Critical Lessons Lost To History….

Insights from two men of history who were much smarter than I.

"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," Cesare Bonesana, "On Crimes and Punishment," 1764.

"But the position laid down by Lord Sandwich, is a clear demonstration of the justice of defensive arms. The Americans, quoth this Quixote of modern days, will not fight; therefore we will. His Lordship’s plan when analized amounts to this. These people are either too superstitiously religious, or too cowardly for arms; they either cannot or dare not defend; their property is open to any one who has the courage to attack them. Send but your troops and the prize is ours. Kill a few and take the whole. THUS THE PEACEABLE PART OF MANKIND WILL BE CONTINUALLY OVERRUN BY THE VILE AND ABANDONED, WHILE THEY NEGLECT THE MEANS OF SELF DEFENCE. THE SUPPOSED QUIETUDE OF A GOOD MAN ALLURES THE RUFFIAN; WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, ARMS LIKE LAWS DISCOURAGE AND KEEP THE INVADER AND THE PLUNDERER IN AWE, AND PRESERVE ORDER IN THE WORLD AS WELL AS PROPERTY. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; BUT SINCE SOME WILL NOT, OTHERS DARE NOT LAY THEM ASIDE. AND WHILE A SINGLE NATION REFUSES TO LAY THEM DOWN, IT IS PROPER THAT ALL SHOULD KEEP THEM UP. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves," Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War," published in Pennsylvania Magazine, 1775. 

What is true of nations is true of individuals as well. Since some will not lay down their arms, others dare not. While a single bad guy refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up.

Remember, Thomas Paine was a Quaker - a pacifist, but even HE recognized the truth of this precept.

MICHIGAN PASSES ABORTION OPT-OUT!!!

By a vote of 62-46 in the House, and 27-11 in the Senate, Michigan has passed the abortion opt-out!!! It failed to achieve a 2/3 majority by just a few votes, so it goes into effect 90 days after the close of this legislative session instead of taking immediate effect.

This vote makes Michigan the 24th state to opt-out of mandatory abortion coverage, meaning that women who desire such coverage must elect to receive it and pay for it themselves, instead of forcing EVERY insurance customer to pay for a medical procedure that is reprehensible morally and Biblically.

THANK YOU, LORD!!!

The Average Military Man...

GUNS (Virtual State of the Union 2013)

The Graphic Says It All...

Two School Shootings This Week....

The week of October 26, 2013.

First, Nevada.  Two days later,  a Massachusetts teacher is murdered on school grounds.

"...there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called 'soft targets' are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

'Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem,' Noble said. 'One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security... 

How do you protect soft targets? That's really the challenge. You can't have armed police forces everywhere... 

What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat...'"

Ron K. Noble, Secretary General, Interpol

Interpol chief ponders armed citizenry 

Providing "extraordinary security" for schools is a practical and financial impossibility. It is too expensive, and there have been cases where school shootings take place outside the buildings where metal detectors and bag searches are going to find nothing. Half-mile gun free zones around schools have stopped nothing.

It is time to admit that the gun free school zones experiment, which has been ongoing for over twenty years, is a complete and utter failure and let teachers, staff, and parents defend themselves and their students.

Period.

This IS the common sense approach.

Open Letter To Congress:- End The BrinksmanshipGuarantee - Debt Payments

October 17, 2013

Legislators:  

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, SECTION 4:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.  But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

That the President would use the threat of defaulting on our debt payments as a loaded gun to the head of congress is reprehensible in the extreme, and it must never be allowed to happen again.  His threat to default on our debt payment in violation of the Constitution, placing not only our own economy, but the world economy as well, into a state of panic is an impeachable offense.

Legislation MUST be passed FORTHWITH to insure that no entity - presidential or congressional - can ever use this threat again by GUARANTEEING that debt payments will be made.  Such a guarantee will not only calm our own citizens, but will also reassure foreign creditors as well.

In addition, while the Constitution bans default on LEGITIMATE debt, it also bans payment of any obligation to enemies of this country.  We have no business supporting the Muslim Brotherhood or any other terrorist organization that has threatened or waged war against the United States, or has worked to recruit citizens of this country with the goal of insurrection and rebellion.  Such payments are not legitimate obligations and must be banned.

