An Open Letter To Michigan Governor Rick Snyder...

Gov. Rick Snyder

Michigan State Capitol

Lansing, MI

Sir,

Today has been a trying day for many, especially the families of those killed and wounded in Newtown, CT.  Our sympathy and prayers go out to them and for them.

But make no mistake, at the end of the day there is no equivalency between SB 59 and what happened in Newtown.

What happened in Newtown is about a person who lost touch with reality, killed his mother, stole her firearms, and then took out his rage on defenseless children and school faculty.  None of the more than 20,000 laws on the books nationwide regulating firearms and their users could have prevented that.

But the deaths of so many children and teachers was preventable.

You see, until 1990, as a nation we averaged about one firearm-related school attack a year, going back fifty years or more.  But in 1990, something changed.

We passed the federal Gun Free School Zones Act (GFSZA).

I am not so naive as to believe that this is the ONLY consideration, but the GFSZA, by declaring schools to be completely gun free, had an unintended effect: it left everyone in schools defenseless against a determined attack.  Since 1990, there have been 225 firearm-related incidents at school nationally, resulting in more than 700 casualties (deaths/ injuries/hostages); 183 of those attacks have occurred since the 1999 Columbine attack.  By completely disarming faculty and staff, the GFSZA guaranteed the highest concentrations of defenseless, soft targets available to someone out for blood.

Something else has happened in those intervening years: numbers of law enforcement officers have declined, resulting in longer response times when such incidents occur.  Grand Rapids, MI, has seen serious reductions in our law enforcement numbers; we are about to lose seventeen more officers, and most of those who are retained will be re-deployed to night hours.  You can imagine what this will do to a daytime emergency response time, which now stands at 18-20 minutes per the Crime Prevention Office of the GRPD.  Detroit’s 911 response time is well in excess of twenty minutes.

How does this affect the outcome of an active shooter incident?

According to a report written by former Kalamazoo news reporter, Brendan Keefe (now in Cincinnati, OH), entitled “When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers,” a report based on the conclusions drawn in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting, observed, “Based on the Virginia Tech data, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter. Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die.”  That’s while the officer is waiting for backup.  How many victims died while waiting for officers to respond to the 911 call in the first place?  This is the problem inherent in an approach that is based on sheltering in place and waiting for law enforcement to respond.  And that is what they discovered in Connecticut today - every minute it took for officers to respond resulted in more dead and wounded.  By the time officers arrived on scene and finally effected an entry, nearly all of the fatalities had already occurred - eighteen children dead, two others wounded who would die at the hospital, and nine adults killed, including the gunman, who killed himself.  It was said in an interview with the commander of the Newtown Police that officers responding to the scene “rescued” many children and adults.  While I do not mean to take anything away from the officers, the sad fact is that they “rescued” no one.  “Rescued” would indicate that they encountered the gunman as he carried out his attack, interposed themselves, and neutralized him.  This was not the case.  It is more accurate to say that officers escorted the survivors out of the building.  Killings that could potentially have been prevented occurred because no one inside the building was allowed to exercise their right to self defense.  As Frederic Bastiat observed in his treatise, The Law, self defense is the most basic of all rights: “Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person...” (Frederic Bastiat, The Law, first published in 1850, copyright 2007, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Alabama).

It is said that nature abhors a vacuum.  In this context, that means that the drawdown of law enforcement must be counterbalanced in some other way - and that is where SB 59 becomes so critical.

SB 59 gives responsible adults on the scene the ability to protect themselves AND those for whom they are responsible, whether those are family members, children in a school, or co-workers.  These are people who have already proven themselves, who have been background checked, taught and tested, who typically spend more hours on the range becoming familiar with their firearms than most law enforcement officers.  These are people who deal with trying situations and people on a daily basis in areas other than pistol free zones without ever drawing a firearm - or even threatening the use of one.  Why people believe that the moment one of these citizens steps into a school, all of that restraint and judiciousness will suddenly disappear continues to mystify me.  They have proven themselves.

Many of those who oppose this measure will insist that merely posting signs is an adequate deterrent.  As I have already indicated, referring to the utter failure of the GFSZA to accomplish its stated goal, this also fails the test of reason.

The same report authored by Mr. Keefe referred to yet another discovery made in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting:

“The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.  In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.  Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.  Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.  The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event. They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed. As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.”

Simply stated, posting a property guarantees nothing.  Signs, like locks on doors, prevent nothing when the attacker is determined to inflict harm

In closing, I would like to leave you with a though expressed in 1764 by Cesare Bonesana, the Marchese Beccaria, in his manuscript entitled, Of Crimes and Punishments (Originally published in Italian in 1764, Translated from the French by Edward D. Ingraham. Second American edition.  Philadelphia (No. 175, Chesnut St.): Published by Philip H. Nicklin: A. Walker, printer, 24, Arch St., 1819.):

“A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave'; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?  It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.” (bold added)

Mr. Governor, we can be proactive and restore the individual’s right to protect himself, or we can continue to wait for police to arrive on scene and count bodies later.  We may not be able to completely prevent every situation such as the one that took place in Newtown; at the very least, restoring the right to self defense gives us the ability to prevent incidents of such magnitude from happening.  

