Have A Blessed Christmas….

Of all of the gifts you could receive today, eternal life through Jesus the Christ is the one you need the most.

Boo Hoo, Kroger Told Me To Take A Hike!

Boo hoo, Kroger won't give me the time of day. That's the essence of an op-ed Shannon Watts, head of Moms Demand Gunsense for America, wrote for HuffPo:

For months, Moms have called on Kroger to make a safer and more family-friendly shopping environment by prohibiting the open carry of firearms in its stores, just as brands including Target, Starbucks, and Panera have done. 

Instead of meeting with us and reconsidering an irresponsible policy, Kroger's leadership has refused to listen. They have pressured radio stations to reject our ads and relocated their annual investor meeting to avoid interacting with customers. Just imagine how much easier it would have been if they would talk with us.

This week, Kroger executives and investors met in Cincinnati and I was there, along with dozens of Moms Demand Action volunteers from neighboring states, to make it as easy as possible for Kroger leadership to meet with us on an issue that women and mothers care about more than anything: the safety of our families. Rather than agree to a meeting, Kroger bullied radio stations into pulling our ads highlighting the absurdity of their gun policy (you can listen to the ads here and here). And this week, Kroger bussed its investors out of the hotel where they were planning to meet and to an alternate location -- probably to avoid the rally of mothers and customers we had organized to spark a conversation with them.

Evidently Kroger is growing uncomfortable with their gun policy, and frankly, they should be. Kroger is siding with gun extremists, rather than mothers, gun violence survivors, and the majority of Kroger shoppers, who support ending open carry in Kroger stores. 

Moms refuse to be silenced. The ads that made Kroger so nervous are nothing more than recordings of Kroger employees reiterating Kroger's policy, which is to prohibit children's toys and household pets in the name of customer safety, but to allow anyone to openly carry loaded firearms, even though no permit, training, or background check is required to do so in most states.

Instead of working with us to make stores safer, Kroger has cited politicians' inaction to regulate open carry to justify their own stubborn refusal to institute a policy that does more than force employees and customers into a position where they must guess whether the armed individual in the frozen food aisle poses a threat to customers.

How are moms shopping with children expected to know the difference between an activist and a threat to our families? In a majority of states, it is completely legal to open carry a loaded gun in public without any training, permitting, or a background check. In some states, there isn't even an age requirement to open carry a loaded firearm.

That's why open carry poses a unique risk to the public. That's why we want Kroger to act, just as so many other major companies have done. And 83% of Kroger shoppers agree - Kroger is well within their rights to stop open carry.

When I founded Moms Demand Action the day after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, I knew that it would be a long road towards gun safety. Since then, millions of Americans have joined this fight and we will continue to be relentless whenever we feel the safety of our children is threatened.

Kroger's customers deserve to be heard and Moms won't stop until we get the change we need.

No, Kroger isn't "growing uncomfortable with their gun policy," Watts just can't get it through her head that, just as Kroger has the "right" to DISCONTINUE a practice, it well within their RIGHT to do what they have said already said they are GOING to do - CONTINUE THEIR POLICY TO ALLOW FIREARMS CARRY. She needs to get that through her head! Watts only recognizes the rights of Kroger as they comport with her agenda, and she can't handle it that Kroger has the temerity to defy her and her sugar daddy, Bloomberg. She certainly can't reconcile the FACT that, since Kroger announced their intent to continue their policy, their sales have increased 21% with her supposed poll results indicating that 83% of Kroger customers agree with her point of view. She also ignores the fact that Starbucks has actually backtracked on their so-called "ban" on firearms carry, taking a more publicly neutral position on the subject - which is all they ever wanted to do in the first place.  In fact, if you actually read the statements issued by Target, Starbucks, and Panera, none of them actually "ban" firearms carry, they respectfully requested that firearms carriers not take them onto their premises, but all stopped short of actually banning them.  Watts still considers them to be victories.

Reality stinks, doesn't it Shannon!

Michigan H.B. 5500, Enforcement of Michigan's Pre-emption Law….

Michigan is a pre-emption state with regard to firearms ownership, carry, etc. State law pre-empts any local ordinance. The problem is, up until now there has been absolutely no way to enforce that law, which is why mayors like George Heartwell in Grand Rapids are still trying to enact gun control in any way they can and face no consequences for doing so. Here is the text of the bill, and it will be readily apparent why all those who support the Second Amendment should take the time to contact their representatives in Lansing to get this bill out of committee and onto the floor of the House for a vote.  All bolded text is proposed language:

HOUSE BILL No. 5500

April 30, 2014, Introduced by Reps. McMillin, Lyons, Shirkey, Genetski, Crawford, Hooker, Rogers, Johnson, VerHeulen, Yonker, Dianda, LaFontaine, MacMaster, Callton, Goike, Kesto and McBroom and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

A bill to amend 1990 PA 319, entitled

"An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase, sale,
transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms," (MCL 123.1101 to 123.1105) by amending the title and by adding sections 4a, 4b, and 4c.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

An act to prohibit local units of government from imposing
certain restrictions on the ownership, registration, purchase,
sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other
firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components
of pistols or other firearms; AND TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES.