The brinksmanship ends now.

An Angry Constituent

An Open Letter To Pres. Obama And Congress: DEFAULT IS NOT AN OPTION...

October 16, 2013

Mr. President, Legislators:  

United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, SECTION 4:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

No matter what else doesn't get paid, you don't have a choice:  DEFAULT IS NOT AN OPTION; YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PAY THIS.  THIS BILL GETS PAID BEFORE ALL OTHERS.

PERIOD.

The House of Representatives has passed legislation to pay this.  The CONSTITUTION, which you have all sworn to uphold, prohibits you from playing politics with America's debt.

GET IT DONE, NOW. 

An Angry Constituent

Partial Gov't "Shutdown" and Military Personnel....

I just read the following post regarding the son of a friend who is stationed at Seymour Johnson AFB in North Carolina:

"Just found out ***** ***** not only has no commissary ( I can understand that) but now the Defax (Mess hall) is closed and they aren't feeding him either. He now has to go off base and fend for himself."

So now not only are our military personnel not being PAID, they aren't being FED, either; the commissaries are also being shut down due to the partial government "shutdown."  In order to buy groceries or eat, on-base personnel must now leave their bases and buy their necessities at the more expensive civilian stores and restaurants, yet the Commander in Chief of US military forces demands that they remain on active duty.

Do you see the lengths to which Pres. Obama displays his contempt for our military personnel and makes them endure his anger because of the attempts to derail his agenda?

Capitol Shooting - Mother Was Depressed. Obviously We Need Vehicle Control Laws....

Regarding the recent capitol shooting: the driver was known to Connecticut police, it appears that she was suffering from depression and had been hospitalized for it at one point, and she rammed the barrier at the White House because she believed that Pres. Obama was stalking her (actually, she wasn't far from wrong on that count!).

Obviously, her right to own a vehicle should have been taken away long ago. 

We need to provide comprehensive, universal background checks as a condition to owning a vehicle, and we need to limit the capacity of gas tanks of all vehicles to not more than 10 gallons to insure that someone can't try something like this again. We need to immediately ban all high capacity gas tanks (11 gallons or larger), and register all vehicles in a federal database that can take a high capacity gas tank. Sen. Pelosi should waste more tax payer dollars looking at photos of vehicles so that she can come up with a list of scary-looking assault vehicles that should be banned from ownership unless you buy a tax stamp first; this list will grandfather in historic assault vehicles. It is imperative that the President pass an executive order banning the reimportation of any US-made historic assault vehicle that may have been provided to another country 60 years ago during the course of a war.

Further, the right of anyone associated with such a person to own a vehicle, especially one with a high capacity gas tank or, heaven forbid, an assault vehicle, should be curtailed as well to insure that the disturbed person can't illegally acquire the vehicle by running the owner over with their own vehicle. In addition, vehicle free zones should be established to prevent such people from getting too close to the White House, congress, and schools, and teachers and other school staff should be forbidden to possess a vehicle in a school zone. Malls, theaters, hospitals and other commercial entities should have the right to post themselves as vehicle free zones. The simple act of posting a vehicle free zone sign will be sufficient to deter someone who is potentially dangerous from using their vehicle to commit a crime, such as ramming a 7-11 for the purpose of dragging out the ATM.

If we take these measures, we can insure that something like this never happens again, because everyone knows that disturbed people, or even hard core bad guys, would never try to circumvent this system by illegally acquiring a vehicle or modifying a legal vehicle by adding a high capacity gas tank and other assault vehicle features.

Sound absurd? I can think of at least one other area in which these same conditions are considered to be "common sense," even though that area accounts for a fraction of the deaths that occur in the US as compared to automobile ownership.

Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56...

Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56, enacted in 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.  This is the directive that essentially designates military bases as gun free zones:

"It is DoD policy that:...

b. Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms. However, the overriding factors in determining whether or not to arm are the mission and threat. Arming DoD personnel (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) shall be limited to missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DoD assets or persons’ lives. DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties."

