"If It Saves Just ONE Life…."

It's interesting to me how the "if it saves one life, it will be worth it" argument only seems to work when BANNING something (like the president always says when calling for more gun control).

Interpol Sec. General Ron Noble advocates for INCREASING civilian defensive firearms carry as a response to terrorist events (like the one in Orlando), http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341. 

Ohio approved concealed carry for license holders in bars in 2011, and N. Carolina approved similar legislation in 2013; neither state has experienced an upswing in drunken shootings. 

Chief Craig of Detroit urged Detroiters to begin carrying in self defense because of the increase in crime and the decrease in law enforcement presence; the first year saw a 25% reduction in crime, particularly violent crime, and overall has seen about a 12% reduction in crime in the last three years or so since he urged them to begin carrying. 

INCREASE defensive carry, particularly in areas now designated as "gun free" (you know, like the night club was). If it saves just ONE LIFE, it will be worth it!

Enough Is Enough….

Tom Brokaw, professing "firearms owner," said in an interview after the Orlando night club shooting that "it's time for people to come together and say 'enough.'"

He is absolutely right - although not in the way he intended.

It is time for the American people to come together and say, enough gun control. Enough apologizing to those who hold an ideology that has declared war on us. Enough shifting blame from terrorists to the US for their attacks on us and our allies. Enough "gun free" zones. Enough surveillance and security procedures that criminalize innocent citizens while allowing potential enemies to slip through in order to say we don't profile. It is time to begin acting once again like we are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is time to protect our citizens, secure our borders, and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

It's time. 

Enough is enough.

Slap On The Wrist For "20 Minutes Of Action"; Or, Why Put Yourself In Danger?

I'm going to say something that will probably anger a few and bring on accusations of blaming the victim. 

I want to make it clear at the outset that the male who raped a young woman while she was unconscious is without excuse and deserving of a far more serious punishment than was meted out by the judge. It wasn't "20 minutes of action," as his father characterized it, it was rape. Her inebriated/unconscious condition didn't give him the right to rape her.  

Having said that, yes, the victim bears some responsibility for putting herself into a situation in which it could happen. 

Women have been warned for decades about the dangers of drinking at parties, concerts, etc. Many women are raped, robbed, kidnapped, or murdered every year because they either drink themselves into a stupor or drink alcohol laced with drugs that incapacitate them, yet they continue to put themselves into situations in which such things can happen. Why? Because they believe it will never happen to them, and more to the point, they don't believe they should HAVE to think about such things. If men would just stop raping, they wouldn't have to concern themselves. As true as that might be, it is also wishful thinking.

Yes, the male deserved a far worse sentence than he received, of that there is no doubt. But to the young women out there, how much longer will you continue to put yourselves into situations in which animals such as he can take advantage of you?  Proverbs 22:3 continues to be true: "A prudent person sees danger, and hides himself/herself; but the simple pass on, and suffer for it," paraphrased.

Mad Science: It's Not Just A Movie Thing Any More….

Finding new and improved ways to create and destroy human embryos - only now they are deliberately trying to create human/animal hybrids for the express purpose of destroying them for research and organ harvesting.

"One of the concerns that a lot of people have is that there's something sacrosanct about what it means to be human expressed in our DNA," says Jason Robert, a bioethicist at Arizona State University. "And that by inserting that into other animals and giving those other animals potentially some of the capacities of humans that this could be a kind of violation — a kind of, maybe, even a playing God."

It IS playing God, and it is an attack on the image of God. The Bible is clear that bestiality is prohibited: Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15-16, Deuteronomy 27:21. While this procedure doesn't involve sexual relations with animals, the end result is the same: the creation of a human/animal hybrid, created for the purpose of being studied, harvested, and destroyed. This isn't just about transplanting a human organ into an animal, it is about transplanting human stem cells (made from human skin cells, not aborted babies) into an animal with the HOPE that a particular human organ will result, but knowing that they have no way to control what actually happens:

"The uncertainty is part of what makes the work so controversial. Ross and other scientists conducting these experiments can't know exactly where the human stem cells will go. Ross hopes they'll only grow a human pancreas. But they could go elsewhere, such as to the brain.