SEC. 4A. NOT LATER THAN 90 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT HAS AN EXISTING ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT SHALL BRING THAT ORDINANCE OR REGULATION INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ACT.

SEC. 4B. BEGINNING 91 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION THAT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THAT INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION MAY BRING AN ACTION IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THAT LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT IS LOCATED.

SEC. 4C. (1) BEGINNING 91 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS SECTION, IF AN INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION BRINGS AN ACTION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 4B AND THE COURT DETERMINES THAT THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT

OF GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THIS ACT, THE COURT SHALL DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

(A) DECLARE THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE.

(B) ISSUE AN INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT FROM ENFORCING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(C) ORDER THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT TO AMEND OR REPEAL THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(D) AWARD COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES TO THE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION  CHALLENGING THE ORDINANCE OR REGULATION.

(2) IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SUBSECTION (1), IF THE COURT DETERMINES AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION 1 OF THIS ACT, THEN THE COURT SHALL ASSESS A CIVIL FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000.00 AGAINST THAT ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL, WHICH IS IN ADDITION TO ANY PENALTY THAT MAY BE ASSESSED UNDER 1966 PA 158, MCL 752.11 TO 752.12.

(3) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW, PUBLIC FUNDS SHALL NOT BE USED TO DEFEND OR REIMBURSE AN ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIAL OF A LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WHO IS DETERMINED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY ENACTED OR ENFORCED AN ORDINANCE OR REGULATION IN VIOLATION OF THIS ACT.

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation...

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

G. Washington

Israel and Russia Just Did It - Time For America To Do It, Too….

An open letter to our elected officials:

Terrorist acts are increasing in the world.  They have now begun to come to the US and Canada.  In response to such acts, both Russia and Israel have made it easier to carry firearms for self defense - including in so-called "sensitive areas."  It is time for the US to do the same.  

Gun control has stopped nothing - and never will.

At the federal level, it is time to revoke the federal gun free school zones act, it is ime to finally permit lawful carriers to carry in so-called "sensitive areas," and it is time to revoke the "gun free" status of our military bases and let our military personnel carry the weapons on which they have trained.

At the state level, it is time to revoke "gun free" zones.  It is time to establish open carry and concealed carry parity; there is no logical reason why a concealed carrier should be required to complete hours of training that are not required of an open carrier just because the method of carry is different.  It is time for Michiganders to be able to exercise their right to lawful self defense in so-called "gun free" zones by carrying concealed - a method far less likely to incite panic.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."  -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"  -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr.

Sincerely,

John Lott - America should make it easier to carry guns

Moms Demand's Anti-Kroger Thanksgiving Campaign….

Moms Demand is running this graphic to remind their members which Kroger companies to boycott because they refuse to bow down to MD and ban lawful firearms carry in their stores.  Let's be sure to support them whenever possible!

Michigan Senate Passes Bill That Would DOUBLE Gas Taxes….

Michigan House Commerce Committee Members: NO on H.B. 5189

The MI House Commerce Committee will be hearing testimony this morning regarding HB 5189, the Jessica Heeringa law, which requires 24 hour gas stations to install costly surveillance equipment and maintain a minimum of 2 employees during overnight hours. 

I sent the following email to all of the Republican members of this committee this morning (their contact information can be found here: http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comkey=222): 

Rep. Foster, 

I write to you today to encourage the commerce committee NOT to support HB 5189. While the goal of this bill is laudable, it has almost no chance of accomplishing what it sets out to do - protect employees, specifically late night gas station employees. The installation of security cameras prevents nothing; it merely acts as a POTENTIAL resource for police as they try to solve the crimes that MAY have been caught by them. Robberies and killings occur each and every day in this country and are dutifully recorded by security cameras. In many cases, the images they capture are too grainy, out of focus, or dark to provide any meaningful assistance to law enforcement. 

Similarly, the addition of another employee guarantees nothing, especially if a firearm is introduced into the equation by a criminal. A firearm in the hands of a criminal nullifies any perceived advantage offered by the presence of a second employee. 

This bill does two things: it makes people FEEL SECURE without providing ACTUAL security, and it increases the costs to employers - many of whom simply cannot afford the additional expenses. Passing a bill simply because it is better than nothing is what the legislature has a history of doing. If we are going to pass legislation to protect employees, then pass a bill that actually stands a chance of protecting someone. Pass legislation that repeals so-called "gun free" zones. Pass legislation that requires an employer to recognize the right of their employees and customers to provide for their own protection by carrying their lawfully-owned firearms and then INDEMNIFIES the employer. "But we don't want to infringe on the private property rights of an employer," you say, yet that is EXACTLY what HB 5189 does. 

