Memorial Day 2012...

It isn't about steaks, fireworks, and road trips to vacation spots, its about MREs (or C Rats, as the case may have been), firefights, and convoys through insurgent-held territory to get support to your buddies. It's about joyful meetings at the door when family members came home from their deployments - or about the feeling of dread experienced when a non-descript government car pulled up to the house. Years in service at home and abroad.

We remember.

To all who served - or are still serving - Thank You.

Forces of Darkness....

Mayor George Heartwell of Grand Rapids, MI, made the following statement at a recent fundraiser:

"What's not to love about that?" said Heartwell, a former Planned Parenthood board chairman. "Yet every year the forces of darkness seek to deprive women" of the health care and reproductive education they get through Planned Parenthood.

"Ultraconservative political forces in league with ultraconservative religious forces have mounted a frontal assault against Planned Parenthood. This is a time like no other to rally behind Planned Parenthood. It's time for us to fill their treasury."

So pro-life supporters are now the "Forces of darkness"? 

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20. When fighting for life equates to darkness, we are truly on a downslide. 

A Response to the Call for Gay Marriage......

Let’s assume for the moment that the argument put forward by homosexuals is correct, and they really are born this way.  The assertion today is, if they were born this way, then it is wrong to expect them to change.  They can’t change who they are.

OK, for the sake of discussion, let’s accept that premise.

There is even scripture to back it up.

Psalm 51:5 says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”  Sin is an inbred part of the human condition.  It is part and parcel of who we are by birth and by inclination.

We are predisposed to lie, cheat, gossip, kill, fornicate, adulterate, and steal - just to name a few.  The name of the sin doesn’t matter; the fact of the matter is that the predisposition to do these things is part of who we are.

Using the logic put forward by the homosexual lobby, then, we shouldn’t designate anything as illegal.  After all, the person who engages in these, or any number of other things, all labeled sin in the Bible, is simply following the inclination with which they were born.

But we don’t think like that.  We expect people to change their predisposition to conform to societal, and more importantly, moral and Biblical norms.  We expect them to stop stealing, or lying, or cheating, or fornication, or killing - all of the things that are labeled as sin in the Bible.  And we have no problem saying that GOD can change them.  After all, that is why God sent His Son, Jesus, to die for us - to deliver us from our sins (“...the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age...”,Gal. 1:3-4)

Homosexuality is no different than any other disposition labeled by the Bible as sin.

The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sin.  Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”  That doesn’t get much clearer.  Oh, but you say, that was the OLD TESTAMENT; we live under the NEW TESTAMENT, and it doesn’t say anything like that.  For me to accept that line of reasoning first requires me to believe that Malachi 3:6 (“For I the Lord do not change...”) and James 1:17 (“...the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.) are wrong, and God’s character is variable and changing.  Since God says His character doesn’t change, I have to reject that line of reasoning.  

OK, so lets play along for a moment and see what the New Testament tells us.  

Romans 1 tells us that, because man rejects the revealed Truth of God contained in His Word AND in creation (verses 18-21) and professes himself to be wise according to his own ideological and intellectual constructs - setting himself up as the ultimate measure of truth (verses 22-23) - GOD GAVE MAN UP (verse 24).  What was one of the many results? 

“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (verses 24-27)

Men having intercourse with men and women having intercourse with women.  Today this is known as homosexuality.  That is the NEW Testament teaching.  Paul doesn’t stop there, though.  He goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Wait a second, Paul explicitly names homosexuality in these verses.  Yes, he lists a whole lot of others as well (remember what we said at the beginning about other sins?), but he specifically names homosexuality.  But wait a minute - I thought all sins were the same!  Paul puts that notion to rest in this chapter as well.  Take a look at verses 13 and 18:

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality...Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body” (verses 13, 18).

Yes, all sins are reprehensible to God, but He takes special exception to sins of a sexual nature - that’s not MY interpretation, those are the explicit words of God through the Apostle Paul!