I urge you to follow through on your promise to sign this legislation; restore our right to defend ourselves - wherever we may happen to be.

Sincerely,

That Offensive Nativity Scene....

Kristin Terheqes, "Pro-Life Illustrator", recently published the following picture on Facebook:

As one might expect, the picture generated a few responses, including the following:

"Misses the point completely.  Whether the nativity scene is offensive is behind the point - in the US, governments granting public space for religious displays is a violation of the first amendment..."

To which I replied, 

No, SCOTUS missed the point entirely. This is exactly what happens when something is lifted out of its context and made to say something it was never intended to communicate. I offer the following excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists, from which the now-infamous quote originates - with one major exception: I have put it back into its original context, in which Thomas Jefferson explains the true nature of the "wall of separation."

'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the executive authorised only to execute their acts...' (bolding added).

The "wall of eternal separation" prevents Congress from passing any legislation interfering with religious practices, and the president, who is only authorized by the Constitution to execute acts passed by the legislature, is powerless to execute any law of his own initiative that would have the effect of infringing the right to - and free exercise thereof - religion guaranteed in the first amendment of the constitution.

As an example, THE ABORTIFACIENT MANDATE ISSUED EXCLUSIVELY ON "PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACCORDING TO THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY PRES. THOMAS JEFFERSON, MAIN AUTHOR OF BOTH THE US CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

"Jamie Foxx: 'Our lord and savior Barack Obama'"

At the Soul Train Awards Sunday (11/25/12), comedian Jamie Foxx encouraged those in attendance to give thanks to God and "our lord and savior Barack Obama."

Folks, this is blasphemy.  There is ONE LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS THE CHRIST. 1 Corinthians 8:6, "yet for us there is ONE GOD, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and ONE LORD, JESUS CHRIST, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

I am reminded of a similar situation that was recorded in Acts 12.  There was a group of people with whom King Herod was angry.  Wanting to appease him, those people came together, groveled, and then sat through a speech.  Wanting to appease Herod even further, when he was done with his speech, the people all shouted, “The voice of a god, and not of a man!”  Verse 23 of Acts 12 records, "Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, BECAUSE HE DID NOT GIVE GOD THE GLORY, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last."

This is not the first time that deity has been attributed to Pres. Obama.  A page from a commemorative calendar being sold during the DNC conference in North Carolina features a photo of the birth certificate of Obama along with the words, "HEAVEN SENT,  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16."

This is blasphemy of the highest order, something that God does not take lightly.  Isaiah 42:8 records this statement by God:  I AM THE LORD; that is MY NAME; MY GLORY I GIVE TO NO OTHER, nor my praise to carved idols."  What applies to God applies equally to His Son, Jesus the Christ:  "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.  I and my Father are one..." (John 10:29).  Jesus used the primary name of God, I AM, as His own:  "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am...'" (John 8:58).

It is truly time for the people of this nation to fall on our faces before God to confess this blasphemy, to throw ourselves on His mercy.

And to the PASTORS of the African-American congregations of this nation,  "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: PREACH THE WORD; be ready in season and out of season; REPROVE, REBUKE, AND EXHORT, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming (indeed, it is already here - added) when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears THEY WILL ACCUMULATE FOR THEMSELVES TEACHERS TO SUIT THEIR OWN PASSIONS..."  (2 Timothy 4:1-3).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/26/jamie-foxx-calls-obama-our-lord-and-savior#ixzz2DKxjLvCA

The Failed Promise of LG Chemical (or, How Government Use of Taxpayer Dollars Guarantees Nothing)

WOOD TV is breaking the story about what is really happening at LG Chem in Holland, the lithium battery plant touted by the President as, "These are not just ANY jobs, these are the jobs of the future!" (http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employees-idle). The fed invested $151 million to get the plant built in the first place, and millions more in job training and other incidental expenses. ONE HALF of the plant's 200 employees are paid directly by the federal government, yet in the THREE YEARS that the plant has been in existence, not one single battery has been produced. So what have these employees of the future been doing with their time? According to the report, playing cards, making the grounds look pretty, even doing volunteer work at area charities while on the clock!

Why is this important? Two reasons.

First, this is just one more example of what happens when the government picks winners and losers based upon a highly improbable agenda. Solyndra, A123, and LG Chem are just a few of the many "green" companies that were part of the vaunted plan to catapault us into the future that, instead, went belly-up without even coming close to delivering on their inflated promises.

