SCOTUS RULES AGAINST CONTRACEPTION MANDATE!!!

The Mass Shootings About Which Few People Speak….

Bloomberg's Everytown cooked statistics to try to show that, since Sandy Hook, there had been 74 "mass school" shootings. Once fact checkers got ahold of those numbers, they determined that the true number was closer to 15 - still far too many, but significantly lower than Bloomberg tried to portray.

But while everyone is talking about school shootings, there is another kind of shooting that is going on and very few people are talking about it - church shootings. 

In 2012 and 2013, there were 139 and 132 (respectively) shootings in churches or on church property, nearly NINE TIMES as many as school shootings, resulting in (respectively) 76 and 45 deaths, those numbers are up from 107/49 in 2011 (Church Shootings). While the number of attacks stayed relative stable from 2012 to 2013, what changed is the number of churches that are allowing their members to carry - which kept the number of deaths down in 2013.

Pastors, I know it goes against everything many of you believe, but it is time to let the sheep defend themselves from the wolves who are attacking, not because of our testimony, but because we are seen as just that - sheep, easy pickings. To quote from Thomas Paine, 

"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," Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War

 To quote from a HIGHER Authority, Jesus the Christ, "...let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one," Luke 22:36b (ESV). King David and the Prophet Samuel thought the temple too important to allow it to be attacked or pilfered; they established the temple guard (1 Chron. 9:17-29).

It is time to let our members defend themselves and their families. Let them carry.

Michigan Police Departments Harassing Lawful Open Carriers….

At some point, police, who are supposed to know the law, have an obligation to begin explaining to people who call in that someone carrying a clearly holstered firearm and exhibiting no illegal behavior is within their rights under Michigan law. There are too many police departments that have instructed public offices to contact them whenever someone simply carrying a clearly holstered firearm shows up - regardless of whether they are actually engaging in illegal behavior (Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, and Ottawa County are just a few examples), and they are rolling units to respond to calls from people who are calling for no other reason than that the sight of a person carrying a clearly holstered frightens them, not because that individuals is doing something illegal.  I regularly see people openly carrying firearms in my line of work. As long as they aren't doing anything that could be considered illegal, I let them go on about their business.  Police are supposed to be ENFORCING THE LAW, not harassing law abiding citizens. 

Somehow we have come to accept the notion (and that is ALL it is) that people have a right to FEEL safe. No where does the Constitution express such a protected right. The U.S. Constitution protects the right to actually BE SAFE via the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the Fourth Amendment right to be safe from illegal searches and seizures, which REQUIRES a duly authorized and issued WARRANT based on PROBABLE CAUSE that someone is engaging in an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY; the Michigan state Constitution contains a similar protection. A situation occurring recently in Kalamazoo, MI, in which a public library called police to report a carrier exercising his right to openly carry a clearly holstered firearm (Police called on lawfully carrying citizen), doesn't even meet the incredibly low standard of a Terry Stop (reasonable suspicion of illegal activity).

Those who say they have a right to feel safe need to read the study commissioned by none other than Obama himself. It clearly concludes that 1) citizens use their firearms with incredible regularity to deter crime and 2) those who do so are actually SAFER from crime than those who do not.

That's why Obama is crying for more money to carry out more "studies." The first study, using objective data, failed to confirm his agenda. He needs to keep digging until he finds someone who will.

In the meantime, it is time for law enforcement to begin enforcing the laws they are sworn to uphold - and explain those rights to otherwise ignorant citizens.

al Qaeda The JV? Tell Us Again, Mr. President….

With al Qaeda troops re-taking cities in Iraq and intending to march on Baghdad (al Qaeda pushing towards Baghdad), tell us again, Mr. President, how they are the JV and can be written off without a second thought (Obama-they're the JV).

And while we're at it, tell us again how the release of five taliban leaders represents no threat to us when the guy spearheading the drive to Baghdad was also caught by American troops, a prisoner for two years, and then ordered released by your administration.  All credible intelligence experts believe he will turn Iraq into the next Afghani safe haven for terrorists - and the US will be at the top of his hit list.

