• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    June 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « May    
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Orville on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Desi Chinese on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Oto ekspertiz Kaç li… on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense

Just because you are a Christian doesn’t mean you need to roll over and let someone kill you.  You have a right, and a responsibility to defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

“To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.”


Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense

Just because we’re good people doesn’t mean we won’t kill you – Rick Grimes

Right. So, maybe a Biblical defense for self-defense shouldn’t begin with quotation from the protagonist in a televised Zombie apocalypse set in the dystopian near-future. But, when I heard Rick say that, it was real. There’s no room for pretense when zombies are kicking down the doors to your rickety old barn.

We may not have zombies kicking down our barn doors, but like Rick Grimes, we live in a world where pretense will get you killed. Normalcy bias will get your killed. Pacifism will get you killed. Your pretty little philosophies and pontifications will get you killed. We live in a world of bad guys, albeit they’re not the walking dead. But, they are dangerous. And frankly, it’s time Christian leaders recognize that danger and stop being such metrosexual nancies without a modicum of moral clarity when dogmatizing our followers on the WWJD of martyrdom. In short, Christians leaders need to look less like Reverend Lovejoy and more like the Machine Gun Preacher. What you may not realize while locked away in your pastor’s study is that our world looks more like Rick Grimes’ than Homer Simpson’s. Sometimes, people need a good killing.

What I need you to do, if you’re to stomach the rest of this article, is take any notion you have of a Big Lebowski-looking Christ who rides the clouds on Falcor the Luck Dragon, handing out puppies and skittles out of Santa’s bottomless gift bag and put that image into the dustbin of your mind. Stop tasting the rainbow, put down the Rachel Held Evans book, and gird up your loins like a man. Instead, focus on the actual Christ, the one whose feet were caked with mud and muck and suggested his disciples go out and buy a sword on the night of his crucifixion, knowing they would soon be outlaws and in need of protection (Luke 22:36). Yes, focus on Christ, who is the second person of the Trinity and who transcends in ancient divinity the temporality of his earthly walk, and let us develop a Bible-long systematic theology of martyrology and self-defense.

As much as Jesus Seminar liberals would like to limit the teachings of Christ to his three-year ministry chronicled in the Gospel accounts, the reality for orthodox Christians is that every word of the Bible should be colored in Red. Being Trinitarians, we believe in a Triune God consisting of three Persons making up the Godhead (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, KJV). The Persons of the Trinity, consisting of and being in themselves God, are at perfect unity and harmony together (Isaiah 61:1-2). Each one performs and acts according to the same will (John 6:38). In short, the words of God the Father, who inspired the Sacred Texts through God the Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), is indeed the will and word of God the Son (John 1:1,14).

What this means is that to understand the teachings of God the Son, without juxtaposing his teaching with the teachings of God the Father, requires a systematic teaching on the subject of martyrology and self-defense throughout the entire canon of Scripture.

While it is true that Jesus told Peter to put away His sword because he must be crucified for the sins of the world (Matthew 26:52), he told them that very night to buy a sword in advance of their coming persecution (Luke 22:36). While Jesus’ exhortation that we turn the cheek from insult (Matthew 5:39) has been taken by pacifists (defined by JD’d dictionary as “those who let others die for their lives and liberties”) to be the locus classicus text for passive non-resistance, a robust theology of persecution reveals that that the thrice-holy God has indeed called his people to self-defense, protection of the innocent through violent means, and promotion of the general welfare through war. There is no logical reason to believe that God’s call to arms throughout Scripture has been abrogated in this current dispensation, for God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and his Word is immutable (Hebrews 6:17). Furthermore, the call to martyrdom that we see repeated throughout the New Testament does not imply that our death for the sake of the cross be a peaceful surrendering of ourselves over to injustice or voluntary death.

A thorough analysis of God’s divine hand guiding the body-politic of ancient Israel reveals an understood right of self-defense. We are to deliver the innocent from those that seek them harm (Proverbs 82:4). While murder is clearly prohibited (Leviticus 24:16-17), the taking of a murderer’s life is not prohibited and neither is it murder (Genesis 9:6). The qualifying distinctions between killing and murder are found in places like Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. In the commonwealth laws of Israel, delivered by God, one had the right to take the life of one breaking into their home in the night (Exodus 22:2). The general equity of this Old Testament law (to use words from the London Baptist and Westminister Confession) – that is, what is moral, universal and perpetual in nature – is that it is morally acceptable to take the life of one who will harm the innocent.