Mr. Chairman, I encourage you and your committee to REJECT the emotional appeal that will be offered today in support of this bill in favor of legislation that actually stands a chance of accomplishing its stated goal of providing REAL PROTECTION to employees. You have Republican majorities in your committee, and both chambers of the legislature; this SHOULD BE an easily accomplished task.

American Flag Controversy….

It's Election Day, November 4, 2014….

THEY found a way to vote.

In a combat zone.

Under threat of attack.

What's YOUR excuse?

Vote BIBLICALLY.

If they don't support GOD'S righteousness, 

don't vote for them.

Public Backs Kroger Firearm Carry Policy….

MSNBC has been running a poll to gauge public sentiment on the question of firearms carry in Kroger stores - and to bring pressure to bear on Kroger.

I'm certain the results aren't what they were expecting….

For the record, the Construction Zone supports and applauds Kroger's common sense policy:

"The safety of our customers and associates is one of our most important company values. Millions of customers are present in our busy grocery stores every day and we don't want to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun. That is why our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores," policy-on-customers-carrying-firearms-in-stores

Marine Sgt. Tahmooressi Freed!!!

Sgt Tahmooressi freed

US/Israel Relationship at a Tipping Point?

"The fault for this breakdown in relations can be assigned in good part to the junior partner in the relationship, Netanyahu… he’s a chickens**t…" who "… lack[s]… political courage."

To those who said Obama would maintain our solid relationship with Israel, think again.

The administration accuses Benjamin Netanyahu of having no courage to attack Iran because of their nuclear program, yet it was the administration that, on multiple occasions, warned Israel that any such attack would result in serious repercussions from the US.

They accuse him of going out of his way to protect his job by building apartments in East Jerusalem and criticizing the Obama regime, yet Obama has gone out of his way to protect his own job by throwing open the borders to anyone who wishes to cross illegally, providing amnesty - even citizenship - to those illegals (including letting some serve in the military), attacking churches and other religious organizations, covering the illegal activities of his underlings (Holder, Clinton, and the IRS), and acting as an apologist for radical islam - all the while shaping public sentiment against Israel.

They accuse Netanyahu of being "disconnected from reality." Really? Hamas is the organization that has been lobbing bombs at Israel, yet it is the administration that tells Israel not to protect itself, but to stand meekly by.

We have a responsibility to protect Israel, to bless Israel - something this administration is rapidly moving away from.  They set up the conditions leading to this breakdown, now they (as has become so familiar) blame Israel for fulfilling their prophecies.

the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here

Michigan - Requiring Sales Through Dealerships...

What gives our legislature the right to require manufacturers to sell through dealerships instead of directly to the customer - a model that would have the effect of significantly lowering the prices of new automobiles? I though we believed in free enterprise in this country.

And yes, I understand that the law prohibiting a manufacturer from selling directly to customers went into effect in 1981 with Act 118 of 1981:

"445.1574 Prohibited conduct by manufacturer.
Sec. 14.
(1) A manufacturer shall not do any of the following: […] (i) Sell any new motor vehicle directly to a retail customer other than through its franchised dealers, unless the retail customer is a nonprofit organization or a federal, state, or local government or agency. This subdivision does not prohibit a manufacturer from providing information to a consumer for the purpose of marketing or facilitating the sale of new motor vehicles or from establishing a program to sell or offer to sell new motor vehicles through the manufacturer's new motor vehicle dealers."

So, once again, we see the government setting up conditions under which IT may make purchases at greatly reduced prices, while REQUIRING its citizens to pay inflated prices.

If the ability of the government to make purchases at greatly reduce prices is a good thing, and government supposedly exists for the benefit of THE PEOPLE, then it stands to reason that THE PEOPLE would ALSO benefit from a reduction in the price of automobiles.

Ebola and the (Non-existent) Travel Ban….

Does everyone remember back in April when the administration initiated a travel ban to Israel because of the potential of a terrorist attack?

 Yet this same administration refuses to initiate a travel ban to and from ebola-stricken countries, even though the WHO estimates that ebola will be claiming up to 10,000 victims a week in Africa very soon. 

The administration doesn't need commercial airlines to get resources into and out of the hot zone. Initiate the ban before we truly DO have a crisis on our hands here in the US.

Mr. President: Veto the Upcoming UN Resolution...

Post by American Center for Law and Justice.

MSNBC and Melissa Harris Perry on Point in the Attack on the Family….

MSNBC host Melissa Harris Perry has built her reputation attacking the family. 