While there are some who will point to the last sentence as giving the CO of a base discretion to arm all of the personnel under his/her command if he/she believes it necessary, the emphasis is on "designated staff" and is limited by the previous directives that such a designation is limited to "missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DoD assets or persons’ lives," further limited to "the mission and the threat."  The obvious intent of the directive is to keep the number of armed personnel as small as possible as a matter of course, and is limited primarily to missions in which there is a clear and present threat to stores/assets that are of a strategic nature; most of our bases do not merit armed protection under those definitions.  

However, on 16 Sept. 2013 NBC posted a report of attacks on military bases going back to 1994.  There have been no fewer than 16 shootings on stateside bases, many involving multiple victims  (A History of Shootings at Military Installations in the US| NBC4 Washington).  This report does not take into account attacks on military bases overseas that could have been prevented if our personnel had been allowed to defend themselves, such as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut (sentries were required to keep their weapons at condition 4).

Trusting the safety of our military personnel to private security companies or locally hired indigenous personnel cannot be tolerated any longer.  Requiring military personnel who serve in a base security capacity to keep weapons at condition 4 is no longer acceptable.

Our personnel are the best trained and disciplined in the world.  They know how to exercise restraint when restraint is called for; they also know how to unleash targeted destruction when necessary.

Let our military personnel do what they are trained to do - terminate threats with extreme prejudice!  Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56!

Do more than "like" this thread if you agree - pass it on and contact your legislators ASAP.

I am including a sample letter below that you can cut and paste into an email or word processor:

To the Honorable (add title/name of legislator):

NBC News recently released a report (16 Sept. 2013) that documents no fewer than 16 shootings that have occurred on stateside military bases since 1995; many involved multiple victims.  Their report does not take into account attacks on United States military personnel that have occurred on overseas bases, such as the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, which could have been prevented if sentries had not been required to keep their weapons at condition 4 (no magazine inserted and no rounds in the chamber).

The attacks all have one thing in common: each could have been prevented or limited if our trained and disciplined military personnel had been allowed to carry the weapons on which they were trained and were allowed to respond accordingly.

Trusting the safety of our military personnel to private security companies or locally hired indigenous personnel cannot be tolerated any longer.  Requiring military personnel who serve in a base security capacity to keep weapons at condition 4 is no longer acceptable.
Our personnel are the best trained and disciplined in the world.  They know how to exercise restraint when restraint is called for; they also know how to unleash targeted destruction when necessary.

However, DOD Directive 5210.56 essentially limits armed personnel on military bases to military police or those guarding strategic stores and assets.  The recent shooting at the United States Navy Yard (Washington, D.C.) vividly demonstrates that this directive is woefully inadequate to protect our military personnel.

Trusting the safety of our military personnel to private security companies or locally hired indigenous personnel cannot be tolerated any longer.  Requiring military personnel who serve in a base security capacity to keep weapons at condition 4 is no longer acceptable.

It is to repeal DOD Directive 5210.56.  Let those who defend this nation with the weapons on which they were trained use those weapons to defend themselves.

Arm our military personnel!

Military security for military bases!

No more "shelter in place" orders!

Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56 - NOW!

Sincerely,

Pres. Obama's Speech Against US Involvement In syria....

I love it when speeches made by senators come back to bite them as presidents! I have taken the liberty of making a few very minor changes to this speech:

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war speech, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My forbears signed up to fight wars in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Pacific. They saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; they heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. They fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and they did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported the administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Hillary Clinton and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like John Kerry to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through its worst years since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Bashar Hafez al-Assad. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, launched armed attacks against his own people. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Syrian people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Assad poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Syrian economy is in shambles, that the Syrian military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Syria will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Syria without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Obama? Let's finish the fight with terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that effectively targets foreign threats while protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens. You want a fight, President Obama?

Let's fight to make sure that the U.N. inspectors can do their work in Syria, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of chemical, biological, and nuclear agents, and that nations like Iran never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Obama?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Obama? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through sensible development of our enormous domestic oil and gas resources.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

This speech was originally delivered by then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2002 in Chicago to protest US involvement in Iraq. To see how minor the changes I made are, view the transcript of the original speech: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

Why The Fuss About The Million Muslim March On 9-11?

