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.

An Open Letter to my Children

Autumn, Kody, Carson & Kit,

     Times are a changin’ kids.  I am at the same time optimistic and spooked.  For the first time in a long time I feel that the “environment” is right for the People of our country to begin to reassert that which is right, by restoring Constitutional government and, consequently, an increased measure of Liberty.  As you know I have struggled a long time with fear of the complete overthrow of our US Constitution.  Not by one major coup but rather by the inch by inch encroachment of so called politicians robbing us of our liberty using phrases such as: “It’s for the children,” and, “In the name of public safety…,” and, “due to terrorism we need to be able to snatch and grab and detain even American citizens as long as we want without charges pressed…,” “spy on our citizens’ bank accounts etc…”

     However with election of our current president a great awakening is occurring that is sweeping across the land.  In this awakening the People are beginning to search for the truth.  They are beginning to ask hard questions of the politicians who have been robbing the People of their Liberty.  Questions like, “just how far can the Feds go under the so called authority of the “commerce clause?”  “What does the phrase, “shall not be infringed” mean?  Who is watching the so called “watchers” to see that they are doing right?  Does the government really have the authority under Article 1, Section 8, to tell me what kind of bulbs I can use, what I can eat, or drink? Questioning authority is becoming a national pastime.  That, kiddos, is good thing.

     I can remember as a kid some of the comments about World War II when the big “excuse” for killing people by the millions in Nazi Germany was, “I was just following orders.”  Many of our police officers are in the same boat.  Well, not killing people, but many of the laws they enforce are blatantly unconstitutional.  These are police officers who take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  On the good side, I see a great awakening and possibly some of the “lack of knowledge” is being cleared up as the People begin to do their own research.  Just following orders was no excuse years ago and is no excuse now for enforcing unconstitutional law.

     As you kids know I have been involved in what I call a fight for clarity on certain issues involving Liberty.  I felt that one day you kids would ask me, “What did you do to preserve Liberty in your lifetime for us, Dad?”  As you have seen, I have been joined by many other Liberty loving citizens in an attempt to preserve some measure of Liberty by making the second amendment (2A) clear to our citizens and enforcers as to what the 2A means.   These same People are asking the same questions, “How do I preserve that which I know to be right, in the sight of God, my children, the Founders, and the man in the mirror?

     In Illinois unscrupulous or maybe they were well meaning “do gooders” have perverted our Illinois Constitution by using the words “Subject to the police power…” in the Illinois version of the 2A.  This travesty must be stopped.  I am confident that long term it will be, either by the courts with awakening judges and juries, or by the awakening of the People or hopefully all three.  It is not too hard to understand the term “shall not be infringed.”  Any young person understands it.  It is the old folks and highly educated types who want to rule other People’s lives that have the most difficulty.

     It is my sincere hope that our County law enforcement and other elected officials will recall their oaths and be able to look their kids in the eye and say that they did their part to uphold the oath.  My advice to you is that at all costs you choose Liberty and fight tyranny in any form that you see it.  Remember our Country was founded with the ideal of maximum Liberty and minimal government.  I like Thoreau’s comment, “That government governs best which governs least.”

Love, Dad

Comments on Pike County Illinois Constittutional Carry of Arms

By  Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

On Tuesday November 29, 2011 the Petition for the “Constitutional Carry of Arms” ordinance of Pike County was submitted to the Pike County Clerk.  I along with Rick Rodhouse, of Pl. Hill, IL, presented the petition to Clerk Donnie Apps who reviewed it page by page and then accepted it.  It is public record and therefore subject to review by the public for a period of time.

The petition came about following the highly significant US Supreme Court cases Washington DC vs.  Heller and McDonald vs Chicago.  In essence Heller confirms that 2^nd Amendment (2A) secures right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms, while McDonald stated that the 2A applies to the states.  This is important legal precedent since it now clears the way to challenge the Illinois Constitution at Article 1 Section 22 which states: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed [emphasis mine].”  The term “police power” refers to the power of legally constituted governments to make laws to preserve public safety and health etc.   The term does not refer to the power of police to enforce law.