"If you have pigs with partly human brains you would have animals that might actually have consciousness like a human," Newman says. "It might have human-type needs. We don't really know."

"That possibility raises new questions about the morality of using the animals for experimentation. Another concern is that the stem cells could form human sperm and human eggs in the chimeras.

"If a male chimeric pig mated with a female chimeric pig, the result could be a human fetus developing in the uterus of that female chimera," Newman says. Another possibility is the animals could give birth to some kind of part-human, part-pig creature."

This is the kind of stuff of which mad scientists down through the years have dreamed. While the National Institutes of Health have banned funding this research until they can find a way to ethically be good with it, the US Defense Department IS helping fund it. Our tax dollars are being used to create human/animal hybrids.

in-search-for-cures-scientists-create-embryos-that-are-both-animal-and-human

Repeal Michigan "Weapons Free" Zones….

Over the weekend in Grand Rapids, the body of a woman was found on the campus of Grand Rapids Community College (GRCC), murdered.

GRCC is one of the many so-called "weapons free" or "gun free" zones that dot the city.

The irony?

The stated reason for declaring the campus "weapons free" was for the SAFETY of employees, students, and the general public.

Here is their written policy: 

"III. Policy Statement
Possession or use of firearms, explosives or weapons or anything that is intended to be construed as a weapon is not permitted on College property.

IV. Reason for the Policy
To prohibit the possession or use of firearms, explosives or weapons on College property, as defined herein, FOR THE SAFETY OF ITS EMPLOYEES, STUDENTS, CUSTOMERS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. [emphasis added]

V. Entities Affected by this Policy
Employees, students, vendors, visitors to the campus and the general public…

iX. Definitions
“College property” includes but is not limited to property owned, operated, managed, licensed to or leased by the College. At GRCC, all college property is used for classroom purposes.

“Weapons” shall mean any type of firearm, knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged non-folding stabbing instrument, taser, brass knuckles, any other type of instrument which could be used as a weapon and any type of explosive, chemicals or objects or instruments possessed for use of fighting or attacking.

“Firearms” shall mean any weapon or device from which is propelled any missile, projectile, bullet, shot, pellet or other mass by means of explosives, compressed air or gas or by means of springs, levers or other mechanical device which weapon or device shall be capable by the discharge of any such propelled missile, projectile, bullet, shot, pellet or other mass of inflicting personal injury or death upon any person.

...How to handle a situation where you see someone with a gun or other weapon?

They should immediately contact the Campus Police at extension 4010 and advise them of what they have seen. The dispatcher will ask the caller to provide him/her with a clothing description of the person they suspect. They will be asked for the last place they saw the individual and whether this person was walking, getting into a car, etc. If the person is walking, the dispatcher will want to know what direction they were moving in. If they were in a vehicle and on the street, the dispatcher will ask the same thing, what direction were they traveling?"

The stated purpose of this policy is safety.  It prohibits all weapons, INCLUDING NONLETHAL, DEFENSIVE ITEMS SUCH AS  PEPPER SPRAY, MACE, TASERS OR STUN GUNS.  The only recourse offered to anyone on campus per the policy is calling campus security - and HOPING that help arrives in time.

I have been saying this for years: ANY ORGANIZATION THAT TAKES IT UPON ITSELF TO DENY INDIVIDUALS THEIR GOD-GIVEN, CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROTECTED RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE USING ANY AND ALL MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL INJURY OR DEATH ARISING FROM THAT POLICY.

Between the college campuses and medical mile, much of the downtown Grand Rapids area is designated as "weapons free," yet in recent years there have been numerous attacks on disarmed individuals in parking structures or other property relating to these organizations.  Obviously, criminals 1) don't care about such designations, 2) see them as fertile grounds on which to carry out their attacks, and 3) know that it takes time for police to arrive on the scene - by which time the damage is done and they are long gone.