Some people are asking, "why the fuss about the million muslim march on 9/11?" The answers are right here in the petition letter that was submitted to DC for event permit approval (I have emphasized the key thoughts):

"Assalam Alaikum Brothers and Sisters,

We at AMPAC (American Political Action Committee) are planning an historic event for 9.11.13 where one million Muslims will march to Washington D.C. and demand that our civil rights be protected by our government.

We are demanding that laws be enacted protecting our 1st amendment . We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly we are asking for the release of the 9/11 commission report to the American people. 

On 9.11.01 our country was forever changed by the horrific events in New York. The entire country was victimized by the acts done on that day. Muslim and Non Muslim alike were traumatized BUT WE AS MUSLIMS CONTINUE 12 YEARS LATER TO BE VICTIMIZED BY BEING MADE THE VILLAINS. TO THIS DAY EVERY MEDIA OUTLET AND ANTI ISLAMIC ORGANIZATION HAS COMMITTED SLANDEROUS AND LIBEL STATEMENTS AGAINST US AS MUSLIMS AND OUR RELIGION OF ISLAM.

Yet our Government either sits idly by and does nothing to protect our freedoms or it exacerbates the problem with its constant war on terrorism in Islamic countries, congressional hearings on Islam in America, and its changes to the NDAA law.
THESE LIES TOLD TO THE AMERICAN POPULATION HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO DO TRUE DAWA. Why do we have to defend our religion while doing Dawa? WHY CAN'T WE JUST SHARE THE PERFECTION OF THE QURAN AND THE BEAUTY OF OUR BELOVED PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SWS)? 

It is time for us as Muslims in America to stop being defensive and start being proactive by using our right to vote and our freedom of assemble and let our voices be heard by our country and the world. Stand with us help us fight the injustices being committed against us. 

Help us to wake the American citizen up to the truth and together Muslim and Non Muslim can take our country back to its true Democracy which is "For the people by the people". Our Prophet in his final message told us: "Whoever sees an injustice should set it right by means of his hand; if not, by his tongue; if not, then by his heart and that is considered to be the weakest of faith." And more to the point "If my nation are afraid to say to the oppressor, 'O oppressor!', then there is no hope in them."

Sincerely your Brothers and Sisters in Islam

On behalf of AMPAC

Isa Hodge

Chief of Operations "Million Muslim March"

The chief points are, 1) Muslims were not responsible for 9/11, and 2) muslims are so busy defending themselves against this lie that they cannot proselytize (do dawa). 

The founder of AMPAC, MD Rabbi Alam, is a so-called "truther." He believes that the Jews were the architects of 9/11. In his mind, the American media and government have been spreading zionist lies about 9/11 to divert us from the "truth." In another statement posted on the AMPAC web site, he states his belief that we have been "brainwashed" into believing that muslims were responsible for 9/11. He also states that Al Qaeda is a myth.

Why are we being brainwashed? So that we will not embrace the "perfection of the Quran and the beauty of [our] beloved Prophet Muhammad." In his mind, if we weren't being fed these lies, we would all embrace islam - which is the ultimate goal of islam. In other words, resistance is NOT futile, and we REFUSE TO BE ASSIMILATED.

To Mr. Alam I give the following affirmation: "Sh'ma Yisraeil, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord)," Deut. 6:4, and "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever," Heb. 13:8.

Patriot's Day 2013...

I Remember.

The REAL Reason Obama Wants To Involve Us In Syria - And Why We Cannot Permit It...

Egyptian Official ties Obama's Brother to Brotherhood

THIS is why the President is pushing so hard for us to back the rebels. It has very little to do with gas attacks on civilians; there is evidence that BOTH sides of the conflict have used these weapons. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the president's brother is the chief financier of the Muslim Brotherhood. The same brother who is about to be added to Egypt's terrorist watch list for his activities with the Muslim Brotherhood (http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/egypt-eyes-obamas-brother-for-terror-list/). The same brother that Egypt wants to extradite from the US (yes, he lives here and has made many trips to the White House) to answer for his role as one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The president's push to become involved in Syria has everything to do with a PERSONAL AGENDA.