She began one rant on an MSNBC show by asking the question, 

"When does life begin? I submit that the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents, a powerful feeling - but not science," When Does Life Begin. 

She explicitly states her belief that a fertilized egg is a "thing" that must be "… turn[ed] into a person." 

“But the reality is that if THIS [as she holds up a marble-sized object representing the fertilized egg] TURNS INTO A PERSON, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have THIS THING turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?” 

In an advertisement for MSNBC's Lean Forward campaign, a campaign intended to establish their identity as a "progressive" news outlet (As MSNBC posted about itself in a news release, "[…] With the addition of left-leaning anchors including Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, the network increasingly became identified with a rising tide of progressive political sentiment. The new branding campaign, while not overtly political, implicitly embraces the network’s progressive identity,"  MSNBC Lean Forward Campaign), she has this to say:

"… so part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities….," Kids are Community Property.

So "this thing" is something that can be disposed of at any time the mother chooses. But once "this thing" "turns into a person," it suddenly becomes community property.

That just doesn't fly. The Psalms tell us that God created us in the womb with a purpose to be fulfilled even before our body parts had been formed. In Proverbs, Solomon directs many of his instructions to "my son," not "our communal son."

There is a full-court press against the family, and MSNBC is proud to be leading the charge.

The Second Amendment - The Teeth Of The Constitution...

I'm betting that there are a lot of middle eastern countries that wish they had the same individual right to own firearms as a deterrent to terrorists that we have here in the US. 

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is credited (mistakenly - no one knows where this quote actually originated) with saying, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." While the quote may be misattributed, the truth underlying it is accurate. 

We have historically had two barriers to terrorism in the US - oceans and the private ownership of firearms that make the unorganized citizen militia a reality. Air travel has largely nullified the first barrier; that makes the remaining barrier that much more important. 

The sculpture in this photo was displayed this year during the Art Prize competition in Grand Rapids, MI, in an effort to get people to focus on gun control. I changed the background and now display this as a reminder of how critical the Second Amendment is to maintaining our Constitutional rights and defending them from ALL enemies - foreign and domestic.

Kerry: Preventing The Fall and Massacre Of Kobani Not Part Of Our Plan...

• Proverbs 24:11-12 (ESV) says, 

• "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter.  If you say, 'Behold, we did not know this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?  Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, AND WILL HE NOT REPAY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS WORK?"

• "...US Secretary of State, John Kerry, suggested that preventing the fall of Kobani was not a strategic US objective. 'As horrific as it is to watch in real time what is happening in Kobani, you have to step back and understand the strategic objective,' he said," Kerry: Fall of Kobani horrible, preventing it not part of our plan

• ISIS is estimated to have about 30,000 troops (isis-may-have-30000-fighters.  
• 
  
• 30,000.
• 
  
• When we took on Iraq, their troop strength was 650,000 - TWENTY-ONE TIMES what ISIS is reputed to have.
• 
  
• Tragedies such as these were - and are - preventable.  The intelligence and military communities have been warning the executive branch that this was coming for a couple of years - and the president chose to skip out on those briefings.
• 
  
• Mr. President, El De'ot Yahweh (God of Knowledge - the All-Knowing God)  knows what you did and did not know - and WHY you didn't know it.
• 
  
• "… WILL HE NOT REPAY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS              WORK?"

Rules For Journalists Operating In ISIS-held Territory Include ISIS Citizenship….

Any journalist covering ISIS from inside their territory (I refuse to recognize them as a caliphate) must swear allegiance and loyalty to al-Baghdadi and is considered to be a subject of ISIS according to rules released by ISIS. They are as follows:

"1: Correspondents must swear allegiance to the Caliph [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi ... they are subjects of the Islamic State and, as subjects, they are obliged to swear loyalty to their imam.

2: Their work will be under the exclusive supervision of the ISIS media offices.

3: Journalists can work directly with international news agencies (such as Reuters, AFP and AP), but they are to avoid all international and local satellite TV channels. They are forbidden to provide any exclusive material or have any contact (sound or image) with them in any capacity.

4: Journalists are forbidden to work in any way with the TV channels placed on the blacklist of channels that fight against Islamic countries (such as Al-Arabiya, Al Jazeera and Orient). Violators will be held accountable.

5: Journalists are allowed to cover events in the governorate with either written or still images without having to refer back to the ISIS media office. All published pieces and photos must carry the journalist’s and photographer’s names.

6: Journalists are not allowed to publish any reportage (print or broadcast) without referring to the ISIS media office first.

7: Journalists may have their own social media accounts and blogs to disseminate news and pictures. However, the ISIS media office must have the addresses and name handles of these accounts and pages.

8: Journalists must abide by the regulations when taking photos within ISIS territory and avoid filming locations or security events where taking pictures is prohibited.