So-called "weapon free", "gun free", or "pistol free" zones protect no one.  It's time to stop pretending otherwise, and it is time for the state legislature to take the following steps:

1) Eliminate so-called "weapon free" or "gun free" zones
2) Give Michigan's pre-emption law TEETH, specifically stating that schools, colleges, and universities are subject to pre-emption, and designating penalties for violating the pre-emption law
3) Hold any business/organization that takes it upon itself to enforce a "weapon free" or "gun free" policy - whether on the public OR their employees - civilly liable for any death or injury arising from the enforcement of such policy. 

4) Indemnify businesses/organizations from civil prosecution arising from lawful, defensive weapons carry and use.

And a final note to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder:  you are against the public carry of firearms because of something that happened while you were still a student at the University of Michigan.  You were a residence director in a dormitory when a man illegally carrying a firearm entered the dormitory and killed a fellow residence director, or so the story goes.  That person violated a gun free zone in order to commit a crime.

Bt what if things had been different?  What if your fellow student's right to defend himself had not been taken from him?  Might he still be alive today?  While having a firearm or mace might not have prevented his death, it would also have given him the chance to fight for his life.

Stop punishing lawful firearms carriers for the actions of a criminal.

Pres. Obama's Argentinian Two-step….

Jay Sekulow, THIS Is How You Deal With Traitors….

I have posted this to Mr. Sekulow's Facebook walls several times asking him to respond.

To-date, my request for a response has gone unanswered.

Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice, has been running a campaign to take away the US citizenship of any citizen who leaves the country to fight on behalf of ISIS or any other terrorist organization. 

The stated mission of the ACLJ is to defend the Constitution.

With that in mind, the Constitution, Article 3 Section 3, says any person who fights on behalf of America's enemies is guilty of treason, and must be tried and sentenced to the punishment determined by Congress.

The WWII example of George Dasch shows us how this should be done.

Dasch was a naturalized citizen, born in Germany, who left the US with a group of other german americans to receive training from the Nazis and return to commit acts of terrorism and sabotage. He and his group were captured within days of re-entering the US, tried, and sentenced to death. Dasch and one other conspirator had their sentences commuted to prison because they cooperated with federal agents, after which they were deported to Germany and never allowed to return; the remainder of his team were executed by electric chair - just SEVEN WEEKS after returning to the US.

THAT, Mr. Sekulow, is how you deal with traitors.

I still await your response.

We'll Skip The Wash And Head Directly To The Spin Cycle….

We now know, based on past events involving muslims,  how the White House will spin the San Bernardino shooting, even before the official statement is released: workplace violence.

From the statement issued by the White House while the search for the San Bernardino shooters was still in full-swing, it was apparent that the president was expecting the shooters to be his worst nightmare and rallying point - white, disaffected, gun-loving, conservative males. He was getting ready to threaten the nation again with some sort of executive action to put gun control into place. 

But hold on, it turns out that the shooters WEREN'T white, disaffected conservatives, they were muslims. 

It is official - the shooters are identified as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and a woman, Tashfeen Malik, 27. Farook, according to the reports, worked at the disability center and angrily left the facility's holiday party, coming back with Malik. It is evident from the execution and arming of the attack that he had been planning this for some time. 

His brother-in-law made a televised statement this morning that he had no idea why Farook attacked the center - and he made his statement from a CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization with known ties to the muslim brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism funding trial a few years ago) facility, with the CAIR backdrop.  Apparently that group is trying to distance itself from the attack.

During last night's and this morning's broadcasts regarding the attack, reporters are asking the question: hours had passed since the shooting, so why were the shooters only TWO MILES from the scene of the attack? The obvious answer is that they intended to die as martyrs.

I am certain that the administration and liberals everywhere will find some way to pin the blame for this attack on America.

Active Shooters In San Bernardino - And The President Wastes No Time Politicizing The Event….

Active shooter incident in California, and the White House wastes no time politicizing the event. Here is the statement from the WH, broken down with my observations:

"Well, we don't know that much yet." 

