A few days ago a "progressive" friend asked me what I thought he might need in order to defend his home and family from home invasion.
I suggested a 9mm, a couple of clips, and a box of shells.
A few days later he sent me this picture below and asked me how to make it all work.
Of course, he voted for Obama twice and Hillary last November.
"...it will be necessary for the men of peace to have guns, as long as men of violence do. We can't put all the force in the hands of evil." ~ Louis L'Amour
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Monday, March 6, 2017
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Today is Ash Wednesday, thus marking the first day of Lent for many Christians throughout the world. Lent is a sacred time for orthodox Christianity and marks the 40 days between Ash Wednesday to Easter, with Sundays (the Lord’s Day) not to be counted amongst the forty. These forty days of Lent are representative of the forty days our Lord Christ spent in the desert after He was baptized by John the Baptist. He wandered the desert in fasting and prayer prior to the beginning of His earthly ministry.
The Catholic Church teaches that Lent is a time of repentance. It is a turning away from earthly desires and temptations and a turning of our focus toward God through fasting, prayer, and alms giving. On this day faithful Catholics and other orthodox Christians will attend Mass or church services to prepare for their Lenten journey towards the cross and then resurrection of our Lord on Easter.
Ash Wednesday is so named because of the practice of the priest reminding each Christian as they come forward in Mass to receive the sign of the cross marked on their foreheads in ash to “Remember you are dust, and unto dust you shall return.” These ashes are made by the burning of the palm leaves used in the Palm Sunday services of the previous year. It is a very sacred time where Christians repent for their sins and focus on trying to live by God’s will.
Sadly there are some Christian churches that have taken this sacred day as an opportunity to advance an earthly agenda. In the Chicago area there are several churches including Unity Lutheran Church in Edgewater, Holy Covenant Metropolitan Community Church in Brookfield, and Berry United Methodist Church in Lincoln Square, that have decided to partake in the “Glitter Ash Wednesday” initiative.
This initiative was created by the New York faith based organization “Parity”. Parity focuses on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community. Their goal is to combine the message of solidarity and support with the traditional symbol of lent – repentance. These three churches will offer the option of “glitter ash” in which purple glitter is mixed with traditional ashes to be placed on each Christian’s forehead in the sign of the cross.
“I think it’s really important for the church to respond to the intolerance and culture of fear that is being created especially toward LGBTQ people”, stated April Gutierrez who is the pastor of Berry United Methodist Church. “We want to make sure the Christian message is one of love and inclusivity.”
Love and inclusivity are noble and Godly ideals. Indeed God Himself is love. And He loves all of his children regardless of similarities or differences. However, His grace is bestowed only on those that acknowledge Him as Lord and try to faithfully keep His commandments; especially His greatest commandments to love Him and to love your neighbor.
True agape Christ-like love is not some mushy romantic feeling that overcomes one when he thinks of another but rather is the true desiring of what is best for one’s beloved. Supporting a loved one in continuing a harmful and sinful life is not truly love.
Scripture tells us that we are all called to hate the sin but love the sinner. Granted, there are many Christians that are great at acting out on the first part of that phrase and then ignore the second part. Indeed, it is not our place as faithful Christians to condemn those who stray from the Lord or His path. If we were to do so, we must necessarily condemn the whole world… including ourselves.
That said, we are not to give in to temptation and sinfulness nor condone sinful behavior in others either. God hates sin. We are to discern, based on His teachings, what is right and what is wrong and to live our lives accordingly, while still loving our fellow human beings that fall into sin.
It would seem to me that these few churches, while perhaps having good intentions, are sorely misguided in showing their “solidarity” with sinfulness and failing to properly discern wrong and what is truly best for their beloved brothers and sisters.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the "salvific meaning of this mysterious event," in which Jesus is revealed as "the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given in to temptation."
With that said, one has to ask, are these churches that offer glitter ashes being faithful to Christ’s example or to Adam’s?
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Friday, February 24, 2017
Shame on the Silent Christian Leaders Who Refuse to Stand Against Government Tyranny
By MICHAEL BROWN
There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty today. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.
There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.
Continue reading here.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
There never was a nation called Palestine. It was a region -- and it was populated by Jews and Arabs alike. The entire cause of disavowing, boycotting, and the would-be destruction of Jewish Israel is patently dishonest. Most "Palestinians" are from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and so on: not the region called Palestine. Indeed, Yasser Arafat, the terrorist leader of the PLO and subsequent "Nobel Peace Prize" winner, was himself Egyptian. (The fact that Arafat was awarded the prize speaks to the lack of credibility of this once noble committee.) This charade is all bogus and stems from anti-Semitic hate towards Israel and Jews.
Sadly, the anti-Semitism in U.S. universities has often been created by the students within them from the Middle East who covet Israel’s land and prosperity. And then there are many professors who tow the seemingly progressive line and promulgate the agenda of decrying the "racism, apartheid practices, and oppression of the Zionists" which has sickened the minds of young students who trust such authority figures blindly. The students don't bother to do the research to find out the history and the truth of what is really going on in Israel. Sadly, even a loved one of mine has succumbed to these lies and refuses to even look at the contrary and inarguable EVIDENCE of the truth.
When the Palestinian government allies itself with Hamas and Hezbollah, whose very charters call for the destruction of Jewish Israel and denies its right to even exist, who really are the hateful ones? Indeed, if Israel were to unilaterally disarm, they would be over-run and utterly destroyed immediately. They would be wiped off the face of the map, as the former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, once stated was his goal. On the other hand, if the "Palestinian" people and surrounding hostile nations were to unilaterally disarm, there would finally be peace in the region.
Therein resides the difference.
Therein one finds who is truly hateful.
For more information on the struggle in Israel, please read my older post on the topic here.
H/T to Carrie for the video and much of the information comprising this post.
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
Trump’s executive order specifically states that a temporary ban on immigration from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Libya will be enacted in order to ensure the safety of American citizens from potential terrorists that could infiltrate and pose as refugees in order to gain entrance into our nation for nefarious reasons.
Now I understand and indeed appreciate the good-hearted people that want to allow immigrants that are fleeing these war-embattled, terrorist hellholes. If we could ensure their good intentions, then I would be inclined to grant them refugee status and welcome them in too. That said, our government has the responsibility to strike the proper balance between national security and compassion for its citizens and those who would be its citizens.
The reason these particular seven countries are specifically listed in the executive order is because of the inability for us to properly vet these would-be immigrants due to lack of documentation that verifies that these people truly are refugees and not ISIS fighters simply trying to gain entrance to America. The foreign governments from which these folks are fleeing either do not have the ability or do not wish to provide documentation to corroborate these peoples’ stories. Trump, as promised in the presidential campaign, has taken the first step to protect Americans from a potential national security risk by not admitting these refugees without proper vetting. (Can you imagine the outcry, particularly from the Left, if unchecked immigration allowed a terrorist into the country who did manage to kill Americans under Trump's watch?)
“But this executive order is unconstitutional,” and “It is un-American to ban people simply because they are Muslim,” many well-meaning Americans object. Well, I would respectfully argue that there is nothing unconstitutional, outrageous, or immoral about suspending immigration from countries raging in war and terrorism or specifically touting a hatred for American ideals. Further, this is NOT a Muslim ban as the other 43 predominately Muslim nations in the world have not had their immigration status affected by this executive order. Indeed, the European Union and even some Middle Eastern nations such as Kuwait have similar restrictions for many of these exact same unstable hot spots in the world.
Further, I find it interesting how many of these same people decrying Trump’s order watched in silence as President Obama in his waning days in office signed an executive order abolishing the refugee status of Cubans fleeing that repressive regime with the decades-held feet wet/feet dry policy. Previously Cubans that risked their lives fleeing to American shores were granted political asylum if they could successfully touch U.S. soil. President Obama rescinded that long held immigration policy by executive order to nary a peep from the Left in this country. That is hardly sympathetic to those immigrants that are fleeing tyranny and do not wish our country harm. It stands in stark contrast to Trump’s executive order.
I applaud the purpose of President Trump’s executive order; however, in many ways he has been his own worst public relations enemy on the subject. At times, he or his surrogates have insisted that this was not a ban, and then turned around and referred to it as a ban. Whether this was simply sloppy language or intentional, they have sent a jumbled message that the hyper-critical left-wing press has been only too happy to run with in order to try and goad and undermine Trump and his supporters on this issue. My biggest complaint though was that it doesn’t seem like the purpose and scope of the order was communicated well to those needing to understand and implement it properly. Further, it should never have affected green card holders that were already vetted and here legally.
Lastly, regarding the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order, a president does indeed have the right to enforce existing law as the chief executive. He has an obligation to protect America and its citizenry. By issuing his order, he is not abridging or denying constitutional rights to would-be immigrants. By definition, the United States Constitution guarantees it rights and protections to those who are CITIZENS of the United States. It does not necessarily confer all of those same rights and protections to foreign nationals.
Two years ago, President Obama signed The Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which contained the following:
An alien shall be ineligible for program participation who:
has been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011, in Iraq or Syria, in a country designated as one that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, or in any other country or area of concern designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and
regardless of whether the alien is a national of a program country, is a national of Iraq or Syria, a country designated as a country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, or any other country or area of concern.
President Obama was right to do so then. President Trump is right to do so now. And that is regardless of my political predilections.