Day: October 9, 2017

Prayer under Attack


When the news broke of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, many Americans did what we have done throughout our history. We offered our thoughts and prayers for the survivors and their families.

To the surprise of many, that is no longer an acceptable response. According to Democrats, we must stop praying and “do something.” No matter that the facts are unknown. No matter that people are still mourning and victims are in shock. Politics and legislation are omnipotent — the answer to every human tragedy and need.

Until recently it would have been unthinkable that anyone, especially prominent political leaders, would mock prayer. However, the sad reality is that disrespect for Christianity is one of the Left’s contributions to modern American culture. Elites in Washington, Hollywood, and their lesser acolytes in the “Twitterverse” and on Facebook openly dismissed prayer for the Las Vegas victims as an excuse for inaction.

For Americans to see prayer as an avoidance of responsibility bespeaks an inscrutable ignorance. Our Founding Fathers, the pilgrims and pioneers who came before them, and most of the colonists prayed and yet somehow built the greatest nation on earth at the same time.

They were not a genetically superior breed. Their flaws and mistakes are well known, but they believed in the power of prayer, as did most in the society of their time. They also believed in providential guidance in answer to prayer. To put it another way, they believed that prayer was the prelude to more effective action, not a way of avoiding it. Even the slaves believed that they could pray their way out of bondage. They had no earthly power to bring it about, but, not to put too fine a point on it, their prayers were answered.

In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers called upon the power of God to aid them in their quest for freedom. According to James Madison’s notes, Benjamin Franklin called for prayer during an impasse at the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787. Franklin said, “In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers… were graciously answered… And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”

Those deliberations proceeded to a successful conclusion, in spite of differences over slavery, a bill of rights and other major issues. Throughout our history, particularly in dire situations, there have been national calls for prayer. From the blockade of Boston Harbor in 1774 to D-Day during WWII, to President Trump calling for a National Day of Prayer after Hurricane Harvey, Americans have always turned to prayer. It is woven into the fabric of our culture. Yet some of our misguided citizens want to rip out this essential thread.

In Congress last Monday night, Massachusetts Representatives Katherine Clark and Seth Moulton refused to participate in a moment of silence.

After the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando in June 2016, Connecticut Democratic Rep. Jim Himes announced that he would not partake in a moment of silence for the victims.

After the San Bernardino massacre in December 2015, the New York Daily News ran a front-page headline, “God’s Not Fixing This,” mocking Republican leaders for “preaching about prayer.”

On the other hand, in a speech before a Congress, Rep. Steve Scalise, said he began to pray while lying on the field severely wounded by a mass shooter. “[God] really did deliver for me and my family, and it just gives you that renewed faith… that… prayer is something you just cannot underestimate…”

Yet many of the elites of the left have discarded four centuries of spiritual heritage. They have traded their Judeo-Christian birthright for a bowl of atheist porridge. They want a country without prayer, a nation without God. This is the key to the fundamental transformation of America.

They will answer to no Higher Authority than themselves. They set their own morals and standards to justify their lusts. They would supplant the spiritual legacy that birthed the greatest nation in history and substitute man’s persistent idolatry: We will be god ourselves.

In a simple, but eloquent call for prayer, President Trump reminded us of who we have been, who we are and who we must be always: “To the families of the victims: We are praying for you and we are here for you, and we ask God to help see you through this very dark period. Scripture teaches us, ‘The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.’”

This is the heritage we’ve known and the country we love. Laws will come and go. Leaders will come and go. But the power of prayer will endure.

As long as we remember that, America will endure.

E.W Jackson founder & president of S.T.A.N.D. is hosting a National Awakening Conference in Chesapeake Virginia with the theme: “America Needs A Christian Awakening – We Want God” (Oct. 20 to Oct. 22). Register at [www.standamerica.us]. He is also a nationally syndicated radio host on American Family Radio & Urban Family Talk and Presiding Bishop of The Called Church.

When the news broke of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, many Americans did what we have done throughout our history. We offered our thoughts and prayers for the survivors and their families.

To the surprise of many, that is no longer an acceptable response. According to Democrats, we must stop praying and “do something.” No matter that the facts are unknown. No matter that people are still mourning and victims are in shock. Politics and legislation are omnipotent — the answer to every human tragedy and need.

Until recently it would have been unthinkable that anyone, especially prominent political leaders, would mock prayer. However, the sad reality is that disrespect for Christianity is one of the Left’s contributions to modern American culture. Elites in Washington, Hollywood, and their lesser acolytes in the “Twitterverse” and on Facebook openly dismissed prayer for the Las Vegas victims as an excuse for inaction.

For Americans to see prayer as an avoidance of responsibility bespeaks an inscrutable ignorance. Our Founding Fathers, the pilgrims and pioneers who came before them, and most of the colonists prayed and yet somehow built the greatest nation on earth at the same time.

They were not a genetically superior breed. Their flaws and mistakes are well known, but they believed in the power of prayer, as did most in the society of their time. They also believed in providential guidance in answer to prayer. To put it another way, they believed that prayer was the prelude to more effective action, not a way of avoiding it. Even the slaves believed that they could pray their way out of bondage. They had no earthly power to bring it about, but, not to put too fine a point on it, their prayers were answered.

In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers called upon the power of God to aid them in their quest for freedom. According to James Madison’s notes, Benjamin Franklin called for prayer during an impasse at the Constitutional Convention on June 28, 1787. Franklin said, “In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection. Our prayers… were graciously answered… And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business.”

