September 14, 2015, Day Of Prayer For Law Enforcement….

In the light of increasing attacks on police officers, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has designated September 14, 2015, as a state day of prayer for law enforcement officers.

I suggest that we take this national.

Please set aside some time on this date to pray for our law enforcement officers.

As I make this request, I want to make something very clear: I am painfully aware that there are bad law enforcement officers out there.  They are individuals who SHOULD be held accountable for their crimes.  Sadly, many will not - in THIS lifetime.  But there is coming a day when they, like everyone else, will stand before the judgement seat of Jesus the Christ to give account for their crimes - and HE will not give them a pass (2 Corinthians 5:10).  

In the meantime, attacking police officers - or condoning/excusing those who do - solves nothing.  

In fact, for those who are concerned about the increasing militarization of law enforcement, as am I, it simply reinforces the perceived need to dig in deeper.  More importantly, attacking officers - or condoning/excusing those who do - particularly those who are innocent of any wrongdoing, is an attack on God's appointed servants and, by extension, an attack on God and His created order.

Those officers who faithfully and conscientiously perform their duties every day deserve our prayers and support.  The Bible says they are GOD'S SERVANTS, APPOINTED BY GOD to punish evil (Romans 13:1-5).

Pray for them.

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.

The Ten Most Dangerous Jobs In The U.S...

I have the greatest respect for law enforcement, but as this graphic shows, it is far from the most dangerous job in the country - which begs the question: why, exactly, are we arming them like military units?

Provided by | Author: David Adelman | Visit our Twitter

Anti-gun OK Senator Sends Sheriffs Packing….

On 03/13,2014, KTUL (Tulsa, OK) reported that an unidentified OK state senator ordered - anonymously and through through intermediaries - that 40 sheriffs gathered at the state capitol for their annual meet/greet/lobby needed to disarm themselves in order to remain on capitol property. Apparently the unidentified senator was fine with armed state troopers in the capitol building, but not elected, armed sheriffs.

Now, as far as I can see, there is nothing in Oklahoma law that requires a sheriff - or anyone else, for that matter - to disarm themselves prior to entering the premises of the state capitol.  Nonetheless, this as-of-yet unidentified senator, who swore an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Oklahoma, expressed his/her personal discomfort with the idea of an elected and duly sworn sheriff carrying their duty firearm on said premises and ordered them to either disarm or vacate the premises.

The intermediaries or anyone else who knows the identity of the senator who anonymously sent the message to disarm have the duty to reveal the identity of that senator. 

I can tell you this much: they should not have left. They had a legal right to be there and they were carrying in accordance with OK laws. They are also ELECTED OFFICIALS. They should have gone office to office until they found the guilty senator and placed him/her under arrest for interfering with a law enforcement officer in the exercise of their duties. Like it or not, lobbying is part of the job of a sheriff; there is nothing in any law of any state of which I am aware that says that they must be unarmed while doing so. By leaving they gave this gun grabber exactly what he/she wanted; it was a victory for the antis who would even like to see all but an elite, ideologically sound group of law enforcement officers (evidently the OK State Troopers fit this description) unarmed. 

We don't have keystone cops here in the US like they do in Britain. We have LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS who are charged with keeping the peace and given the means to do so.

Pres. Obama: Law Enforcement OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES Gun Control Legislation...

The following letter was faxed to Pres. Obama and my legislators from Michigan:

June 11, 2013

President Barak H. Obama
The White House

Mr. President,

Some time back, you stood in front of the cameras with a few police chiefs and told us that law enforcement overwhelmingly backs gun control.  A recent poll of more than 15,000 law enforcement officers, over 70% of which were officers, not elected police chiefs, however, tells a far different story.

Among the results:

* 95% of respondents said that limiting magazines to 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

* 90% oppose banning certain semi-automatic firearms.

* 85% said that proposed federal gun control legislation would have no effect on reducing crime, or would even INCREASE crime.

* NEARLY 90% SAID THAT THE PRESENCE OF LEGALLY-ARMED CITIZENS AT OUR RECENT MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS WOULD HAVE EITHER REDUCED OR COMPLETELY PREVENTED CASUALTIES.  This result, by the way, mirrors a statement issued last year by the border patrol officer's union:

"06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting. 

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…"

* More than 80% favor arming school employees.

The overall conclusion of the survey?  

"Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard."

The full results of the poll can be found here:  Gun Control Survey-11 key findings on officers' thoughts

So contrary to your public statement, Mr. President, law enforcement does not back your proposals.  And the latest polls reveal that the majority of Americans don't, either.  In fact, in terms of national priorities, only 4% list gun control as a top priority.

It is time to cease your attacks on our Second Amendment rights.  The role of government in this and other issues was clearly delineated in the 1875 Supreme Court Case, United States v. Cruikshank:

"With regard to those acknowledged rights and privileges of the citizen, which form a part of his political inheritance derived from the mother country, and which were challenged and vindicated by centuries of stubborn resistance to arbitrary power, they belong to him as his birthright, and it is the duty of the particular state of which he is a citizen to protect and enforce them, and to do naught to deprive him of their full enjoyment. When any of these rights and privileges are secured in the constitution of the United States only by a declaration that the state or the United States shall not violate or abridge them, IT IS AT ONCE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY ARE NOT CREATED OR CONFERRED BY THE CONSTITUTION, BUT THAT THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTIES THAT [I]THEY SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED BY THE STATE, OR THE UNITED STATES, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

Respectfully submitted,