Even though our enemies are not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), the same is true for the Israelites as they were rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, when they were instructed to arm themselves for potential conflict (Nehemiah 4:17). The realization of spiritual enemies did not negate the reality that there might be some people in need of a good killing, and God’s people were to be prepared to fight back. When Haman’s plans went awry because of Esther’s obedience, God’s people were instructed to kill those who sought their lives (Esther 9:2-5). When Abraham’s family was in jeopardy, he raised an army and killed their captors (Genesis 14:14-18) and was later blessed by God for that action.

To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.

David’s hands were taught to operate a lethal weapon by God (Psalm 18:24). The limp-wristed effiminazi Intelligentsia calling for the disarmament of Christians today are a far cry from the man who was after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22). And while we do not trust in our weapons, but in God (Psalm 44:7), this presupposes the ownership of weapons. On any given day, I may carry a number of different lethal weapons, but my trust is in God that they will fire properly, hit their target, or in God’s kind providence, I’ll find their use unnecessary.

Furthermore, we must understand that Christ’s martyrdom is wholly unlike our own. Christ’s death was a sacrifice, and offering it up bought the souls of men. Our life cannot be given in the same manner of Christ (for we neither lay it down nor pick it up of our own accord), and neither does it propitiate for any sins. Although we are, indeed, sheep sent out to wolves, the Good Shepherd never intended and neither does he ask us to provide a pacifistic buffet of mutton for any wolf that would seek to devour us.

That a martyr may resist, does not make him less of a martyr. That a man doesn’t resist when his family is in peril, does make him less of a man.

In light of the shooting at UCC, I call on all Christian leaders to stop the liberal pontificating on how guns caused this problem and call them to consider on why a lack of guns (along with a murderous, depraved heart as the root issue) caused this problem. Christ has called us to love our neighbor (Mark 12:31), and if you are unprepared to defend your neighbor due to dainty sensibilities or the irrational fear of using a firearm, I’d suggest you do not love your neighbors as much as you ought.


Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/10/02/why-some-people-need-a-good-killing-a-biblical-defense-for-self-defense/


Why Gun Control Does Not Work: When Seconds Count, the Police are Only Minutes Away

Gun control only impedes law abiding citizens. IT DOES NOT STOP CRIMINALS, and in fact makes it EASIER for them to commit crime.

Think about this. Almost every place there has been a mass shooting has been in a so called “gun free zone.” Do you think the criminals see a sign that says “gun free zone” and leave in disgust looking for another target that allows them to carry guns? Don’t be stupid.

In every city where guns have been banned, the crime rate has exploded. Washington, D.C. following their 1976 hand gun ban is a perfect example. Innocent, law abiding citizens become like untended sheep being left to the wolves. Think about the Virginia Tech shooting, the Stockton school yard shooting, the church in Houston, Fort Hood, and countless others where an armed CRIMINAL psychopath wades into a crowd of UNARMED citizens and shoots at will until he runs out of bullets, or a late arriving police officer finally intervenes.

Now look at an example of a law abiding citizen in her home, about to be attacked and probably raped and killed by her assailant. The difference in this case is that she is armed and able to defend herself.

Video/Audio: Oklahoma woman defends herself

Here are other examples of citizens protecting themselves when the police were not around to do it for them. These stories made local news, but will never see the light of day in the media formerly known as mainstream because it doesn’t fit their anti-gun, anti-second amendment agenda.

Dressed in black hooded jackets and black masks, two men entered a Columbus, Ga., area home around 2 a.m. through a lower-level door. Upon hearing noises, the 47-year-old resident (who has been burglarized twice before) went to investigate. When he saw the burglars, the resident called out and the intruders reacted by charging toward him. The resident pulled a .357 Mag. pistol and fired at the men, possibly injuring one before they fled the home via a sliding-glass door. When police arrived, they were able to follow a trail of blood off the property, but the trail was lost in some nearby woods. No arrests were made. (The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, Columbus, GA, 09/10/09)

“I didn’t know who they were, and they kept asking, ‘Where’s the money?'” Bradley Fugate recalls of a frightening home invasion incident. Police say the armed suspects burst into the home shortly after Fugate opened the front and back doors to let some cool air inside. One of the men pushed Fugate’s niece onto a bed and began rummaging through a safe. “That was enough for me and it allowed me to get my gun from where I keep it. … I raised up and fired,” Fugate said. The shot missed and the struggle led to the kitchen. “He turned around and raised his gun up at me. That’s when I shot him,” Fugate explained. The suspect was killed. His accomplice fled, later committing suicide during a standoff with police. “I ain’t no hero, and I’m broken up about it,” Fugate said. “I did what I had to do.” (Dayton Daily News, Dayton, OH, 09/02/09)