Those deliberations proceeded to a successful conclusion, in spite of differences over slavery, a bill of rights and other major issues. Throughout our history, particularly in dire situations, there have been national calls for prayer. From the blockade of Boston Harbor in 1774 to D-Day during WWII, to President Trump calling for a National Day of Prayer after Hurricane Harvey, Americans have always turned to prayer. It is woven into the fabric of our culture. Yet some of our misguided citizens want to rip out this essential thread.

In Congress last Monday night, Massachusetts Representatives Katherine Clark and Seth Moulton refused to participate in a moment of silence.

After the Pulse Nightclub shooting in Orlando in June 2016, Connecticut Democratic Rep. Jim Himes announced that he would not partake in a moment of silence for the victims.

After the San Bernardino massacre in December 2015, the New York Daily News ran a front-page headline, “God’s Not Fixing This,” mocking Republican leaders for “preaching about prayer.”

On the other hand, in a speech before a Congress, Rep. Steve Scalise, said he began to pray while lying on the field severely wounded by a mass shooter. “[God] really did deliver for me and my family, and it just gives you that renewed faith… that… prayer is something you just cannot underestimate…”

Yet many of the elites of the left have discarded four centuries of spiritual heritage. They have traded their Judeo-Christian birthright for a bowl of atheist porridge. They want a country without prayer, a nation without God. This is the key to the fundamental transformation of America.

They will answer to no Higher Authority than themselves. They set their own morals and standards to justify their lusts. They would supplant the spiritual legacy that birthed the greatest nation in history and substitute man’s persistent idolatry: We will be god ourselves.

In a simple, but eloquent call for prayer, President Trump reminded us of who we have been, who we are and who we must be always: “To the families of the victims: We are praying for you and we are here for you, and we ask God to help see you through this very dark period. Scripture teaches us, ‘The Lord is close to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.’”

This is the heritage we’ve known and the country we love. Laws will come and go. Leaders will come and go. But the power of prayer will endure.

As long as we remember that, America will endure.

E.W Jackson founder & president of S.T.A.N.D. is hosting a National Awakening Conference in Chesapeake Virginia with the theme: “America Needs A Christian Awakening – We Want God” (Oct. 20 to Oct. 22). Register at [www.standamerica.us]. He is also a nationally syndicated radio host on American Family Radio & Urban Family Talk and Presiding Bishop of The Called Church.



Source link

Another Climate Prediction Gone off the Rails


Winter started early this year. The first blizzard of the season in Montana broke a snow record with 30 inches during the first week of October, barely a few weeks into fall. In my state of Colorado too, with 11 inches of snow in Grand Mesa. Prompting the local CBS affiliate to proclaim, “The snow season is off to a big start in western Colorado!”

Town and Country magazine, which caters to one percenters in predominantly blue Northeastern enclaves, had their own forecast. Warning readers, “Prepare to Bundle Up: Winter 2017 & 2018 Is Going to Be Unusually Cold.” Predicting for the enlightened #NeverTrump residents of New York and Boston, “an above average amount of snowfall” and “a colder winter than last year.”

I wonder how many members of the New York Times editorial board or management team have a copy of Town and Country sitting on the coffee table of their fashionable Upper East Side coop? Or their Hamptons weekend getaway, strategically placed alongside the New Yorker or the Atlantic? Not to read, but to project an entitled sense of sophistication and savoir faire, so common among liberal elites.

Do the smart set at the NY Times find any irony or contradiction in the Town and Country story about more snow and their own 2014 article titled, “The End of Snow?” Ski mountains predicted to be brown rather than white. Calamity for the Winter Olympics, not having a sufficiently snowy venue to hold the games, instead having to move them to a small town on the northern coast of Hudson Bay.

Quite certain is the NY Times asserting, “The facts are straightforward: The planet is getting hotter.” The writer was nostalgic for a family ski trip to Copper Mountain in Colorado in 1980, enjoying his first powder run. Don’t worry, Copper still gets plenty of snow. Since 2009, winter snowfall has ranged from 181 to 406 inches, depending the year, with an average in the mid-200s. Most years their largest snowfall for the season was at least a foot, plenty for a good powder run. Hardly the predicted “end of snow”.

Such claims are not new. In 2000, the Independent asserted, “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” Confidently asserting, “snow is starting to disappear from our lives” due to what else but global warming, “now accepted as a reality by the international community.” By that I assume the writer means Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and Jimmy Kimmel.

Seventeen years later, the same paper wrote this past January of the resurrection of snow in the UK, “Blizzard conditions bring ‘real taste of winter’ nationwide.” How could that be if snowfalls are a thing of the past? And that was only January. Fast forward a month to February and the UK got hit with another reminder that snowfalls may not quite be a historic relic. The Express, a sister paper, published, “Britain braced for blizzards and gales as temperatures plunge to -10C.”

Interestingly, the Independent removed their original “Snowfalls are just a thing of the past” article from their website. As Al Gore would say, it was an inconvenient truth. But in the internet age, nothing can be removed from the web. Rather than just removing the article, the proper approach would have been a followup article explaining why the original piece was incorrect.

That’s the scientific method. Climatology is science, or at least is should be, rather than political advocacy. Observations are made, a hypothesis is proposed to explain the observations, then further observations are made to determine whether the hypothesis is correct. If future predictions turn out to be true, this bolsters the hypothesis, in this case man-made global warming. If future observations are not what was expected, it’s back to the hypothesis to rethink and revise.

That’s how it’s done. Not with a big “never mind” by deep-sixing the original article. And not by revising the original data, as NOAA did to erase the 15-year pause in global warming.

Science is allowed to get it wrong. The high-carb, low-fat diets of the 1970s lead to an epidemic in type 2 diabetes. Current dietary recommendations have been revised accordingly. Same with coffee, butter, margarine, and a host of other foods. Once thought to be bad, now thought to be good, or at least not deadly. Or vice versa. How much of what we eat or do today will be laughed at in a few decades when new information comes to light?

Climate change science has exempted itself from such scientific scrutiny. It has become politicized and monetized to the point that its devotees cannot back down or question the global warming dogma. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

That’s not an excuse to not study the climate and try to understand it better. Perhaps someday it will be understood and predictable. How much of modern science was once viewed as magic, witchcraft, or the whims of Greek gods?

Yet the predictions continue, doubling down on the last round of failed prognostications. Anyone who dares to dissent should be thrown in jail, says Bill Nye the science guy, now a self-proclaimed judge, jury, and executioner. The execution can be left to Monty Python’s Eric Idle who wants climate change deniers to be “put down gently.” How sporting of him. One flesh wound at a time.

Enough with the wild climate predictions. And death or imprisonment to those who dare question the church of global warming. Climatistas are starting to sound like radical Islamists preaching death to nonbelievers, winning converts by threats and coercion, not by science or common sense.  

Brian C. Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter. 

Winter started early this year. The first blizzard of the season in Montana broke a snow record with 30 inches during the first week of October, barely a few weeks into fall. In my state of Colorado too, with 11 inches of snow in Grand Mesa. Prompting the local CBS affiliate to proclaim, “The snow season is off to a big start in western Colorado!”

Town and Country magazine, which caters to one percenters in predominantly blue Northeastern enclaves, had their own forecast. Warning readers, “Prepare to Bundle Up: Winter 2017 & 2018 Is Going to Be Unusually Cold.” Predicting for the enlightened #NeverTrump residents of New York and Boston, “an above average amount of snowfall” and “a colder winter than last year.”

I wonder how many members of the New York Times editorial board or management team have a copy of Town and Country sitting on the coffee table of their fashionable Upper East Side coop? Or their Hamptons weekend getaway, strategically placed alongside the New Yorker or the Atlantic? Not to read, but to project an entitled sense of sophistication and savoir faire, so common among liberal elites.

Do the smart set at the NY Times find any irony or contradiction in the Town and Country story about more snow and their own 2014 article titled, “The End of Snow?” Ski mountains predicted to be brown rather than white. Calamity for the Winter Olympics, not having a sufficiently snowy venue to hold the games, instead having to move them to a small town on the northern coast of Hudson Bay.

Quite certain is the NY Times asserting, “The facts are straightforward: The planet is getting hotter.” The writer was nostalgic for a family ski trip to Copper Mountain in Colorado in 1980, enjoying his first powder run. Don’t worry, Copper still gets plenty of snow. Since 2009, winter snowfall has ranged from 181 to 406 inches, depending the year, with an average in the mid-200s. Most years their largest snowfall for the season was at least a foot, plenty for a good powder run. Hardly the predicted “end of snow”.

Such claims are not new. In 2000, the Independent asserted, “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” Confidently asserting, “snow is starting to disappear from our lives” due to what else but global warming, “now accepted as a reality by the international community.” By that I assume the writer means Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and Jimmy Kimmel.

Seventeen years later, the same paper wrote this past January of the resurrection of snow in the UK, “Blizzard conditions bring ‘real taste of winter’ nationwide.” How could that be if snowfalls are a thing of the past? And that was only January. Fast forward a month to February and the UK got hit with another reminder that snowfalls may not quite be a historic relic. The Express, a sister paper, published, “Britain braced for blizzards and gales as temperatures plunge to -10C.”

Interestingly, the Independent removed their original “Snowfalls are just a thing of the past” article from their website. As Al Gore would say, it was an inconvenient truth. But in the internet age, nothing can be removed from the web. Rather than just removing the article, the proper approach would have been a followup article explaining why the original piece was incorrect.

That’s the scientific method. Climatology is science, or at least is should be, rather than political advocacy. Observations are made, a hypothesis is proposed to explain the observations, then further observations are made to determine whether the hypothesis is correct. If future predictions turn out to be true, this bolsters the hypothesis, in this case man-made global warming. If future observations are not what was expected, it’s back to the hypothesis to rethink and revise.

That’s how it’s done. Not with a big “never mind” by deep-sixing the original article. And not by revising the original data, as NOAA did to erase the 15-year pause in global warming.

Science is allowed to get it wrong. The high-carb, low-fat diets of the 1970s lead to an epidemic in type 2 diabetes. Current dietary recommendations have been revised accordingly. Same with coffee, butter, margarine, and a host of other foods. Once thought to be bad, now thought to be good, or at least not deadly. Or vice versa. How much of what we eat or do today will be laughed at in a few decades when new information comes to light?

Climate change science has exempted itself from such scientific scrutiny. It has become politicized and monetized to the point that its devotees cannot back down or question the global warming dogma. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

That’s not an excuse to not study the climate and try to understand it better. Perhaps someday it will be understood and predictable. How much of modern science was once viewed as magic, witchcraft, or the whims of Greek gods?

Yet the predictions continue, doubling down on the last round of failed prognostications. Anyone who dares to dissent should be thrown in jail, says Bill Nye the science guy, now a self-proclaimed judge, jury, and executioner. The execution can be left to Monty Python’s Eric Idle who wants climate change deniers to be “put down gently.” How sporting of him. One flesh wound at a time.

Enough with the wild climate predictions. And death or imprisonment to those who dare question the church of global warming. Climatistas are starting to sound like radical Islamists preaching death to nonbelievers, winning converts by threats and coercion, not by science or common sense.  

Brian C. Joondeph, MD, MPS, a Denver based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter. 



Source link

To Win the Second Amendment War


Whether or not bump stocks end up banned is a trivial matter.  The war over the Second Amendment will not hinge on the outcome of this particular battle.  Both sides know this; the importance of the issue is entirely psychological.

For progressives, a win would be a move in the right direction, evidence that conservatives are vulnerable.  It would be comparable to the Doolittle Raid against the Japanese homeland in 1942 – a strike of no great strategic import but invaluable as a way to shift national confidence from the Japanese to the American side.

For conservatives, there is little to be gained by thwarting this progressive gambit (which is the reason some are prepared to make a tactical retreat).  Why expend resources on such an insignificant matter when winning it will not much advance the Second Amendment cause?  Why, indeed!  The answer is that a defensive mindset leads to defeat.  Fainthearted people rarely win at war.  This is no less true for a political war than it is for a military one.

If either side in a war is not totally committed to the principle for which it stands, then the other side wins.  It may take a week, or it may take years, but ultimate victory almost always passes to the side that more strongly believes in its cause.

This brings us to this particular war over this particular constitutional amendment.  As it stands, conservatives are doing nothing more than defending an existing arrangement.  Progressives are out to change it.  Let us not be deluded by any protestations that their agenda is to refine rather than eliminate the Second Amendment.

We know the progressive strategy: disengage with the enemy until a (real) shooting crisis occurs, at which point initiate a political blitzkrieg that links that shooting to a lack of gun control.  This aggressive tactic is working, and conservatives must counter it with something similar. 

Here is a suggestion: as soon as the next mass shooting takes place, conservatives should unite around the following message.

“Our government is incapable of protecting us from such attacks, as proven by the countless times it has failed to do so.  Until it is able to afford adequate protection against mass shootings, the people must be permitted to protect themselves as best they can.  The government must assist the citizens by doing two things.

“First, encourage gun ownership.  Second, and even more importantly, train all people on proper gun use and gun safety.”

Ownership can be encouraged by subsidizing the purchase of guns.  Conservatives oppose subsidies on principle but agree with progressives that the epidemic of mass shootings in this country requires extraordinary measures.  Having people armed is more sensible and more in keeping with the Constitution than having them disarmed.

Hand in hand with this proposal, conservatives must simultaneously advocate for gun safety by offering a free and readily available course to everybody on the safe and proper use of guns and by insisting that retail gun purchases be tied to completion of this course.

The course should be implemented by a dedicated branch of the military and taught by properly vetted veterans who have actually fought in wars.  Since the military is one of the few truly effective branches of our federal government, it retains the respect of the American people.  A gun safety course taught by those who have actually fought for our safety would help mend the growing divide between the civilian and military sectors of our society.

Conservatives must emphasize to the American people that modern technology has created a world in which a degree of destructive power that until recently was only available to countries now is available to individuals.  Our national government is not to blame for this (at least not completely), but the reality is that it does not know how to cope with the problem.  Since it has no answer and since its main job is to protect people, the federal government needs to encourage self-protection.  It is that simple.

If conservatives take seriously the task of promoting (and not merely defending) the Second Amendment, the prospects for crushing the barbaric progressive attack on it will greatly improve.  Government really is unable to defend against mass shootings, and most Americans recognize this truth.  There will be natural public support for any sensible proposal for thwarting mass shootings.  Progressives are trying to capitalize on this need, but their proposals for disarmament – partial as they may be at present – are not convincing to most people.

Make a proposal, conservatives; identify a course of action.  Do not simply hide behind the Second Amendment stockade.  There is a war out there, and you must abandon safety and go fight it.  If you do not, you will be increasingly isolated, and in time overrun.

There is a long-standing principle in natural law that although violence against another is unacceptable, it is justifiable when someone threatens or exacts violence against you.  We as conservatives must accept that an unfair tactic employed against us opens a door through which we may pass.  Otherwise, we will constantly be ambushed by an adversary free to engage in a practice that we abhor.

War is dirty.  War is dehumanizing.  We all know this, but most of us never have to confront its immorality directly.  Those who fight a shooting war inevitably do confront it, and if they survive, they must live with moral scars.  This is the reason they come to be viewed as heroic even when their direct participation had little or no effect on the final outcome.

Is the struggle over the Second Amendment a war, or is it not?  If it is, we must fight the good fight.  If not, we should surrender now, for the enemy thinks otherwise and will impose its will.

Whether or not bump stocks end up banned is a trivial matter.  The war over the Second Amendment will not hinge on the outcome of this particular battle.  Both sides know this; the importance of the issue is entirely psychological.

For progressives, a win would be a move in the right direction, evidence that conservatives are vulnerable.  It would be comparable to the Doolittle Raid against the Japanese homeland in 1942 – a strike of no great strategic import but invaluable as a way to shift national confidence from the Japanese to the American side.

For conservatives, there is little to be gained by thwarting this progressive gambit (which is the reason some are prepared to make a tactical retreat).  Why expend resources on such an insignificant matter when winning it will not much advance the Second Amendment cause?  Why, indeed!  The answer is that a defensive mindset leads to defeat.  Fainthearted people rarely win at war.  This is no less true for a political war than it is for a military one.

If either side in a war is not totally committed to the principle for which it stands, then the other side wins.  It may take a week, or it may take years, but ultimate victory almost always passes to the side that more strongly believes in its cause.

This brings us to this particular war over this particular constitutional amendment.  As it stands, conservatives are doing nothing more than defending an existing arrangement.  Progressives are out to change it.  Let us not be deluded by any protestations that their agenda is to refine rather than eliminate the Second Amendment.

We know the progressive strategy: disengage with the enemy until a (real) shooting crisis occurs, at which point initiate a political blitzkrieg that links that shooting to a lack of gun control.  This aggressive tactic is working, and conservatives must counter it with something similar. 

Here is a suggestion: as soon as the next mass shooting takes place, conservatives should unite around the following message.

“Our government is incapable of protecting us from such attacks, as proven by the countless times it has failed to do so.  Until it is able to afford adequate protection against mass shootings, the people must be permitted to protect themselves as best they can.  The government must assist the citizens by doing two things.

“First, encourage gun ownership.  Second, and even more importantly, train all people on proper gun use and gun safety.”

Ownership can be encouraged by subsidizing the purchase of guns.  Conservatives oppose subsidies on principle but agree with progressives that the epidemic of mass shootings in this country requires extraordinary measures.  Having people armed is more sensible and more in keeping with the Constitution than having them disarmed.

Hand in hand with this proposal, conservatives must simultaneously advocate for gun safety by offering a free and readily available course to everybody on the safe and proper use of guns and by insisting that retail gun purchases be tied to completion of this course.

The course should be implemented by a dedicated branch of the military and taught by properly vetted veterans who have actually fought in wars.  Since the military is one of the few truly effective branches of our federal government, it retains the respect of the American people.  A gun safety course taught by those who have actually fought for our safety would help mend the growing divide between the civilian and military sectors of our society.

Conservatives must emphasize to the American people that modern technology has created a world in which a degree of destructive power that until recently was only available to countries now is available to individuals.  Our national government is not to blame for this (at least not completely), but the reality is that it does not know how to cope with the problem.  Since it has no answer and since its main job is to protect people, the federal government needs to encourage self-protection.  It is that simple.

If conservatives take seriously the task of promoting (and not merely defending) the Second Amendment, the prospects for crushing the barbaric progressive attack on it will greatly improve.  Government really is unable to defend against mass shootings, and most Americans recognize this truth.  There will be natural public support for any sensible proposal for thwarting mass shootings.  Progressives are trying to capitalize on this need, but their proposals for disarmament – partial as they may be at present – are not convincing to most people.

Make a proposal, conservatives; identify a course of action.  Do not simply hide behind the Second Amendment stockade.  There is a war out there, and you must abandon safety and go fight it.  If you do not, you will be increasingly isolated, and in time overrun.

There is a long-standing principle in natural law that although violence against another is unacceptable, it is justifiable when someone threatens or exacts violence against you.  We as conservatives must accept that an unfair tactic employed against us opens a door through which we may pass.  Otherwise, we will constantly be ambushed by an adversary free to engage in a practice that we abhor.

War is dirty.  War is dehumanizing.  We all know this, but most of us never have to confront its immorality directly.  Those who fight a shooting war inevitably do confront it, and if they survive, they must live with moral scars.  This is the reason they come to be viewed as heroic even when their direct participation had little or no effect on the final outcome.

Is the struggle over the Second Amendment a war, or is it not?  If it is, we must fight the good fight.  If not, we should surrender now, for the enemy thinks otherwise and will impose its will.



Source link

In Chicago, a Las Vegas Every Month



Know what they call that in Chicago? June.


Actually, there were 84 murders in Chicago, just in June, according to DNAinfo.com, which keeps a running tally.


There were 76 murders in July, 50 in August.


And there were 59 murders in Chicago last month, so the death toll in Las Vegas — again, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history — was just a normal September there.


So far in Chicago, where Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff for Barack Obama, is mayor, there have been 519 murders this year. And there’s still a quarter of the year to go. But the numbers get crazy when totaling “gun violence” victims: In 2015, 2,988 people were victims of gun violence, according to records kept by The Chicago Tribune.


That number soared in 2016. There were 4,368 shooting victims last year, the Tribune reported.

The Las Vegas shooter is said to have scoped out a Chicago hotel overlooking its annual Lollapalooza concert venue, but he didn’t have to. Chicago gangs are doing the job quite nicely on their own. Much of Chicago’s violence stems from gang bangers, particularly those imported from south of the border, and from the steady supply of illegal drugs that are a consequence of open borders. It is called “gun violence” when it is in fact gang violence fueled by drug trafficking. As Katie Pavlich writes at TownHall:

As the violence in Chicago’s gang plagued neighborhoods rages on, the underlying cause of the Windy City’s murder rampages can be found thousands of miles away along a porous border. According to a report from Breitbart’s Jeremy Segal, Mexican drug cartels are “allowed” to run Chicago’s streets and young African-American men are killing each other as a result.


Harold “Noonie” Ward, a former high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples, one of America’s largest street gangs, claims the deadly violence that is plaguing Rahm Emanuel’s “world class city” of Chicago is because Mexican drug cartels are being allowed by “the powers that be” to operate freely and “run” Chicago’s streets.


In an interview with Breitbart News outside of his childhood home, a now-condemned apartment in Altgeld Gardens, one of Chicago’s most well known housing projects, Ward explained that there are a number of issues leading to the bloodshed in the city. The greatest reason, Ward says, is drugs and how they are being brought into the city.  “Where the drugs are coming from is Mexican cartels,” Ward said. “From Mexico to Chicago, they make $3.5 billion dollars a year. And the majority of violence in Chicago, comes from the Mexican cartels.”

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has spoken out on the issue of Chicago violence and how it is blamed on guns, not gangns.  [TL1] In response to this liberal talking point which ignores the fact that Democratic bastions like Chicago and Maryland have the strictest gun control laws in the nation, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke went on Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs to say that Rahmbo, a nicknamed earned for his White House ruthlessness, was shooting blanks in suggesting the problem was guns and not the criminals who use them:

Sheriff Clarke describes Emanuel as “dead wrong,” observing that “he must have gone to the same school that ‘president’ Barack Obama did on how to run a law enforcement agency. This is what happens when you have community organizers and academic elites and others who don’t know a thing about policing in the American ghetto start to dabble in police science.”


He says the cities experiencing these heightened levels of violence “might as well get used to it because this is what you’re going to have as long as you’re going to try to turn cops into social workers and you’re going to try to get them to emphasize de-escalation and more dialogue instead of going on the offensive to go after some very dangerous individuals.”

Indeed as Investor’s Business Daily noted in 2013, the problem in Chicago has historically not been gun violence, but gang violence:

The fact is that up to 80% of Chicago’s murders and shootings are gang-related, according to police.


By one estimate, the city has 68,000 gang members, four times the number of cops. A police audit last spring identified 59 gangs and 625 factions — mostly on the south and west sides — none of which is going to submit to things like universal background checks.

Still Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel touts gun control and not goon control and thinks you can make people safer by disarming them in the face of armed predators. While Emanuel and others cry for new laws, existing laws are not enforced in Chicago, even with an adoptive native son, Obama, having occupied the White House during the last eight years of Chicago’s carnage.

As Investor’s Business Daily has noted, a recent study showed that despite rising murders and gang violence, Chicago ranked dead last in federal gun crime prosecutions:

A murdered Chicago teen’s mother attends the president’s speech on gun control, not knowing federal gun-crime prosecutions have in fact dropped on his watch — with the Windy City bringing up the rear.


Cleopatra Cowley-Pendleton, the mother of murdered 15-year-old Chicago teen Hadiya Pendleton, was one of 20 mothers who lost children to criminal violence who were at the White House last Thursday to hear President Obama speak once again on the need for gun control.


Obama met with her and some of the others in a small group before his formal remarks and told them “how serious this issue really is and something needs to be done about it,” she said.


But President Obama did not tell this group that Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows that the Northern Illinois district ranked 90th out of 90 in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita.


David Burnham, co-director of TRAC, states their analysis says that according to case-by-case U.S. Justice Department information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, there were 52 federal gun prosecutions in Illinois North (Chicago) in 2012, or 5.52 per million in population.


By this measure, compared with the 90 federal judicial districts in the U.S., the prosecution rate in Chicago was the lowest in the country.

If President Obama had a son, he might have looked like Amari Brown, the little boy killed by a bullet intended for his gang-banger father on the streets of President Obama’s Chicago in yet another bloody Windy City weekend. As the Chicago Tribune reported, over the Fourth of July weekend in 2015, Amari Brown was one of the ten that were killed among 55 that were shot.:

Among those killed was 7-year-old Amari Brown, shot in the chest as he watched fireworks near his father’s home in Humboldt Park late Saturday night.  Police say they believe the attack was aimed at the father, whom they described as a ranking gang member.

Former Chicago Police  Superintendant Garry McCarthy got it right when he observed that Amari Brown was another victim, ,not of police racism, but of gang violence and a revolving door justice system:

Antonio Brown, who police say is a ranking member of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, has been arrested 45 times on charges ranging from gun possession to burglary, and is not cooperating with detectives in their investigation into the slaying of his son, Amari Brown, police said.


McCarthy said that the elder Brown’s last arrest was in April for gun possession after leading police on a vehicle pursuit. Brown was later released on bail in that case, Cook County court records show.


“If Mr. Brown is in custody, his son is alive,” McCarthy, flanked by several police officials and other officers, told a room full of reporters at the Harrison District police station on the West Side on Sunday afternoon. “That’s not the case. Quite frankly, he shouldn’t have been on the street.”

A lot of criminals shouldn’t be on the streets, particularly those convicted of gun crimes. Many gun and gang crimes in Chicago are drug-related  President Obama has commuted the sentences of many drug offenders, including those who possessed a gun during the commission of their crimes:

President Obama on Thursday commuted the sentences of nearly 100 federal inmates doing hard time, and almost one in five were in jail partially because of the illegal guns they carried….


Of those who had their terms commuted this week, 19 were behind bars on a combination of drug charges that also involved firearms possession– often multiple counts– usually by a prohibited possessor….


The President commuted 111 federal prisoners in late August, in which a number of those with firearms charges were featured. Earlier the same month he did likewise for 214 inmates including 56 with gun felonies.

Current Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson recently pleaded for stricter penalties for repeat gun offenders after a Chicago Police commander was gunned down:

 Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson renewed his call on Friday for stricter penalties for gun offenders after a police commander was shot at while working on the South Side….


The violence hit close to home late Thursday when Noel Sanchez, commander of the South Chicago police district, was shot at while working the streets in the 8800 block of South Saginaw Avenue. The gunman fled to a nearby home, touching off an hourslong standoff with a SWAT team before five people were taken into custody early Friday. Multiple guns were also recovered.


Johnson cited the incident as an example of how gang members have become more emboldened, in part because of what the superintendent considers lenient penalties for gun offenses….


Johnson spoke once again in favor of proposed legislation in Springfield designed to make it harder for judges to impose light sentences for repeat gun offenders. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that they face several years in prison.


He singled out a 21-year-old man as an example of why the legislation is needed. The man was arrested in February on a felony weapons violation and sentenced to seven years in prison in April, police said. But he was assigned to boot camp and was already out on parole Aug. 22 when he was arrested again for gun possession in the West Side’s Austin community.

Every month in Chicago there’s a mass murder fostered by liberals who blame the NRA and not the criminals who kill the innocents. Outlawing bump stocks will not make Chicago’s streets safer. Let the liberal politicians, Hollywood celebs and NFL millionaires come to Chicago and take a knee for the victims of their lax law enforcement and sanctuary city policies.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

There were 59 murders in Chicago in September, the city where black lives don’t seem to matter to liberals and gun control zealots. The horrible death toll in the Las Vegas massacre is just a normal month in the gun control and murder capital of America. The Democratic caucus in Congress that seizes on Las Vegas as another crisis too terrible to waste in their pursuit of gun control says nothing about the Chicago carnage, for which nary an NFL millionaire takes a knee while whining about social justice:

The murder toll in Las Vegas on Sunday makes it the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.


Know what they call that in Chicago? June.


Actually, there were 84 murders in Chicago, just in June, according to DNAinfo.com, which keeps a running tally.


There were 76 murders in July, 50 in August.


And there were 59 murders in Chicago last month, so the death toll in Las Vegas — again, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history — was just a normal September there.


So far in Chicago, where Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff for Barack Obama, is mayor, there have been 519 murders this year. And there’s still a quarter of the year to go. But the numbers get crazy when totaling “gun violence” victims: In 2015, 2,988 people were victims of gun violence, according to records kept by The Chicago Tribune.


That number soared in 2016. There were 4,368 shooting victims last year, the Tribune reported.

The Las Vegas shooter is said to have scoped out a Chicago hotel overlooking its annual Lollapalooza concert venue, but he didn’t have to. Chicago gangs are doing the job quite nicely on their own. Much of Chicago’s violence stems from gang bangers, particularly those imported from south of the border, and from the steady supply of illegal drugs that are a consequence of open borders. It is called “gun violence” when it is in fact gang violence fueled by drug trafficking. As Katie Pavlich writes at TownHall:

As the violence in Chicago’s gang plagued neighborhoods rages on, the underlying cause of the Windy City’s murder rampages can be found thousands of miles away along a porous border. According to a report from Breitbart’s Jeremy Segal, Mexican drug cartels are “allowed” to run Chicago’s streets and young African-American men are killing each other as a result.


Harold “Noonie” Ward, a former high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples, one of America’s largest street gangs, claims the deadly violence that is plaguing Rahm Emanuel’s “world class city” of Chicago is because Mexican drug cartels are being allowed by “the powers that be” to operate freely and “run” Chicago’s streets.


In an interview with Breitbart News outside of his childhood home, a now-condemned apartment in Altgeld Gardens, one of Chicago’s most well known housing projects, Ward explained that there are a number of issues leading to the bloodshed in the city. The greatest reason, Ward says, is drugs and how they are being brought into the city.  “Where the drugs are coming from is Mexican cartels,” Ward said. “From Mexico to Chicago, they make $3.5 billion dollars a year. And the majority of violence in Chicago, comes from the Mexican cartels.”

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke has spoken out on the issue of Chicago violence and how it is blamed on guns, not gangns.  [TL1] In response to this liberal talking point which ignores the fact that Democratic bastions like Chicago and Maryland have the strictest gun control laws in the nation, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke went on Fox Business Network’s Lou Dobbs to say that Rahmbo, a nicknamed earned for his White House ruthlessness, was shooting blanks in suggesting the problem was guns and not the criminals who use them:

Sheriff Clarke describes Emanuel as “dead wrong,” observing that “he must have gone to the same school that ‘president’ Barack Obama did on how to run a law enforcement agency. This is what happens when you have community organizers and academic elites and others who don’t know a thing about policing in the American ghetto start to dabble in police science.”


He says the cities experiencing these heightened levels of violence “might as well get used to it because this is what you’re going to have as long as you’re going to try to turn cops into social workers and you’re going to try to get them to emphasize de-escalation and more dialogue instead of going on the offensive to go after some very dangerous individuals.”

Indeed as Investor’s Business Daily noted in 2013, the problem in Chicago has historically not been gun violence, but gang violence:

The fact is that up to 80% of Chicago’s murders and shootings are gang-related, according to police.


By one estimate, the city has 68,000 gang members, four times the number of cops. A police audit last spring identified 59 gangs and 625 factions — mostly on the south and west sides — none of which is going to submit to things like universal background checks.

Still Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel touts gun control and not goon control and thinks you can make people safer by disarming them in the face of armed predators. While Emanuel and others cry for new laws, existing laws are not enforced in Chicago, even with an adoptive native son, Obama, having occupied the White House during the last eight years of Chicago’s carnage.

As Investor’s Business Daily has noted, a recent study showed that despite rising murders and gang violence, Chicago ranked dead last in federal gun crime prosecutions:

A murdered Chicago teen’s mother attends the president’s speech on gun control, not knowing federal gun-crime prosecutions have in fact dropped on his watch — with the Windy City bringing up the rear.


Cleopatra Cowley-Pendleton, the mother of murdered 15-year-old Chicago teen Hadiya Pendleton, was one of 20 mothers who lost children to criminal violence who were at the White House last Thursday to hear President Obama speak once again on the need for gun control.


Obama met with her and some of the others in a small group before his formal remarks and told them “how serious this issue really is and something needs to be done about it,” she said.


But President Obama did not tell this group that Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows that the Northern Illinois district ranked 90th out of 90 in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita.


David Burnham, co-director of TRAC, states their analysis says that according to case-by-case U.S. Justice Department information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, there were 52 federal gun prosecutions in Illinois North (Chicago) in 2012, or 5.52 per million in population.


By this measure, compared with the 90 federal judicial districts in the U.S., the prosecution rate in Chicago was the lowest in the country.

If President Obama had a son, he might have looked like Amari Brown, the little boy killed by a bullet intended for his gang-banger father on the streets of President Obama’s Chicago in yet another bloody Windy City weekend. As the Chicago Tribune reported, over the Fourth of July weekend in 2015, Amari Brown was one of the ten that were killed among 55 that were shot.:

Among those killed was 7-year-old Amari Brown, shot in the chest as he watched fireworks near his father’s home in Humboldt Park late Saturday night.  Police say they believe the attack was aimed at the father, whom they described as a ranking gang member.

Former Chicago Police  Superintendant Garry McCarthy got it right when he observed that Amari Brown was another victim, ,not of police racism, but of gang violence and a revolving door justice system:

Antonio Brown, who police say is a ranking member of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, has been arrested 45 times on charges ranging from gun possession to burglary, and is not cooperating with detectives in their investigation into the slaying of his son, Amari Brown, police said.


McCarthy said that the elder Brown’s last arrest was in April for gun possession after leading police on a vehicle pursuit. Brown was later released on bail in that case, Cook County court records show.


“If Mr. Brown is in custody, his son is alive,” McCarthy, flanked by several police officials and other officers, told a room full of reporters at the Harrison District police station on the West Side on Sunday afternoon. “That’s not the case. Quite frankly, he shouldn’t have been on the street.”

A lot of criminals shouldn’t be on the streets, particularly those convicted of gun crimes. Many gun and gang crimes in Chicago are drug-related  President Obama has commuted the sentences of many drug offenders, including those who possessed a gun during the commission of their crimes:

President Obama on Thursday commuted the sentences of nearly 100 federal inmates doing hard time, and almost one in five were in jail partially because of the illegal guns they carried….


Of those who had their terms commuted this week, 19 were behind bars on a combination of drug charges that also involved firearms possession– often multiple counts– usually by a prohibited possessor….


The President commuted 111 federal prisoners in late August, in which a number of those with firearms charges were featured. Earlier the same month he did likewise for 214 inmates including 56 with gun felonies.

Current Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson recently pleaded for stricter penalties for repeat gun offenders after a Chicago Police commander was gunned down:

 Chicago police Superintendent Eddie Johnson renewed his call on Friday for stricter penalties for gun offenders after a police commander was shot at while working on the South Side….


The violence hit close to home late Thursday when Noel Sanchez, commander of the South Chicago police district, was shot at while working the streets in the 8800 block of South Saginaw Avenue. The gunman fled to a nearby home, touching off an hourslong standoff with a SWAT team before five people were taken into custody early Friday. Multiple guns were also recovered.


Johnson cited the incident as an example of how gang members have become more emboldened, in part because of what the superintendent considers lenient penalties for gun offenses….


Johnson spoke once again in favor of proposed legislation in Springfield designed to make it harder for judges to impose light sentences for repeat gun offenders. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that they face several years in prison.


He singled out a 21-year-old man as an example of why the legislation is needed. The man was arrested in February on a felony weapons violation and sentenced to seven years in prison in April, police said. But he was assigned to boot camp and was already out on parole Aug. 22 when he was arrested again for gun possession in the West Side’s Austin community.

Every month in Chicago there’s a mass murder fostered by liberals who blame the NRA and not the criminals who kill the innocents. Outlawing bump stocks will not make Chicago’s streets safer. Let the liberal politicians, Hollywood celebs and NFL millionaires come to Chicago and take a knee for the victims of their lax law enforcement and sanctuary city policies.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

The Logical End of the Left’s Anti-Gun Crusade



The left's arguments for gun control are based on emotion, but the logic is clear.



Source link