Let's face it, Mr. President, your foreign policy has come apart at the seams, your attempts to prove that islam is our friend has been disproved so many times that only someone with a distinct agenda could still believe it, and you have set up our country to lose more citizen lives at the hands of these madmen and their supporters than any president who preceded you - and that includes Jimmy Carter, who single handedly set the stage for the whole islamic revolution by throwing the Shah of Iran under the bus under the misguided notion that the ayatollah Khomeini was a "holy man" with whom he could work (Islamic revolution a Jimmy Carter legacy).  You have effectively re-energized the islamic revolution, and they are coming back with a ferocity that will be unparalleled in recent history.

By all objective standards, your foreign policy is an abject failure - but then, it's just one of several now, isn't it?

Pres. Obama Praises Australian Gun Confiscation Program: An Open Letter...

June 11, 2014

Pres. Barack Obama
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Mr. President,

While you have praised the Australians for ridding their society of firearms, you obviously haven’t looked to see just what effect such measures actually had:

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect. But the only argument we’ve seen arguing that it caused an increase in murder comes from our anonymous e-mail author.

The claims about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a "small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics" signifying little, Gun Control in Australia.

Britain, another country in which firearms are essentially banned, has similarly seen increases in the use of firearms in crimes:

The Government's latest crime figures were condemned as "truly terrible" by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.

Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.

It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.

"The figures will continue to be dreadful until the Government produces a coherent long term strategy to attack crime at its roots and get police visibly back on our streets."

Gun crime would not be cracked until gangs were broken up and the streets "reclaimed for the honest citizen by proper neighborhood policing", he added,” Gun Crime Soars in England Where Guns Are Banned, Katie Pavlich.

In fact, in the years that have passed since the Aussie government confiscated hundreds of thousands of legally owned firearms, they have been replaced by hundreds of thousands of other firearms that were brought into the country illegally, essentially nullifying the original confiscation, the net result being that the bad guys have the guns, while the law abiding do not.  Additionally, in terms of overall violent crime, Britain's rate of violent crime is FIVE TIMES that of the US - 400 per 100,000 population in the US vs. nearly 2100 per 100,000 in Britain - and in Britain and Canada, nearly half of all burglaries are committed while the residents are in the home, vs only 13% here in the US.

Yeah, Mr. President - those gun control provisions have been real game changers - for the criminals.

The reality is,

those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.
The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.
Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. "There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening," Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say, Associated Press.

In other words, media coverage gives the perception that such events are on the rise, when, in fact, the long term trend indicates otherwise.

Mr. President, the fact is that such measures will stop nothing.  Even in countries in which access to firearms is banned or heavily regulated, those determined to obtain them find ways to do so.

If you are truly as concerned about this issue as you claim to be, then begin addressing the problems that lead to such events that were outlined in the study YOU commissioned.

Lindsey Graham Warns Obama - Do This Again, And We'll Impeach….

Sen. Lindsey Graham has warned the president that if he ever releases Gitmo prisoners again without first coming to Congress, he will be impeached (Graham Warns Obama).

Right.

When is it going to sink in that we no longer believe you or most of your colleagues - in EITHER House?  

You have more than enough to go to impeachment right now, but the House has allowed three previous articles of impeachment to die in committee.  Even the most liberal democrats have expressed outrage at this latest act.  

Strike while the iron is hot - NOW!  

Forget this "next time…" garbage.  You're dealing with an intransigent president, not a naughty 2 year old.

Impeach.

Sen. Boxer Wants the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE To Take Over School Safety...

Sen. Boxer has been a busy woman this session.  She believes local police aren't doing enough to protect schools, so she introduced S. 145, a bill that would get the Dept. Of Defense involved in state school safety matters by deploying NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS to police stations and making them responsible for evaluating school safety:

Save Our Students Act - Authorizes the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to provide funds to states submitting specified plans for using National Guard personnel to: (1) perform administrative functions normally performed by state and local law enforcement personnel in order to enable such law enforcement personnel to be dispatched to keep schools and students safe from violence, (2) help conduct school security assessments and safety plans, and (3) conduct capital improvements related to enhancing school and student safety. S. 145 Summary, S. 145 Text

Yes, she is pushing for the military to take over school safety, INCLUDING LOCAL POLICE FUNCTIONS.

