On "Arming" Teachers....

The New York Times article trumpets, "Florida public safety commission votes 13-1 to recommend arming teachers".

Nothing is further from the truth, and it highlights the lengths to which the media will go to prejudice the public against lawful firearms carry.

The commission did not recommend "arming" teachers, which would have the effect of making firearms carry part of their job, it recommended allowing teachers who wish to carry to do so. Many of these teachers already have pistol carry permits and carry off the job without causing any of the unbridled bloodshed or collateral damage the gun control lobby have been hysterically threatening for years. 

In fact, contrary to another widely- and dearly-held gun control myth, lawful firearms carrriers are better trained to accurately use their firearms than most officers. A national study of officer involved shootings found that officers are only able to hit a moving target at point blank range (2-10 feet) FOURTEEN PERCENT of the time, while civilians can do so SIXTY-EIGHT PERCENT of the time. You are more than FIVE-AND-A-HALF TIMES more likely to be shot accidentally by an officer than by a lawfully carrying civilian. 

The fact remains that civilians spend more time honing their skills than many officers who spend just enough time at the range to meet basic qualification standards. 

I hope Florida will act on this recommendation and permit teachers who wish to carry to do so.

Rep. Swalwell To Firearms Owners: "... The government has nukes...."

"... Swalwell sniped back, saying the U.S. military is more equipped to take guns than those who are standing pat with their Second Amendment right to bear arms..."

I have news for the gentleman from California: there are far more true patriots in the US military who understand that their oath is, first and foremost, to the Constitution of the United States of America, who will refuse to obey such an unConstitutional order, than he realizes.

Add to THEIR numbers the millions of veterans who believe that their oath to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE.

Add to THOSE numbers the myriad of law enforcement officers who ALSO take THEIR oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies seriously, who would also refuse to carry out orders to forcibly confiscate lawfully owned firearms, and the veterans of law enforcement who ALSO, like myself, believe their oath to defend the Constitution has no expiration date.

So this man, who fights the idea of sending our troops to our border to stem the flow of illegals because "... it’s also costing you 200 million dollars...," (the actual cost is closer to $77 million) has NO PROBLEM spending FIFTEEN BILLION DOLLARS  - AND using the US military AND its nuclear arsenal - to forcibly remove LAWFULLY OWNED firearms from UNITED STATES CITIZENS.

As I have observed in the past, if legislators like this one are relying on military force, even threatening the use of nuclear weapons, to confiscate firearms in the US, they will have to bring in the UN to make it happen.

And then they really WILL have a war on their hands.

Admiral Yamamoto didn't really say it, but it is still very true: you cannot invade the mainland United States; there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

This legislator - AND EVERY OTHER LEGISLATOR STANDING WITH HIM IN SUPPORT OF HIS STATEMENT - should be immediately impeached, arrested, and tried for sedition.

One Race, One Blood...

I am so tired of white folk calling police on black folk whose only crime is doing something while black.

President Trump....

Mr. President, 

Our Marines recently concluded this humanitarian exercise in the Philippines using amphibious landing craft.  We now face a humanitarian crisis in Florida as a result of Hurricane Michael.  It is time to put this exercise into action for our own citizens.  

Roads are gone.  

Utilities are down.  

Medical facilities are inoperable. 

Nations across the world have benefitted from the speedy humanitarian responses of our military in the aftermath of disasters.  Now, the people who paid the taxes that made those exercises possible are in need themselves.  Activating the national guard is a start, but as the saying goes, charity begins at home. If we can afford to use our military to address disasters abroad, then we owe a similar speedy response to our own people.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=111365346425573&id=323772930193

Ojibway Correctional Facility...

The Michigan Department of Corrections is planning to close the Ojibway Correctional Facility in Marinesco, MI, on an effort to save $19 million.

 This region is already financially depressed - and has been for generations. It isn't just about high unemployment numbers, this area has one of the highest poverty levels in the entire US. Over the decades, they have absorbed loss after loss: the loss of the mining industry with all of its attendant enterprises and job shops, a dwindling lumber industry, and now these folks are expected to absorb a $70+ million dollar hit to their economy: $21 million lost wages, $50-$55 million in other prison related expenses.  This may not be a significant number to folks in Lansing or other large, downstate communities, but to those in Marinesco, Bessemer, Wakefield, and other local communities that support this facility, this is a devestating figure.