I have reviewed all four of the Illinois Constitutions and could find no reference to the bearing of arms in the first three.  Only the fourth constitution had any phrase regarding arms that I was able to see.

The concept of passing the ordinance was conceived by me while the authoring of the ordinance was a collaboration of several people including myself, Dick Metcalf of Barry, IL, a constitutional scholar and historian who taught on the history of the Constitution at Cornell University, and some others, who reviewed our work. 

The petition quickly became a popular one in Pike County since there are so many self reliant and independent minded people.  Volunteers to collect signatures came from all parts of the County and collected an amazing 1300 plus signatures in just a few weeks.  What these people seem to have in common is the desire to have the same rights as the founding fathers had and that criminals have today.  That is the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, friends, and property. 

Criminals do not ask permission of government to keep and bear an arm.  They are not subject to a waiting period, a caliber, or particular style of weapon.  They do not ask permission to carry a knife or gun or baseball bat.  When a criminal needs to defend himself he does not need to call 911, since he is already armed.  Only the law abiding people need to jump through the hoops to see if they are fit to keep and bear an arm.

Illinois is the last state in the entire Union of States to not have a concealed carry law.  Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming have joined Vermont in the Constitutional Carry of Arms, which is in essence no infringement at all.  Other states are considering this as well.  The Constitutional Carry of Arms refers to the acceptance that the founders intended that there be no infringement of the people to carry arms.  That is what the simple language, “shall not be infringed” means.  I am not sure how you interpret “shall not be infringed” other than, “shall not be infringed.”  In the 2A the founders did not choose to say, “shall not be infringed very much.”

What the people must understand here is that we are dealing with what the founders termed an unalienable right.  That is a right endowed by our Creator or a right that you are born with.  It is a right that is natural and fundamental to be able to live in Liberty.  It is no different than the right to breathe air.  The very fact that we have unalienable rights denotes that we have a right to defend those rights. 

Tim Nerenze, a libertarian, states in his blog:  “…guns are the only product or service mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.  While we also clearly have a right to keep and bear food, healthcare, clothing, shelter, and many other necessary things, the framers did not deem any of them important enough to warn the government against any form of infringement – only guns.  Think about that.”

We are the only country in the world that I know of who recognizes that unalienable rights are granted at birth and not by government.  What a government can grant, government can take away.  In Illinois the Chicago Machine leads the People by the nose.  It is time for them to leave us alone.  Remember the Second Amendment does not say “Subject to the police power!”

What are some of the Sheriffs up to around the Country?

      I don't have time right now to comment but the Sheriffs of this country have a power and authority that many do not fully comprehend.  However if they want to keep their toys from the Feds they may run into trouble...  some articles below are worth reviewing, in my opinion.

      This next article is very detailed listing authorities and sources etc.  It also is based on very recent issues.  Some sheriff's do have balls!

U.S. Sheriffs Rise Up Against Federal Government: Sheriff Threatens Feds With SWAT Team ~ Grass Roots Take Charge!

 

Nevada Sheriff Tony DeMeo Stops Federal Government: Feds Engaging In Illegal Confiscation Of Cattle And Water Rights Of County Property Owner.

 

Taking a Stand

     On Christmas day 1776 George Washington’s army had collapsed from 30,000 to 2,500 men.  One third of those men wrapped their feet in burlap and marched many miles in the snow, leaving a trail of blood to finally cross the icy Delaware River in a snow storm.  These dedicated men finally captured the trained professional army of German soldiers.  That took guts.  Now if George Washington and his men had been living in Illinois they would have had to ask the government for permission to keep and bear an arm, by acquiring a FOID card so they could buy a gun and the ammunition to go in it.  Unless, of course, they are from ‘out-a-state,’ in which case they don’t need no ‘stinkin’ FOID card.  How many think he would have been granted a FOID card if King George would have been in charge?