This bill is currently in committees, where, hopefully, it will die.  We need to be contacting our legislators in Washington to insure that this happens; this bills cannot be allowed to leave the committee.

Walgreen's And Individual Self-Defense: A Legally Correct Decision With Immoral Consequences...

I sent the following email to a number of Michigan state legislators in the aftermath of a federal court ruling upholding the firing by Walgreen's of Jeremy Hoven, a Benton Harbor, MI, pharmacist fired for violating Walgreen's "non-escalation" policy by holding off armed gunmen with his own legally owned and carried firearm:

Gentlemen,

I have written to you regarding this proposed piece of legislation before, and I am going to continue doing so - especially in light of the federal court decision upholding Walgreen's right to require its employees to submit themselves to manhandling, abuse, and even lethal force by criminals in order to uphold a "non-escalation" policy that prohibits employees from actively defending themselves.

I want you to take a hard look at the security video footage of what happened the night two armed men stormed the Benton Harbor Walgreens where Pharmacist Hoven was employed, and then tell me that ANY company has the right to require its employees to submit to such criminal acts, to leave their God-given right to self defense at the door if they wish to retain their job.  You will notice that, at approximately the 54 second mark, one of the gunmen jumps over the pharmacy counter and, before Hoven has deployed his own legally owned and carried firearm, fires at least one shot at Hoven, at which point Hoven deploys his own firearm and returns fire, forcing the two criminals to flee for their own lives:




I could include similar videos and photos from DOZENS of such instances that occur each and every year in this country. Numerous people are killed and injured in such attacks because their employer, in the name of "private property rights," forces them to call police and wait twenty or more minutes for them to respond instead of allowing their employees to defend themselves.  The entire incident recorded in this video is over long before most police departments can respond; there is no indicator that the employees of this pharmacy even had time to notify law enforcement of what was taking place until after the criminals left the building.

Any way you look at this, such requirements are morally and ethically wrong.

We MUST restore the individual's right to actively defend him- or herself in such situations.  While it may once have been true that the best advice for such situations was to comply with the demands of criminals in the knowledge that most would leave one unharmed once they got what they wanted, this is no longer the case; too many criminals now kill for the sheer pleasure of it.

I am once again including a copy of the Hoven Self Defense Act.  To continue to shield employers' "right" to prohibit employees from acting in their own defense is immoral and unethical.

And it needs to stop.

Now.

Dr. Carson Shamelessly Co-opts Biblical Account Of Esther To Shore Up Gun Control Argument….

"When it came to 'assault weapons,' Carson said that conservatives who refused to engage in conversations about gun control had an 'infantile attitude.'

The former neurosurgeon pointed to the Bible story of Ester, which he said meant that conservatives needed to know when to compromise for the good of the 'bigger picture',” dr. ben carson on gun rights 

Dr. Carson's misappropriation of the Biblical account of Esther to shore up an argument for gun control is beyond the pale.

The account of Esther has nothing to do with "conservatives need[ing] to know when to compromise for the good of the 'bigger picture',” it has everything to do with the survival of a people and the complete and utter destruction of their enemies using any and all means necessary.  The account of Esther ends with the death of the man who was the architect of a plan to destroy the Jews of the Persian Empire, and the unfettered license for the Jews of the empire to do anything and use any means at their disposal to defend themselves from their attackers:  

"… the king allowed the Jews who were in every city to gather and defend their lives, to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate any armed force of any people or province that might attack them…," Esther 8:11  

No where does the account of Esther indicate that the queen limited the Jews in the kinds of weapons they could use to guarantee their survival because of where they lived, nor did she call on them to find a way to see the "bigger picture" and compromise with their enemies; she didn't characterize the concern for their survival as "infantile."

Dr. Carson's attempt to co-opt the Biblical account of Esther in this manner is shameless and shameful.