So let’s go back to where we began.  We are all predisposed to different sins.  In that respect, homosexuality is no different than any other sin.  But just as we expect people to change, to stop practicing all of the other sins we listed previously, SO THE BIBLE SAYS THERE IS HOPE FOR THE HOMOSEXUAL!  Regardless of what is being spouted by psychiatrists and psychologists today, one’s predisposition can be changed.

You see, 1 Corinthians 6 doesn’t leave us in our sin without any recourse or hope of redemption.  Remember verses 9-10, the verses that specifically name homosexuality along with the laundry list of other sins?  These verses are followed by verse 12:

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (bolding added).

The Bible, contrary to politically correct social theory, tells us that, just as it is possible for our predisposition toward all other sins to be changed, SO CAN ONE’S PREDISPOSITION TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY!!!  Is this just my interpretation?  NO!  Read the verses for yourself!

You see, there is no parallel between homosexuality and being African-American, even though this is one of the strongest arguments used by the homosexual lobby to garner support.  And the article published by ABC News tells us that there are many African-American pastors - even those who regularly advise the President - who aren’t buying it (“Obama calls pastors to explain gay marriage support; black churches ‘conflicted' by president's decision”).  Being black - or yellow, or red - is not a sinful predisposition.  Christ didn’t die to save one from being a different color.  But the Bible tells us that He DID die to save us from our sinful dispositions so that we could live lives that please God.  He saved us to DESTROY our old dispositions so that He can give us NEW ones, dispositions that desire to follow the revealed Truth of God’s Word.  As Paul tells us in Romans 5:6-7,

“Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

As this debate continues to unfold, there are many who assert that this has nothing to do with religion, or Christianity, or the Bible, that the Bible really doesn’t spend a lot of time addressing it - as if God has to say something many times in order for us to take Him seriously.  And after all, Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality.  You’re right.  He didn’t.  When given the perfect opportunity to change the one-man/one woman paradigm, as recorded in Matthew and Mark, He went right back to the truth given in Genesis 2:23-24, 

“Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”

Is this about hating homosexuals?  No.  This is about loving them by giving them the Truth of God’s Word.  You see, Proverbs 26:28 tells us that ”A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin.”  We don’t accuse the doctor of hating us when he or she gives us truth that we would rather not hear.  We acknowledge that they are looking out for our welfare.  If we accept this as true in the context of human wisdom, then how much more true is it when the wisdom we share is of DIVINE origin?  

Michigan Legislative Prayer Caucus....

There have been reports appearing in the media questioning the propriety of a legislative prayer caucus that  appeals to the God of the Bible, rather than a non-sectarian god.


To those who ask this question, I offer the following response:

"Mr. President,

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other-our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection.- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move-that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service."

Benjamin Franklin, July 28, 1787

This is why prayer is offered each day in Congress in Washington, D.C. I fail to see why it is suddenly inappropriate for our state legislators to engage in prayer directed to the same Judeo-Christian God to whom Benjamin Franklin attributed our success as a nation.

Swamp Wars and Illegal Immigration....

I enjoy watching Swamp Wars, featuring the Venom 1 team of the Miami-Dade fire department.  One of the re-runs shown over the weekend documented the rescue of a large iguana that had gotten stuck in a chain link fence.  The officer successfully freed the animal from the fence, then put it into a pet carrier for transport.  As she did so, a neighbor asked to see the iguana, wondering aloud why it was necessary to remove it from the area.  The officer explained that, since the iguana was an invasive species, it would have been illegal to release it back into the wild.  The neighbor protested that such iguanas were seen all the time in the neighborhood; she didn't think that they represented a problem.  Then she made this statement:

"I don't think it's fair that an animal, just because it's not native of this territory, should be, you know, removed because of that. Being American equals to being an immigrant."