Second, this is a good indicator of what is in store for Michigan if Proposal 3 passes, and the state is forced to obtain 25% of our energy from "green" technologies. Proponents of the measure tell us that it will create 98,000 jobs "that cannot be outsourced." How likely is this when we can't even make the companies we have NOW deliver on their promises - despite the infusion of multiplied hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars?

The basic reason behind these failures? The end products are too expensive to make it feasible for consumers to make the switch - especially in this economy.

The Chevy Volt has a MSRP of $39,000. How many of us can afford this price, or even the lease payments?

Wind energy? The problem here is our current electrical grid; it simply cannot handle the additional output from all of the wind farms being proposed around the nation. This fundamental problem would have to be addressed in Michigan as well. According to a NY Times article (8/28/08, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), the entire national grid will have to be rebuilt from the ground-up to accommodate the input from wind turbines. The windiest sites have not yet even been built because we simply have no way to transport the electricity from them to the load centers. For those areas already employing wind farms across the nation, many of the turbines spend a signifiant portion of their time idle. Why? It would overload the transmission lines, which in turn would result in the wind energy companies paying heavy fees to enable them to continue dumping power into the grid - negating the hoped-for reduction in energy costs.

I could go on, but there really is no point. The problems are self-evident, and continuing to throw taxpayer dollars at them isn't solving them. Yes, we must continue to pursue cleaner energy options, but we must also do so in a manner that produces products that are affordable for the average consumer while not bankrupting us in the process.

From the Brady Law to the GFSZA - 22 Years of Gun Control "Successes"...

Senator Levin,

Thank you for your recent response to my letter regarding your stance on firearms control.

I would like to take a moment to address some of the "successes" you quote in your letter.

You stated in your letter that, from 1994 to 2008, the Brady Law has kept 1.6 million firearms out of the hands of "potentially dangerous individuals." You are quite proud of that fact. According to a Denver Post article dated 12/19/1999, each year 12.6 million firearms are sold in the US; that number has gone up in recent years, but for the sake of discussion, let's use that number. This means that, for the fourteen year period to which you reference, more than 176,400,000 firearms were sold in the United States. Using your number of 1.6 million, this means that the Brady Law, for which billions of dollars were spent to facilitate its implementation and enforcement, has been successful in keeping 0.9% of all purchasers from legally acquiring a firearm. You're right! That is something to be proud of, and certainly justifies the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars to implement and continue enforcing.

There is one slight problem with your figures, however. A 0.9% success rate over fourteen years hardly explains the huge drops (over 20%) in "gun violence" that you attribute to the Brady Law. A better indicator of success would be the FBI data that show a direct correlation to the number of firearms legally purchased by Americans in the exercise of their Second Amendment rights to bear arms for their own defense, and the dramatic drop in "gun violence." When criminals know that there is a high probability that the person they might attack is armed, the likelihood of carrying through with the attack decreases dramatically. I believe this is what you used to refer to as "Mutually Assured Destruction" in the bad ol' days of the cold war nuclear arms race.  The fact that an armed citizenry lowers the probability of a criminal attack has been well-known for centuries. Cesare Bonesana wrote the following in 1764:

"The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."

That gun control (or arms control) does not work has been a well-known fact for over two hundred years.

Your letter raises another issue, one that you consider a success, but which, you stated, you want to see expanded. Your letter states that in 2008, 9.9 million background checks were run for firearms purchases, producing 147,000 rejections. You consider it a success that 147,000 "potentially dangerous individuals" were denied the ability to legally purchase a firearm. The math, however, once again shows us that the background checks mandated by the Brady Law stopped a whopping 1.5% of purchasers from legally obtaining a firearm. Considering the billions we spend for enforcement of the Brady Law, the results are statistically insignificant.  But let's take a second to consider the TRUE achievement of Brady with regard to this statistic.  147,000 "potentially dangerous individuals" were denied the ability to purchase a firearm through channels that were trackable.  Did it prevent them from purchasing firearms through other, perhaps illegal, sources.  NO.  So in the final analysis, Brady has prevented NOTHING.

I could go on to address the other issues you raise in your response, but there really is no need. The number of incidents in which high capacity magazines have been used in relation to the total number of incidents involving firearms that occur each year in the United States is, once again, statistically nearly non-existent. You are once again proving the truthfulness of the adage, “hard cases make bad law”; you have successfully used a relative handful of incidents to drive your ideologically-flawed agenda to implement bad laws in an effort to nullify the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Sir, it is time that you acknowledge that the gun control laws that you have helped enact are, in fact, abject failures. The Brady Law has prevented a statistically meaningless number of individuals from legally obtaining firearms. The Gun Free School Zones Act not only has not prevented anything, it has resulted in over 700 casualties since its initial enactment in 1990 because it guarantees that no one can effectively defend themselves within these zones, and must wait twenty or more minutes for police to even arrive on scene - effecting an entry takes even longer. It is time to repeal these laws, and allow the American people to defend themselves as  the Second Amendment states is our RIGHT, and the US Supreme Court has stated in more than ten (10) rulings is our individual OBLIGATION.

