbly beseeching their rulers for a permit to carry concealed weapons; a permit to do that which they already have a God given fundamental right to do.  Further they are trying to get it passed by offering to take a 40 hour course in which they would have to pass some kind of a test, go through some background check, and give out their private property in the form of their finger prints like a common criminal and their money to take this so called safety course.  It makes me sick!

All holders of a public office, from the public library board to the judges, police, and the big boy rulers in the far away cities are charged with the public trust, and take an oath to defend our constitution from encroachment by enemies foreign and domestic.  Have the big boys failed in the public trust?  What are their enforcers to do?  Somehow I am not concerned about the foreign enemies as much as I am the domestic enemies.  It would seem that the rulers are not concerned about foreign enemies either.  They “‘holler’ foreign terrorist,” then pass a bunch of stupid domestic laws to watch you and me.  They won’t even put up a simple fence to keep the ‘terrorists’ out.  They don’t even want me to carry a gun to protect myself and my family against terrorist boogey men.  The rulers do want to track every financial transaction, every bit of health care, and a whole range of inconsequential things, all in the name of security and safety for the children, etal.  I would say that the most secure place in Pike County is our jail, but how many want to live there?  Do you really believe that all this background check and finger printing is just for the safety of the children?  Are people really that naïve? 

I wonder what those traitors to their government (King George), Samuel Adams, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry and George Washington and rest of our founding fathers who pledged their very lives, fortunes, and sacred honor would say to all us Illinois gun owners, who on our knees before the rulers, are humbly begging, beseeching, and petitioning for a permit law to do that for which many Founders gave all.  Our precious soldiers have poured out or risked their life’s blood to preserve those God given fundamental/inalienable rights.  The next step is licking the rulers’ jack boots to the clinking music of our chains.