Wow.  Open borders logic applied not only to illegal immigration, but now to invasive species as well.  A person or an animal is American by virtue of migrating (as opposed to immigrating) here - regardless of the method of entry or the damage that might be caused.  I am 100% in favor of legal immigration; my own family came to be in this country that way four generations ago. But LEGAL is the operative word.  Anything else is invasive.

SB59 Being Debated In MI State Senate Now - Contact Your Senator NOW!!!

This bill will provide for concealed carry in pistol free zones (among other things).

"Under the legislation, permit holders would be allowed to carry guns in the so-called “pistol-free zones” if they undergo an extra nine hours of training beyond the current eight.
They also would have to fire an extra 94 rounds at the range beyond the 98 the legislation requires for a basic permit. Just 30 rounds are required now."

Gun on his hip, state Sen. Arlan Meekhof demonstrates his support for allowing concealed handguns in schools and other public places | MLive.com

I am urging everyone to contact their Michigan State Senator to urge them to vote for an amended version of SB 59.  As you can see above, this bill would permit CPL holders to concealed carry (CC) in a "pistol free" zone if they take additional class hours, fire nearly three more boxes of ammo, and then REQUEST an exception to "pistol free" zones.  Someone with a CPL who chooses to open carry (OP) in a "pistol free" zone, however, may do so without any additional class hours or anything else required in this bill.  This is fundamentally discriminatory under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, places an undue burden on those who have a Constitutional Right to CC in these areas, and is a violation of the recent federal district court (Maryland) ruling which states that the mere existence of the right in the Second Amendment (also stated in the Michigan Constitution) is all the justification we need to exercise our right to carry; legislation adding requirements to this right amounts to "rationing" of the right (Judge Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan, 2012).


We need to flood the offices of our state senators (Michigan legislature) with calls/emails/faxes urging them to amend SB 59 to eliminate the additional requirements and to establish OC/CC parity with regard to the right to carry in so-called "gun free" zones in Michigan.  Links to the Michigan State Legislative Directory can be found in the right column of this blog.


There is no time to lose.

MI House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger and Second Amendment Rights.....

He claims to be a supporter of the Second Amendment.  And yet, when faced with the possibility that Michigan Senate Bill 59 (SB 59), a bill that will, among other things, eliminate gun free zones for holders of concealed pistol licenses (CPLs) who have gone through an ADDITIONAL 9 hours of training (over and above the 8 hours required now to receive a CPL) and REQUEST an exemption from the zones, might actually pass, he gave the following warning to the Michigan House of Representatives (read this statement carefully):

"I support the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, as well as Michigan’s Constitution as they both protect our citizen’s right to bear arms.  Therefore, I support allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their right to carry concealed weapons.
 Unfortunately, we have many horrific cases that show that banning concealed weapons in certain places does not deter those who would harm innocent people.

However, this legislation will require significant discussion in the House. This is an emotional issue and I understand and respect that there is significant disagreement among our residents. If it comes over from the Senate, the House will need to undergo its own fact finding, testimony from the public, and the bill will receive full and careful deliberation."

SB 59 spent over a year in the Senate Judiciary Committee being studied, deliberated, and testified to before it was finally passed out of committee to the full senate for a vote (scheduled at this time for the week of April 20).  But not satisfied with this level of due diligence, the Speaker has put the House on notice that he expects them to spend even more time, money, and energy debating an issue that has already been put to rest by the Federal District Court of Maryland.  His reasoning?  "This is an emotional issue..."


The statement above first appeared in an interview with West Michigan reporters on March 27, 2012.  Following that interview, I sent Speaker Bolger a letter detailing the case to move expeditiously when SB 59 passes in the Senate, and asking him on the basis of the evidence to reconsider his instructions to the House to study this issue to death.  In an emailed response, he sent me the same statement he gave to the press, containing the same rationale shown above.


In response, I emailed Speaker Bolger the following letter, which I now post as an open letter to Rep. Bolger, once again asking him to reconsider his instructions to the Michigan House.  I ask all like-minded individuals to take the time to contact his office to voice your displeasure as well.

Mr. Speaker,

I appreciate your reply.  However, I cannot be in stronger disagreement with your position.

With all due respect, we do not decide the exercise of Constitutional Rights based upon the anticipated "emotional" response that might be engendered by the exercise of the protected right.

We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of speech based on emotional considerations.
We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of religion based on emotional considerations.
We do not decide whether to allow the exercise of the freedom of press, or association, or due process or protection from illegal search and seizure based upon emotional considerations.

As Judge Legg opined in his recent U.S. District Court decision, we decide the exercise of these rights based upon the fact that the rights EXIST.  Period.  That is all the justification we need.

I can point to dozens, if not hundreds, of incidents throughout our history that would support the case for limiting the exercise of the freedom of speech or press or religion - the exercise of each of these rights engender emotional responses that have led to all manner of emotional outcry by detractors.  And yet, we not only protect the exercise of these rights, we celebrate their exercise!

The same must be true with regard to the RIGHT protected by both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution.  Does the issue of firearms carry engender an emotional response?  Absolutely.  But just as it is true that this is not a consideration that hampers the free exercise of all of our other Constitutionally protected RIGHTS/FREEDOMS, so you cannot base your decision to continue limiting what federal courts have declared to be a basic right, the exercise thereof requiring no justification other than the existence of the right - the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in our own defense - on the argument that "[T]his is an emotional issue."

Sir, with all due respect, your continued reticence to implement the FULL EXERCISE of our Second Amendment right flies in the face of the oath that you took upon entering the Michigan legislature:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of Representative according to the best of my ability."

Your duty is to protect and support the exercise of all of the rights prescribed in both Constitutions - regardless of the emotional response they might engender from detractors.

Respectfully,

Speaker Bolger can be reached at the following:

House Speaker James "Jase" Bolger 1-877-BOLGER-1 (office) 517-373-9119 (fax) JamesBolger@house.mi.gov

The Forgotten Amendment....

As we work to stem the continuing erosion of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights/Constitution, we hear all manner of reference to the First and Second Amendments, predominately.  The ground covered in those amendments to the Constitution seems to be where most of the war is taking place these days.


But as important as those amendments are, along with the other six amendments that initially comprised the Bill of Rights, the Ninth Amendment is the article that explicitly protects our rights from infringement by the federal government.


The Ninth Amendment reads as follows: 

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The rights granted to the general (federal) government comprised a very limited, discrete package of powers.  James Madison put it this way:

"It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

Simply stated, Madison argued that, contrary to the political doctrine we see exercised by the federal government today, the only powers granted to the general government were those that were explicitly granted.  The assumption underlying the Ninth Amendment, therefore, is that all other powers, even those not explicitly stated, were reserved to THE PEOPLE.  In his speech introducing the Bill of Rights, during which he also addressed objections to the creation of such a document, Madison emphasized the idea of "the great residuum" of powers that were reserved to the People:

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people;"

As we continue the fight to bring the federal government back into line with the principles stated in the Constitution, one thought stands out from the rest: if at any time the powers of the federal government come into conflict with the rights of the people, the Ninth Amendment declares which set of powers is to take preeminence - and those powers don't belong to the federal government.

Gov. Snyder's Belief That More Immigration Will Make Michigan Prosperous Again....

Michigan's Gov. Snyder made a speech in Grand Rapids, MI, on March 8, 2012, in which he stated, yet again, his belief that immigration is the key to turning Michigan around, essentially stating that Michigan residents do not possess the skills needed to get the job done.

If by immigration he means that process by which people become productive legal residents and citizens of this country via the processes that have been established by our laws, then by all means, Welcome!

If by immigration he means that process by which people sneak across our borders or deliberately stay in the country long after their visas expire, having children who automatically acquire American citizenship, thus providing a safeguard against being deported and making their children (and, by extension, the parents) eligible for all manner of public assistance, then, Governor, you need to seriously re-consider who you are in Lansing to represent. Our state spends nearly $1 BILLION ($928,800,000) annually providing assistance to the families of illegals. But instead of doing something about that, you placed the blame for Michigan's financial problems on teachers and other public employees, cutting the wages and benefits of TAXPAYERS - people who truly contribute to the income of this state - while making the case to increase access to Michigan jobs by "immigrants."

Mr. Governor, you are in office to represent the needs of the CITIZENS and LEGAL RESIDENTS of this state - not to make a case for yet another back door amnesty program. I am aware that our immigration system is in need of work, but that hardly serves as justification to simply throw open the door to people who are taking jobs that are needed by out-of-work citizens and legal residents of this state. Those jobs in the agricultural and hospitality industries used to be the staples of American high school and college students. And don't get me started on the jobs in the construction and other industries that are now being filled by illegals instead of citizens - high paying jobs, not the minimal wage jobs that the open border crowd always like to point to. These are all jobs that can, should and would be filled by CITIZENS if they didn't have to deal with an employment deck that is stacked in favor of illegals.

A number of bills have been submitted that would A) severely penalize employers who hire illegals, B) require verification of legal residency for employment and business transactions, and (C) make the practice of using ITINs or matricula consular as substitutes for social security numbers or passports a state felony. THOSE are the initiatives you need to be supporting - not paving the way for yet another round of amnesties.

"Federal Judge Declares Maryland's Concealed Carry Requirement Unconstitutional..."

That was the headline of an article posted on guns.com today.  A federal judge found Maryland's requirement that an applicant for a concealed carry license provide a "good and substantial reason" to carry unconstitutional.  With this ruling in mind, I sent the following letter to my Michigan state legislators:

Gentlemen,

I have contacted your offices several times regarding our Second Amendment right to carry firearms with reference to businesses and places of public accommodation, both for employees and customers/clients.  While the recent federal ruling does not specifically address this issue, the judge's opinion includes statements that have direct bearing on it.
First, that this is a civil rights issue.  To allow a business or place of public accommodation to prohibit the carry of firearms, a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is discrimination.  The judge ruled that we do not need to provide justification for carry; "…the right's existence is all the reason [he] needs."  Laws that permit such limitations "…impermissibly infringe[s] the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Second, that "…self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be."  That right does not stop at the entrance of a business or place of public accommodation, and, as is true of the civil rights of religion, speech, due process, etc., cannot be abridged by anyone. The one exception that has survived legal challenges is the ability to openly practice these rights in a place of employment.  Laws allow employers to limit open display of religious/ political symbols or personal items such as jewelry in certain circumstances, but they cannot enact complete prohibition of these rights; the argument can therefore be made that such latitude would apply to employers with regard to open carry of a firearm by an employee, but, similarly, that it does not give them the latitude to completely prohibit the right to concealed carry.

This ruling, as it applies to this issue, provides for consistency and predictability with regard to our civil/legal right to carry firearms; our current system, under which any business and most places of public accommodation can arbitrarily impose their own limitations on the right to carry, has created a hodge-podge of gun-free zones that makes it nearly impossible for conscientious carriers to exercise their right.

As a final thought, I would suggest that, since the Second Amendment and Michigan Constitution make no distinction between concealed and open carry, the judge's decision also applies to the need to apply for a CPL, as, to use the judge's reasoning, this amounts to a "rationing system" that requires a citizen "…to offer a 'good and substantial reason' why he should be permitted to exercise his rights."  The elimination of the CPL system therefore not only makes sense for Constitutional reasons, but for financial reasons as well, as this would do away with the costs associated with the administration, implementation, and enforcement of what is, in the light of this decision, arguably an unconstitutional system.

Sincerely,