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..."

A Brief Theology of Church and Personal Security

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.

But didn’t Jesus command Peter to sheath his sword, reprimand him for using it?  Doesn’t that contradict what you just said?

Yes, Jesus did indeed reprimand Peter’s use of a sword AT THAT SPECIFIC MOMENT IN HISTORY.  

Why?

As has previously been observed, the soldiers were already on their way to arrest Jesus.  The problem wasn’t THAT Peter used his sword, the problem was his REASON for using it.  Even though he had spent three years with Jesus, he failed to grasp His reason for coming in the first place.  Like so many other Jews, Peter was looking for a Messiah who was primarily POLITICAL.  In his mind, Jesus appeared to restore the literal political throne of David and throw off Roman chains - and he was ready to launch a revolution to make that happen.  He failed to grasp - until later - that Jesus came to establish a SPIRITUAL kingdom.  So when Peter drew his sword and used it in anger, attempting to forestall the death of Jesus, Jesus rebuked him, telling him that the one who lived by the sword, as he was about to do, would die by it.  Jesus wasn’t categorically rebuking use if weapons, He was rebuking a very specific mindset.

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

Service Animals And Your Personal Feelings....

There is a video going around showing a woman throwing a temper tantrum - and I mean a REAL temper tantrum - because a veteran with a service dog entered a restaurant. As has become so common these days, she was going to vent until someone caved in to her demands to either have the animal removed or to have the vet segregated from the rest of the customers, which doesn't appear to have happened. So I figured this would be a good time to put out the following as a public service:

"[...] Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility.
A person with a disability cannot be asked to remove his service animal from the premises unless: (1) the dog is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it or (2) the dog is not housebroken. When there is a legitimate reason to ask that a service animal be removed, staff must offer the person with the disability the opportunity to obtain goods or services without the animal’s presence.
Establishments that sell or prepare food must allow service animals in public areas even if state or local health codes prohibit animals on the premises.
People with disabilities who use service animals cannot be isolated from other patrons, treated less favorably than other patrons, or charged fees that are not charged to other patrons without animals. In addition, if a business requires a deposit or fee to be paid by patrons with pets, it must waive the charge for service animals," ADA Service Animals.

It's the law.

She can be glad she's not in Michigan. Her actions toward a person being attended to by a service dog are punishable by law:

"MCL 750.50a Service animal; prohibited conduct by individual; violation as misdemeanor; rebuttable presumption that conduct initiated or continued maliciously; conviction or sentence under other applicable law; definitions.
Sec. 50a.
(1) An individual shall not do either of the following:
(a) Willfully and maliciously assault, beat, harass, injure, or attempt to assault, beat, harass, or injure a service animal that he or she knows or has reason to believe is a service animal used by a person with a disability.
(b) Willfully and maliciously impede or interfere with, or attempt to impede or interfere with, duties performed by a service animal that he or she knows or has reason to believe is a service animal used by a person with a disability.
(2) An individual who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.
(3) In a prosecution for a violation of subsection (1), evidence that the defendant initiated or continued conduct directed toward a service animal described in subsection (1) after being requested to avoid or discontinue that conduct or similar conduct by a person with a disability being served or assisted by the service animal shall give rise to a rebuttable presumption that the conduct was initiated or continued maliciously.
(4) A conviction and imposition of a sentence under this section does not prevent a conviction and imposition of a sentence under any other applicable provision of law.
(5) As used in this section:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in any conduct directed toward a service animal described in subsection (1) that is likely to impede or interfere with the service animal's performance of its duties or that places the person with a disability being served or assisted by the service animal in danger of injury.
(b) "Injure" means to cause any physical injury to a service animal described in subsection (1).
(c) "Maliciously" means any of the following:
(i) With intent to assault, beat, harass, or injure a service animal described in subsection (1).
(ii) With intent to impede or interfere with duties performed by a service animal described in subsection (1).
***(iii) With intent to disturb, endanger, or cause emotional distress to a person with a disability being served or assisted by a service animal described in subsection (1).
(iv) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to harass or injure a service animal described in subsection (1).
(v) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to impede or interfere with duties performed by a service animal described in subsection (1).
(vi) With knowledge that the individual's conduct will or is likely to disturb, endanger, or cause emotional distress to a person with a disability being served or assisted by a service animal described in subsection (1).**** (asterisks added)
(d) "Person with a disability" means a person who has a disability as defined in section 12102 of the Americans with disabilities act of 1990, 42 USC 12102, and 28 CFR 36.104.
(e) As used in subdivision (d), "person with a disability" includes a veteran who has been diagnosed with 1 or more of the following:
(i) Post-traumatic stress disorder.
(ii) Traumatic brain injury.
(iii) Other service-related disabilities.
(f) "Service animal" means all of the following:
(i) That term as defined in 28 CFR 36.104.
(ii) A miniature horse that has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks as described in 28 CFR 36.104 for the benefit of a person with a disability.
(g) "Veteran" means any of the following:
(i) A person who performed military service in the armed forces for a period of more than 90 days and separated from the armed forces in a manner other than a dishonorable discharge.
(ii) A person discharged or released from military service because of a service-related disability.
(iii) A member of a reserve branch of the armed forces at the time he or she was ordered to military service during a period of war, or in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge is authorized, and was released from military service in a manner other than a dishonorable discharge."