Rocking her baby to sleep one night, a Traverse City, Mich., woman heard her kitchen door open and saw a strange man enter her home. “She’s just sitting there in the dead of night … and this guy comes in and scares the crap out of her,” Traverse City Police Capt. Steve Morgan said. The woman ran into her bedroom and alerted her husband who retrieved a handgun and confronted the suspect, Aaron TwoCrow of Suttons Bay, Mich. On seeing the gun, TwoCrow ran from the house and was later arrested. Police say he appeared to be intoxicated, but gave no indication as to why he had entered the home. He was charged with misdemeanor illegal entry. (Traverse City Record Eagle, Traverse City, MI, 09/22/09)

Police say a club-wielding intruder entered a home’s unlocked front door while the residents were inside. He snuck down a hallway, entered a bedroom and began stealing a coin collection. The homeowner heard the ruckus and accosted the intruder, who merely shouted threats and continued taking the coins. The homeowner left the room and returned with a handgun, firing a shot at the intruder. The suspect fled the property, scattering coins as he ran. He was being sought by police. (The Island Packet, Hilton Head, SC, 09/23/09)

When a grocery store manager saw a woman walking away with a stolen bag of meat products, she yelled for the woman to stop. According to police, the brazen shoplifter got into her car. As the manager was writing down the license plate, the shoplifter sped toward her, striking the manager and causing her to fall onto the hood. She held on for dear life as the car sped toward an exit. A bystander saw what was occurring, so he blocked the exit with his vehicle and demanded the shoplifter get out of her car. With the manager still holding on to the hood, the shoplifter tried to maneuver around the vehicle. The bystander, a concealed-carry permit holder, drew his 9mm pistol and yelled at the shoplifter to stop. She again refused. Fearing for the manager’s life, he fired a shot through the driver’s side window, striking the suspect as she sped off. The car travelled about 200 feet before the wounded driver slowed down. The manager got off the hood unharmed. Police arrested the shoplifter at the hospital. (Kansas City Star, Kansas City, MO, 09/03/09)

Early one morning, a pregnant woman had no idea she would be targeted by a young adult in the midst of a burglary spree. Police say the suspect had already burglarized several cars and homes when he entered the woman’s residence in the early morning hours. She awoke and confronted him with a shotgun, prompting him to draw a handgun. Rather than firing a shot, the pregnant woman explained to the intruder that her gun was larger. He put his gun away and waited for police. (Press-Register, Mobile, AL, 09/11/09)

Finally, consider nations around the world that are “free,” versus ones where oppression is the name of the game and crime is rampant. What differentiates the two? An armed citizenry. In every country where the citizens have been disarmed, tyranny soon followed. Switzerland is one models of success that we can look to. Every law abiding citizen is basically part of the militia, or “national guard” if you prefer. They have government issued weapons, ammunition, and are trained to use them. They have perhaps the lowest crime rate in the world.

Preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and in many cases is tantamount to murder. It’s not that the police don’t want to defend us. It’s that the government and legal system have tied their hands and kept the size of the police force such that they CAN’T protect us. If they happen to be around they are effective in preventing crime, but they can’t be everywhere at once.

As the title of this post says, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”

Join the resistance to a government that wants to take away your constitutional rights, and perhaps even abolish the constitution. Make it clear that we will not let them take away our rights or our weapons. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

You choose. Victim or survivor.

Illegal Aliens Get Protection Meant for Citizens

“Damn the constitution! Border invasion, full speed ahead!” Janet Napoli-Reno and the enemies of truth, justice, and the American way strike again!

First you have the Obama “Justice” Department and DHS under Napoli-Reno telling sheriffs that they can no longer enforce federal immigration laws. (Arizona sheriff conducts migrant sweeps despite curb) Now we have the same bunch of anti-American thugs extending more rights, freedoms, and protections intended for American CITIZENS to those who BROKE THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY TO GET HERE.

This is just another way for Obama to redistribute wealth. He takes away our freedom and gives it to illegal aliens. It’s almost as bad as what our troops are facing now. If they shoot an enemy combatant (who happens to be shooting at them), they are prosecuted for violating the terrorists “civil rights.”

We may as well just surrender if this is how we intend to defend ourselves.



Homeland Security Department Gags Local Law Enforcement to Protect ‘Privacy’ of Illegal Aliens

Friday, October 30, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

Homeland Security Department Secretary Janet Napolitano has said she will concentrate on ‘criminal aliens’ when enforcing federal immigration law. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(Riddle me this, Janet.  When someone BREAKS THE LAW, what does that make them?)

(CNSNews.com) –  The Department of Homeland Security is gagging local law enforcement agencies around the country to protect the privacy of illegal aliens.  (Screw the citizens, let’s protect the illegals!)