"Reports: Marines Not Permitted Live Ammo"

This was the title of the report posted by the Washington Free Beacon on September 13, 2012 (Reports: marines not permitted live ammo).  According to the report, based on blog entries from a marine blog site, our ambassador prohibited marines tasked with the protection of the US Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, the use of live ammunition.  In foreign countries, it is the ambassador who determines the rules of engagement (ROE) for the marine security detachment assigned to their duty station.  In this case, the blog entries indicate that the ambassador, who happened to be stateside when the attack on our embassy occurred, apparently believed that a simple show of force would be sufficient to deter a determined aggressor.

History has shown us, however, that "shows of force" are counterproductive in the middle east.

In the fall of 1982, US Marines were sent to Beirut, Lebanon, as part of a multi-national force designed to provide a show of force (officially designated a "Mission of Presence") calculated to calm tensions in that area.  Before the deployment, US policy makers were strongly advised that, if they insisted on intervening in Beirut, they would need to do so by force of arms; a mere show of force would be taken as a sign of weakness.  Despite the warnings, policy makers proceeded with their plans.  We know what eventually happened.  A Vehicle borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) were detonated at the marine barracks, killing 241 American military personnel.

An investigation into the incident, for which the US never truly retaliated, revealed that guards stationed outside the barracks were required to keep their weapons at Condition 4 - no magazines inserted, and no rounds chambered.  The fact-finding commission established by then-President Reagan found that there might have been fewer deaths if the barracks guards had been permitted to carry loaded weapons.

Which brings us to the present day, and the question, "What if?"  Three of our embassies in Libya, Egypt, and Yemen have been attacked in the last week.  In none of these instances have we heard about marines responding with live fire.  An ambassador and at least three other embassy personnel have been killed.  Would these events have happened if marines had been allowed to carry weapons with live ammunition?  What if the ROE had allowed marines to truly defend US soil?  Would we have dead personnel?

And what are we going to do about it?

The Two Tragedies of 9/11...

Eleven years ago, on the morning of September 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked by Islamic terrorists in an effort to bring our country to its knees.  Nearly 3,000 people died in the resulting attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, the Pentagon, and an attempted attack on the White House that was stopped by the passengers of United Airlines flight 93.  Despite protests to the contrary, our nation was changed that day as the God-given rights of citizens recognized and protected by our Constitution were scrapped. The terrorists won.  While we may have finally gotten bin Laden, there is nothing to suggest that the freedoms that have been taken from us over the course of the last eleven years are ever going to be restored.  bin Laden may have lost the battle, but in bringing about fundamental changes in our Constitutionally-protected freedoms, he won the war.

On September 11, 2012, a new tragedy is slated to occur.  It is the premier of a new program on NBC entitled, "The New Normal."

This is a "comedy" about a single mom who becomes the surrogate for a same-sex couple.  It is an attempt to mainstream the idea that same-sex couples are like everyone else, and should be just as acceptable as heterosexual couples.  The use of comedy is the sugar coating that is intended to take the edge off that message and make the medicine easier to swallow.

There is, however, nothing "new" or "normal" about the message of this show.

Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, same-sex couples have been around for thousands of years, and both have historically been viewed as taboo by most cultures across the world, not just the "christian" cultures of the West.

More to the point, it is a violation of God's Word.

The Old Testament has this to say:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."  Leviticus 20:13

God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of this sin.

"But that was the Old Testament," some say.  "The New Testament has nothing to say about the subject.  Jesus, in particular, never addressed the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  You can't apply such outdated laws to people who were born this way,  or who are living in committed, loving relationships."

OK.

Let’s assume for the moment that the argument put forward by homosexuals is correct, and they really are born this way.  The assertion today is, if they were born this way, then it is wrong to expect them to change.  They can’t change who they are.

For the sake of discussion, let’s accept that premise.

There is even scripture to back it up.

Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”  Sin is an inbred part of the human condition.  It is part and parcel of who we are by birth and by inclination.  And according to Ephesians 2:8-9 ("For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.") and Titus 3:5 ("he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit"), there is nothing we can do to change our predisposition on our own.

We are predisposed to lie, cheat, gossip, kill, fornicate, adulterate, and steal - just to name a few.  The name of the sin doesn’t matter; it is axiomatic that the predisposition to do such things is part of who we are because of the fallen nature of the human condition.

Using the logic put forward by the homosexual lobby, then, we shouldn’t designate anything as illegal, nor should we expect that people have the ability to change.  After all, the person who engages in these activities, all declared sin by the Bible and held to be violations of the moral codes of society, is simply following the inclination with which they were born.