Keep that in mind.

"It's still an active situation. FBI is on the ground offering assistance to local officials as they need it. It does appear that there are going to be some casualties. And you know, obviously our hearts go out to the victims and the families."

"The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world, and there's some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don't happen as frequently, common sense gun safety laws, stronger background checks and you know, for those who are concerned about terrorism of, you know, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no fly list where people can't get on planes but those same people who we don't allow to fly could go into a store right now in the united states and buy a firearm and there's nothing that we can do to stop them."

1, We know NOTHING about these people. Who are they? From where did they come? Are they sadists with a beef against the developmentally disabled? Are they terrorists? They attacked a facility that serves the developmentally disabled.

2, We know NOTHING about how they obtained their weapons. Were they purchased locally, in another state, stolen, smuggled in? Since we know nothing about them, how can the president presume that changing our law is going to have ANY impact? A criminal who desires weapons will find illegal ways to obtain them, and no law is going to change that.

3, He mentions terrorism, implicitly declaring this to be a terrorist attack, yet he continues to push for unvetted people to be allowed into the country, while treating citizens with Constitutional rights as closet criminals.

4, The list to which he refers, the "no fly" or "terrorist watch list", is unConstitutional. It contains more than ONE MILLION names. Most of those people have been added to it in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN CHARGED WITH OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER, merely on someone's suspicion, denying them their Constitutional RIGHT to due process. Since these people have been charged with nothing, had no opportunity to confront their accuser in open court as demanded by the Constitution, have been convicted of no crime, there is no legal basis to deny them their Second Amendment RIGHT to purchase a firearm.

"That's a law that needs to be changed, and so you know, my hope is that we're able to contain this particular shooting and, and we don't yet know what the motives of the shooters are, but what we do know is, is that there are steps we can take to make Americans safer and that we should come together in a bipartisan basis at every level of government to make these rare as opposed to normal."

Again, we have already established that we know nothing about these people, so again, the president cannot presume that using the "terrorist watch list" will stop anything. If anything needs to be changed, it is that the "terrorist watch list" needs to be eliminated. If someone truly poses a threat, then investigate them, charge them, convict them, and deal with them AS DEMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION. As has already been well-established, a criminal who wants to obtain weapons will do so regardless of inclusion on some government list.

"We should never think that this is something that just happens in the ordinary course of events, because it doesn't happen with the same frequency in other countries."

This statement has already been thoroughly de-bunked. There are far more countries, particularly muslim countries, where such mass shootings are DAILY OCCURRENCES. Of course, that doesn't fit with the agenda.

Pray for the families effected by this tragedy. Pray for law enforcement as they work to round these animals up.

And stop politicizing tragedies. These are people - not political pawns or statements.

The "Terrorist Watch List" and Firearms Purchases….

It has become quite hip to call for denying people whose names appear on the federal terrorist watch list  their right to purchase firearms.  If the list had any validity, was based on anything other than supposition and conjecture, that demand would be reasonable.

But it's not.

There are currently over one million names on the terrorist watch list.  

That's right, one million.  

One million people whose names have been added because of SUSPECTED ties to terrorism.  Not because they have actually been charged or convicted of a crime, but because someone thinks they might be suspicious. 

And now people are screaming for these people to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

Here's the problem: we have this Constitutional thing called "due process." "No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," Fifth Amendment, US Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment clarifies what this means:

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.

There is no due process associated with the terrorist watch list.  One can be added to it for almost any reason without ever having been convicted, or even charged with, a crime of any sort. 

Prohibiting a person from purchasing a firearm who has never been charged or convicted of a crime but has been added to some secret list anyway is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and equates to depriving them of their Constitutional rights. 

If someone is suspicious enough to be added to some secret list of possible terrorists, then do what the Constitution requires - charge them, prosecute them, PROVE THEIR GUILT IN OPEN COURT IN FRONT OF A JURY OF THEIR PEERS, and punish them.