Under “revised” 287(g) agreements between the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division and state and local law enforcement agencies, any information about local police efforts to enforce federal immigration law must be cleared through ICE before it can be released to the media or the public. DHS says it is doing this to protect the privacy of illegal aliens. (WTF!)
“The Privacy Act and the privacy policy provide protections for U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents and, in the case of the privacy policy, illegal aliens,” Kelly Nantel, press secretary for ICE, told CNSNews.com, referring to the Privacy Act of 1974(The Privacy Act of 1974 DOES NOT include ILLEGAL ALIENS.  It defines individuals as follows: § 552a. Records maintained on individuals;(a) Definitions;(2) the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;)

Nantel said that although illegal aliens are not protected under the Privacy Act, it is the policy of the Department of Homeland Security to extend the privacy protection to individuals who are in the country illegally, a policy she said was put into place by former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, who served under President Bush.  (I don’t care WHO put the policy in place, or WHO they served under.  It’s still a train load of crap.  These are laws and privileges put in place to benefit CITIZENS.)

“Any information regarding individuals encountered through the enforcement of federal law is ultimately protected,” Nantel said. “We need to be sure that prior to the release of information, an appropriate determination is made regarding those protections.”

The DHS’s agreements with local law enforcement agencies–known as Memorandums of Agreement (MOA)–guide the 287(g) program, which was created in 2003 as an amendment to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The 287(g) program trains and certifies state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal immigration law.

In July, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the existing agreements with local law enforcement agencies would be “standardized” and reviewed. In a speech in August, Napolitano said the MOAs had been “rewritten and reprioritized to focus on using them in jails and prisons.”

Illegal immigrants handcuffed together are moved into a separate area of Tent City in Phoenix, Ariz., on Feb. 4, 2009 by orders of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. They will be incarcerated there until their sentences are served and they are deported to their home countries (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
(Now THIS is how it’s supposed to work!  You come here illegally, you get sent home.  You break our laws while you’re here, you get squashed.)

The Obama administration says the priority for local law enforcers should be illegal aliens arrested for or convicted of crimes — not people arrested in task force sweeps simply for being in the U.S. illegally. (Because if you round them up before they can vote, then democrats might not get elected.)
As CNSNews.com reported earlier, the controvery over task force sweeps erupted earlier this year when ICE stripped the Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff’s Department of its authority to conduct such sweeps.

The man who heads that department, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, claims to have removed more than 30,000 illegal aliens from the streets in task force operations since he signed on to the 287(g) program in 2007.  Complaints of racial profiling have prompted the Obama Justice Department to investigate Arpaio and his department.  (Since almost every single one of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi’s of Arab descent between the ages of 19 and 30, it would make absolutely NO sense whatsoever to more closely monitor people of that demographic when they are in areas demanding high security.  I guess it would be silly of me to assume that a guy wearing a ski mask, pointing a gun at me, and saying “give me your money, or I’ll shoot” might be a robber.  That would be prematurely jumping to conclusions.)

The revised MOAs given to all of DHS’s local law enforcement “partners” includes the following language governing the “release of information to the media and other third parties.”

“The [state or local agency] hereby agrees to coordinate with ICE prior to releasing any information relating to, or exchanged under, this MOA, including any SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) developed for the implementation of this MOA. Information obtained or developed as a result of this MOA is under the control of ICE and shall be subject to public disclosure only pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal laws, regulations, and executive orders. Insofar as any documents created by the [state or local agency] contain information developed or obtained as a result of this MOA, such documents shall not be considered public records.”

Reporters or members of the public who want information arising from a local law enforcement agency’s efforts to enforce immigration law will be forced to file a Freedom of Information Act request to gain access to information that is not classified and which the public is entitled to see.

“The standardized 287(g) Memorandums of Agreement include provisions designed to protect information whose (sic) release would violate privacy laws or hamper the outcome of a law enforcement investigation,” Nantel said. “However, information defined as not public record can be released through a Freedom of Information Act request as long as the release does not violate other laws and DHS policies.”  (It’s my “policy” not to give my hard earned money to criminals and thieves, but the government takes it from me anyway.)

DHS and ICE officials said enforcement of federal immigration law will concentrate on “criminal aliens” and not on individuals who are simply in the country illegally. Nantel said the treatment of illegal aliens without a criminal record will be handled on a case-by-case basis.  (Does anybody besides me see that argument as circular?  If you do something illegal, doesn’t that BY DEFINITION make you a criminal?  Welcome to the Separated States of Orwellia.)