But we don’t think like that.  We expect people to change their predisposition to conform to societal, and more importantly, moral and Biblical norms.  We expect them to stop stealing, lying, cheating, fornicating, adulterating, or killing.  And we have no problem saying that GOD can change them.  After all, that is why God sent His Son, Jesus, to die for us - to deliver us from our sins (“...the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age…”, Gal. 1:3-4)

Homosexuality, in this respect, is no different than any other predisposition declared by the Bible to be sin.

The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sin.  Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”  That doesn’t get much clearer.  Oh, but you say, that was the OLD TESTAMENT; we live under the NEW TESTAMENT, and it doesn’t say anything like that.  For me to accept that line of reasoning first requires me to believe that Malachi 3:6 (“For I the Lord do not change...”) and James 1:17 (“...the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.) are wrong, and God’s character is variable and changing.  Since God says His character doesn’t change, I have to reject that line of reasoning.  

So let's see what the New Testament tells us.  

Romans 1 tells us that, because man rejects the revealed Truth of God contained in His Word AND in creation (verses 18-21) and professes himself to be wise according to his own ideological and intellectual constructs - setting himself up as the ultimate measure of truth (verses 22-23) - GOD GAVE HIM UP (verse 24).  What was one of the many results? 

  

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (verses 24-27)

Men having intercourse with men and women having intercourse with women.  Today this is known as homosexuality; it used to be known as sodomy.  That is the NEW Testament teaching.  Paul doesn’t stop there, though.  He goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Paul explicitly names homosexuality in these verses.  Yes, he lists a whole lot of others as well (remember what we said at the beginning about other sins?), but he specifically names homosexuality.  But wait a minute - I thought all sins were the same!  Paul puts that notion to rest in this chapter as well.  Take a look at verses 13 and 18:

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality...Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (verses 13, 18).

Yes, all sins are reprehensible to God, but He takes special exception to sins of a sexual nature - that’s not MY interpretation, those are the explicit words of God through the Apostle Paul!

So let’s go back to where we began.  We are all predisposed to different sins.  In that respect, homosexuality is no different than any other sin.  But just as we expect people to change, to stop practicing all of the other sins we listed previously, so the Bible says there is hope for the homosexual!  Regardless of what is being spouted by psychiatrists and psychologists today, one’s predisposition can be changed.

You see, 1 Corinthians 6 doesn’t leave us in our sin without any recourse or hope of redemption.  Remember verses 9-10, the verses that specifically name homosexuality along with the laundry list of other sins?  They are followed by verse 12:

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (bolding added).

The Bible, contrary to politically correct social theory, tells us that, just as it is possible for our predisposition toward all other sins to be changed, so can one’s predisposition toward homosexuality!!!  Is this just my interpretation?  NO!  Read the verses for yourself!

You see, there is no parallel between homosexuality and being African-American, even though this is one of the most prevalent arguments used by the homosexual lobby to garner support.  And an article published by ABC News tells us that there are many African-American pastors - even those who regularly advise the President - who aren’t buying it ("Obama calls pastors to explain gay marriage support; black churches 'conflicted' by president's decision.").  Being black - or yellow, or red - is not a sinful predisposition.  Christ didn’t die to save one from being a different color or ethnicity.  But the Bible tells us that He DID die to save us from our sinful predispositions so that we could live lives that please God.  He saved us to DESTROY our old predispositions so that He can give us NEW ones, predispositions that desire to follow the revealed Truth of God’s Word.  As Paul tells us in Romans 5:6-7,

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

As this debate continues to unfold, there are many who assert that this has nothing to do with religion, or Christianity, or the Bible, that the Bible really doesn’t spend a lot of time addressing it - as if God has to say something many times in order for us to take Him seriously.  And after all, Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.  You’re right.  He didn’t.  When given the perfect opportunity to change or expand the one man/one woman paradigm to include same-sex couples, as recorded in Matthew and Mark, He went right back to the truth given in Genesis 2:23-24, 

“Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Is this about hating homosexuals?  No.  This is about loving them by giving them the Truth of God’s Word.  You see, Proverbs 26:28 tells us that ”A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.”  We don’t accuse the doctor of hating us when he or she gives us truth that we would rather not hear.  We acknowledge that he or she is looking out for our welfare.  If we accept this as true in the context of human wisdom, then how much more true is it when the wisdom we share is of divine origin? 

And in the context of this new show, the Truth tells us that there is nothing "new" or "normal" about same-sex couples raising children together.  It is a tragedy that this show has even been allowed to air.  

Hence, the second tragedy of 9/11. 

No truer words....

"I have seen firsthand that being president doesn't change who you are - it REVEALS who you are."  First Lady Michelle Obama.

For those of us who warned against voting for Mr. Obama the first time around, we wholeheartedly agree with that statement.  The President's motives and agendas have been clearly revealed by the policies he has chosen to pursue.

Thank you, Mrs. Obama, for speaking the truth.

Our Nation's Spiritual Heritage....

To those who maintain that the Founders of this nation were something other than Christian, I say, let their words speak for themselves.


George Washington, 1st U.S. President:

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." --The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams, 2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence:

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."  --Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

"The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System." --Adams wrote this on June 28, 1813, excerpt from a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence:

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." --Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."  --The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

James Madison, 4th U.S. President:  

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ." --America's Providential History by Stephen K. McDowell, p. 93.

William Penn, Founder of Pennsylvania:

"I do declare to the whole world that we believe the Scriptures to contain a declaration of the mind and will of God in and to those ages in which they were written; being given forth by the Holy Ghost moving in the hearts of holy men of God; that they ought also to be read, believed, and fulfilled in our day; being used for reproof and instruction, that the man of God may be perfect. They are a declaration and testimony of heavenly things themselves, and, as such, we carry a high respect for them. We accept them as the words of God Himself." --Treatise of the Religion of the Quakers, p. 355.

Roger Sherman, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution:

"I believe that there is one only living and true God, existing in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the same in substance equal in power and glory. That the scriptures of the old and new testaments are a revelation from God, and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him. That God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as thereby he is not the author or approver of sin. That he creates all things, and preserves and governs all creatures and all their actions, in a manner perfectly consistent with the freedom of will in moral agents, and the usefulness of means. That he made man at first perfectly holy, that the first man sinned, and as he was the public head of his posterity, they all became sinners in consequence of his first transgression, are wholly indisposed to that which is good and inclined to evil, and on account of sin are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death, and to the pains of hell forever.

"I believe that God having elected some of mankind to eternal life, did send his own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the gospel offer: also by his special grace and spirit, to regenerate, sanctify and enable to persevere in holiness, all who shall be saved; and to procure in consequence of their repentance and faith in himself their justification by virtue of his atonement as the only meritorious cause.

"I believe a visible church to be a congregation of those who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, joined by the bond of the covenant."I believe that the souls of believers are at their death made perfectly holy, and immediately taken to glory: that at the end of this world there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a final judgement of all mankind, when the righteous shall be publicly acquitted by Christ the Judge and admitted to everlasting life and glory, and the wicked be sentenced to everlasting punishment." --The Life of Roger Sherman, pp. 272-273.

John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, Clergyman and President of Princeton University:

"While we give praise to God, the Supreme Disposer of all events, for His interposition on our behalf, let us guard against the dangerous error of trusting in, or boasting of, an arm of flesh ... If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts.

"What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

"Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country." --Sermon at Princeton University, "The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men," May 17, 1776.

Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution:

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man." --Famous American Statesmen, p. 126.

Patrick Henry, Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." --The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.

"The Bible ... is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed." --Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry, p. 402.

John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and President of the American Bible Society:

"By conveying the Bible to people thus circumstanced, we certainly do them a most interesting kindness. We thereby enable them to learn that man was originally created and placed in a state of happiness, but, becoming disobedient, was subjected to the degradation and evils which he and his posterity have since experienced.

"The Bible will also inform them that our gracious Creator has provided for us a Redeemer, in whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; that this Redeemer has made atonement "for the sins of the whole world," and thereby reconciling the Divine justice with the Divine mercy has opened a way for our redemption and salvation; and that these inestimable benefits are of the free gift and grace of God, not of our deserving, nor in our power to deserve."
--In God We Trust—The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, p. 379.

"In forming and settling my belief relative to the doctrines of Christianity, I adopted no articles from creeds but such only as, on careful examination, I found to be confirmed by the Bible." --American Statesman Series, p. 360.

Quotes compiled by Mary Fairchild, http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers_3.htm

Proposed Amendment, The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012, Michigan

I faxed the following letter to a number of Michigan legislators this morning.  It isn't the first time I have contacted them about this proposed amendment, which I wrote over a year ago, and now I am bringing it here to try to build support for it.  The amendment states:

Except as provided by law, the right to carry a pistol for the defense of one’s self shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation or education.

I know that many business people will take issue with this, because I have debated this with them in the past.  Oh, well.  I have been a small business owner, and I hope to have a new business up and running in the near future, and I still believe what I say in this letter.  If you believe what this letter says, I have included a slightly different version of the letter to send to your Michigan state legislators in Lansing.  At this time, no legislator has submitted this amendment for consideration because it won't be popular with their business owner supporters.  I'm hoping that a flood of letters from Michigan residents will convince them to finally submit it.  Links to their contact information can be found here: Michigan Legislator Contact Links

I have been advocating for this amendment to PA 327 of 1927, The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012, for some time, and I am going to continue advocating for its consideration and passage.

I named this proposed amendment in honor of Benton Harbor pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who was fired from his job after using his personal firearm to stop a robbery of the Walgreen's Pharmacy by which he was employed.  Video from the store's security cameras, which appeared in many news reports nationally and can still be seen on YouTube at the following URL, Walgreens Pharmacist Shoots It Out With Robbers - YouTube, shows the aggressive nature of the attack perpetrated by the two gun-carrying thieves, which gave Mr. Hoven cause to fear for his life and that of his co-workers, yet he was fired for violating Walgreen's corporate non-confrontation policy.