And it isn't just about moving jobs 250 miles to Newberry.  A number of the facility employees are ALREADY driving substantial distances from homes in Hurley, WI, Bessemer, Ironwood, and other distant communities.  Promising to help some transfer to other facilities involves more than additional distance. These people have families enrolled in local schools; that translates to a loss of state aid to local school districts, leading to the loss of teachers and staff, possibly requiring the shuttering of local schools and requiring costly and time-consuming bussing to other districts.  These people also own homes that will have to be sold.  How do you propose to transfer employees to a new community, taking on new mortgages or rents, while continuing to pay mortgages on homes that, in this area, will remain on the market for months or YEARS before selling, if ever? 

This facility is one of the best-run facilities in the state.  It is also one of the newer facilities, and it went through extensive upgrades and renovations just a few years ago.  Even the MDOC has to admit that the prisoners housed in this facility are model prisoners, being well-prepared to re-enter society as productive citizens (https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/08/14/ojibway-correctional-facility-michigan-prison/985771002/).  Moving prisoners to Jackson, on the other hand, as has already happened, or other such facilities that are not nearly as well run and that house prisoner populations that are far more violent is counter-productive and will lead to higher rates of rescidivism among the former inmates of Ojibway.   YOU claim that keeping these prisoners in the Ojibway facility would be vengeful; I believe the available data prove otherwise.  It is in their best interest to continue to be housed here.

Past analysis regarding the possible closure of this facility concluded that doing so was untenable to the local communities due to the disparate - even catastrophic - effect the closure would have on them.  The state chose on the basis of these studies to keep it open in the recent past, and while it might not be intended to be a jobs program, neither is it morally or ethically supportable to locate such facilities in depressed areas where they become integrated into the local economies and then rip them out without regard for the catastrophic effect such actions will have.

There are older, more poorly run facilities that are far better candidates for closure than the Ojibway Correctional Facility. 

Why Care About the Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

The Preamble establishes the reason for the existence of a given document. It establishes context of the document and is foundational to properly understand and interpret the document. It gives us the Who, the What, and the Why behind the creation of the document.

The Preamble to the American Bill of Rights, for example, details why the US Founding Fathers believed the document to be necessary and states the thesis of the document:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

Who called for its authorship? The representatives of the States.

Why did they believe it to be necessary? “… to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers… [and to] extend[ing] the ground of public confidence in the Government..” They believed the US Constitution didn’t go far enough to protect the God-given rights of citizens, especially in light of the creation of a standing army, which several of the Founders had previously observed, was, historically, always eventually used as a weapon against the people.

For what purpose was the document written according to the Preamble? To add “… further declaratory and restrictive clauses…” to our Constitution. In other words, the limit the authority and reach of the US federal government.

If you take the resulting Amendments to the Constitution that comprise the Bill of Rights out of this context, you can justify alternate understandings.

So, for instance, the US courts have concluded that the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," applies to a standing army. But if the bill of Rights was intended to restrict the government and limit its authority, how can this be? The standing army must follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and carry out the wishes of the federal government. In what way does this restrict the government? It doesn’t. So given the context established by the Preamble, the Second Amendment must, of necessity, apply to another entity - the Citizen Militia. The Citizen Militia exists to act as a counter-balance to the federal government, to act if the government becomes tyrannical.

By taking the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” out of the context established by the Preamble, courts have determined that the government IS permitted to conduct warrantless surveillance of our citizens. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to make it more difficult for the government to conduct searches, surveillance, and seizure - not less. So given the context established by the Preamble, there is no enumerated right or exception under which the government is permitted to conduct ANY kind of search or surveillance on citizens unless ALL of the requirements outlined in the Fourth Amendment are met.

These are just two examples.

The Preamble, then, is critical to a proper understanding of the resultant document; ignore it, and anything can be justified.

9-11, 2018...

Never forget.

Conversation With My State Senator's Office Re: His Sponsorship Of The Unconstitutional National Popular Vote Compact....

Just had a very HEATED conversation with Fred, the gatekeeper in Sen. Hildenbrand's office. I called to make my views known on the bill sponsored by Sen. Hildenbrand regarding the national popular vote compact, and was essentially told that A) I didn't know what I was talking about, and B) my views didn't matter. I asked him about the supposed "fairness" of a scheme that nullifies MICHIGAN votes because states like California issue driver's licenses - and unquestioned VOTING RIGHTS - to millions of illegal aliens. He tried to convince me in one breath that this scheme would insure that every vote in Michigan would count, then told me in the next breath that Michigan electoral votes would go to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. HUH?!  How does this ensure every vote counts if they are simply all given to the person who wins the national popular vote?  That is THROWING AWAY votes.

The national popular vote will concentrate the voting power in the hands of the voters of a few states, disenfranchising smaller states. I was told the Senator doesn't see it this way, that the national popular vote will somehow motivate presidential candidates to visit smaller states to gather their popular votes. No, they have to visit smaller states NOW because THEY NEED EVERY ELECTORAL VOTE THEY CAN GET.