The MOA spells out that policy as follows:

“ICE will assume custody of an alien 1) who has been convicted of a State, local or Federal offense only after being informed by the alien’s custodian that such alien has concluded service of any sentence of incarceration; 2) who has prior criminal convictions and when immigration detention is required by statute; and 3) when the ICE Detention and Removal  Field Office Director or his designee decides on a case-by-case basis to assume custody of an alien who does not meet the above criteria.”

CNSNews.com asked Nantel if the Obama administration, DHS, and ICE support the arrest and deportation of individuals who are in the country illegally, regardless of whether they have committed a crime. Nantel did not give a simple yes-or-no answer to this question, saying instead that the administration will remove illegal aliens according to “DHS priorities.”  (Which means illegal aliens whom they can sneak into the voting booth have priority.)

“ICE is first and foremost focused on identifying and removing dangerous criminal aliens who pose a threat to local communities,” Nantel said. “ICE will arrest and process for removal any individuals who are found to be in this country illegally in a manner consistent with immigration law and DHS priorities.”  (What an outright lie!  If that were the case, we wouldn’t keep hearing about police and citizens being murdered by illegal aliens who had been arrested and released multiple times.  It’s almost as if the government were intentionally stirring up chaos and mayhem.  Trying to create a crisis to take advantage of????)

There, But for the Grace of God Go I

Have you ever had one of those moments of reflection when someone gets hurt at a location you just left, or where you were about to go, and thought “That would have been me if I hadn’t taken the long way today,” or “…if I hadn’t stopped for gas,” or whatever your circumstance?  You may dismiss it as a coincidence.  But was it REALLY?


Thanks, Jim.

Armed Citizen Saves the Day

This is the kind of story that is NEVER covered by the mainstream media, because it doesn’t fit their template.  Honest citizens with guns save lives.  Period.  There are many of these stories that you will never see unless you do the digging on your own.

An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject.

From usconcealedcarry.com e-mail update:

Written by Mr. Philip Van Cleave, President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League

1. Exclusive: I met with the gun owner who saved lives in the Richmond Golden Market shooting last week

On Friday I received a surprise call from the gun owner who has been in the press this week for saving lives at a Richmond store. The gun owner used a replica 1875 Remington Army .45 Long Colt with a 7 1/2 inch barrel to stop a criminal who had shot the store’s owner.

He wanted to remain anonymous, but called so that the story could be set straight, as much of what was in the press wasn’t accurate.

Board member Dennis O’Connor and I ended up meeting with him today (Saturday) at the Golden Market store, where the shooting had taken place one week earlier.

Besides being able to actually see the layout of the store, Dennis and I got to see the security videos of the shooting!

We also got to meet the store owner who had been shot twice during the hold up, but is now back at his store. More on this great man later.

Here is what we know from talking to the gun owner and watching the videos:

The gun owner (GO) was in the store waiting in line to pay for an item when the bad guy (BG) came in wearing dark sunglasses and trying to coverup his face while brandishing a revolver. The BG yelled for everyone to get down and before anybody could react, immediately walked over to the store owner and in a cold-blooded fashion shot him twice. The owner then dropped down behind the counter. It wasn’t more than 2 seconds after the BG first walked in the doors that he shot the store owner.

Those shots at the store owner missed a teenage boy’s head by inches.

The GO yelled for the BG to drop his gun as the GO drew his gun. The BG opened fire on the GO. The GO returned fire, hitting the BG as the GO dove hard for the floor behind some barrels full of ice and drinks.

The BG ran towards the back of the store, aiming his gun at an innocent man laying prone on the floor. Luckily the BG was too distracted by the GO to shoot the man. There is no doubt in my mind that the man would have been shot in cold blood that day if it weren’t for that GO returning fire.

The BG kept trying to get to the front of the store by walking up various aisles and firing shots at the GO as he did so. At one point cans of tinned meat exploded on a shelf as the BG took a shot at the GO.

What was bizarre was that the BG actually was strutting around like he owned the place while under fire! As he approached the front of one aisle, he again pointed a gun at a person on the ground and was about to execute him, when he was again distracted by the GO.

Finally the GO spotted the BG at the front of an aisle standing in the open.

Much to his surprise, the GO discovered that when he dove hard for the floor he had somehow broken the trigger on his gun!

But the gun was a single action, so the GO pushing himself up with one arm, aimed the gun, pulled the hammer back and let it fly forward – twice.

Although seriously wounded three times, the BG came at the GO. The BG tried to grab the GO’s gun since the BG’s gun was out of ammunition. A life-and-death struggle began. The GO got a grip on the BG’s gun and the GO hit the BG twice hard on the temple with the 7 1/2″ barrel on his rather heavy gun.

The BG finally broke off the engagement, tried to run out the front door, but collapsed at the door.

The GO secured the BG’s gun and keeping an eye on the now unconscious bad guy, called 9-1-1.

