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.

The Administration And The Bible….

OK - first, VP Biden gets on TV this AM and tells us that muslim extremists are going to hell, because that's where we are going to chase them and send them; that is where they are going to reside (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/biden-warns-we-will-chase-isis-gates-hell-n194931).

Now Sec. Kerry is claiming that we have a biblical duty to protect majority muslim countries against "climate change" because they are "most vulnerable" to it (Kerry: Scripture Says U.S. Should Protect Muslim Countries Against Global Warming | Washington Free Beacon).

Perhaps if they spent a little more of their time and resources actually BUILDING their societies instead of destroying them (and everyone else), they wouldn't BE "most vulnerable" to non-existent "climate change"!

BTW - what ever happened to the "separation of church and state" about which the administration is supposedly so wild? We can't invoke the name and Word of God as support for our pro-life beliefs when confronted with reprehensible policy, but they can turn around and invoke God's name and Word as justification to support the very people who want to destroy us and Israel.

ISIS Is Throwing A War - Are We Attending?

In the aftermath of the Sotloff beheading, Pres. Obama finally said this morning that we would deal with ISIS. That is, we are going to try to make them a "manageable problem." Not destroy them, we are going to work with regional partners to try to contain them in Syria. But we're not going to go to war with them or try to destroy them.

The administration's approach reminds me of a line from Tom Clancy's novel, Executive Orders: "'The UIR is going to throw a war,' J-3 thought, 'and nobody's going to come.'" Executive orders is about a newly formed islamic caliphate, too, that attacks the US. That would be a good read for Pres. Obama.

There is no way to make this a "manageable problem." As long as even a few of these people survive, they will again recruit a following and make war. I am not a war hawk, but we have been operating with this same mindset toward the middle east for decades. We go in, pacify, leave, and then watch as a new crop of extremists rises. A show of force will never work. Pacification will never work. They operate on a "destroy or be destroyed" premise. Containing them in Syria, as the president has suggested, only accomplishes two goals: it gives the president the justification he has wanted for the last year, since the Syrian civil war began, to enter Syria, and it concentrates ISIS on the border of Israel - their REAL target.

As it stands, we are likely going to have to deal with ISIS both OVER THERE AND HERE in the very near future.

FBI: ISIS Is Here...

"In one message Amreeki Witness mocks the curfew police have imposed in Ferguson to bring an end to the disorder, saying: 'We IS guys hate you for your freedom, eh? Just like that freedom uplifting curfew in #Ferguson? Wake up, or they'll never let you outside.'

"As the social media campaign began to take hold, with dozens of radical Islamists commenting on the Ferguson protests, Amreeki Witness tweeted: 'May be time to organize the Muslims in America upon haqq and mobilize to #Ferguson. Defend the oppressed, start jihad here.'

"The message attracted a large response, with one Islamist calling himself Amarka Al-Ahlam responding: 'Preach, brother. We must organize brigades in preparation for the oncoming storm. #FergusonUnderIS #JihadinFerguson.'"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728624/How-democracy-treating-guys-ISIS-militants-social-media-encourage-Ferguson-protesters-embrace-Islamic-extremism.html

September 11, 2014….

Mr. President:  NEVER AGAIN.