9: ISIS media offices will follow up on the work of local journalists within ISIS territory and in the state media. Any violation of the rules in place will lead to suspending the journalist from his work, and he will be held accountable.

10: The rules are not final and are subject to change at any time depending on the circumstances and the degree of cooperation between journalists and their commitment to their brothers in the ISIS media offices.

11: Journalists are given a license to practice their work after submitting a license request at the ISIS media office."

Any American journalist, therefore, who continues to operate in ISIS-held territory, has forsworn his/her American citizenship according to these rules.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/07/rules-journalists-syria-11-territory-media_n_5945012.html

Close The Chicago Locks For Good….

Silver carp DNA has now been detected in the Kalamazoo River, 20 miles INLAND from Lake Michigan.  Asian carp have now crossed Lake Michigan and begun infiltrating our rivers and streams.

There has been too much talk and not enough action.  Officials have tried to persuade Michiganders that asian carp from Chicago posed no risk to our fisheries.

Once again, they have been proven wrong.

Enough talk.

Close the Chicago Locks before the entire Lake Michigan fishery is destroyed.

Asian carp DNA detected in the Kalamazoo River

For those who live around and fish in Michigan waters, these are the fish for which you need to be looking:

Silver Carp

Juvenile Silver Carp

Bighead Carp

Juvenile Bighead Carp

Northern Snakehead

NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE FOLLOWING:

Bowfin

Burbot

Mudpuppy

Even Pro-Gun Control Author Understands The Danger Of The "Gun Free" Zone….

The following is from an article written by Jason Stadtlander, a writer for HuffPo and a supporter of gun control.  While I disagree with his stance on gun control, I heartily agree with his conclusions regarding so-called "gun free" zones:

"A ban on guns is not gun control. I am for gun control -- that is, controlling who can have guns and who cannot. I do believe that individuals who own guns should go through a screening, licensure and perhaps even medical-history evaluation, but this is not the same as banning guns or preventing ownership of guns.

Alexander Hamilton once said, "The constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

"Peaceable citizens" is the key term here. We are maintaining a level of peace by providing knowledge that there are repercussions for certain actions… As long as guns exist in the world, criminals will always have guns -- but we law-abiding citizens have the power to choose whether we will hold our own strength against them.

"[…]Casting aside emotion, let's think logically about this. What good comes from preventing people who can legally own guns -- those who have passed federal, state and local licensure and are required to pass a gun-safety course -- from bringing concealed firearms into a public building?

Are the violent people who walk in with the intent to shoot up a Panera Bread, a Walmart, a Target or a Kroger grocery store going to care what prohibitive gun policies are in place? And at the front end, will these intent-to-kill people have a license to carry to begin with?

In our legitimate desire to ward off disastrous gun violence, might we actually be preventing the only people who stand a chance at stopping said criminals from, at the very least, avoiding a worst-case scenario? Yes, the authorities can be called, and perhaps there would even be a police officer on site, but might people who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon be our first critical line of defense in such desperate situations?

[…] Ask yourself this question: If you were a criminal, had a bone to pick with society or were mentally unstable and wanted to snuff out as many innocent lives as possible, would you walk into a McDonald's where there is no ban on guns and you might get shot, or would you set your sights on a Panera Bread, where you do not need to worry about resistance of any kind?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-p-stadtlander/gun-bans-a-safe-haven-for_b_5792314.html

Mr. Stadtlander has come full circle to the observation made by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, Thoughts on Defensive War :

"[….] but since some will not, others dare not lay them [arms] 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."

Mr. W. Rodney McMullen, CEO, Kroger Company: Thank You!

W. Rodney McMullen
Chief Executive Officer
Kroger Co.
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-1100

Dear Mr. McMullen:

We in the pro-Second Amendment community understand that Kroger has attracted some very unwanted attention and found itself in a most unenviable position with regard to the debate over Second Amendment rights.

Michael Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDAGSA) has essentially demanded that you declare your premises to be “gun free” (let us be perfectly clear: acquiescence to their demand for an open carry ban WILL eventually lead to a further demand that you declare yourselves to be COMPLETELY “gun free”), and threatened to boycott your Michigan locations.

Now, Senators Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, and Dianne Feinstein are abusing their elected positions in the US Senate to force Kroger to implement an open carry ban, with the same eventual goal as MDAGSA.  The unspoken threats implicit in their recent letter to you are clearly understood.

Mr. McMullen, I applaud the courage and wisdom you displayed in your response to MDAGSA:

“...That is why our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to urge customers to be respectful of others while shopping to feed their families. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores."

Thank you for this stand.  Please know that I will do my best to patronize your stores and encourage others with whom I am acquainted to do so as well.  Your response is the epitome of the common sense for which MDAGSA and other such organizations claim to be searching; you have shown them what it looks like.