     Within a few days we will be turning in our Petition to place Pike County’s version of the 2^nd Amendment, commonly known as the “Constitutional Carry of Arms” ordinance, on the ballot so that we have some semblance of a chance of exercising a God given right to keep and bear arms in the manner of our forefathers.  I have been told repeatedly by various officials that County law cannot supersede state law.  I agree.  However no law, including state law, can supersede the US Constitution (USC).  The USC secures, via the 2^nd and 14^th amendments, the right to keep and bears arms to every individual.  It says, “Shall NOT be infringed.”  The FOID card and all laws requiring permission of government or King George, to exercise a fundamental right to keep and bear an arm are blatantly unconstitutional.

     As with George Washington’s men, who stuck it out with him in the worst possible conditions, we may have to call on the People of Pike County to come out in the worst weather and at inconvenient times, to stand together and see this thing through, to help the officials understand by sheer numbers that “shall NOT be infringed,” does not mean, “shall not be infringed very much!”  I suspect that none of us will have to stand with our feet wrapped in burlap. 

     I defy any attorney, any official, no matter how high up the honcho line they go to tell the People of Pike County with a straight face that any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence should have to ask permission of Pat Quinn or the like for a FOID card so they can own and carry an arm in defense of themselves, their family, their friends and their Country.  That was a mouthful; however the People of Pike County are just as “equal” in the fundamental natural rights as any of the signers.  The signers pledged their very lives, their sacred honor and their fortunes that we might have Liberty.  Many of the signers lost it all except their honor in that war for Independence.

     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.

If The Foundations Be Destroyed. . . ?

     “If the Foundations are destroyed, what shall the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3.  This country was begun on a simple but solid footing, that being, all men are equal in the sight of our Creator and that each individual has equal rights to Life, Liberty, and Property, among others.  All other government systems in the world, other than perhaps, ancient Israel, were based on rights being granted by government, such as a king or emperor, or whatever.  The consequence of basing the footing and foundation on these fundamental principles means that no mere man or government is allowed to take these unalienable rights away.

     The whole emphasis of our form of government is to grant certain powers to government in order that justice may be served, and to provide for the common defense of the nation.  In order to do this a list of powers or functions which government was to oversee was made by the Founding Fathers (FFs) and listed in Article 1, Section 8.  Beyond these powers the congress could not go.  The same procedure was used for the states.

     The chief concern of our FFs was that the general government would eventually shatter the “chains” of the Constitution and move into usurpation of powers and then tyranny.  Can there be any doubt in anyone’s mind that the Federal government and even the State governments have easily become what the Founders feared the most.  It has happened through the ho hum attitude of the People.  As much as we would like to blame the legislators the real truth is that We the People have been asleep and allowed the rulers to rule with impunity.  The Declaration of Independence states clearly that the People will prefer to suffer while Evils are sufferable, however if we don’t wake up and call a halt to the theft of Liberty by the legislators we will continue our downward spiral into the abyss of totalitarian rule by government.

     Politicians think that the People are too stupid to figure out what is best for them.  Consequently they come up with stupid laws such as seat belt laws and how many lights you can have on the side of your vehicle and laws such as “no humming allowed on public streets on Sunday” (Cicero,IL).  We have all heard of and a laughed at some of the stupid laws that have been passed and thought how stupid or dumb can these people be?  But the truth is that even these laws no matter how silly they seem carry with them a potential sentence of death, if they are intensely enforced and subsequently resisted.

     In order to exercise our Liberty we need to be able to live our life as each individual chooses with minimal interference from our neighbor or our government.  Our right to choose should only be limited at the point we begin to interfere with our neighbor’s right to enjoyment of his rights.  Liberty is about choice; choices on how to live one’s life, even if the decision is a potentially destructive one in most people’s opinions. 

     Now we come to who is charged to preserve our Liberty?  If the legislators fail who do we turn to?  It has to be the courts.  I have read many court cases that had to do with a claim by an individual that some law has “taken” a fundamental right.  The courts will state over and over that the state has the duty and responsibility to preserve “public safety.”  Meanwhile the court may never mention that the higher calling is the preservation of fundamental rights of the individual.  It appears so much of the time that the courts would look for every possible excuse to preserve the law intact at the expense of a fundamental right.  We can have so much “safety” that we have no Liberty.  What is safety without Liberty?

     I have come to appreciate this quote from Ayn Rand a Russian escapee:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  "Atlas Shrugged" 

     The way I see it our judges have a trust, an obligation, a duty above all to preserve individual fundamental rights, against the state, except in the truly important issues.  The state/government has no end of reasons why it is important that the person in a private vehicle, for instance, should wear a seat belt but our kids riding in school buses don’t need one.  Try and reason that one out.  The courts must preserve the Foundations or Liberty is lost. 

     This is a subject whose time has come.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  Follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com/ or editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134.

A Danger to America....

I received this quote in an email.  I don't know who to attribute it to but think it is worth posting here.
_________________________________

 

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."

Guilty, Until Proven Innocent!

September 20, 2011

The story going around is that the “Feds” have come!  Well, that is the truth straight from the “coffee shop.”  Yeah, well, as the story goes the Feds are handing out tickets right and left at Florence, IL and other places for farmers not having DOT (Dept of Transportation) “numbers.”  The Feds cannot be involved unless there is some connection that has to do with “interstate and foreign commerce” (I&FC).  The Feds say, “The farmer might, or could reasonably suspect that his grain could be shipped out of Illinois therefore he comes under the definition of I&FC. 

Now if I sell my car to somebody and it travels across a state line, am I involved in I&FC?  Do I need a federal permit?  Do I need license from the Federal government to transact that deal because I should have suspected that it might cross the state line?  I don’t think so.  If I sell my coat at the yard sale and my old deer stand or my “you name it property” to an out of state hunter and he hauls it across the line, and I further “reasonably suspected” that it might be carried across the ‘line;’ do I need some kind of federal permit because I suspected that the purchaser might reasonably be expected to take the item across the state line?  I don’t think so.

My son, Carson, is quite the goose hunter.  Now if the federal game warden were to find in his possession one too many geese, the officer might have some evidence to prove that he had indeed exceeded the limit.  However to use the alleged DOT reasoning; if the officer were to see Carson had 4 rounds of ammo and the limit was 2 geese then officer could write Carson because he might or could be expected to shoot more than 2 geese, therefore he would write him a ticket for exceeding the limit.  It would then be up to Carson to try to prove that he would not have exceeded his limit on geese.  If he couldn’t prove that he would not have exceeded the limit then he would be guilty and have to pay the fine.

The truth is, our farmer’s grain might just as easily be used right here in Illinois.  Now according to Mrs. Helen Harmon, my American History teacher and my civics teacher Mr. Jim Sanderson, in the US of A a person is innocent until proven guilty.  So I suspect that if I am accused of intentionally and wantonly engaging in I&FC that the burden of proof should be on the Feds.  Perhaps someone could help me with my line of reasoning.  Maybe even the Feds who are running around allegedly terrorizing the farmers could explain how the burden of proof suddenly shifted from them to the farmer.

Shouldn’t the Feds have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my grain crossed the line into I&FC commerce? 

It would appear to me based on an unusual thought process, common sense, that the farmer is selling his private property to someone else, and once that transaction is complete, the property now belongs to the purchaser, and the new owner assumes the responsibility for where the grain moves to from there.

One other argument that seems to be made is that the farmer might be guilty of intrastate commerce if he is involved in a share crop agreement.  This reasoning is faulty as well if you realize that the farmer has all care and custody of the crop.  This is just another form of rental agreement in which the landowner leases his land and paid based on production.  In other words if the crop makes 200 bushel the landowner gets half the proceeds as rent either in kind or in cash.  The landowner may be required to pay half the cost of some aspects of production as well.  Overall it is a rental agreement that is good for the farmer since he pays based on production and not a set rental fee.  In a good year both parties do well and in a bad year everyone shares the pain. 

This reminds me of the Declaration of Independence, wherein Thomas Jefferson is declaring the reasons leading to the revolution.  One of those reasons for separation is that King George “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”  Has anybody noticed “Swarms of Officers” here-‘abouts’ lately?  Can you say OSHA, IRS, DOT, DEA, FBI, IRS, BATFE, FMSCA, ASCS, how many pages do I need to fill?  "SAFETY WITHOUT LIBERTY IS TYRANNY."

This is a subject whose time has come.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at:  Follow my blog at: pike912.blogspot.com/ or editorial@pike912.org or leave a message at 217-285-2134. 

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.

What Makes America Exceptional?

By Dan A. Mefford, D.C.
September 12, 2011

     As I write this it is the “The Day After” 9/11.  I discussed last evening with a friend that the all important difference that makes America an “exceptional” country is the observation of fundamental rights as a birth right.  We have the only country I know of that has ever had this difference other than, perhaps, ancient Israel before the kings.  That all important difference was conceived, calculated, and brought about through the guiding principles studied by the Founders.   The difference is that the Founders recognized individual fundamental rights.   These rights are received at conception or birth, depending on how you look at it.  All the other countries operate on the principle that rights are granted by government.  Only the ruler or sovereign had all rights.  We know that what the government ‘granteth’ the government can take away.  What the Creator grants no government has a right to take away.

      The Founders recognized that natural rights represent the difference between a free man and a subject or slave.  A subject or slave can do only that which is permitted by the sovereign or master.  The Founders wanted the People to be free in every sense that was possible.  Their basic thought process was that liberty was a right of the People but that the People could grant certain powers to the government and beyond those bounds government could not go. 

     The government formed by the People was a Republic which in the case of the USA was designed using a constitution, a form of contract or trust, which spells out the powers granted to the new government.  It directed that representation was chosen democratically.  The constitution spelled out the ways and means by which a representative form of government was to make laws.  It further laid out the court system by which justice could be maintained.  It also intended that the administration of necessary laws occurs through an executive branch.  Most importantly, the Bill of Rights was agreed upon to secure those rights which a runaway government is most likely to usurp or infringe upon. 

     Presently encroachment by government on fundamental rights is blatant beyond belief at this point in time.  Every time it happens there is always some special need touted by the powers that be such as – “it’s for the children” or some other excuse that will tear at your heart strings.  I am reminded once again of the saying by William Pitt, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” 

     This year the Supreme Court of Indiana decided that unlawful entrance by the police into a private home without permission could not be resisted by the resident.  That is a 4^th Amendment infringement of a fundamental right.  There is no room to give the facts of the case; there was some concern for the potential for violence, but no “hot pursuit” and no evidence of a crime more than yelling.  When the officer came in, after being told not to, the resident pushed the officer against a door.  In essence the court said, “We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”

     Why bother having a 4^th Amendment?  I would like to see them tell that to Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, or George Washington and the men and women who spilled their life’s blood on the battlefield fighting the tyranny of the king.

     The 4^th states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

     The Amendment uses the term “unreasonable” with regard to searches and seizures.  There is provision for an “exigent circumstance,” which would be an emergency involving high potential for loss of life and limb etc.  In this case there was no evidence of exigent circumstance.  Yet the Court stated, “We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”  There is no right to resist unlawful entry?  Are these judges serious?

     The court in essence stated that the officers should be allowed to infringe the right to be secure in one’s home and that the resident should press charges later.  What the court left out of consideration is that it costs a lot of money to sue a policeman.  It costs the police nothing unless found guilty.  My contention is that with regard to a fundamental right, the courts and officers of government should err on the side of preserving fundamental rights for the People except in the most “exigent circumstance.”  I repeat the phrase of the most highly decorated police officer in the Phoenix PD, Jack McLamb, “When tyranny comes to your door, it will be wearing a uniform.”  The police are not above the law.  We must preserve liberty in our lifetime or our children will be subjects to government instead of the government subject to the People.  This is a topic whose time has come.  If you would like to correspond with me on this contact me at: editorial@pike912.org.