And WHY is he in favor of this scheme? 

Because republicans can't motivate voters to go to the polls, particularly in areas that historically vote heavily democrat. These voters don't think going to the polls will make any difference, I was told. At which point I asked him WHY voters should trust republicans, since they have done nothing but lie to their base. Run on deficit reduction and then pass some of the worst, highest deficit-producing budgets this country has seen in generations. Run on pro-Second Amendment platforms, then pass gun control. The list goes on. I told him the basic problem is a TRUST issue that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, at which point I was informed that the senator doesn't see it that way and is going full steam ahead with the legislation regardless of the feedback he receives.

MI SB 1117, National Popular Vote Compact...

Sen. Hildenbrand, 

I am publicly asking you to withdraw your sponsorship of this unConstitutional scheme! This will destroy our republic, concentrating voting power in the hands of voters from a very few states. 

Remember, sir, it is, under our Constitution, the STATES that elect presidents; the electoral college insures that the STATES are equally represented in elections.  We are not a democracy - never have been.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

  “A Republic, if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin.

If this goes through, we lose our republic.

Gun Free Zone Sign? You First!

When Defense Becomes A Crime....

I had an interesting conversation at work today with a young lady visiting from Sweden.  It's always a bit amusing to see the expression on the faces of people from Europe when they see the hundreds of firearms we have on display, considering that most of them have been outlawed or severely restricted there.

But the conversation turned serious quickly when she said, "I used to be very anti-gun, but with the increase in serious, violent crime in Sweden I have had to change my views."  She went on to tell me that the Swedish government recently sent a booklet to all citizens advising them to prepare for a coming war.  The cause of all the problems that led to her change of view and has the Swedish government telling them to prepare for war?

The influx of muslim illegals.

She is scared, along with so many others, of the rape gangs that prowl the streets (the maximum sentence for rape by members of rape gangs is ONE YEAR, and as she observed, the prisons in Sweden are nothing like those here - they are, quite literally, like hotels with amenities prisoners here would kill for).  And the kicker?  Swedes are prohibited from defending themselves in any way.  Even the use of pepper spray would lead to criminal charges against the VICTIM.  But as she observed, the laws that prevent citizens from purchasing firearms for their own defense do nothing to keep criminal elements from procuring them: three people in her home town were killed this week during a drive-by shooting by attackers armed with fully automatic weapons.

Europeans are beginning to demand access to firearms for their defense.

Britain is considering loosening some of its restrictive firearm laws.

Europeans are finally coming to terms with the fact that their culture is in danger of being destroyed - and their governments are FACILITATING the takeover.

These are the countries anti-firearm organizations like Moms Demand, Brady Foundation, Giffords, and power brokers like Bloomberg, Feinstein, Boxer, and others hold up as the examples WE should be emulating.  I wish they could have the conversation I had today with others like this young lady.

Subway Breakfast Sandwiches and Entitlement...

While millions more Americans than are reflected in the official unemployment numbers are actually unemployed (and have been for several years), this article reflects a basic issue with American workers these days: unless the employer is paying the magical $15/hr and offers banker's hours, they won't take the job.  I see increasing numbers of people lined up by rescue missions and standing on street corners begging for money, something that began long before Trump became president, and yet we continue to see reports like this one bemoaning the the lack of workers.

America is ripe for the implementation of full-up socialism.

http://www.businessinsider.com/subway-breakfast-fails-to-attract-customers-2018-6

A Brief Theology Of Church And Personal Security

With the recent event in Texas, this takes on increased relevance.

Prov. 22:3: "A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions..."

One of the hot button topics of our day is the idea of allowing firearms carry – concealed or otherwise - in churches. For some, this represents the ultimate expression of paranoia. After all, the church is the one place where one should feel safe. For others, the idea of allowing firearms in the church seems to fly in the face of implicit trust in God for our protection.

And yet, while Jesus did in fact teach that there are circumstances under which we turn the other cheek, there is a Biblical basis for armed church and personal security.

Going back to the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 9 details the decision made jointly between King David and the Prophet Samuel to establish a temple guard corps, a select group of men entrusted with the physical security of the tabernacle (and later, the temple), its treasuries, and its utensils. This task was so important that King David reassigned his most trusted guards, the Korahites, from their duties guarding his palace to the protection of the temple. These men guarded the entrances of the House of God to insure both the sanctity of the meeting place and the security of those taking part in the worship activities. They accounted for the utensils used in the worship ceremonies, checking them in and out each day. They guarded the treasury and foodstuffs. So while God is ultimately responsible for the defense of His house, David and Samuel recognized that we live in a fallen world in which God expects us to take those actions that are consistent with security and protection. This is a principle laid out in Proverbs: "The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it." A literal translation of the term, "hides", indicates covering one's self, taking those steps that are consistent with protecting one's self from impending trouble or danger.