We cannot allow him to use our brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, friends, sons and daughters who serve in the UNITED STATES military (not HIS military, as he referred to it while at the G20 meeting: "My military assured me that we could act today, tomorrow, a month from now, that we could do so proportionally, but meaningfully," http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/06/admitting-public-opposition-on-syria-obama-vows-to-push-forward-transcript/#ixzz2eDF6HJ26) as pawns in Syria to further a family vendetta.  Further, we need to be keeping our eyes on the hearings in Egypt, as representatives of the new government are promising that evidence will be brought forth that proves Pres. Obama's administration was complicit in the terrorist activities of the Muslim Brotherhood while funneling our tax dollars to them through his brother.

We need to bringing all the pressure we can to bear on our legislators to 1) keep us from becoming involved in Syria in any way,  2) establish an independent counsel to interface with the Egyptian government to obtain copies of all available evidence they have in their possession, and 3) proceed with impeachment.  If THIS doesn't amount to high crimes committed by the president, then nothing does.

Iowa Gubernatorial Candidates Participate in "Prayer" of Thanks for Abortion.....

This show us how far we have fallen as a nation. This "prayer," which thanks God for abortion, took place in a public forum in Iowa last week, and included two gubernatorial candidates.

Text from the "prayer" includes the following:

“We give thanks, oh Lord, for the doctors, both current and future, who provide quality abortion care.”

“We pray for increased financial support for low-income women to access contraception, abortion and childcare.”

“Today, we pray for women in developing nations, that they may know the power of self-determination. May they have access to employment, education, birth control and abortion.”

“We pray for women who have been made afraid of their own power by their materialistic religion. May they learn to reject fear and live bravely.”

“Today we pray for the families who have chosen. May they know the blessing of choice.”

Beginning with Genesis 1:26-27, the Bible clearly teaches that we are created in the image of God:

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.'

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Psalm 139:13-16 teaches us that, from conception, we are created, molded by God: 

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

This is not a prayer that is even heard by the God of the Bible, even though I am certain that it absolutely fills the god of this world (Satan) with absolute glee.

It is time for the Church to rise up, to hold up the Standard given to us by God HImself. It is time for the Church to confess its sins in enabling this horrific crime to continue, in sending people like this to our government in the first place.

"Prayer" of Thanks for Abortion

Michigan Math: 10% Reduction in Police Force = 22% Reduction In Crime

The "experts" can't explain it, but Mlive published an article in their Sunday, 08/25/13, edition that demonstrates this phenomenon.

Statewide, Michigan has shed 10% of its police force, yet during the same time period, crime, including violent crime, has decreased 22%.  On a local level, Grand Rapids, MI, which has shed 17% of its police force in recent years, has seen a 33% reduction in violent crime and a similar reduction in property crime.

The "experts" have proffered various explanations, each more preposterous than the previous one.  One author posits that free access to abortion on demand accounts for the drop.  Another points to the switch to lead-free gasoline, while others posit that baby boomers were crime-prone and are now too old to commit crime.  Yet another "expert" points to the utopia that is Obama's new America.  Being unable to build any consensus among these experts, Mlive turned to the leadership of the police community, who attribute the reduction to technology - especially surveillance cameras and cell phones.

Long story short, they continue to grasp at straws when the most obvious answer is in front of them.

I have been saying it for years: THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE!!!

In roughly the same time period as the reduction in crime, private gun ownership has skyrocketed; nearly 500,000 private citizens have concealed pistol licenses. As the article points out at the end, despite what the Brady Campaign, Bloomberg, and the rest of the gun grabbing world would like you to believe, more legal gun ownership does not equal more crime or even more gun accidents!!! This is simply the result of private citizens exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed Second Amendment rights.  

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Michigan is bleeding police officers. In the past decade, enough cops have been cut to equal the elimination of all Michigan State Police officers and the entire sworn force in Grand Rapids, the state’s second-largest city.

But there’s the conundrum, an MLive Media Group investigation found.

Despite the decline, you have never been safer in Michigan from serious crimes in a decade.