No business entity or corporation should have the right to prohibit an employee or customer from defending themselves.

At the base of this debate lies the argument that businesses, offices, and other such locations are the "private property" of the individual or corporation by which they are owned; it is therefore inappropriate for the government to mandate that such places allow firearm owners to carry their legally owned firearms with them.

This is a false premise.

It is the obligation of the state to protect the civil rights of its citizens.  It is for this reason that businesses and corporations face a myriad of requirements governing everything from access to the premises or restroom facilities to choices in hiring.  These requirements exist to protect such civil rights as equal access, speech, or religion, just to name a few. All of these are rights that are protected, either explicitly or implicitly, by the Bill of Rights, and many of the requirements levied on businesses and corporations would be considered violations of the civil rights of the property owner if he or she was exercising their rights in their capacity as a private citizen.  For instance, laws governing hiring on behalf of a business would be a violation of the First Amendment right of association if they were applied to a private citizen, mandating that such an individual must associate with others with whom they have philosophical, ideological, or moral disagreement.  Yet, it has been recognized that the state has a compelling interest in infringing the rights of a private citizen or corporation in the conduct of their business.

The right to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment is no less a civil right than speech, religion, association, due process, or any other civil right protected by the Bill of Rights.

In fact, in no less than ten (10) Supreme Court decisions, it has been established that self-defense - personal security - is not merely the right of the private citizen, it is their obligation. In no case was this obligation expressed as clearly as in the United States Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales:

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is a well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection" (emphasis added).

With such a well-established legal basis for the civil right and obligation to self-defense contained in the Second Amendment, the state has a compelling interest in mandating that businesses and corporations - places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc. - recognize and accommodate the right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-carried firearms.  That laws mandating the accommodation of civil rights exist is an explicit recognition that businesses and corporations are not truly "private property," nor do they possess the same civil rights as those possessed by natural, human private citizens.  They are places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc., not private property as is one’s personal residence.

The case of Mr. Hoven shows what can happen when businesses and corporations are allowed to force their employees or customers to accede to the personal beliefs of the business owner or the corporation.  Thankfully, the outcome in this situation was not as tragic as has been the case in a myriad of other situations that occur every day in businesses and other places of public accommodation that have been allowed to take away the Constitutional right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-owned firearms in their own, Supreme Court mandated, personal defense.

The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 deserves to be considered and passed for the protection of employees and customers - your constituents - across our state.

Sincerely,

Version for you to send:

I am asking you to support an amendment to PA 327 of 1927 called The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012.  A copy of this proposed amendment has been sent to a number of legislators, including the Senate and House leaders, but they have not seen fit to submit the amendment for consideration.  I hope you will.

This proposed amendment was named in honor of Benton Harbor pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who was fired from his job after using his personal firearm to stop a robbery of the Walgreen's Pharmacy by which he was employed.  Video from the store's security cameras, which appeared in many news reports nationally and can still be seen on YouTube at the following URL, Walgreens Pharmacist Shoots It Out With Robbers - YouTube, shows the aggressive nature of the attack perpetrated by the two gun-carrying thieves, which gave Mr. Hoven cause to fear for his life and that of his co-workers, yet he was fired for violating Walgreen's corporate non-confrontation policy.

The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 simply states, 

Except as provided by law, the right to carry a pistol for the defense of one’s self shall not be infringed by an employer, commercial or corporate entity, place of public accommodation or education.

No business entity or corporation should have the right to prohibit an employee or customer from defending themselves.

At the base of this debate lies the argument that businesses, offices, and other such locations are the "private property" of the individual or corporation by which they are owned; it is therefore inappropriate for the government to mandate that such places allow firearm owners to carry their legally owned firearms with them.

This is a false premise.

It is the obligation of the state to protect the civil rights of its citizens.  It is for this reason that businesses and corporations face a myriad of requirements governing everything from access to the premises or restroom facilities to choices in hiring.  These requirements exist to protect such civil rights as equal access, speech, or religion, just to name a few. All of these are rights that are protected, either explicitly or implicitly, by the Bill of Rights, and many of the requirements levied on businesses and corporations would be considered violations of the civil rights of the property owner if he or she was exercising their rights in their capacity as a private citizen.  For instance, laws governing hiring on behalf of a business would be a violation of the First Amendment right of association if they were applied to a private citizen, mandating that such an individual must associate with others with whom they have philosophical, ideological, or moral disagreement.  Yet, it has been recognized that the state has a compelling interest in infringing the rights of a private citizen or corporation in the conduct of their business.

The right to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment is no less a civil right than speech, religion, association, due process, or any other civil right protected by the Bill of Rights.