Sincerely,

Three Democratic Senators Turn Up The Heat On Kroger To Ban Open Carry Of Firearms...

Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are trying to use their positions in theUS Senate to force Kroger to implement an open carry ban. Kroger, as we all know, politely told Moms Demand to pound sand, trusting their customers to be responsible.

That didn't set well with senators from gun control states. Here is the full text of the letter they wrote to the CEO of Kroger:

W. Rodney McMullenChief Executive OfficerKroger Co.1014 Vine StreetCincinnati, Ohio 45202-1100

Dear Mr. McMullen:

We write today to urge you to adopt a policy that would prohibit the open carry of firearms in your stores. In doing so, Kroger would be sending an important message about your commitment to the safety of your employees and customers. This would follow similar actions by other retailers, such as Chipotle, Sonic, Chili’s, Target, and most recently Panera Bread.

As you know, gun extremists in several states have exploited the current Kroger policy by flaunting assault rifles as they shopped. These bizarre displays must be terrifying for Kroger employees and customers. There is simply no reason why someone would need an AK-47 to purchase milk, bread, or other basic necessities at a grocery store. However, the current Kroger policy allows for these demonstrations.

Kroger has a proud history as an innovator within the retail industry. Kroger changed the grocery business by establishing in-store bakeries and deciding to sell meats in the 1900s. These two improvements changed the way Americans shopped – not just in Kroger stores but in all grocery stores as they became commonplace. The company has an opportunity to again be a leader. A change by Kroger, the nation’s largest supermarket retailer, could have a similar effect by setting a new customer-friendly standard that other supermarkets follow. 

Again, we urge you to implement a new policy that would prevent the open carry of guns in your stores. Thank you in advance for your consideration and we look forward to your prompt response

Sincerely,

Christopher S. Murphy 
United States Senator

Richard Blumenthal
United States Senator

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Press Release | Press Releases | Newsroom | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut (emphasis added)

So we have three sitting senators first classifying firearms carriers as extremists who are, in their minds, brandishing firearms. Their assumption is that what terrifies THEM MUST terrify EVERYONE ELSE as well, even though there have been no such reports associated with these open carry events. Finally, they try to force a "may issue" mindset on Kroger, indicating that one must have a reason to carry and implying that those who choose to do so, since these three senators have already declared such a need to be nonexistent, must be paranoid. Of course, they conveniently ignore recent attacks at Kroger locations across the nation that the police were entirely unable to prevent, while, in at least one incident, a firearms carrier DID prevent an armed robbery.

Let's be clear about one other thing: what is NOT said in this letter is perhaps even more important than what IS said - and Kroger's CEO knows it. I worked as a legislative researcher in the Michigan House of Reps for a legislator who is a principled, Christian man who does not engage in these kinds of tactics - but I saw those who did. This letter from three sitting senators is at once an implicit promise of future favor if Kroger gives in to their demand, and an implicit threat to their future corporate well-being if they do not. We need to turn up the heat on those in the senate who support the Second Amendment to send their OWN letter of support to Kroger.

Michigan Bill Would Require Epipens In Restaurants, Bars...

"'I just thinks this gives the freedom for individual businesses and organizations and groups to be able to provide for a lifesaving device in case there's an emergency, if they feel that's something in the best interest of the organization,' said Posthumus Lyons… Name brand EpiPens typically cost around $300. BUSINESSES WOULD PAY FOR THE DEVICES, meaning no cost would be passed on to the state or taxpayers," emphasis added.

Since when does an UNFUNDED LEGAL REQUIREMENT equate to FREEDOM?

So the MI legislature is considering an UNFUNDED MANDATE on businesses, REQUIRING them to provide Epipens and procure state-approved training and storage AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, indemnifying them against prosecution, but this same legislature will not consider legislation that would prohibit businesses from discriminating against the Second Amendment RIGHTS of individuals to carry their lawfully-owned firearms for their own protection (think about pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who used his lawfully-owned firearm to prevent an armed robbery of the Walgreens in Benton Harbor where he was employed - and then was fired for doing so), prohibit insurance companies from employing discriminatory insurance premiums against businesses that would otherwise permit lawful carry (such as has been experienced by the Original Gun and Knife Show), or indemnify businesses against the lawful application of lethal force in self-defense situations - all of which have been provided to the citizens of numerous other states under their laws - because they don't want to "burden" businesses or infringe on their "rights," or, more to the point, because they are deathly afraid of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which opposes such legislation.

http://woodtv.com/2014/09/24/proposed-law-would-require-epipens-in-bars-restaurants/

Administration Suing Wisconsin Company For Requiring Employees To Be Able To Speak English….

"… the Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on national origin, which includes the linguistic characteristics of a national origin group," Administration sues Wisconsin company. 

No one is denying an individual the right to speak their own language while at work, but the ability to speak english is essential in most companies in order to facilitate communication between the employee and the employer.  

This action, however, appears to be part of the administration's "job creation" package.  Every company employing non-english speakers will have no choice but to employ interpreters for every language spoken by their employees, as well as print multi-language copies of all employment documents (applications, employee handbooks, etc.), in order to preserve their "civil rights.

"...But we are equally opposed to any discrimination against or for a man because of his creed. We demand that all CITIZENS, Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, shall have fair treatment in every way; that all alike shall have their rights guaranteed them.
The mighty tide of immigration to our shores has brought in its train much of good and much of evil; and whether the good or the evil shall predominate depends mainly on whether these newcomers do or do not throw themselves heartily into our national life, cease to be Europeans, and become Americans like the rest of us. More than a third of the people of the Northern States are of foreign birth or parentage. An immense number of them have become completely Americanized, and these stand on exactly the same plane as the descendants of any Puritan, Cavalier, or Knickerbocker among us, and do their full and honorable share of the nation’s work. But where immigrants, or the sons of immigrants, do not heartily and in good faith throw in their lot with us, but cling to the speech, the customs, the ways of life, and the habits of thought of the Old World which they have left, they thereby harm both themselves and us. If they remain alien elements, unassimilated, and with interests separate from ours, they are mere obstructions to the current of our national life, and, moreover, can get no good from it themselves. In fact, though we ourselves also suffer from their perversity, it is they who really suffer most. It is an immense benefit to the European immigrant to change him into an American citizen. To bear the name of American is to bear the most honorable titles; and whoever does not so believe has no business to bear the name at all, and, if he comes from europe, the sooner he goes back there the better… From his own standpoint, it is beyond all question the wise thing for the immigrant to become thoroughly Americanized. Moreover, from our standpoint, we have a right to demand it. We freely extend the hand of welcome and of good-fellowship to every man, no matter what his creed or birthplace, who comes here honestly intent on becoming a good United States citizen like the rest of us; but we have a right, and it is our duty, to demand that he shall indeed become so…," Pres. Theodore Roosevelt, True Americanism (emphasis added).

Have An Introspective Constitution Day….

An Open Letter To President Obama Regarding War On ISIS:

Mr. President,

The debate continues to rage regarding the president's authority to declare war and deploy troops.  As has come to be expected, you have said you will authorize war on your own authority as president.

The problem is, you do not HAVE authority as the President to declare war.

The following is excerpted from remarks made by Rep. Albert Gallatin during the debate that took place in the House of Representatives between April 20 through May 10, 1798 regarding a bill - passed by the Senate - that would have delegated authority to raise a "provisional" army to the president: 

"This bill goes to authorize the President to raise an army. He did not know what was meant by a provisional army. He did not find anything said in the Constitution of the United States relative to provisional armies, or of giving the President power to raise armies. He found mentioned there no other kind of defense than an army and militia. It says Congress shall raise and support an army, not provide for the raising of an army; but this bill is to enable the President of the United States to raise an army. The Constitution has declared that the raising of an army is placed in Congress, but this bill goes to declare that this power shall be vested by law in the President. That is the principle of the bill; and if Congress were once to admit the principle that they have a right to vest in the President powers placed in their hands by the Constitution that instrument would become a piece of blank paper. If it were to be admitted in one case, it would be admitted in another; and, if admitted in one department, it might be admitted in another. The power to raise taxes, he said, is contained in the same article of the Constitution which says Congress shall raise armies. And if they could delegate the power of raising an army to the President, why not do the same with respect to the power of raising taxes? He supposed the House would next hear of provisional taxes, to be raised if the President shall think fit. Mr. G., therefore, thought the principle inadmissible. If the circumstances of the union required an army, let it be raised; if not, he wished to give no power to raise it--especially, as the President, if he saw necessity, could call Congress together, if he should find that the circumstances of the country required it," emphasis added.

Mr. Gallatin's remarks are consistent with the law as laid down in the United States Constitution, Article I Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power…
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…"

As Mr. Gallatin so correctly observed, If you see a necessity to authorize war, YOU CAN "…CALL CONGRESS TOGETHER…" AS REQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND THEY WILL AUTHORIZE IT.

September 11, 2014….

"A militia is everywhere; whereas a standing army may be very distant from any attack which may take place."

Albert Gallatin.

Stay Frosty.

Brady Center Files Suit On Behalf Of Officer's Widow Against Gun Shop That Sold Firearm Used To Killed Officer….

So the Brady Center has roped in the widow of an officer who lost his life in the line of duty to sue the gun shop that sold the firearm that was used to kill her husband (Brady Center sues gun shop).

Only problem is, the firearm was sold in what is known as a "straw purchase."

In other words, a person who was legally able to buy a firearm, representing him-/herself as the actual purchaser of the firearm, made the  purchase on behalf of someone else who was legally ineligible to do so.  They lied to the gun shop and filled out the NICS 4473 background check form, successfully passing the background check.

Anyone else see the problem here?

The gun shop completed a transaction in good faith.  That is the critical key: good faith.  According to Lawyers.com, good faith, which derives from the latin, bona fides, means the following:

"… honesty, fairness, and lawfulness of purpose 
: absence of any intent to defraud, act maliciously, or take unfair advantage…

… In section 1-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code good faith is defined generally as «honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned." Article 2 of the U.C.C. says «good faith in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade." Similarly, Article 3 on negotiable instruments defines good faith as «honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.."

The Brady Campaign contends that the fact that the buyer had completed multiple firearms transactions in a relatively short period of time should have alerted the firearms dealer that they were faced with a straw purchaser, but in no arena of endeavor is the fact of multiple transactions evidence or proof of malicious or criminal intent.  The firearms dealer did everything that is required of them under federal and state laws to insure that the firearm was being purchased by someone who was legally eligible to make such a purchase.  They had no reason to believe that the purchaser was conducting the transaction on behalf of an ineligible individual.

But only God is omniscient (all-knowing).

The Brady Center cares nothing about justice; they care about their agenda.  Their agenda is to disarm everyone, and they will use an emotionally fragile widow to build an emotionally based prosecution with the goal of 1) shutting down this particular gun shop and 2) attempting to pass even more restrictive gun control laws - all of which have been proven to be completely ineffective in preventing criminals from acquiring firearms.

Let me put it this way: according to the logic upon which this case is based, one should be able to sue the car dealership that sells a vehicle to someone who gives that vehicle to an ineligible person who then drives it, causing an accident that injures or kills a family member, or the pet shop owner who sells an animal to an individual who then allows the animal to run freely, during which activity the animal attacks and mauls or kills the paperboy.  Because merchants are not omniscient, there is no way they can know how their merchandise will be used or abused by the customer.

Courts have consistently ruled that firearms dealers that demonstrate good faith in firearms transactions cannot be held criminally or civilly liable in such cases, but that isn't stopping the Brady Center from trying yet again to ruin a business owner.

Perhaps it is time for the Brady Campaign to formally adopt as its motto, "Rerum agendarum ordinemante omnia," the agenda before all else.

Kroger Employees/Customer Attacked As Moms Demand Gunsense Launches Anti-firearms Carry Ad Campaign...

OK, folks, I don't normally post stuff like this, but people need to see - and hear - what is really happening. 

There has been no national media attention paid to this unprovoked attack that took place recently at a Memphis, TN, Kroger.  Now, remember, just a week before this took place, Moms Demand Gunsense began an ad campaign aimed at pressuring Kroger and other companies across the nation to prohibit lawful firearms carry on their premises. Less than a week after this ad campaign was launched,  dozens of black young people attacked white employees/customers in what they called a "fan mob." One young man was kicked into unconsciousness before being having large pumpkins (estimated to weigh more than 20 lbs) thrown at his head, and another employee was thrown to the ground; an elderly white customer was beaten in the parking lot moments later. The girl getting the video only begins calling for help after she realizes that the young man she has just laughingly watched being attacked isn't getting up, a minute-and-a-half into her video.

BTW, contrary to the title of this video, this isn't a fight - it is an out-and-out attack on unarmed, innocent individuals.  When you add the "knockout game" to this mix, you can see that things have gotten to serious levels.

Warning - strong language.

S. Truett Cathy, 1921 - 2014

Thank you, sir, for standing true to our Savior and His Word!

Moms Demand Implements New Ad Series To Pressure Companies To Prohibit Open Firearm Carry….

Moms Demand (yes, they are maintaining a separate identity since merging with Everytown) is running the following series of ads in newspapers across the nation in an effort to force Kroger and other companies to prohibit open carry:

Each ad presents the same question: Kroger won't let you in their stores with/without shirt, skateboard, or shoes, so why should they allow a loaded gun?

Well, let's see, Moms Demand: of the four scenarios you portray, inappropriate (or no) attire, a skateboard, eating, and carrying a firearm (at least they portrayed the firearms carriers accurately, with fingers off the trigger), which one is a right explicitly protected by the Constitution?

Good call, Kroger!

Note: this focus by Moms Demand on ARs is completely out of line with reality; in logical terms, they are employing the logical fallacy reductio ad absurdum to the open carry debate - making an absurd reduction to portray all carriers as AR carrying, potential nut jobs. While I have seen numerous people legally openly carrying handguns, I have never in my 50 years, even in my place of employment where I sell firearms (including ARs), actually seen someone enter a store or restaurant with an AR. Despite the headlines capitalizing on open carry events in which some owners choose to show up with ARs, the reality is that encountering someone in a public venue carrying one is exceedingly rare.