People don’t get robbed as much, or assaulted, or raped.

Cars thefts are rarer by half.

Your wallets and purses are less likely to be taken.

At the same time, there are fewer police in your neighborhood.

It is an enigma for cops, who hope more officers mean less crime.

The MLive investigation analyzed a decade of police manpower and crime statistics in the state since 2003. The analysis covered more than 500 departments, and 2.3 million reported crimes.

The conclusion was surprising. Even as communities bemoan the loss of sworn officers, serious crimes continue to drop in most places across the state.

So why do we need more police – or even as many as we have?

The answer is perplexing for departments that push for greater staffing as the economy picks up, but struggle to find statistical support.

“I’ve got command staff and officers that want to make the argument that crime numbers are up as our numbers have dropped, and it can’t be done,” said Lt. Patrick Merrill, an analyst for the Grand Rapids Police Department.  

Less Cops Equals Less Crime

 The article tries to offer several explanations for these results, including free access to abortion, unleaded gasoline, even Obama. An accompanying article supposedly from the police perspective tries to pin these results on better technology - especially surveillance systems and access to cell phones. THEY refuse to acknowledge the facts. When a study concluded that, in the more than 20 years since the passage of the federal gun free school zones act, the incidence of kids bringing weapons of all kinds to schools dropped a whole percent, "experts" immediately proclaimed that this was a direct result of the GFSZA - even though there were no "scientific" studies to back this up. But when it is revealed that crime, especially violent crime, in Michigan has dropped MORE THAN 20% STATEWIDE since the passage of our expanded CPL laws (just over 10 years), the "experts" say there is no way we can say with certainty that the drop has anything to do with the expansion of legal gun ownership and concealed carry.

Do I feel vindicated, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS SAME MEDIA GROUP CONTINUES TO PUSH FOR MORE STRICT GUN CONTROL IN MICHIGAN?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?!!!

I just faxed this article to my legislators in both DC & Lansing. I encourage the rest of you Michiganders to do the same!

Here are their fax numbers:

Carl Levin: 1-202-224-1388
Debbie Stabenow: 1-202-228-0325
Rick Snyder: 1-517-335-6863

 For the rest of our Michigan state legislators, use the link on the sidebar.

To Tip or Not To Tip....

The restaurant industry is considering abolishing tipping, instead raising their prices to pay tipped employees higher wages.

Let's get something straight - tipping used to be a reward for providing superior service.  

Somewhere along the way, greedy employers discovered that they could reduce their own costs by cutting the wages of their "tipped" employees, making the "tip" a part of the wage structure.  And since it is largely business people (in one form or another) who make it to congress to write our laws, they were able to re-write the wage laws governing the food service industry to reflect this cost cutting approach.  Nationally, tipped food service employees typically make 2/3 of minimum wage.  In Michigan, tipped employees are paid 1/3 of minimum wage, expecting that tips will make up the additional 2/3 of the employee's pay: 

"Tipped employees may be paid an hourly wage rate of $2.65 an hour provided they receive tips which combined with the hourly wage, equals or exceeds the minimum hourly wage rate listed above and provide a signed tip statement," Michigan Minimum Wage Law.

So the answer isn't to abolish tipping, the answer is to abolish a law that enshrined corporate greed by permitting employers to pay tipped employees lower wages.  Restore tips to their previous status as bonuses given for superior service.

President to Sign UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) Over Break - in Violation of the Expressed Will of the Senate....

The news headlines are telling us that President Obama will sign the UN ATT during the legislative break.  

There is just one minor problem:  the Senate has already disapproved the signing of this treaty.

The US Senate web site provides the following details regarding the ratification of treaties:

"The Senate does not ratify treaties—the Senate approves or rejects a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the foreign power(s)," (US Senate and Treaties).

On March, 23, 2013, the same week the UN ATT was passed by the UN Security Council, the US Senate, in an early morning vote, voted 53-46 to reject a resolution to ratify the treaty.  The Senate has already expressed its will concerning this treaty; the president has no legal grounds to sign the UN ATT.  Once again, however, the president is going to unilaterally act in violation of our system of checks and balances.