OK, but that was the Old Testament. The New Testament tells us to turn the other cheek. Again, this is true - to a point.

As was stated earlier, Jesus did teach that there are circumstances under which turning the other cheek is the most appropriate response. But the same Jesus who gave this teaching also COMMANDED His disciples to arm themselves for their own protection.

Luke 22 gives the account of the hours preceding the crucifixion of Jesus, specifically, the time He spent in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately preceding His arrest. An interesting exchange took place between Jesus and His disciples in verses 35-36:

"And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?"
 They said, "Nothing."
 He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

Notice what isn't - and then what is - covered here.

Jesus began by reminding the disciples that when He sent them out on an earlier missionary quest, everything was to be provided for them by God (Matt. 10:5-10). They were to take nothing with them - no money, knapsack, sandals. Not even their staves. This is significant. The staff wasn't just to assist them in traversing the rugged terrain, it was also a means of defense. The reformer John Knox was known to have been a master of the staff, and he is reputed to have laid out a number of highwaymen during his years of travel. But for the disciples, for their first quest, everything was completely in the hands of God.

With Jesus’ impending death, however, something changed. I don't claim to fully understand why the change was necessary; God is still, ultimately, the one who provides everything, including protection, for us. I simply acknowledge that something changed. As Jesus readied the disciples to live in a world in which He was no longer physically present with them, He gave them a new mandate - with one significant addition. Going forward, they were to make provision for funding, clothing, shoes -- and personal protection, a sword. This last addition was so important that Jesus, the same one who taught us to turn the other cheek at times, COMMANDED His disciples to sell their cloaks if necessary to provide it; the implication seems to be that it was better to be cold than unprotected. His COMMAND had nothing to do with forestalling or repelling His impending arrest and death; the soldiers were already on their way at that moment. and swords weren’t readily obtained by going to the local marketplace. It is significant to note that two of His disciples were already carrying swords prior to his admonition to obtain them (verse 38, “They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’”), and there is no evidence that Jesus EVER reprimanded them for doing so. Jesus understood that He was sending His disciples into a fallen world that was going to go from bad to worse, and that, while God is ultimately in control, there is still a human responsibility to provide for our own defense.

Is God ultimately the one who provides our protection? Absolutely. Did God entrust human government with the responsibility of providing a level of protection? Again, the answer is yes. Romans 13 teaches this clearly. And yet, none of this negates our personal responsibility to provide for the protection of ourselves, our families, and our churches. So while human government continues to diminish the level of protection it provides (no fewer than TEN US Supreme Court decisions affirm that law enforcement has no legal obligation to protect individuals, that their obligation is to society as a whole, and that security is a PERSONAL OBLIGATION), more of that responsibility falls on the individual. Thankfully, we live in a country whose Constitution explicitly recognizes that God has granted us the right to defend ourselves. The right protected by our Constitution to bear arms in our own defense is consistent with the command given by Jesus Himself.

The "Gun Free Zones" Lie....

The NRA: Flip Flop, Inc....

Interesting how the NRA continues to ignore its own contributions to gun control.

In the 1920s the National Revolver Assoc., a branch of the NRA at the time, proposed the first gun control legislation requiring concealed pistol licenses, registration of pistols, making those records available to police, and mandatory waiting periods, just to name a few of the requirements; 9 states passed it.

It is a fact that the NRA helped WRITE the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1938.

In 1939, Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

After the assassination of JFK, NRA Exec.V.P. Franklin Orth came out in support of banning mail order sales of firearms: “We don't think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.”  The fact that the vast majority of firearms purchased this way were used to commit no crimes of any sort was conveniently ignored.

The NRA backed California’s Mulford Act of 1967, banning the carry of loaded weapons in response to Black Panther protests against gun control.

Jim Baker, Director, NRA-ILA, 1993: " We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is what we want."

2018, NRA asks ATF to regulate bump stocks and other parts that have the effect of increasing the rate of fire of a semi auto firearm, a move that could eventually be used to regulate ALL semi auto firearms as the action of the slide to reset the trigger has the effect of speeding up the rate of fire for a semi auto firearm.

The NRA is fully complicit in the development and advancement of gun control even as it fights some aspects of gun control.  I cannot support the NRA.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day 2018