In fact, in no less than ten (10) Supreme Court decisions, it has been established that self-defense - personal security - is not merely the right of the private citizen, it is their obligation. In no case was this obligation expressed as clearly as in the United States Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales:

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is a well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection" (emphasis added).

With such a well-established legal basis for the civil right and obligation to self-defense contained in the Second Amendment, the state has a compelling interest in mandating that businesses and corporations - places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc. - recognize and accommodate the right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-carried firearms.  That laws mandating the accommodation of civil rights exist is an explicit recognition that businesses and corporations are not truly "private property," nor do they possess the same civil rights as those possessed by natural, human private citizens.  They are places of public accommodation, commerce, manufacturing, etc., not private property as is one’s personal residence.

The case of Mr. Hoven shows what can happen when businesses and corporations are allowed to force their employees or customers to accede to the personal beliefs of the business owner or the corporation.  Thankfully, the outcome in this situation was not as tragic as has been the case in a myriad of other situations that occur every day in businesses and other places of public accommodation that have been allowed to take away the Constitutional right of their employees and customers to bear their legally-owned firearms in their own, Supreme Court mandated, personal defense.

The Hoven Self-Defense Act of 2012 deserves to be considered and passed for the protection of employees and customers - your constituents - across our state.

Sincerely,

A Brief Theology of the Christian and the Vote...

Although we do not live in a theocracy here in the US, as Christians our primary citizenship is in Heaven.  We are bound to honor the laws of Heaven first and foremost, and they take precedence over any civic duties required of us as citizens of the US.  So while we reside in a democracy here on earth, the laws that govern our lives are theocratic in keeping with the nature of the government of our Heavenly home.  

When we find ourselves in situations in which the duties imposed upon us here in the US clash with our Heavenly duties, we must fall back on Paul's teaching in 2 Timothy 2:4: "No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him."  I have struggled with what that verse means for many years.  Notice that the verse doesn't say we do not participate at all; that would be a violation of John 17:15-19 and 1 Corinthians 5:10, because to truly be non-participants, to completely shun interaction with an unregenerate world, we would have to leave the world.  So it does not mean that we completely disengage from ALL activities (particularly political activities, as so many in the church have maintained for so many years) here in this present life.  It means that we need to guard our allegiances; we avoid entanglements - becoming SO involved with the activities of this life that extracting ourselves becomes very difficult, that we lose sight of the ministries to which God has called each of us.  And for some, that ministry means participation in the political process itself.  After all, Romans 13 tells us that government is ordained by God, that officials are ministers of God (Romans 13:1-7).   So God calls some to ministry within the context of politics.  It is illogical to conclude that God ordains government, yet forbids His own to participate in it, that the running of that government is to be turned over to the unregenerate.  But as is true of all other contexts, one must be cognizant of the possibility of entanglement.  When we find ourselves in situations in which there is a clear choice between evil and good (as has been the case in most of the elections up to this point), that decision is easy and we can avoid entanglement.  But when we find ourselves in situations in which we are told that we must choose between two evils - no matter what, or who, they may be - that conflict with God's laws, and we believe it, we have become entangled.  Our only course is to remove ourselves from the entanglement and align our lives with Biblical teaching, regardless of the consequences.  That is the teaching of Acts 5:29: “We must obey God rather than men."  Remember, when given a choice between evils A and B, the Christian still has the obligation to choose the good of choice C.  In the context of this discussion, that means that the Believer exercises his or her prerogative to vote for neither candidate.

And that is where I find myself this election.  

You see, our obligation to obey God's laws, the laws of the country of our true citizenship, supersedes our so-called "obligations" to any earthly authority when those two law-sets come into conflict.  And on that basis, I reject the notion that failure to vote for Romney constitutes a vote for Obama.  I am voting for the truth of God's Word.  

The church in the US has placed itself in a precarious position.  God's Word is our final authority in all matters of faith and living, and yet, all too many Christians with whom I speak have chosen political expediency over the clear teachings of the Bible.  "We live in the 'real world'; we HAVE to vote for one of the candidates."  No, the Real World is Heaven, the world in which our citizenship as Believers resides.  But then again, on that basis, maybe too many who call themselves "Christians" really are living in their real world.

For Christians, then, to vote for either of the major party candidates this year, one of whom supports homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion on demand, and illegal immigration, while the other is the very spirit of Antichrist, a man who believes that he will one day be the god of his own planet, whose primary religious text teaches that neither people of color nor women can ever achieve the highest exaltation offered to white men, is to fulfill the warning of 1 Samuel 8:5-7, 

"...Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord.  And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them."

It is time for true believers here in the US to return to their first love, to once again recognize where their true allegiance lies and to disentangle themselves from "civilian pursuits."  It is time for us to recognize that, when society's dictates are at-odds with those of our heavenly, theocratic country, the laws to which we default are those of Heaven.