One more impeachable offense on the part of the president.

"Concept" or God-Given Right?

"It's time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense..."

These words were spoken by USAG Eric Holder during his address to the NAACP following the George Zimmerman verdict, and they vividly illustrate the mindset to which the leaders of the Danbury Baptists referred in their letter to then-President Thomas Jefferson:

"...and such had been our laws and usages, and such still     are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as       inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the            expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are           inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be             wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and     gain under the pretense of government and religion should    reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order         magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order..."

In the views of such people, we have no inalienable rights; we have privileges that have been granted by a magnanimous government - privileges that are as easily taken away as given.   And as was acknowledged by the leaders of the Danbury Baptists, such a view is inconsistent with our status as FREEMEN.

Mr. Holder needs to reacquaint himself with the Bill of Rights.  Its name is exactly what it seems to be, a list of rights - HUMAN RIGHTS - granted as inalienable rights by the God who created us in His image.  The Second Amendment of the Constitution, as delineated by the Bill of Rights, provides for our defense against a government that has escaped the chains of the Constitution.

Frederic Bastiat, in his manuscript, The Law (Copyright © 2007 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute), explains it this way:

"It is not because men have made laws, that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize a common force to provide regularly for this defense.

Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right..."

Collective rights are the corporate expression of God-given individual rights.  And as they are God-given, they reflect the very nature of God.  This is of the utmost importance, because, in reflecting the unchangeable nature of God (Malachi 3:6, "For I the Lord do not change..."), the rights themselves are also unchangeable - inalienable.  If, then, we collectively have the right to defend ourselves from our own government (as guaranteed by the Second Amendment), it follows that we have the individual right to defend ourselves from other individuals as well. 

Self-defense, then, is not a concept.  It is a God-given, inalienable right granted to us as the image bearers of God by virtue of the fact that we are created in His image.  In numerous verses throughout the scriptures, God tells us that He will defend His name and His character.  God has the right to His own defense; as image bearers, we share that right.

The right to self-defense is one of the foundational principles upon which our country was founded.  It is one of the chief differentiating factors that separates American law, with its protection of the rights of the individual, from British common law, which subjugates the rights of the individual to the rights and claims of the crown.  It is common law that delineates the so-called duty to retreat.  It is American law that upholds the right of the individual to stand his or her ground when they are where they have a legal right to be and they are committing no crime.

Concept?  No.

Inalienable, God-given RIGHT.

Potter Park Zoo in Violation of ADA and Michigan State Civil Rights/Disability laws...

We are going to war. 

We took our son to Potter Park Zoo in Lansing, MI, this afternoon (07/21/13) for his birthday. When we got to the entrance, they would not permit us to enter the zoo with our son's autism assistance dog without first requiring proof of certification as an assistance dog, as well as proof of all immunizations being up to date. Then, after verifying all of that, we would have had to be accompanied by a guide who would tell us where we could and could not go in the park. The only other option offered was to leave our son's assistance dog in our vehicle - and it was a warm day today. We were given a copy of the park's policy only after we were making our way back to the parking lot.

Now, we like Potter Park Zoo. It is a wonderful facility. 

It also happens to be PUBLICLY OWNED/FUNDED facility - meaning that they must be in full compliance with both federal and state civil rights/disability laws. The ADA specifically states that their policy is illegal, as demonstrated in the revised ADA requirements for service animals:

"WHERE SERVICE ANIMALS ARE ALLOWED

Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go…

INQUIRIES, EXCLUSIONS, CHARGES, AND OTHER SPECIFIC RULES RELATED TO SERVICE ANIMALS

When it is not obvious what service an animal provides, only limited inquiries are allowed. Staff may ask two questions: (1) is the dog a service animal required because of a disability, and (2) what work or task has the dog been trained to perform.  Staff cannot ask about the person’s disability, require medical documentation, require a special identification card or training documentation for the dog, or ask that the dog demonstrate its ability to perform the work or task.

Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.

A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises  nless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence…

People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals."

(Source: http://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm)

I tried to explain what both Michigan disability laws and the ADA have to say about this, but they insisted that the park's policy was the primary consideration - regardless of the requirements of the law.