The BG has now died (he was in critical condition since the shooting).

The police showed up a minute or so after the 9-1-1 call and initially had everyone in the store at gun point and handcuffed some until they could figure out who was who.

What really impressed me was that on the surveillance video, the owner, while shot twice by the BG, was walking around making sure that all of his customers were OK after the shooting had ended. He only let himself collapse after he was sure they were OK! Words fail me on this. I am so glad that he made it. What a dichotomy – a BG who shoots an innocent person without provocation, almost killing a teenager while doing so – caring for no one but himself. And then the store owner who, while seriously wounded, making sure his customers were OK. Evil exists and so does Good. Both were on display in those two minutes of terror. Luckily only the bad guy was killed. The owner was walking with a limp, clearly in some pain. 😦

A lot of people owe their lives to that GO. However, he is having none of it, saying that he simply did what he had to do.

The GO wanted me to share the following points:

* Buy a quality gun – don’t use some cheap $90 gun to protect your life. He considered his gun to be a good one and even then the trigger broke under the extreme stress of a life-and-death battle.

* Practice with your gun, get training, and be good with that gun.

* More and more BGs are choosing to kill in cold blood to get what they want. If they can’t live the “good life, ” then they don’t care if their crimes send them to jail.

* He also noted that fewer and fewer BGs are getting any jail time.

Here are my thoughts from watching that tape:

* Talk about a cold-blooded, fast attack where an innocent was shot without warning! Unbelievable. Situational awareness is really important. Luck doesn’t hurt, either.

* Open carry was an advantage in this case because in the video I saw just how fast the GO managed to draw his gun and begin to return fire. You always hear about how open carry is so bad tactically – you’ll be the first one shot, etc. Oh, yeah? The GO had a HUGE gun in plain sight and he was NOT shot. Who got shot first? An unarmed store owner.

* I am betting that the BG was on drugs, big time. He was hit with THREE 45-CALIBER BULLETS, with at least two of those hits causing grievous injury, and he continued the fight as if he had not even been hit at all! In fact he was strutting like a peacock who owned the place as he was walking up and down the aisles trying to get to a position where he could shoot the GO. As a gun owner, you need to be prepared for that eventuality and keep shooting the BG in his center of mass until he stops his attack. Don’t think one shot, or even two shots, are going to do it. And a head shot might well be what it takes to stop such an attack quickly.

* If you are out of ammunition, a gun does make a great weapon with which to bludgeon someone in hand-to-hand combat.

* This shooting bolstered both sides of the argument about how much ammunition one should carry. The good guy got off only four shots (of course his gun had a broken trigger and that didn’t help). The bad guy got off six shots and ran out of ammunition (thankfully). But in my mind, and having had some advanced training, I think an extra magazine for a semi-auto, or a reloader for a revolver, is a good idea. WIth someone like the BG above, if you run out of ammunition before he does, he will execute you. Period.

Democrats Unveil Climate Bill

Very few of those on Capitol Hill are really stupid enough to believe that any “climate change” we might experience is actually caused by man.  We might be POLLUTING the environment, but to credit climate change to anything we are doing is more than pretentious.  The REAL science does not back up the assertion.  I’m not talking about the discredited “hockey stick” graph that our environmental savior Al Gore likes to display, or the NASA data that was proven to be falsified and faulty.  I’m talking about data from scientists that number at least as many as the global warming/climate change crowd, but are silenced and/or ignored by government and their willing accomplices the mainstream media.  As I said in my post “Stop the Obama Plan to Take Total Control,” this is not about protecting the climate or environment, it’s about control of wealth and power.

…Have no doubt that they will find another way to put this over on us, and here’s why.  Don’t miss this.  Cap-and-Trade, carbon tax, or whatever label they place on it is the one, single way to tax and control EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE.  Think about it.  We are a carbon based economy.  Is there ANYTHING that you use, consume, buy, etc. that isn’t produced with carbon based energy, made from carbon fuel derivatives (i.e. plastics come from oil), and/or delivered in a vehicle that burns carbon based fuel?  This includes the electricity that lights, heats, and cools your home, and cooks your food.  The producers will be taxed on the carbon used to produce, this tax will of course be passed on to you, the consumer.  The consumer will also be taxed on the carbon they consume.  This will doubly and heavily burden you and I with massive taxes, and will eventually drive producers out of business because we can’t afford to buy their products.  They close, we lose jobs, the tax base of both producers and consumers shrinks, the government has fewer dollars they can tax, the nation goes deeper in debt, and the death spiral of our country’s economy continues.)

Here are a few key points to remember.  CO2, carbon dioxide, is PLANT FOOD, not a “warming gas.”  If you see the GEOLOGIC data which goes back BILLIONS of years, rather than the METEOROLOGICAL data that the global warming/climate change crowd uses which only goes back at most a few HUNDRED years, you see that their assertions about the affects of CO2 on the environment are patently false.  One of the other pieces of data that shows the absurdity of the global warming claims is the evidence that Mars was warming at the same time and same rate as the earth.  I guess that means that our use of the evil SUV’s is causing such bad pollution that it’s even causing MARS to WARM.  Are you starting to see how ridiculous this climate change/global warming crap is?

April 1, 2009

Democrats Unveil Climate Bill


WASHINGTON — The debate on global warming and energy policy accelerated on Tuesday as two senior House Democrats unveiled a far-reaching bill to cap heat-trapping gases and quicken the country’s move away from dependence on coal and oil.

But the bill leaves critical questions unanswered and has no Republican support. It is thus the beginning, not the end, of the debate in Congress on how to deal with two of President Obama’s priorities, climate change and energy.

The draft measure, written by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, sets a slightly more ambitious goal for capping heat-trapping gases than Mr. Obama’s proposal. The bill requires that emissions be reduced 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, while Mr. Obama’s plancalls for a 14 percent reduction by 2020. Both would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases by roughly 80 percent by 2050.

The Waxman-Markey bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, emerges at a time when many Americans, and their representatives in Congress, are wary of wide-ranging environmental legislation that could raise energy costs and potentially cripple industry. The bill, a version of a so-called cap-and-trade plan, also comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is about to exert regulatory authority over heat-trapping gases under the Clean Air Act.

The bill would require every region of the country to produce a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and geothermal by 2025. A number of lawmakers around the country, particularly in the Southeast, call that goal unrealistic because the natural resources and technology to meet it do not yet exist.

The bill also calls for modernization of the electrical grid, production of more electric vehicles and significant increases in efficiency in buildings, appliances and the generation of electricity.

But the Waxman-Markey proposal does not address how pollution allowances would be distributed or what percentage might be auctioned or given free. Nor does it say how most of the tens of billions of dollars raised from pollution permits would be spent, or whether the revenue would be returned to consumers to compensate for higher energy bills. (Returned to the consumer? Once the government gets ANYTHING, it never gives it back) Those matters have been left to negotiations, which will begin when Congress returns from its Easter recess on April 20.

Under Mr. Obama’s plan, roughly two-thirds of the revenue from pollution permit auctions would be returned to the public in tax breaks. (Right.  More “tax breaks” for those who pay no taxes to begin with.  That’s know as “welfare.”) Some members of Congress from both parties want to see all the revenue from any carbon-reduction plan returned to the public in some form.

Mr. Waxman, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement that his measure would create jobs and provide a gradual transition to a more efficient economy. (See my comments on job and wealth creation by government from the “Stop the Obama Plan to Take Total Control” post HERE.)

“Our goal is to strengthen our economy by making America the world leader in new clean-energy and energy-efficiency technologies,” Mr. Waxman said.

The bill offers a sweetener for members from coal-producing states by including $10 billion in new financing for the development of technology to capture and store emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, which currently produces half of the nation’s electricity.  (Remember Obama’s comments about the coal industry?  He promised he was going to destroy it)

Representative Rick Boucher, a Democrat from the coal-rich southwestern corner of Virginia, insisted on that provision, noting that coal would remain a major part of the nation’s energy mix for decades to come.

A coalition of business and environmental groups, the United States Climate Action Partnership, welcomed the measure as a “strong starting point” for addressing emissions of heat-trapping gases and said it had incorporated many of the partnership’s recommendations.

But the group, which includes major manufacturing corporations like Alcoa, DuPont and General Motors, said that it would push for a “substantial” number of free pollution allowances so that its members could make a gradual transition to less-polluting technologies.

The Democrats AIG Bonus Scam

How is it that lying to congress is a federal offense, but congress lying to the American people is no problem at all? At the very least all of these clowns are guilty of impeachable offenses of lying to their employers (that’s US!). Actually, following the Democrat-set precedent of the Scooter Libby trial, they are guilty of criminal offenses that should land them all in jail. The Democrats lead by Obama are destroying truth, real justice, and personal responsibility in America. They, along with the Democrats posing as Republicans, all need to go to jail for their contributions to the destruction of America.

The Dems’ AIG Bonus Scam

by Fred J. Eckert (more by this author)
Posted 03/24/2009 ET
Updated 03/25/2009 ET

The Democratic Congress put on quite a show for us last week (and this week may top last).

In a memorable performance, they feigned surprise and shock that $165 million of taxpayers’ dollars were spent on bonuses for executives of the failed insurance giant AIG.

“If they don’t give the money back, we will put in place a new law that will allow us to tax these bonuses at a very high rate so that it is returned to its rightful owners — the taxpayers,” New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer fumed in a Senate speech. “So, to those of you getting these bonuses, be forewarned: you will not keep them.”

It was a scene reminiscent of the one in the movie Casablanca in which Captain Renault tells Rick he is closing down his saloon down because, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here” as a casino worker hands Renault a wad of money and says, “Your winnings, sir.”

Schumer knows perfectly well that this $165 million for AIG executive bonuses is something he voted for just a few weeks earlier.

The same is true of each of the other ten Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have joined Schumer in signing a letter making the same threat he announced in his floor remarks.

It’s a farce — a sham.

What’s going on here is that the news media finally got around to mentioning that this $165 million for bonuses is part of the more than $170 billion of taxpayer money that Congress and President Obama insisted must be awarded in haste to the failed insurance giant American International Group, Inc (AIG). The public, understandably, is really angry.

So the Democrats are terrified that the public might actually start figuring out what an incredibly incompetent job President Obama and the Congressional Democrats are doing.

What if average citizens begin asking themselves the sort of questions that the Democrats can depend on the mainstream media to cover for them by not asking? Questions such as,

  • Why was Congress so reckless in writing the bailout legislation that it didn’t include limitations to preclude waste such as those big bonuses?
  • Anyone who reads the news knows that the financial markets are truly global. When writing the legislation, Congress had to know that AIG would pass billions of U.S. tax dollars to foreign banks. Why didn’t Congress make that contingent on equal or greater contributions by foreign governments? Why are the French, the Germans and the British having their banks rescued by American taxpayers?
  • What other questionable expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars are buried in the barrels of billions the Democrats are rush delivering to seemingly anyone who puts his hand out? Weren’t there better alternatives than simply giving away taxpayers’ billions to anyone and everyone who got into severe trouble by taking reckless risks? Why no public hearings on this?
  • Was the main reason for such a great rush to avoid close scrutiny of where the money was going? How many so-called “stimulus” expenditures are really nothing but gigantic rewards to political allies?

What the Democrats decided is that they needed a stunt to divert attention away from their stunning incompetence.

So, last week, the House voted to “take back” those contractually obligated bonuses, and the Democratic leadership has promised that the Senate will do the same this week. This is not a comedy the Democrats are performing for us — it’s a tragedy.

Equally tragic is the blatant disrespect for the Constitution of the United States that is on display throughout these shenanigans. Article 6 of the Constitution requires that the President and Member of Congress swear to support the Constitution. Of course, the Constitution doesn’t require them to understand it or even to read it, but let’s give the driving force behind this sham, Chuck Schumer, the benefit of the doubt and presume he has read it. He is, after all, a graduate of Harvard Law School, a member of the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, and was a member of the Judiciary Committee when he served in the House.

Schumer knows better — and so should every member of Congress and the President. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Constitution prohibits what they are doing because it specifies that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” And what they are doing constitutes a bill of attainder.

As the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution says, “In common law, bills of attainder were legislative acts that, without trial, condemned specifically designated persons or groups to death…,” but the Supreme Court — going back to a case in 1810 — reads the Constitutional bar to prevent legislative confiscation of property.

As James Madison explained in The Federalist Papers No. 44: “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principle of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.”

Freedom from bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are the only individual rights which the Framers deemed so important as to insert in the original document protection against both federal and state infringement.

In 1965, in United States vs. Brown, the Supreme Court once again affirmed that the purpose of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 3 is to prohibit “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.”

The position of the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has been that this clause of the Constitution is deemed violated if 1) The legislation in question specifies a specific group; 2) It includes some form of punishment; and 3) It does not include a judicial trial.

One, two, three — guilty on each count. Which means that what’s coming next is that the Supreme Court will give thumbs down to their pathetic pretense. And then they will feign surprise and say they tried. Trying to con the American people into believing they have nothing to do with something the public is incensed about — that’s what this big charade is really all about.

This sham is an affront to the Constitution of the United States by the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States. They are violating the solemn oath they took to bear “true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution — and by doing this, they are guilty of neglecting to “well and faithfully discharge” the duties of their offices.

Many of them don’t know what they are doing.

Many of them know but don’t care.

That’s how bad things are in Washington right now.

It’s change, all right — an appalling change from what the Founders of the American Republic had in mind for governing this great country.

Fred J. Eckert is a former conservative Republican Congressman from New York and twice served as a US Ambassador under President Reagan, who called him �a good friend and valuable advisor.�

%d bloggers like this: