Saturday, March 5, 2016

3 Reasons Why Donald Trump Is Unelectable

1) Conflict of Interest(s)

Donald Trump makes frequent reference to the many successful companies he has built - but he has seldom addressed the fact that he would face massive charges of conflict of interest if elected.   He has also failed to come up with a believable plan that will prevent the Democrats from taking him apart on this issue alone.

Every president makes thousands of decisions that affect virtually every kind of business.  For this reason, every president in recent history has placed all their assets in a "blind trust" upon election, and every candidate in recent history has pledged to do so if elected.  By doing so they eliminate conflict of interest because they do not know what they are invested in or what decisions are being made.

Donald Trump is the wealthiest person to run for president in recent history.  His investment holdings are massive.  His plan for avoiding conflicts of interest?  "My sons will run my companies."

Really?  How stupid does he think the press is?  He would still know what companies and industries his money is invested in and he could use the office of president to benefit those industries.  It would be difficult to liquidate his companies and place everything in a blind trust - but failure to do so leaves him open to charges of conflict of interest that no other candidate in at least 100 years has faced.

The mainstream media, ever hopeful that Trump will be nominated, has not addressed this yet, but a Google search reveals that the left is already talking about this.  If he is nominated, they will tear him apart over this issue.

For this reason alone, he should not be nominated.

2) Lack of Transparency

Donald Trump is also refusing to release his tax returns - something else that is highly unusual.   In my lifetime - and I'm in my 60s - I do not remember any candidate doing this.  All have released their returns.  His excuse?  "I'm being audited'.

Think for a moment - does this make any sense?  The IRS certainly has his returns.  He certainly is not being audited for all recent years.  Why has he not released these years?  Both the IRS and tax experts have said that he is free to release any and all of his returns.  The obvious answer is that he is hiding something that would damage his chances of election.

Chances are, eventually, this is going to come out.  Do we really want it to come out a day or a week before the general election?

3) Massive Negative Opinion

Donald Trump is not new to the public's eyes.  He is quite well known, and many people have well formed opinions about him.  Poll after poll shows that 60% of the general public has a negative opinion about him.  What do most people associate him with?  Answer: A TV reality show in which he was well known for two words, "You're fired".  Is it any wonder that most people have a negative opinion of him?

Interestingly enough, he has yet to get much above 40% in Republican primaries.  With a 60% negative, he is highly unlikely to draw more votes in the general election.


So there you have it, three reasons why Donald Trump will lose a general election.  We haven't even talked about he childish behavior and his refusal to address other significant issues.  We also have not talked about the many liberal positions he has advocated, or the many liberal politicians he has funded.  If he is nominated I will support him, but I fear that we will lose big - and a loss to either Democrat running is a loss of America as we know it.

I understand that many of you are angry.  You want change.  So do I.  However, the reality is that a vote for Trump is a vote for someone who is almost certain to lose.  On the other hand, another outsider is running - and he has a much greater chance of winning: Ted Cruz.  No matter who you are currently supporting, if you do not want us to lose the general election VOTE FOR CRUZ!

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Do Democrats Keep People Out Of Poverty?

Based on Presidential Election Wins 2000-2012
Blue = 4 Democratic Wins
Light Blue = 3 Democratic Wins
Purple = 2 Wins Each
Pink = 3 Republican Wins
Red = 4 Republican Wins
Democrats claim that they do the best job of keeping people out of poverty.  Is that really true?  Well, let's check.

The key to getting it right is the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).  In some states the cost of living is so high that people who make a lot of money still are impoverished.  In others, the cost of living is low and people making much less are not in poverty. 

The map at left gauges control of states by charting the winners in the last 4 presidential elections.  This mirrors control of state government - especially legislatures - quite well.

Here are the most impoverished states when COLA is factored:

1) California - Blue State  (Most impoverished state)
2) Hawaii - Blue State
3) New Jersey - Blue State
4) Florida - Purple State
5) Nevada - Purple State
6) Maryland - Blue State
7) Virginia - Purple State
8) Massachusetts - Blue State
9) Connecticut - Blue State
10  New Hampshire - Blue State


1) All ten of the most impoverished states are solidly Democratic or lean heavily Democratic.

2) Even more significantly, not one of the states is solidly Republican or leans Republican.

3) Only one state - Florida - is in the Deep South

4) Many of the top ten states are losing populations as people move to - you guessed it - Red States.

These states are losing population
These states are gaining population


Saturday, December 5, 2015

Facts Related To The San Bernardino Terrorist Attack

In the wake of the horrible terrorist attack upon our fellow Americans in San Bernardino, as the media is filled with highly opinionated commentary and a great deal of disinformation, I would like to share some FACTS.

Christians and Jews Are Targets

Fact #1: The terrorists may have chosen to attack this group because a Messianic Jew debated with the man.
 The issue?  The Messianic Jew refused to concede that Islam is a religion of peace.  No joke.

Fact #2: Islamic terrorists have attacked Christians and Jews overseas.

Fact #3: Most churches are soft targets, with no armed security.

Conclusion: Churches and Synagogues (and even moderate Mosques) are likely to be targeted in the future.  Clergy should lead their congregations in establishing real security, and those measures must include multiple armed and trained persons or they will be completely ineffective against armed attackers.

Gun Control and Terrorism

Fact #4: Gun control laws far beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India - they simply ensured that the terrorists victims were unable to effectively resist the terrorists as they roamed the city for days killing defenseless people.

Fact #5: Gun control laws far beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the Kenyan mall attack - they simply ensured that the terrorists victims were unable to effectively resist as they roamed the mall killing helpless people.

Fact #6: Gun control laws beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the Paris attacks - they merely insured that the victims were unable to effectively resist as the terrorists continued shooting people for over an hour.

Fact #7: California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and they failed to stop the San Bernardino attacks.  Having lived under these laws, I am very familiar with them - and most of what has been stated by the media is wrong.  Specifically:

1) The rifles used in the attack were obtained illegally.  California requires a state and federal background check and change of registration on all transfers of ownership or possession for more than 30 days.  This did not happen in this case.  I expect that we will see the person who transferred them to the terrorist arrested.  Take note: California has no "gun show loophole" and the law accomplished nothing.

2) The rifles used in the attack are illegal to possess under California law.  They had been illegally modified by removing the magazine lock that slows magazine changes.  They were equipped with muzzle brakes, pistol grips, forward grips, and 30 round magazines - every one of which is illegal in California.

3) California makes it nearly impossible for an average person to obtain a permit to carry a firearm.  In fact, the 9th Circuit recently ruled these restrictions to be unconstitutional.  The state has appealed. All this law did was insure that no one could shoot back.

4) The building in question is a "gun free zone" - meaning that in the unlikely event that someone had a permit to carry, they could not do so in this building.

In short, California's laws completely failed to even slow this attack - in fact, they made things much easier for the terrorists.

Fact #8: Banning people on the Terrorist Watch list from purchasing firearms is absolutely unconstitutional.  

There is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane.  This enables the government to place people on the watch list with no due process whatsoever.  Such persons are not even notified that they are on the list.  In fact, the ACLU is working hard to overturn the watch list because, among other things, there is no due process.  The list is a wide net, and many people with nothing to do with terrorism are on it.  The Huffington Post (not exactly a conservative publication!) has published at least two articles detailing how inaccurate the watch list is.  (See "7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List"  and "Ford Motor Co., 2-Year-Old, Innocent Man Have Records In Terror Database".) At one point Sen. Kennedy could not fly because someone with an identical name was on the list.  

There is a constitutional right of purchase and own firearms.  People cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process of law.  Banning people on the watch list from buying firearms is every bit as unconstitutional as rounding up all Muslims and placing them in camps without charges or due process.  A law banning people on the watch list from buying guns would be struck down in days, if not hours.

Fact #9: The FBI is notified every time a firearms background check is done on someone who is on the Terrorist Watch list.  (See 3rd paragraph of this CNN article.) They are then able to take action if they have real evidence that the person is a threat.

Fact #10: Gun control advocates cannot point to a single instance where any countries gun laws have stopped a terrorist attack.  The reason: It has never happened - in fact some of the worst terrorism has happened in countries where the possession of firearms is banned or virtually banned.

Conclusion: Gun control is not going to stop or even slow terrorists.  Administration efforts to enact new gun laws are an effort to distract from the real issues and co opt this tragedy to advance their pre-existing agenda.

What Can Stop Terrorist Attacks?

Fact: The head of INTERPOL has stated that armed citizens are the most effective way to stop terrorist attacks like those in Kenya and San Bernardino.  In the wake of San Bernardino, several leaders in law enforcement have called for more armed citizens.   This includes a New York state sheriff.

Fact: In spite of lies to the contrary, legally armed citizens have stopped many mass shootings.  

Fact: Armed citizens are forbidden to carry in places that are most commonly attacked - thus reducing the number of times they are able to stop mass shootings.  Indeed, since 2009, 92% of mass shootings such as the San Bernardino and the Oregon College shooting
 have taken place in so called gun free zones.  (More)

Fact: The FBI defines a mass shooting as a incident in which at least four people are shot.  Since shootings armed citizens almost always stop shootings before four people are shot, when they succeed, IT DOESN'T COUNT AS A MASS SHOOTING!  Talk about a "catch 22"!

Israeli Citizen Using His Gun To Stop A Terrorist Attack

Fact: Israel effectively stopped mass shootings by terrorists by arming large numbers of citizens.  In recent years, the number of persons authorized to carry fell to 170,000 - still a huge number when you consider that NYC, with about the same population has well under 10,000..   Recently, in response to stabbing incidents, they have increased the number of armed citizens - leading to many women being called "Glock moms".  In fact, the Israeli Prime Minister recently urged all those legally allowed to carry firearms to do so.  His call was echoed by the Jerusalem mayor.  More HERE.

Fact: Approximately 13 Million Americans have permits to carry.  Terrorists must take this into account when planning attacks (unless they are planning an attack in CA!).  These people are more law abiding than police officers and can be a major resource in stopping terrorist attacks, if and only if, we do away with so called gun free zones where only law abiding citizens are disarmed.

Conclusion: Ask yourself this question: People are being shot at your church.  Do you want to wait ten minutes or more for police to arrive, o would you rather have people in your church prepared to act immediately?  I think thre answer is obvious.

Finally, I urge everyone to view this documentary on mass shootings.   You will find it quite informative. 

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Gun Control Is Based On Propaganda

This post is available for download as a PDF file HERE

I realize that this is a radical statement.  Of course, not all gun laws are bad.  I don't want felons to have guns.  Ditto for the mentally ill.  However, we already have laws on the books to deal with these kind of situations.  I'm not talking about these laws or minor adjustments to them - I am taking about the typical gun control arguments we have all heard many times.

What is propaganda?  Is it not when you simply make stuff up in order to justify a public policy? Nearly all gun control arguments are based on PHONY INFORMATION - and I can prove it.  .  I urge you to check the following facts out for yourself.  Specifically these are prime examples of the phony information gun control arguments are based upon, none of which are ever questioned by the mainstream media: 

Phony Facts (i.e. Lies):

Gun control advocates frequently speak of the "epidemic of gun violence".  They do so because they want you to believe that gun violence is increasing - and it is working.  Most Americans believe that gun crime is rising.  But what are the real facts?

The real facts: GUN CRIME, INCLUDING GUN HOMICIDES, ARE DOWN BY NEARLY 50% SINCE 1993.   Even more significant, the nations gun supply doubled and concealed carry massively expanded during this same time frame!  Yep, more guns and more concealed carry resulted in a 50% drop in gun crime!

This information does not come from the NRA, but from official government statistics - reported by the highly regarded public research organization PEW RESEARCH.

Pew reports that this propaganda has largely succeeded.  Indeed, their report is entitled, " Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware".  Even more significantly, this drop has taken place with the number of firearms in the hands of the public as doubled and "shall issue" citizen concealed carry has expanded from a handful of states to 43 states.

Does it bother you that the American public has been successfully deceived by the gun control movement and the mainstream media?  It should.

And this is but one example.  Other phony facts include: Firearms are infrequently used in self defense, mass shootings are never stopped by armed citizens, gun free zones save lives, most Mexican crime guns come from US gun stores and many people are killed with so called "assault weapons".  All of these so called facts are completely false.  

Phony statistics

First, I invite you to check the sources of data used by pro-gun rights advocates.  You will find that organizations supporting gun rights almost exclusively use official government data.  The exception is when government doesn't collect data - such as defensive gun use.  They can do this because the actual facts support their pro-gun rights arguments.

In contrast, gun control organizations usually do not do this.  Instead, they simply make up their own terms and statistics that provide false support for gun control.  No greater example exists than their oft used "gun deaths" statistic.

As we have seen above, criminal use of firearms is down - so gun control advocates create their own statistic - not used or issued by any government agency.  They add gun homicides, gun accidents and gun suicides together to create the largest number possible.  However, when the use this figure in the media, they almost never tell you that they have done this.  Why? SIMPLE: THEY WANT THE PUBLIC TO THINK THEIR PHONY FIGURE IS THE GUN HOMICIDE FIGURE!  Indeed, most in the media never dispute this - instead, they too speak as if it is the firearms homicide figure.

Many Nations With High Suicide Rates Ban or Nearly
Ban Firearms - Yet This Doesn't Stop Suicides.
People Who Really Want To Kill Themselves Will Find A
Way.  Note that the UK and The US Have Nearly Identical
Rates of Suicide In Spite Of Draconian Gun Laws in The UK.
This is important because the majority of their "gun deaths" (about 60%) are not homicides, they are gun suicides.  When they are forced to admit that their phony figure is mostly composed of suicides, they argue that more guns equal more suicides.  They point to comparisons between cherry picked states to support this argument.  They reject the argument that someone who really wants to kill themselves will find a way - but what are the facts?

Well, we can look to three nations that are very similar: The US, Canada and the UK.  All three are English speaking, they share a common history and even, to a great extent a common media.  All three are modern industrial nations.  They do differ widely in one area: Firearms ownership.  The US has firearms in a bit less than 50% of homes (if not more), Canada has firearms in a bit less than 30% of homes and the UK has firearms in less than 4% of homes.  If firearms availability is a major factor in suicides, than the suicide rates in these three nations should vary widely.  However, this is not the case - their suicide rates are virtually identical, PROVING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF FIREARMS DOES NOT AFFECT THE SUICIDE RATE.

Of course, if firearms are available, they will be used to commit suicide - but if they are not available  people will simply choose another method.  That is why many nations with actual or virtual bans on private firearms have much higher rates of suicide than the US, the UK or Canada.  Clearly, other factors are at play here.

Gun control advocates know full well that combining firearms suicides with firearms suicides is dishonest.  They simply do not care.  They are quite willing to make up phony statistics to support their positions.

Phony Comparisons

This is yet another way in which the gun control movement uses propaganda methods.  The perhaps most well known, of these false comparisons is comparing the number of suicides and homicides with the number of justifiable homicides.

The propaganda is presented as follows: "You should not own a firearm because a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.  THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT OWN A GUN."  Remember, this is the whole point behind this phony comparison.

Boy, it sure sounds like a gun in the home is a really bad idea doesn't it?  It sounds like the self-defense benefit is far outweighed by the danger, right?  WRONG!

The problems here are many:

Phony, invalid comparison: Is the purpose of a defensive firearm in the home to kill intruders?  NO, IT IS NOT.  The purpose of a defensive firearm in the home is to protect the occupants.  In the vast majority of cases this can be done without firing any shots.  When confronted with a firearm, most intruders will run.  In the minority of cases were shots are fired in defense, no one dies.  Justifiable homicides are only a tiny minority of defensive gun uses.   By including only cases where an attacker is killed, the anti-gun propagandists intentionally eliminate the vast majority of successful defensive gun uses.  Even the most conservative figures (sadly, no official figures are available) on defensive gun use result in dozens to hundreds more defensive uses than deaths.

What we do know that is more LEGALLY OWNED firearms results in less crime and fewer legally owned guns results in more crime:

US Gun Ownership and Crime Rates

UK Gun Ownership and Crime Rates
Notice that in the US, where more guns have been added to the civilian supply, crime is down.  In the UK, where government has actively worked to reduce gun ownership, crime is up!  Even within the EU, countries such as Sweden, Finland, Norway and Switzerland - where gun ownership is common, have low crime rates, while the country with the fewest legally owned guns - you guessed it - the UK - has the highest crime rate.   Simply checking official figures on Wikipedia will confirm this.

Inflated death figure: As we have seen above, firearms ownership does not causes suicides.  Again, gun control advocates, without disclosing it unless asked, combine suicides and homicides to massively inflate their death statistic.  In fact 87% or 37 of the deaths in this statistic are suicides.

While suicidal people will use firearms if they are available, they quite clearly will use something else if they are not - therefore, these deaths are not as a result of a firearm being present and should not be counted.

Mixed data set: So, at this point our invalid comparison is reduced to six domestic deaths for each justifiable homicide.  However, even this figure is not really accurate.  

In compiling this statistic, no effort was made to distinguish between firearms legally owned by law abiding citizens and firearms owned illegally by criminals, drug abusers and the mentally ill.  Obviously, these people are much more likely to kill - intentionally or unintentionally.  They are much more likely to leave a firearm unsecured where a child can find it.  In short, a huge number of the deaths must have come from this group. 

Additionally, no effort was made to distinguish between homes in which domestic abuse and/or alcoholism was present and those homes without such problems.  Again, common sense and experience tells us that the risk of domestic violence is much high in these homes than in healthy homes.

So, of what use is this phony 43:1 statistic to a healthy, mentally stable, law abiding citizen who lives in a home without substance abuse or domestic violence?  Answer: IT IS OF NO USE AT ALL.  It completely irrelevant to such a person.  It does not predict the risk for such a person or household - and yet, this is exactly how the gun control advocates use it.

Of course, this is but one example.  Simply ask yourself when a comparison is made: Is this a VALID comparison?

Phony Terms

The gun control movement loves to make up phony terms of their own.  The reason is simple: Once the term has been vilified in the eyes of the public, the gun control movement can then expand it's definition (because it really doesn't have one), while the opinion of the public at large does not change.  In short, the reason the that gun control advocates use phony terms is to deceive the public.

"Saturday Night Special", "Cop Killer Bullets", "Gun Show Loophole" and "Assault Weapon" are but a few examples of the phony terms used by gun control advocates.  Currently, the most used of these terms is "Assault Weapon", so let's look at the history of this term.

The gun control advocates initially chose the term "Assault Weapon" because it is so close to the real term "Assault Rifle" that the two are easily confused.

What is an "Assault Rifle"?  Invented by the Germans during WW2 and named by none other than Hitler himself, assault rifles are standard equipment in most of the world's armies.  To be an assault rifle, a rifle must have all three of the following characteristics:

1) Intermediate cartridge - It must fire a round less powerful than a full power rifle cartridge and more powerful than a pistol cartridge
2) Fed from a detachable magazine
3) Capable of BOTH semi-automatic and fully automatic fire

Legally, real assault rifles are machine guns.  As such, they are very tightly controlled and cannot be purchased in a typical gun store.  In fact, the number in civilian hands is so small that legal fully auto weapons cost tens of thousands of dollars.

A machine gun is legally defined as any firearm that fires more than one round per pull of the trigger.  In other words a machine gun can spray bullets.  In contrast, a semi-auto firearm, examples of which have been around for more than 110 years and are commonly used in hunting, can only fire one shot per trigger pull.

What civilians can and do own - in very large numbers - are semi-auto versions of the military rifles.  These are functionally no different than rifles that have been around since the early 1900s - but they look nearly identical to their military counterparts.  This provided an opportunity for gun control advocates to introduce confusion.

In the late 1980s, they coined the term "assault weapon" - and initially employed in only against guns that had fully automatic military versions.  Even though these firearms were FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to all other semi-automatic firearms, they convinced many in the public that because of their appearance they were uniquely dangerous.   They were
The Rifles Above Actually Have The Same
Internal Parts - They Are Functionally
Identical - Yet The Bottom Firearm
Could Be Banned Based On Looks 
helped in this effort by a few police and media outlets that showed the fully automatic military versions being fired on full auto, and then referred to the civilian versions AS IF THEY WERE THE SAME GUNS.
 Of course, they weren't - but by now you know that lies are the gun control movement's stock and trade.

So, initially the gun control movement said, "We just want to ban these evil military rifles, not sporting or target guns."  (Never mind that the number one target gun in the US is the AR15.)  So, in my native State of California, these were banned in the late 1980s.  Next, having convinced the bulk of the public that "assault weapons" were terrible, they expanded the definition.  Now, any semi-auto rifle with a
The ONLY Difference Between These Rifles
Is The Stock - In CA The Bottom Rifle Is
Banned While The Top Rifle Is Not
detachable magazine and some much as one of five "evil, military features" (none of which affect the functioning of the firearm) was an assault rifle.
  This expanded the ban to hundreds of more models.  Finally, in 2014, gun control advocates in the California legislature expanded the definition to include any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine.  This would have banned virtually all semi-auto rifles - by calling them "assault weapons".   This was too much for even Democratic Governor Jerry Brown - who vetoed the bill.  However, you can bet your life that it will be back.

That is the pattern: Create a phony term, demonize it then, after the public thinks that type of gun terrible - expand the definition.  Classic deceptive propaganda.

Phony Solutions

By this I mean that in response to a tragedy - such as a mass shooting - gun control advocates rush to push gun control measures that would have not stopped, or even slowed, the tragedy.

Over the past three years, as we have been going through a cycle of mass murder incidents (historically, these horrible incidents do happen in cycles).  In response to every one of these incidents, gun control advocates have said the same thing every time: "This is why we need to close the 'gun show loophole' and establish universal background checks!"

Of course, there is only one problem: Every single gun used in these mass shootings was purchased at a gun store - where the buyer (usually the shooter) passed a federal background check!  None of these guns was purchased at a gun show.  None of these guns were purchased from a private party.  None were purchased by someone outside the shooter's household.  Some were purchased in states that required background checks on all sales and had their own system in addition to the federal system (such as California).  None of these measures stopped the shooters from buying a gun through legal, retail channels.

This attempted mass shooter (and murderer) should have been in the background check database - both because of criminal charges and a mental health commitment - but he passed a federal background check!  This is how every recent mass shooter obtained his guns.

Why is this?  Simple: The system's database is terribly flawed - and the only groups that seems to care is the gun industry and gun rights groups!    Gun control advocates do not care that the system's database is flawed - but they want it expanded to all gun "transfers".  This is why so many think the goal is not to stop criminals from getting guns - but to provide a paper trail for other purposes, such as future confiscation.

The fact that expanded background checks won't stop mass shootings is so firmly established that even a leading gun control advocate had to admit it!

However, you can be sure that the fact that it did not stop the mass shooter from obtaining firearms will not stop gun control advocates from proposing any and all "solutions" on their wish list.


I think I have firmly established that most gun control arguments are nothing but propaganda.  However, you can only fool the American people for so long before the see through you - and the good news is that more and more Americans are seeing through the phony gun control arguments.  That's why support for gun control is at an all time low.

One final thought: If gun control advocates have to habitually resort to these tactics - if they are the rule and not the exception - if they are used, not by individuals, but by well established gun control organizations - WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THEIR ARGUMENTS?

Monday, November 2, 2015

Religious Leaders on Guns and Self-Defense

One of the major reasons why people own firearms is self defense.  The Supreme Court has held that this is one of the core reasons for the 2nd Amendment.  Yet, if one listens to the mainstream media, one wold think that all religious figures are opposed both to the ownership of firearms and the use of deadly force in the defense of self and others.  In reality, many religious figures have spoken in support of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms.  Consider these quotes:

“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;" Law of Moses Exodus 22:2-3 (NIV)

"He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 (NIV)

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
- St. Augustine

"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death.... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim."
- Thomas Aquinas

It is written [in the Taoist classic "Dao De Jing"] that weapons of war are ill-omened, and he who follows the Way of Heaven shuns their use, save when necessary. But those who take up arms when this is necessary, are also following the Way of Heaven. If you ask me why this is so, I reply that flowers and greenery bloom among the spring breezes, but they wither and fall in the frosts of autumn.
—Yagy├╗ Munenori, sword instructor and Buddhist scholar

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - The Dalai Lama

Gun control is “a long-term assault on your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.” Richard Land, then the chief public policy spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention 

"….legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life.” Pope St. John Paul Evangelium Vitae 

"There is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive, but I anticipate no such extreme, but caution is the parent of safety." - Joseph Smith  (HC 6:605.)

“Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal.  The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.” - Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King  

(It should also be noted that Rev.King applied for a carry permit under a Southern "may issue" system and was turned down because he was black.)

Those of us among the clergy who take a stand in favor of the 2nd Amendment and the right of self defense are in good company.   Many people who advocate the disarmament of the American public might be shocked to discover that many people they admire disagree! 

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Did Hillary Throw Away The Election this Week?

What would happen to Donald Trump's chances if he made this statement: "I think that an abortion ban makes sense.  If I'm elected, I will order the arrest of anyone performing an abortion."  How long would it take the mainstream media and the Democrats to destroy him?   How long would it be before commentators pointed out that his actions would directly violate the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court?   Should we not be afraid of ANYONE who promises to violate the Constitution before they are ever are elected?

Well, you didn't miss Donald Trump's statement - because he didn't say that.  However , Hillary Clinton said something just as devastating: SHE ADVOCATED DRACONIAN GUN CONTROL, INCLUDING A COMPLETE HANDGUN BAN - AND SHE DID IT ON VIDEO!

To understand that this is exactly what she is proposing, you have to understand two things:

1) The question she is answering is: Australia basically banned handguns and confiscated them by the millions.  Can we do that?

Notice that she NEVER says that banning handguns is going too far, or is unconstitutional.  In fact, she goes on to praise such action.

2) She references three nations as shining examples of gun control:  
Australia (near handgun ban), Canada (near handgun ban) and the UK (actual total handgun ban).  If these are the countries see wants to model our laws after - then she is proposing such a ban.

So, there is ZERO DOUBT that Hillary has doubled down on her call for massive gun control - including a handgun ban.  So, you say - "What's wrong with that?"  Well, two things......

First, such action would directly violate the US Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008 and again in 2010.  It would be just as unconstitutional as banning all abortions.  In fact, the decisions specifically held that handguns are protected by the 2nd Amendment.  Notice that Clinton never says anything about their being ANY constitutional limits on gun laws.

In contrast, Bernie Sanders has only supported gun control measures that have not been ruled unconstitutional.

So, you say, "No president would ever directly violate an order of the Supreme Court!"  I suggest you go to Oklahoma and ask the Cherokee.  They were forcibly removed to that locate AFTER the Supreme Court told Pres. Johnson he could not do so.  So, if she wants to try, she certainly can IF she gets elected.

Second, she has no clue what the American people really believe about handgun laws.  Presently 43 states allow citizen concealed carry.  That's 86% of the total.  Not one state has ever repealed such a law.

Then there is the results of several polls:

The American people oppose ANY new gun control by a narrow margin. (Source)

Another poll (by Gallup) 52% want laws to stay the same or be made less strict.  (Source)

When we move away from gun control in general - which includes less severe measures such as increased background checks - to the issue at hand BANNING HANDGUNS.

Well, on this issue, the news is worse.  Again, according to Gallup polling,  73% of Americans oppose a ban on handguns.  In fact, opposition to such a law has been growing for decades:

A good gauge of the level of support for the 2nd Amendment in a given state is the support for citizen concealed carry.  If a state is shall issue, which means that it allows those who can legally own guns to carry them. then support for the 2nd Amendment is strong.  After all, one one state was forced to do this by the courts.  Check out this map:

86% of US states, containing 72.7% of the US population, allow anyone able to pass the training and the background check to carry the very handguns Clinton wants to ban!  Does she think that she can win more than one or two of these states after saying these things on video?  Remember, all but one of these states enacted their carry laws with strong public support.  Every one of these states has seen crime drop.  People in these states LIKE the fact that they can legally carry a handgun if they want to.

There is a very good reason why Pres. Obama downplayed gun control until after his reelection.  He absolutely knew about the reality of this map.  This map is why he was not even able to get expanded background checks - for which there is much more support - through a Senate dominated by his own party.

Now Hillary Clinton has decided to challenge the gun owners in these very same states that passed citizen concealed carry.  Gun rights activists in these states are organized, motivated and ready.  She has handed them the very thing that they need to motivate their flow gun owners and their families - a threat of an unconstitutional gun confiscation program.  Many of these people voted for President Obama in the last two elections - but when they believe their gun rights are threatened, history proves that they vote one way: In favor of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Hillary's comments may get her the Democratic nomination - but they have likely cost her - and her party - the general election and the presidency.  She has already lost.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

The Divided States of America?

Since the 2000 election resulted in the blue states vs red states map, things have not gotten any better.  The division of the United States continues.  Christian and conservatives are leaving the red states in droves - and California in particular. We are quite simply no longer one country. Politically and geographically, there are very few moderates.

There are two, very different nations. One believes in Religious freedom, the other does not. One believes in the Bill of Rights - the other does not believe in freedom of speech or 2nd Amendment rights (and is questionable in its' support of many others). One believes that the Constitution is important, the other believes that judges should completely ignore what it says so that they can rule in the way they want. One believes in personal freedom - the other believes the government should take care of everyone and control their lives in any way government wants.

Political division is nothing new - but this division is not just political, it is geographic. It's not just political - it's Constitutional. Never before has a whole political party treated the Constitution like it is written on toilet paper. We have only been this divided once before: During the decade before the Civil War.

I'm certainly not the only person to express concern about the division in out nation leading to a disaster in our nation.  Slate magazine - not exactly a right wing rag - carried an article suggesting that the US may very well split into two nations.  The cause?  Religion.  There are still other issues that drastically divide us - and this article based on a long article un Tufts Magazine identifies 11 different cultural areas that divide us.

Looking at the map (and reading about the groups) - The greatest division is between the Eastern areas of the Yankeedom and New Netherland - and the Left Coast.  These areas are quite left of center and largely secular.  The entire rest of the nation is largely religious and conservative.  To be sure, there are areas with that are secular and progressive, but most of the counties outside the Northeast and the coast are conservative and religious.  While these divisions have always existed, these two areas are growing further and further apart. 

Suspicion that one side or the other will may some extra-constitutional move is growing on both the right and the left.  While I do not think this is going to happen, there are some things I find very troubling.  There have been too many reports that high ranking military officers are being asked, "Would you order those under your command to fire on American citizens?" for there to be nothing behind it.  The number of executive orders - and more importantly the scope - of executive orders issued by Pres. Obama should concern everyone.  The outrage over the agreement with Iran - passed over the overwhelming objection of both the American people and their elected representatives is much greater than the news media has reported.  Again, the outrage is much greater in the red states.

Worse yet, many on the left - particularly those who live on the Left Coast or the urban Northeast - simply do not understand that many in the rest of the country would be quite willing to fight should the federal government infringe upon religious freedom or gun rights (as in partial or complete confiscation - not something less like expanded background checks).   When the president of the United States calls for UK or Australian style gun control - and calls it reasonable and "common sense" - it reveals just how much he is out of touch.  Gun owners know that both of these nations have confiscated millions of firearms, in actions that clearly would be unconstitutional here.  In fact, the UK has the most restrictive gun laws in the EU!  If any president was stupid enough to attempt to take such action, the result would be civil war.  Entire states, including their state governments, would resist with force.  They would not do so because they love guns, but because they would see this as only the first step towards a totalitarian government.  The fact that most people on the coasts or the Northeast have no clue that the president's suggestions clearly violate the Bill of Rights or the disaster that would result if he got his way - is absolutely frightening.

No nation can long survive if it is as divided as we are.  We either must find something to unite around, or this nation faces a very real danger of falling apart - or worse.  That rallying point should be the Constitution.  Even though both sides object strongly to some rights protected by it - such as the right to own and carry firearms, or the right to have an abortion, it is the Constitution that holds us together, provides the system for debating and resolving disagreements.  Either we must stop talking about doing things that violate that critically important document, and start respecting it - or we will soon cease to exist as a nation.  It really is up to us.