I am at war. I want to make clear that I do not hold the admissions or security employees responsible for what happened. However, I will have some things to say to the zoo's policy makers. To that end I will be contacting media, legislators, and anyone else I can think of until Potter Park Zoo brings its policies in line with the ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. The security guard with whom I spoke, who is also the father of a special needs child, told me that the park has done this many times over the years.  We have taken our son's assistance dog to Boulder Ridge Wildlife Park in Grand Ledge, MI, and to John Ball Zoo in Grand Rapids, MI, without any trouble whatsoever, so this is a first for us.

To say that our son was disappointed would be an understatement. He doesn't usually voice his feelings in his own words; he did so tonight.

***     UPDATE     ***

Autism Assistance Dog Turned Away From Zoo

We are thanking the Lord for the outcome with Potter Park Zoo. The zoo is reviewing and will be re-writing their service animal policy to bring it in line with ADA and Michigan civil rights/disability laws. It has essentially been acknowledged that the chances of a certified, disciplined, controlled, inoculated service animal outside the enclosure of zoo animals passing on disease to those animals is essentially non-existent. And when you stop to think that zoo animals are in constant, close contact with rodents, birds, and other carriers of harmful organisms that actually go in to the enclosures, the argument really didn't hold up.

We received a call from the director of the zoo just before the broadcast apologizing for the zoo's refusal to allow Bryce into the park and for the policies that violate the ADA, specifically those that require patrons to provide documentation of a service animal's certification and health record. They have assured us that we will be contacted when their policies have been re-written, and they have invited us back to the park.

Finally, we would like to thank Joe LaFurgey of WOOD TV for the role he and his camera man played in this. Thank you for your time, effort, and the quality of your report. You have helped open the doors of this zoo to patrons who would otherwise be denied entrance.

Holder Lashes Out at SYG Laws in the Wake of the Zimmerman Verdict - Yet Another Straw Man...

At an NAACP rally this past week, AG Eric Holder lashed out at the Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws that have been enacted in 22 states.

"These laws try to fix something that was never broken," Holder said at the Orange County Convention Center. "There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if - and the 'if' is important - no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common sense and age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely" (Holder lashes out at SYG laws

There are three very basic flaws in Holder's arguments.

 First, the US Supreme Court has upheld the basic right to self defense in numerous cases, most notably Heller. Self defense is a right; there is no duty to retreat. So once again the good AG is trying to create a legal duty where none exists.

Second, the Zimmerman trial was never about SYG; it was the self-same self defense plea to which Holder refers in his speech. Holder states that citizens have a duty to retreat, yet the jury determined that Zimmerman was unable to retreat. Therefore, he was entitled to his use of lethal force to preserve himself from great bodily harm and death.

But the most important ramification of Holder's speech is this: Holder made the statement, "... people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat..." The context of this statement is Holder's stated contention that Zimmerman exercised his right to employ lethal force before making an adequate attempt (whatever THAT is) to retreat.

 Now, the prosecution's testimony was that MARTIN was the threatened party. Zimmerman was following him, and according to testimony from Martin's girlfriend, Martin felt threatened. The logical conclusion, therefore, under Mr. Holder's argument, would be that MARTIN should have been the one with the duty to retreat - which we know did not happen.

But that isn't what Holder said.

He said that it was ZIMMERMAN who had the duty to retreat.

This poses a real problem for his contention that Martin was the victim. In the light of his stated argument that the victim/defender has the duty to retreat, one can only draw one conclusion: if Zimmerman had the duty to retreat, then MARTIN was the aggressor.

In other words, Mr. Holder just declared Martin to be the aggressor and Zimmerman the victim/defender.

 Thank you, sir, for clearing that up for us. You just confirmed the jury's verdict.

 Now leave our SYG laws, which played absolutely no part in this case, alone.

Conservative Black Leaders Give their input on the Zimmerman Verdict...

Black Conservatives Analyze Aftermath of Zimmerman Case

Washington, D.C. - Members of the Project 21 black leadership network are analyzing the legal aspects of the George Zimmerman verdict and commenting on the implications: