Originally blogged in 2012. I started to make a new blog concerning recent events in Israel, however, I then remembered that I had written this during the 2012 debacle. There are a few points that are specific to that particular year, but in general, this post is relevant and is exactly what I would say today.
If only the Civil War was the only misconception that the left has had in the last
day week month decade really, really long time…But alas, it is not.
In a land
far far away situated between Canada and Mexico, the people are split on their alliance, who they support in the war between Hamas and Israel (Trust me, it’s not over.) I have seen too many posts to respond to concerning Israel “stealing” land from the Palestinians. My twitter feed has exploded with derogatory comments, and that is why I decided to write this post.
Although typing up a basic response (basic for me tends to be a book) and exercising my mad copy/paste skills in each post was incredibly tempting, I decided to write this blog post to address my beliefs and factual backing for what I feel is some of the greatest misconceptions concerning Israel out there today.
“How would you feel if someone stole your land??? Those poor Palestinians!”
My gut reaction to statements like the above is to respond to this with, “Really, you’re NOT going to side with God’s people?”. Bus alas, I have always felt that my moral beliefs should be understood by the atheists as well. Even though I feel strongly that a “moral law” is written on the hearts of men BY God, I try to approach my explanations in a way that can’t be construed as being “bible thumping.”
Now…We COULD go all the way back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Promised Land. The 40 years of wondering in the desert. The history of Jerusalem. The Establishment of the Jewish Monarchy. The Roman Rule, Arab Rule, Ottoman Rule, etc. But for the sake of our sanity, and a goal of keeping this a “blog post” and not a “book,” I’ll keep it short (er)…
Here is my somewhat sporadic, yet condensed, history rant:
So let’s travel back in time to the 1920’s – 1960’s and deal with those land thieves once and for all. When Israel stole the land from the
Palestinians British…Just kidding. They didn’t steal anything. BEFORE the State of Israel was declared, the land was territory of Britain. It became British territory through the Sykes-Picot Agreement (or Asia Minor). They called for it to be shared between the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish Palestinians (Since they recognized both), actually the word “Palestine” was given by the Europeans to name the region (“region,” people, “region!”). The Jewish community, known at that time as the Jewish Palestinians, gave a thumbs up to the concept, the Palestinian Arabs gave a thumbs down. Why is it that we forget about British Imperialism after the whole fall of the Ottoman empire?
So, back to the middle of the 1920’s. The British divided the land, giving the Jews west of the Jordan river, and the Arab Palestinians what we now call Jordan. Then came the whole “We want ALL the land, lets push those Jews into the sea” idea. So, they started the war games trying to drive the Jews out, and they still haven’t ended, nor will they anytime soon. The Brits turned a blind eye to the chaos that they could no longer control, and the Jews decided that it was time to fight back and protect the land given to them.
Then the British turned the states back over to the UN (Adoption remorse?). BUT, upon receiving yet another offer to have both a Jewish Palestinian state AND an Arab Palestinian state the Arabs said, “no, we want all of the land that is both East & West of the Jordan river.”
Too bad…so sad Well…isn’t this a pickle.
Since the Sinai Peninsula was traded to Egypt for peace, and Jordan was originally going to be within the Israeli borders, technically the most accurate way to describe the actions of that time period would be to say that ISRAEL is the one with whom had land “stolen” from them. There were NO Palestinian borders. None. Zip. Ninguno. Geen. It was a region. How do you steal land from the Arabs when land is GIVEN by the British to the Jews? Because they wanted it? Are we 5? It’s like when your Mom puts out a platter of cookies, just because you lick a cookie then put it back on the platter doesn’t mean the cookie is actually yours. It wasn’t their time to play “claim that territory,” because the British had already claimed it, and then GAVE it to whom they chose.
SO, throughout this time the Jews PURCHASED more land from the Palestinians, the Palestinians were removed from the land. No, not by the Israelis, but by the Arab countries that wanted to invade Israel. They said “flee so that we may bring our peaceful religion’s war machines into position!” Ok…maybe they didn’t use that exact verbiage, but you get the point.
Throughout all of the wars, including the one between 1948-49 the Jewish Palestinians ended with a slightly larger state than what the UN had proposed. BUT, by the time we hit the 1960’s the Arab Palestinians had control of 85% of the Palestine territory, compared to the 75% they had been given.
Bum bum bum…The Six Day War.
The Six Day War was for the exact same premise as all of the previous wars between the Arabs and the Israelis. The Arabs rejected, and STILL reject Israel. The Egyptians had used United Nations troops from the Sinai Peninsula to block shipping to Israel’s port of Eilat. This was an act of war, and the Arab nations have NEVER denied that it wants Israel OFF the map. They don’t want peace.
It’s simple: They don’t want Israel to exist.
During the Six Day War Israel fought Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia…etc (The Arab Republic) And they win. (Somebody had their spinach…and you know…GOD…) Jewish people had control of the Sinai Desert. If you haven’t seen a map…that’s a large chunk. Israel (being the last shred of good in the Middle East) told the ready to flee Palestinian Arabs to stay in hopes of educating and finally finding peace between the two nations of people. Then in the 1980’s Israel gave the Sinai Desert to Egypt in an act of peace.
But from the beginning of the wars, up through current day, the Arab Palestinians have had ONE goal:
“Our aim is the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.” – President Nasser of Egypt in 1965
“We will not accept any coexistence with Israel…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel . The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.” – Nasser in 1967
“This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land” Cairo Radio
Oh, but they weren’t just filling their “burn book” with Israel…
“Millions of Arabs are … preparing to blow up all of America’s interests, all of America’s installations, and your entire existence, America.” Cairo Radio
So, you can be angry at America, and angry at the Brits, but the facts are, it was British territory, and it was GIVEN. Israelis are not thieves, in fact, they have given land to promote peace, and any of the land gained during the wars was because they WON the land during a war NOT started by them. But the problem isn’t the offers, the problem isn’t the lack of peace, and the problem isn’t Israel.
The problem is that the countries surrounding Israel want her gone.
The problem is that while Israel wants peace, Jihadist don’t know of such a thing as peace.
The problem is that while Israelis wants “coexistence,” terrorists want to drag their family members lifeless bodies through the streets.
During this time, Iraq proclaimed that “Israel was an error which must be rectified.” Palestinians stated that “it is either us or the Israelis,” and Syria declared that it was time to “explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland,”etc. So from THOSE quotes alone we can clearly see a reason for a bad case of sellers remorse on behalf of the Palestinians. So while the Palestinian militant movement of Hamas is dragging bodies through streets and committing war crimes both by aiming at civilian locations, and hiding behind their own civilians, you’ll have to excuse me while I look at you with puzzled amazement when you proclaim your support of Hamas…Or better yet, your condemnation of Israel.
Israel tries their hardest to avoid civilians. They were even warning them with phone calls, roof knocking, and even dropping leaflets over Gaza warning them to “avoid being present in the vicinity of Hamas operatives.” Of course there are civilian casualties of war…But one side is doing their best to avoid as many as possible, and the other is meticulously planning them out.
Egyptian President Morsi backed Hamas and stated that Israel needed to end the aggression. Mr. Morsi is a high-ranking member with the Muslim Brotherhood and has an open door policy with the White House, what we fail to see is that the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Hamas are basically sister terrorist organizations. They’ve all vocalized their deeply rooted hatred for Israel, including the Muslim Brotherhood…and yet our President supports them. Why haven’t we cut off economic funds???
Hamas is a progeny of the Muslim Brotherhood. When the Muslim Brotherhood says “jump”, Hamas says “how high?”. Of course Morsi had the power to create a “ceasefire,” he’s had it all along, and Israel has no urge to continue fighting. Hamas backs off, Israel backs off.
But hold off on your “peace celebrations.” For Israel hating Morsi to encourage a “ceasefire” tells us that deeper, more sinister plans against Israel are lying in anxious wait. We can’t possibly be ignorant enough to believe that he has had an instantaneous change of heart concerning Israel. The Morsi government has turned a blind eye towards the killing of Christians, and now are bringing in a new level of dictatorship. Egypt is about to get very bloody. So, right AFTER the “ceasefire” Morsi comes out with his sickle and hammer ideology…Sounds legit.
Islamic theocracies…They redefine the word “brutal”.
Back to the point…I ask that you put yourself in the shoes of Israel. Let’s say you purchase a house. While unpacking your dishes and settling in, suddenly a rock comes crashing through your window with a note:
Israel Jones Family,
We hate you and hope you die. We want to demolish your home, preferably with you in it, and build a pool, maybe even a mini bar with ackawi dip and smooth cardamom coffee equipped with straws long enough to accommodate our Burqa wearing women…You know…If we decide they can have coffee. So, we have weapons and will be violently attacking your home, and probably trying to vaporize your children.
Sincerely, All of your neighbors, Including the people who sold you your garage.”
Would you not defend yourself? Israel has been taking numerous attacks over the years, rockets, warnings and brutality. But when Israel defends itself we give a “stand down” order?
I support Israel. I support her because God told me to. I support her because it’s LOGICAL. I support her because she is the one shred of decency left in the Middle East. I’m ashamed that 51% of my nation turned their back on her by voting in a President that supports her enemies.
Alright, I’ll finally get to the end of this post. But just know that if you’re dealing with Hamas sympathizers, you are not alone. We live in an America where a dictator gets a majority vote, and the people support terrorists and brutality in the Middle East while preaching on “peace.” There is more of this to come. How do I know this? Because “God said so”…
“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
This morning I read two different stories involving police officers, and both speak wonders. The first story rightly labeled a local police officer as a hero after he bravely rescued a woman from drowning. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article and left a “thank you” to the brave police officer in the comments section. It was nice to read something positive after all of the negative that has been filling my timeline lately. Then a comment made by another woman on that same article made me doubt the human race once again. This peculiar commenter made it known that she would love to see people that post police overreach articles face this brave young hero. Basically, she dared anyone to say anything negative about any other police officer because the man that saved a woman from drowning had a badge.
I can’t wait to start posting articles about heroic civilians and follow it up with, “I’d love to see those who speak out against child abuse and rape face these heroes.”
“Please remove this article about sex trafficking, my husband just so happens to be a man, and this paints all men as sex addicted monsters.”
“Please remove this article about Andrea Yates, my Mom is a mother, and this paints all mothers as psychopaths.”
“Please remove this article about how bad aspects of the public education system can be, my wife is a teacher.”
“Please remove this article about being careful when getting in a stranger’s car, my husband picks up hitchhikers and delivers them home safely.”
Do you know why bad things happen to people? Because bad people usually use the same techniques that good people happen to use, just for different reasons. Don’t justify your silence on issues by saying there are good people, it just allows the bad to continue deceiving, sometimes even turning the good people into tools for bad. Hence this blog post.
The second story I read was revolting and should leave everyone outraged.
In 2012 a police officer was arrested for planning to kidnap, torture, rape, kill, and eventually cannibalize his victims. He had used the NYPD database to track his potential victims, and had detailed out and established his plans in chat rooms and phone calls. He had even brought on coconspirators to help him be successful, he even brought the idea of harming his wife into the debacle. His google searches included “How to knock out someone with chloroform.” Yet, the acts of this monster amazingly have nothing to do with today’s blog post; however, what happened to him does indeed relate to today’s blog post. He walked this week. He was sentenced to 1 year, time served, for using the perks of his job to hunt down his potential victims. 1 year. *taps on microphone* 1 year.
He faced less time for conspiring to barbeque a woman while she was still alive, after the brutal rape he had planned for her, than an 18-year-old would spend for having sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. I’m not justifying statutory rape, I’m just demonstrating how the magic a badge holds in the courtroom can make David Copperfield look like a hobo playing shell games on a street corner.
So, to the point: I’ve let the idea for this blog post mull around in my brain for a few months. I wasn’t sure how to approach such a divisive topic, I wasn’t sure how to avoid being offensive, etc. but honestly, at this point, I’m not going to squander time designated for perfectly good sleep worrying about whether people can have an adult conversation about a legitimate issue, or if they’re going to go Stephanie Tanner stompy foot on me. Life is short, I have a lot of opinions, and this isn’t going to be the last viewpoint that makes enemies.
Topic: Police Overreach (Insert Jaws theme music here)
So, I kind of feel like I kicked a puppy just by flirting with the idea of going towards this topic. Immediately upon reading this many people will say, “Oh yeah, well let’s see who she calls when someone breaks into her house!!”
I’m going to go ahead and answer that question: The cops. Because I’m not anti-cop, I’m anti-Police State. Oh, and that’s sort of their original purpose, as opposed to being suited up like The Terminator to go investigate a joint.
No, I’m not going to apologize if adults can’t talk about real issues without a bias that causes them to lash out at people, even if what those individuals are saying is logical. I’m not even going to back down when confronted by those who want to voice their frustrations because they have friends and family in law enforcement, because I do too.
Hey, finish reading, and if you disagree, I would love to discuss it with you via email, or in the comments section.
The barricade that keeps us from solving issues:
Conservatives have a tendency of behaving like liberals when it comes to certain conversations that need to be had; guarding certain topics better than they would the holy grail. I was blocked by a police officer after having a discussion concerning police brutality, apparently discussing a legitimate issue is no longer permitted. This is like men getting mad if you discuss the issue of rape, because they have the same tools that were used in the crime.
Quite frankly, I’m getting sick and tired of saying anything about our need to reduce the police state mentality only to have people assume that I have a Guy Fawkes mask in my purse, and that I belong in zip-tie handcuffs. Come on now, People… Now I finally understand why I rarely find a logical article on the subject! Either you have articles worshipping law enforcement, or you have articles showing complete distain for law enforcement, or you have the articles that are never written because sane individuals approach the topic only to be taken on a guilt trip to the land of heroic stories, where the rivers of bravery floweth, and the dangerous changes taking place in our society are forgotten.
Seriously, I love the police. I appreciate the police. I just want to request that our law enforcement simply do what they were originally designed for before 1984 becomes prophetic.
On that note:
In 2011 Jose Guerena was shot 22 times while standing in his kitchen. The 26-year-old man was an Iraq veteran who had returned home and was now working the night shift at a mine. After seeing a suspicious person by their house, he put his wife and child in a closet and took his gun out to investigate. A SWAT team riddled his body with bullets while in search of drugs throughout the neighborhood. His home did not have any drugs, and the only marijuana found by the SWAT team was a small bag located in another home.
Reminder: A cannibalistic police officer is unencumbered, and probably fantasizing and enjoying a beer right now while this veteran is in a grave.
In 2010 a 7-year-old little girl was badly burned by a flashbang grenade that was thrown into the window of a her home, landing on her blanket. She was instantly disoriented and unable to hear and follow orders, a member of the SWAT team then entered the home and her life was ended with a single shot in the wake of all the madness.
Just this past May, a no knock SWAT raid ended with a 2-year-old child being thrown into a medically induced coma after have a flashbang grenade land in his crib. A search for drugs that weren’t even found in the home, a home that the suspect didn’t even reside in, ended with an innocent child having a gaping chest wound.
That’s just a sampling. All around the United States the Fourth Amendment is violated because people don’t know their rights, and men in uniform are either ignorant of those rights themselves, or they are taking advantage of the fact that many citizens are oblivious. Yet if you mention this fact, you might as well have said that dogs don’t go to heaven, and baby ducks should be thrown in wood chippers.
In a press conference held in February of this year, concerning the ridiculous arrest of a jogger that was “resisting arrest,” or in reality, wearing headphones that made her unable to hear the cop shout at her after she jaywalked (no joke,) one police chief actually said, “In other cities there’s cops who are actually committing sexual assaults on duty, so I thank God that this is what passes for a controversy…” This girl was placed on the ground and handcuffed while she cried and begged them to understand that she didn’t do anything wrong.
I followed the comments section of an article on the jogger story and was amazed by the support from other officers for this, well, thug-like arrest. But it’s acceptable that the pigtailed jogger was a victim of police overreach, because well, she’s just lucky that she didn’t get sexually assaulted? That’s a logical defense? I mean, maybe in Soviet Russia, but here? Yes, the chief eventually admitted to the fact that he could have worded that better. By I’m going to throw “worded that better” out into the cold and replace it with, “should’ve never tried to justify it in the first place.”
I hate to go here, but…
No, that’s a lie. I’m pretty ok with going here. The greatest weapon that the Gestapo had in their power was fear. The people thought that the Gestapo had ears everywhere, could do what they wanted without repercussions, etc. and that fear gave the Gestapo the ability to actually do what they wanted without repercussions. Imagine that. They fed off of the ignorance of the people. They even leaked stories of brutality by police so as to put fear into the people. The “it could be worse for you” mentality was rampant, and the people simply wanted to stay safe, so they blindly complied.
I was listening to a video of a gun owner talking to a police officer. The police officer was in full agreement with the man concerning the fact that it was his right to carry his weapon. When the man asked the police officer why he didn’t just explain our rights to the concerned caller that had called the police, the officer eluded to the idea that they would rather not see a lot of people knowing that they can exercise those rights. The police are to blame for much of the anti-gun propaganda, they have aided in fueling so much of the fear surrounding guns…
SIDE NOTE: I’m not justifying the actions of those that are carrying long rifles into restaurants. My opinions on that will be in a different blog post.
Countless videos of civilians refusing a vehicle search are all over the net, and yet those conducting the searches find the ignorance of one’s own rights to be a benefit for the thousands of other cars searched without question. Unfortunately, even GOOD cops are being led down the road of the police state mentality. It’s the ends justifying the means again…But is that who America is? Is that what we want our country to be like? I’ll pass.
The video of a police officer supporting the rights of gun owners made the rounds as well, I shared it excitedly, and then realized that this shouldn’t be considered a “good deed,” it should be considered “their job.”
Let’s look at some facts:
Civilian body counts are rising:
In 2013, 33 police officers were killed in the line of duty. This is a horrid statistic, but it is also the lowest number since 1887. Facts are, crime is not increasing; actually, it is the contrary. Yet in 2012 (couldn’t find 2013 data yet) over 400 civilian deaths occurred, and that unprecedented statistic has continually been increasing since 9/11.
Crime has always existed, and shockingly, homicide rates are down! Taking into account population increase, technically the wild west – well before gun control laws – had the lowest homicide rate between 1880 – current day. Suddenly in the late 1890’s, early 1900’s, union-led gun control laws were enacted and the homicide rates skyrocketed, decreasing once again when prohibition was ending. Then after the JFK assassination, gun control laws were enacted again, and homicide rates skyrocketed.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as of 2013, the percentage of non-fatal gun crime victims dropped 75% since 1993, going from 725.3 victims per 100,000 in 1993 to 181.5 in 2011. Gun homicide rates dropped by 49%, going from 6.5 victims per 100,000 in 1990 to 3.6 in 2010. All in all, there has been little change in crime, there are some ups and downs, but it’s pretty clear that people have been breaking the law for a very long time (I mean come on, the first born human committed murder…). Funny enough, they tend to do it less when individuals carry weapons. Unfortunately, the numbers indicate that crime is not on the rise, police fatalities are not on the rise, and are actually on the decline, but police are more frequently resorting to violence.
Point being, we’ve been living in a corrupt society with psychopaths for quite a while, nothing is going to make that fact go away. The difference is simple – Now we have social media monitoring every move that societal bottom dwellers make. Stories that once upon a time didn’t even make it to a breaking news report across our TV, or the newspaper for that matter, now have a twitter hashtag before an ambulance arrives. Don’t get me wrong, staying informed is beneficial, but understanding the impact social media has had in our ability to hear about the crime is essential for our perspective. Crime is in your face more than ever, that doesn’t justify police overreach.
Scary statistic: More individuals have been killed by Police in the United States than soldiers have died fighting terrorism in the Middle East since the World Trade Center attacks.
Unwarranted Searches & Knowing Your Rights:
After the Boston bombing, Tsarnaev was on the loose. The police proceeded to search homes in Watertown, without warrant, and the occupants of said homes appeased them out of ignorance. This was a direct violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, but our government sold it as an attempt to protect us. As people answered their doors with their hands over their head (little too fearful???), law enforcement began their in-depth searches.
Everybody says, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” And to those people I kindly ask that they get a history book.
According to the Department of Justice, you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. Yet we actually have people defending no knock raids, and complete violations of the Fourth Amendment through unwarranted searches. They support the legal assaults that take place in airports on children and Grandmas. I live in a country where I can’t take my hairspray on a plane, but someone can troll the NYPD database looking for women to victimize and only serve a year in jail.
I’m going to need to blackout for a minute and digest that.
Alright, I’m back.
So, what changed? Police departments have become militarized. Originally, police officers were armed citizens who took on the responsibility of having arrest powers to protect the people. Now, they are more like a paramilitary organization. People fear American police more now than they ever have, and I had my concerns validated when a police officer said “Good!” when I mentioned that very fact. Officers have adopted a warrior mentality, and have assumed that the rest of the population consists of ignorant sheep. Looking at those they swore to protect and serve as enemies, or weaklings. Yes, many police officers give their lives in the line of duty, and many civilians are also killed recklessly. Could it be that it is everyone’s fault? If we are teaching officers to look at civilians as below them, or enemies, are we not just fueling the separation?
I’ve heard from many good hearted and conservative police officers that sincerely wish for civilians to be less armed. That’s not ok. It just means that we are failing the police officers being trained, because we clearly aren’t teaching them to respect the rights of citizens. Amazingly, when I talk to retired police officers they say the exact opposite. So, are we currently encouraging police officers to behave irresponsibly, to see innocent civilians as the potential enemy? I once heard a cop say, “I couldn’t care less what their rights are when I’m in the heat of the moment.” I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that this particular police officer probably should’ve chosen a different career path.
Police officers do not face the same justice system that civilians do:
If you kill a police dog, you will be charged with taking the life of an officer. Yet if a cop comes on to your property without a warrant and kills your animal, you’ll get to pay the vet bill to have them cremated.
I personally take great issue with this. I have a German Shepherd that is trained to guard my home, and she stays inside all day. She doesn’t know the difference between a cop breaking in, or Jeffrey Dahmer (apparently it could be both,) she just knows that it is her job to keep my home safe. I don’t like the idea that a police officer can get off the hook for slaughtering my dog if for some reason they decide to illegally enter my home, only to escape the justice system because they have a badge. If that’s the way it’s going to be going forward, law enforcement is going to become the career of choice for aspiring criminals, similar to how it was for the Gestapo.
SIDE NOTE: Yes, I read the adorable story of the cop that saved a dog and found its owners. Once again, that cop deserves a thank you. Interestingly enough, he recognized the poor image that the police now have with civilians concerning pets, and he made it a point to say that they all don’t behave that way. I give a sincere kudos to that officer.
If you are a police officer that is easily angered during police overreach discussions, you’re just increasing the chances that those listening will learn not to trust the police. Don’t defend criminals, even if they wear a badge, because that only gives us a substantiated reason to doubt whether your loyalty lies in protecting the innocent, or protecting whoever has a matching outfit.
If a group of mid-20’s blonde women with brownie batter addictions break in and rob a jewelry store, I’m not going to defend them because I’m a mid-20’s blonde woman with a brownie batter addiction. If you don’t want the world to act like the police are the largest gang in the United States, Hint: stop acting like it by pulling the gang loyalty card with the “Blue Code of Silence.” I get it, there is loyalty there, like in the military; However, let’s draw the line at say…oh, I don’t know…An unreasonable raid that left a 2 year-old with a gaping chest wound from a flashbang grenade. A woman that was stripped nude and pepper sprayed multiple times even after they had her in control behind bars. Or, maybe the unreasonable search of vehicles and homes without warrants?
I hope to see police officers bringing up these issues. If you are dedicated to protecting the people of the United States, why not call out those that are harming them, or those that are violating their rights?
Police, I want to work with you, because I am a law abiding citizen that hates crime. I want to see us be friends again, I don’t want to fear you when I don’t have a reason to do so, I don’t want to have to fear for my rights, I want you to know and understand them, and I want you to want the people of this country to know and understand their rights so that we can build a safer tomorrow. A tomorrow where we realize that a SWAT team is not necessary to apprehend little Billy’s weed stash.
To all of the police officers that respect the rights of the people, please let me express my gratitude. We need people like you on our side, I respect you, and I am thankful for your sacrifice. I appreciate the few that commented on some of those posts calling out your fellow brethren for violating the rights of the people. I don’t want the police to go away, I just want them to know their place in a free society. Contrary to both sides of the debate, respect and restraint are not antithetical.
Alright…I’ll take my lashings now. If by lashings you mean a piece of cake….or pie…I’m not picky.
First off, I must apologize again for the amount of time between posts. So far it has been a crazy year, but I promise that I am getting back on track.
So, on a scale from 1 to Black Friday in Bath & Body Works, how overwhelmed by all of the Obama scandals are you?
Seriously, I sat down and made a list of all the current topics I could blog about, and the list grew so long that my brain shut down. I found myself spacing out while staring sideways at my list, similar to how I speechlessly stared sideways when I encountered that lady in Walmart that asked me where the milk was while I was shopping on the complete opposite side of the store….in the paint aisle.
So, my friends, I’m going to blog about some of the topics on my list, but this blog post isn’t really about them; it’s about you.
*Pulls first topic out of the bucket labeled “Facepalm”*
Lois Lerner Emails:
My phone contacts all have the name of my actual contact, and also “& NSA” attached to them:
“Mom & NSA”
“Beth & NSA”
“Chris & NSA”
Etc….Get it? Ha ha ha. Ha.
At first it was just a joke, an ironic joke, but a joke nonetheless. The funny part about this “joke,” is that it was entirely possible. Why? Because our country is technologically savvy, to a fault. That’s why when I heard that Lois Lerner had 2 years’ worth of emails lost, I laughed. Then I laughed even more. Then I cried from laughing. Then I cried for the people that believed this unmitigated rubbish. Then I worried about the offspring of those who believed it, and the possibility that their parents were the type of individuals who thought that the milk was over by the paint. Then I started laughing again. This cycle continued for at least 4 hours, it was exhausting. So I laughed myself to sleep, then after my nap I proceeded to laugh again.
I’m not even going to explain WHY this made me laugh so hard. If you need an explanation, I just want to inform you of a useful fact: The milk is NOT by the paint in Walmart. I think Paul Ryan said it best, “This is unbelievable…Nobody believes you.” I don’t believe that ANYONE can be that simple minded. You know that the emails aren’t lost. I’m giving the human race the benefit of the doubt by assuming that everyone knows this is a lie, and that those that are saying it’s not a lie, are in fact lying themselves. Kind of like how I gave the lady in Walmart the benefit of the doubt, maybe she’s never been in my Walmart…or any other Walmart.
All in all, we should be deeply offended. They actually think we are that stupid. That says a lot.
*Sticks hand into the “Facepalm” bucket and pulls out another topic.*
Is this in any way defensible, People? I love how all of the individuals that are free after this debacle, yet shouldn’t be, see America as the big bad bully of the world. They all feel that our Country needs to be taken down a notch. They all find our principles, Constitution, and way of business to be flawed. That includes the 5 terrorists released, you know, the people that want us dead, and Bergdahl.
Oh. And our President and all the manipulating, cheating, treasonous bureaucrats that supported him during this dangerous and illegal trade.
There’s no excuse. None. Zip. Nada. Nein. Nai. And for our friends who speak Swahili: “Hapana.”
We’ve reached that point in time when those we elect are giving more trust to deadly terrorists than they give us. No seriously, let that stew in your prefrontal cortex for a while.
*Hand dips back down in “Facepalm” bucket*
ISIS & Weapons of Mass Destruction:
So, ISIS stole the non-existent weapons that Saddam never had, because they never existed, because that was all just a Republican conspiracy theory. (Insert axis of evil joke here.)
Oh, and I know that right now you’re wondering why that all matters, thinking to yourself, “Let’s get to the important questions when it comes to Iraq…Like, are the tortured and beheaded civilians of Iraq fully educated on Climate Change?”…Have no fear, John Kerry and Bill Nye have all of those bases covered for you.
*In order to save time, Marybeth pulls out 4 topics from the “Facepalm” bucket*
Can we please stop picking on innocent American citizens and the First Amendment? Do the American people realize that some of those we elected to represent us are now actively trying to silence us?
Dear Harry Reid, Stop. Just stop. You show more distain for the Koch brothers than you do for the recently released terrorists who prefer a death penalty that involves rape, torture, and beheading. Let’s treat the philanthropists just a bit better, eh?
SIDE NOTE: There’s a VERY thin line between politicians protecting you, and getting the chance to have them sic the Gestapo on you for a thought crime. Remember that very important detail when you don’t think that a Conservative blogger should be able to say that Obama is irresponsible.
Everyone is screaming about how we can’t blame Obama for what the Patent and Trademark Office did. Alright, I’ll go to the special land of Selective Verbiage with you. You’re right, Obama didn’t throw down his gauntlet and demand the change, but the government that he has empowered has figured out that they can weaponize government agencies, and that’s basically the same thing. Patent and Trademark Office, IRS, Department of Education, etc. are attacking the people of the United States because they hold different beliefs than the Left.
Bergdahl is home after betraying the United States, and it cost us a considerable amount of danger. An uncountable number of lives could potentially be lost because of this switch in the years to come. Yet, our government will sit silently while a dedicated American Sergeant is held captive in Mexico. Revolting.
Wow. Just wow. THIS is what you get with socialized medicine. Period. We can do better, and there is SO much more to say on this topic, enough to get a blog post of its own, and it will. This is just proof that our government is violently out of control.
Maybe in the near future I’ll give detailed views on these subjects, as well as many others, but for now I just wanted to give an overview.
As for this being directed at you, it’s directed at you because the mid-term elections are coming up. I would say that they are even more important than the Presidential election. It is time for you to speak up, it is time for you to care, and it is time for you to find your voice before it is silenced. This isn’t about your wallet, this is about the fact that people are dying because of the policies that these politicians are pushing. It’s about them being too weak to even bring up the LONG OVERDUE idea of impeaching our President.
Show them that you are willing to do what is right for those you love, and for those who NEED you to be their voice.
*Pulls paper from the “Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t be President” bucket*
1975 Audio Recording:
We now have a tape of Hillary laughing about the 1975 case involving the rape of a child. Hillary also attacked the credibility of the 12 year-old rape victim, saying that the 6th grader fantasized about older men, and wanted the inappropriate relationship. So, in other words, the 12 year-old child, who probably still had dolls and read Nancy Drew, wanted the 41 year-old man to force himself on her in his car, parked on the side of the highway.
By the way…Feminists are defending Hillary.
I’m going to go ahead and black out for while… *blank stare*
I’m quite careful when labeling issues as “taboo,” I believe that we tend to label too many issues with this description in an attempt to “pick up the torch,” per se. It gives us a false sense of purpose, and instead of simply talking about the subject, or bringing awareness, we instead make it an uncomfortable topic when most of the time it wasn’t one to begin with.
I’m not insinuating that some subjects aren’t truly taboo, because clearly there are many. My point is to simply note that talking about certain subjects removes the taboo, labeling it “taboo” for some self-serving purpose, does not. It always boggles my mind to google and find thousands of different blog posts about one “taboo” subject. I have that special little, “I do not think that word means what you think it means” moment.
To my point – If there is a beloved female in the conservative movement right now, it is Dana Loesch. She is worshipped on twitter, and held in high regard in the majority of conservative circles. So in the beginning of last week I stifled my opinion for the most part, especially since I kept thinking to myself that speaking negatively against Dana is “taboo,” so “just don’t do it” flooded my mind. Then I found myself writing a letter to The Blaze, and in said letter I proclaimed the opposite of what I had said in my silence:
“So while the crowd follows this type of vitriol with excited anticipation for the next “take down,” there are some of us who have never followed, tail wagging, behind the popular girl who purposefully hurts people to get a laugh or a pat on the back. I never have, and I won’t start now.”
SO, here I am to put my money where my mouth is after calling out my own hypocrisy, even if no one was privy to its existence in this particular case.
As noted above, last week I sent a letter to The Blaze concerning The Dana Show, and while I won’t share the entire letter, I do plan on sharing bits of said letter throughout this blog piece.
As a Conservative, very little that the left does makes me cringe anymore. I’ve learned to accept the depravity that accompanies most of their ideologies, especially those that have an incredibly destitute view of human value. Don’t get me wrong, there are decent people on the left side of the aisle, but the policies themselves wreak of principles that embrace proclivities for the sheer sake of self satisfying goals.
That said, I find myself cringing quite often these days when reading the, almost villainous, replies from fellow Conservatives. So, this blog post is for those of us who wish to be more in this world than a cheap and forgettable witty comeback. So, pretty much everyone. If you don’t fall into that category, you probably shouldn’t be reading my blog.
I can be sarcastic, a lot, but I try to remain sarcastic towards the beliefs or stance of a person while making truth and honesty the forefront of my arguments, not their personhood, and I always keep it clean. Why? Because why shouldn’t I? Should I fight back with material that only serves to demonstrate a possible absence of substance? That’s exactly what the elitist “progressives” crave. They want us to get down into the mud and play their game, because then they’ll photograph us when we’re muddy and use them as a weapon against us; rightfully so, I might add. This doesn’t make me special, or superior, it simply makes me reasonable. Do I think things about some people that I shouldn’t? Of course, but like most people, I try to control myself.
So what happened to make me write a letter to The Blaze? A woman called Dana a “bitter hag.”
Call me cold hearted, this would not even budge my feelings enough to garner a reply. I wouldn’t be rendered speechless out of offense, I would be rendered speechless out of a need to conserve precious time that this particular comment would waste with an unwarranted reply. Yet this comment was used as the catalyst for a childish “yo momma” segment. “You’re gonna love this,” Dana declared before reading the “bitter hag” comment in her character voice of the day, to the sound of intimidating music.
Hmmmm…probably not, Dana.
As I mention in my letter, “When I think of the things that she has been called, or what I’ve been called, or pretty much anything else that any other conservative woman has been called, “bitter hag” is an incredible upgrade.” I stand by that statement, and my reasoning was clarified later on in the letter:
“Have we crossed the isthmus? Are we no longer able to voice personal opinions without juvenile Mean Girl-esque attempts to personally attack someone? More importantly, did being called a “bitter hag” really offend Dana that deeply? Or was it a convenient way to get the “attaboy” accolades from the masses? If she was offended that deeply, I’m forced to reconsider my personal opinion that she is a strong conservative woman. If it was the latter, I’m forced to reconsider my opinion that she is a strong conservative voice of reason.”
Why was I so impassioned by this particular segment? After reading the comment, Dana proceeded to show a picture of this woman, then showcased a photo of this woman’s mother. She then proceeded to verbally assault this woman on her overbite, attacked her facial features, her couch, her hair, and also made fun of their looks in comparison to her family’s self-proclaimed superior looks. Oh, to be so blessed aesthetically. Somewhere within the diatribe there was even a z-snap, then it ended with a final jab that taught the woman a lesson about helping her frizzy hair to be tamed with a dime size amount of conditioner.
Too far, Friends. Too far.
My below reply to her may seem harsh, but her response to this woman was the quintessential villainous response from Conservatives that I’ve grown to fear:
“My elderly family members are, shockingly, not supermodel candidates. I’m guessing that this reality is shared by, well, everyone that doesn’t have a 50 year old supermodel Grandmother. Imagine that, people get old and unattractive, and if your daughter calls someone a “bitter hag,” your photo can be paraded and mocked on TV by a woman with an Ichthys tattooed on her wrist.”
Every person that she ever debates will probably have an elderly family member or an unattractive feature. Come on, it’s low hanging fruit. Female empowerment does not find its core in the arrogance of the popular girl, female empowerment is found in our ability to think rationally. If we can’t move above grade school tactics, we are just as immature as those who buy votes with “free” contraceptives and degrading “first time” commercials that are specifically targeting an audience that they assume is of lesser intelligence, i.e., women.
I disagreed with the hate mail portion of The Dana Show to begin with, but this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Why, you might ask, was this so important to me? Important enough to create a letter? Because I know that Dana is capable of thought provoking points, she is talented in opening the eyes of those she debates with, and she is incredibly intelligent. All of those qualities are lost on the other side if this is how she plans to conduct her behavior. As I said in the letter, the hate mail segments just seemed to cross the line between wit and obnoxious to me, even though they did nothing to offend me.
If she read her hate mail with a Darth Vader mask I’d be a bit more amused…maybe. Probably not, but it’s a possibility.
I felt in a way that it was belittling to women. Is this how we see ourselves? As sniveling beings in need of pointless vent sessions using various accents for theatrics? Maybe I’m on my own little island when it comes to that view point. Or, maybe I realize that if I wasn’t grounded in my opinions, and I was looking for a side that was speaking the truth, I would pass up the theatrics and look for the adults with facts.
So now the question is posed to us: What do we want to be known for when it comes to our political opinions? For our, questionable at best, wit when it comes to producing nicknames, e.g., “Obummer,” and “Moochelle,” or our ability to comprehend the Labor Force Participation data? For our solid z-snap, or our dedication to fighting for the voiceless? Whether we can weaken our opponents into a crying hot mess over their hair texture, or whether we can present them with facts that leave them unable to intelligently defend their position?
I know what I’ve chosen.
Sarcasm and wit lighten the mood, or get your point across in a more direct manner, when used in the right context. But when they are used to attack a person extraneously, as she has done sporadically in the past, they only serve to demonize the views of conservative women everywhere. We should find our views to be substantial and without need for petty attacks that speak to the supposed ignorance they accuse us of having. Not because we need them to think we have a factual viewpoint, but because we do have a factual viewpoint. We don’t need the petty attacks, because we have the truth. Personal attacks are nothing but unmitigated nonsense when either side participates in their furtherance, and beyond that, they are harmful to conservative women who stand on reasoning and facts.
Alright. Now I feel better. Time for coffee.
The elitists are busy telling us how dangerous we are again, and this time they have a big and scary PSA involved, and of course, celebrities are included; because I love being told that protection is overrated from people who get escorted to the grocery store by armed guards…yeah. So, the PSA: An adorable little girl is playing hide and seek with her brother, she runs up the stairs and hides in her parents closet, after knocking a few things down she finds a shoe box containing a loaded handgun. A shoe box. A loaded gun…in a shoe box…with young children loose. The problem with this PSA is that the parents weren’t wearing helmets while snacking on a paint chip sundae and finger painting on their walls with peanut butter.
I digress. The gun slowly starts to turn towards her head…
“Will you stop this? Click here. Scenes like this happen all the time, you have another chance to stop a child from being killed.”
FYI – I could say those exact same words in a PSA telling you to cut your child’s hot dogs properly.
Don’t you want to stop children from being killed, you gun nut American? DON’T YOU? For the children!!! They preach that they simply want to educate parents on proper gun storage, but then you realize that Moms Demand Pointless Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Big Gulps are behind the ad, and that their form of “proper gun storage” is in the holster of a police officer, not in a law abiding citizen home.
They never address how they will help gun owners keep their guns safe, they just want you to donate money towards their campaign, which goes to politicians and legislative actions, which leads to fighting for increased gun control. Now, what laws will force you to put your loaded gun in a safe and not in a shoe box, and how exactly will they check to make sure you are obeying those laws? See the downhill slope?
My favorite part of the entire grave dancing debacle is when you go to the Moms Demand Action website and find links that lead you to statistics involving “Concealed Carry Killers”. Mmmhmmm. That title isn’t specifically designed to fuel the propaganda against Concealed Carry License holders and demonize them at all…Not even a little, right?
“More children and teens are losing their lives to guns now than they are to cancer.” – While the death of a human being is a horrid act regardless of age or reason, for perspective, that statistic involves kids and teens under the age of 19. Take a look at the death toll for kids under 19 in Chicago due to gang related events, regardless of the fact that Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and then get back to me. Better yet, get back to Moms Demand Action and let them know you’re not a moron and that they need to try harder.
So what do they want? Aggressive gun laws, registration, bans on bedazzled long rifles that they like to call “Assault Rifles” because “assault” is a scary word, and whatever else they can possibly get passed.
So, you know, it’s time for another history lesson.
Now, before everyone flies off the handle and starts to chastise me by saying that I’m comparing our current situation to the Holocaust, please sit back down, put away the tar and feathers, call the dogs off, have a chai latte and breathe. I’m not eluding to the idea that Obama is Hitler, and I’m not saying that Democrats want to kill us all. I’m recollecting history, and in particular, the history of gun registration.
I’ve witnessed a lot of Republicans/Conservatives that talk about the Nazis and gun registration. They push the idea that gun registration was the catalytic move for the Nazis, that the Nazis themselves ushered in gun registration, etc. I’d like to debate that, not by presenting a less horrifying situation, but by giving historical context to the gun registration battle that should horrify us a lot more than any of Hitler’s gun control quotes.
The gun registration that the Nazis took advantage of was not designed to harm anyone, it was designed to promote safety, responsibility, and sensible gun laws. No sarcasm, it actually was designed to help people. That’s disturbing.
Werner Best, possibly the most forgotten key to Nazi success, was a Reich Commissioner for occupied Denmark, and a former Security Police Leader. He was a brilliant lawyer, an active member of the German National People’s Party, and begat the National Youth League. Best brainstormed with groups of National Socialists to create the Boxheim documents, which he had in his possession when he was arrested.
The Boxheim documents, written in the 1920’s, were seen as an action plan for a communist revolution. The tenants of the Boxheim documents included plans for a coup involving “Storm Divisions”, gun control that involved citizens being shot without trial if in possession of a gun, the abolishment of private poverty, and full control of all Jewish assets, including their food. With plans to starve the Jews he was labeled a lunatic, even by an embarrassed Hitler, who at the time was running for office as an upstanding citizen that preached the beauty of fairness to a large population of devoted followers.
Alas, a nation of forgetful and passive individuals eventual made Best the Police Commissioner in Hessen by 1933, then he was the deputy to Reinhard Heydrich and Himmler within a few years, and he eventually became the chief legal adviser to the Gestapo, and simultaneously held various other high ranking positions of influence due to his intelligence and legal skills.
Back to the point – After the Werner Best plans were found in the early 1930’s, the government reacted by forcing all weapons to be registered. I’ll repeat, because it’s important to understand – In a move to keep Jews safe from monsters like Werner Best, the government ordered that all weapons be registered. Noble, eh? The very laws intended to keep the Jews safe would become their death sentence. To all of our shock, Communists and Nazis did not register their weapons.
Imagine that, apparently psychopaths don’t really have much regard for the law.
By 1933 the Nazi regime, led by Hitler, used the registration records to begin disarming political opponents, this enabled them to seize power. Hitler’s German Weapons Act was born in 1938 after all of his opponents had been removed. They, once again, used the records that were once created to protect the Jews to track down Jewish civilians and sympathizers, confiscating their possessions and weapons. On the Night of the Broken Glass, less than a month after the mass confiscation, Jews were completely defenseless against the unmitigated evil that was unleashed upon them.
Throughout history we learn that criminals and psychopaths don’t scoff in utter hatred of laws that are passed, they use them to their advantage. Best and company didn’t see the registration as a road block, they saw it as a way to gain access to the law abiding citizens that felt bound by their morally sound nature to obey and register their fire arms.
“You cannot make men good by law.” – C.S. Lewis
So let’s talk, Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, let’s ask the important questions. I’ll start.
Q: What enabled a country run by monsters to kill roughly 1.5 Million children?
A: Gun registration. By the way, that total happens to be larger than the death toll for choking, guns, childhood cancer, car accidents, etc. combined. Actually, the only thing that even comes close to a comparison is the roughly 1.2 Million children annihilated in the womb every year in America.
Q: What doesn’t stop a criminal?
A: I can’t believe I have to say this, but a sign in a window.
Example: Newtown, Columbine, Aurora, Fort Hood, etc…
Q: Why are you using Nazism to make your point?
A: Because I can? I get it, I’m as annoyed by the Obama/Hitler photos as you are, and I find them to be childish; however, there is NOTHING wrong with remembering the mistakes made in history so that we don’t make them again. I wouldn’t bring it up except, oh yeah, we’re making them again. History is full of warnings about increased gun control laws. It’s not a story written by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, it’s a reality, it’s what actually happened, and it is worth remembering.
Q: What else doesn’t stop a criminal?
A: The law. For example, refer to Eric Holder.
Q: What’s the point of this blog post?
A: To show that even if the individuals running the “Everytown” campaign have nothing but pure intentions, their intentions are stupid, harmful, uneducated, and naïve. Period. If they’ve ever read a history book, then they don’t have good intentions. Period. That doesn’t mean that they plan to send us to Auschwitz, it just means that they are willing to put innocent individuals in more danger for the sake of gaining more control.
P.S. Do not keep guns in a shoe box, or anywhere that isn’t locked when kids are in the home.
Responsible Gun Owner & CCW License Holder
I’ve always hated the labels that redirect the responsibility of misdeeds from individual accountability to life circumstance. Sure we all go through struggles, but why does society categorize those who struggle as individuals who somehow deserve a permission slip?
She had a child out of wedlock at 16 – Yeah, but she has Daddy issues….
He’s a drug addict – Yeah, but he didn’t have many friends…
She sleeps around – Yeah, but she’s a child of divorce…
He’s a rapist – Yeah, but he was sexually abused…
I’ve known many wonderful and strong people who have overcome much, they know the statistics and refuse to be a part of the social expectations. They may struggle emotionally, but they’re determined not to let their suffering victimize someone else. I’ve also known many who let the social expectations dictate their life, it’s like having lifetime subscriptions to “but” and “because” for them. Those who are responsible shouldn’t feel like they have to prove their responsibility to the world because society tells them that their circumstances put them in the negative to begin with. Everyone is responsible for their own life. Which brings me to the meat of this blog post…
First and foremost, my heart goes out to those in Fort Hood. I’m heartbroken for the families that lost a loved one, those who are recovering in the hospital, as well as all of the families that experienced the terror of those life altering moments. Last Wednesday, we all watched the horror unfold like an all too common rerun of a horrific movie, the sudden stab of its reality reoccurring in our minds for days.
We are human, when such acts of horror invade our world like an unexpected enemy, our first response is always to question why. Closure becomes the holy grail of healing. We want to know what would cause someone to do such a thing, we want to know how we can prevent such acts from occurring. In some small way, leaving the act so fully unjustifiable seems to prove the existence of unmitigated evil in its darkest form. If we can just get a grasp on to the underlying situation we’ll feel a little safer, right? How do you stop someone from wanting to hurt innocent people? Could this particular attack be stopped? How can we make sure that this doesn’t happen again? How can we keep a wife from having to pick out a casket because a madman snapped?
Answer: We can’t. Period.
The sooner we accept this scary reality, the sooner we can make improvements that increase our ability to protect ourselves and our families.
Upon turning on the news this weekend I heard the term “PTSD” used roughly 10 times in 30 minutes by 3 different stations. I believe that doing so can be both unintentionally harmful, and sometimes meticulously orchestrated, dependent upon the deliverer of said news reports.
In an effort to answer the “why”, we’ve placed millions of people who suffer from PTSD in a category labeled “Unstable”. Millions of abuse victims, dedicated soldiers, missionaries, car wreck survivors, etc. suffer from PTSD every day, and they aren’t dangerous or unstable. They’re victims of circumstance, but they know they are responsible for their own actions.
PTSD is an anxiety disorder that can leave you in fear for your own life, as well as the life of others. It can cause you to feel like you aren’t in control of your surroundings, and oftentimes normal everyday activities serve as a trigger for your memory, causing you to relive the specific events. It leaves some unable to speak about the events, it can cause them to avoid situations that they fear, which can become all consuming. Hypersensitivity, as well as addiction, are also possible. It’s very common, and those who suffer are far from alone.
There are also those who suffer from brain damage and severe mental disorders, and I believe that we can do more to help them and prevent tragedies by doing so. But the point of this post is to make it clear that using PTSD to justify the slaughter of innocent individuals is not only ignorant, it’s irresponsible, and it vilifies those who come home from war. It encourages them not to seek help.
They’re heroes overseas, yet suddenly untrustworthy with a weapon on U.S. soil. We’ll send them to fight for our rights, but then question their own rights when they simply ask for help. In blaming PTSD, we also tell them that they’re not responsible for their actions, and we fail the very people that fight for us. Many feel out of control, and so we reiterate to them that they are out of control by placing their decision making process fully in the hands of an anxiety disorder.
So, to make this perfectly clear:
PTSD did not go on a shooting spree. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.
A gun did not go on a shooting spree. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.
Millions of people suffering from PTSD daily did not go on a shooting spree, nor will they. Ivan Lopez went on a shooting spree.
Which brings me to my next issue:
Danny Ferguson was engaged to be married. He’d just returned from Afghanistan, and he sacrificed himself while trying to save others. Danny obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.
Carlos Lazaney-Rodriguez dedicated 20 years of his life to serving his country, in seven months he planned to retire. Carlos obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.
Timothy Owens was a counselor and had also done time in Iraq. He planned to make the military his career. Timothy obeyed the law and wasn’t armed on base.
Ivan Lopez did not obey the law, and he took their lives before taking his own.
A common misconception that spread like a vicious wildfire after this recent attack is that Fort Hood, a military base, should be well equipped to protect itself. They feed the idea that we must control guns, that we need to control those with PTSD, that we need to have more restrictions, etc. Yet they fail to mention that our Military bases are GUN FREE ZONES.Fort Hood is the liberal utopia! Guns must be registered, no carrying permitted, only police are armed, etc… Yet what was the first response when these policies failed?
“We need more control.”
When are people going to realize that violence will always happen, and that the only response from leftist politicians will be to tighten the belt even more? I believe that even they know it won’t work. It’s the same across the U.S., they know the policies don’t work, we have the proof. Feeding the fear of guns is simply a glowing opportunity for Democrats to have more state control. Period. When it fails, they don’t care, they just push for increased control. The accompanying body count of defenseless victims is simply collateral damage for the common good.
My Dad served in the Army for 30 years. He was trusted in life or death situations, highly trained, level headed, etc… I hope I’m not the only one disturbed by the insanity that while he was willing to take a bullet for our country, our country turned around and put him in danger when he came back home. This fact is infuriating to me, and quite hard to stomach.
Is it just a lack of common sense? It’s simple: Those who plan to break the law and murder someone are not going to mind breaking the law to gain the weapon to do so. That’s right, out of the entire military, including millions of those that suffer with PTSD, .00007% went on a shooting spree this year, so that somehow justifies keeping the rest of our military in danger? Go back and recount those zeros so that we can bask in the unrivaled ignorance of gun control.
I often ask why law makers and leftists fight to unarm our military. The only answer I have is one that scares me: They are either dangerously ignorant, and are therefore incompetent to run a country, OR, seeing men and women in body bags is not a cost they’re not willing to pay for their propaganda and control.
I see people fighting all the time on behalf of military benefits, and I’m not asking you to stop…But I find it equally important, if not more so, for us to fight for their right to protect themselves. Our soldiers fight for the freedoms outlined in the Constitution, then come home and get gunned down because they’re not allowed to have those same rights, then survivors get labeled as ticking time bombs because they have PTSD.
Come on, America…We can do better.
First off, I’d like to note that I love Answers in Genesis, and I’ve used their site for research more times than I can count.
Second off…AiG??? I thought we were tight?! Like baseball and America, chocolate and happiness, pork chops and applesauce, pyromaniacs and matches?! Why’d you go and make a nonsensical post about God’s Not Dead?
In case you didn’t realize it yet, I strongly disagree with AiG’s view of God’s Not Dead. Roger Patterson wrote a review that pointed to what he believed to be the unbiblical nature of God’s Not Dead. In this post I’ll be adding a few of his points, as well as my response.
Being a natural skeptic myself, I tend to take issue with the idea that reason should not be held in high regard. I’m not cold hearted, but let’s just say that C.S. Lewis’s factual and pointed manner makes a deeper emotional connection with me than Beth Moore’s warm and fuzzy encouragement. Both are beneficial, and everyone has their preferences, but that’s the truth. I’m more apt to cry reading Ravi Zacharias than I am watching The Passion of The Christ.
I can be naïve, but not to the point of believing that Christians don’t have their seasons of doubt. I’ve had my share of those seasons, and remembering those moments make me thankful for sound reasoning. Maybe I was guilty of little faith, maybe I’m that annoying kid that constantly said, “nuh-uh”, to the unmitigated madness of those trying to convince me, flawed in my ability to “believe like a child”. But alas, I’m His annoying kid. We’ve often confused the biblical calling for childlike faith with the idea of simplistic faith. But as one apologist put it, we should believe like children, and haven’t we all been shocked by the number of questions children can ask?
So, to start, below is an excerpt from Patterson’s article:
“In the first debate, Wheaton boldly declares to his classmates, “We’re going to put God on trial!”
Think about that for a moment. A college freshman is going to place a group of teenagers who are willing to sign away their souls to please a philosophy professor they don’t even know as judge and jury over the omnipotent Creator God of the universe.
While Wheaton sought counsel from a pastor on his decision, he might have done well to consult his Lord who plainly said when He was tempted in the wilderness, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” (Luke 4:12, ESV). Only a fool thinks he can sit as judge over the Judge of the universe.”
Alrighty. First, let’s break down the verse used. In Luke 4:12 Christ is quoting Deuteronomy 6:16, which, like in the wilderness, was a warning not to taunt God for proof of a divine revelation when he has sufficiently given them proof already. In Deuteronomy it gives a comparison, “as you did in Massah”. So, let’s follow the breadcrumbs: In Exodus we learn that Moses named Massah as such because it signifies “temptation”. The children of Israel were taunting God, giving ultimatums. He had already proven Himself to them time and time again, but they still taunted Him by demanding food, water, cattle, etc. in return for their devotion. If their needs were not met, they attempted to threaten the Almighty God by saying they would no longer believe. Coming to the conclusion that the Lord is not among them out of anger, not sound logic or lack of belief.
Example of such taunting: “Mommy, if you don’t give me a cookie you won’t be my Mommy anymore.”
Affirming their acknowledgment of existence in the very threat itself.
So what does that have to do with the above issue that Answers in Genesis has with the movie? Well, they’d have a legitimate point if Wheaton had said, “We’re going to put God on trial. Everyone sit here, if God’s real, he’ll drop Arby’s roast beef sandwiches and curly fries on all of our desks.”… But he didn’t make such an audacious request, he simply wanted to expose the factual evidence already given to an audience that had never sought out the evidence. Putting the evidence for God on trial, not God Himself. If they have issue with his verbiage, that’s fine, but the rest of their argument falls flat because the actions that went along with “putting God on trial” were no different than their own.
Let’s be honest, the real issue for Patterson is that the Movie didn’t proclaim from the rooftops that the earth is young. With all due respect, all other points were just excessive – and faulty – nitpicking.
Robertson continues with the following:
“In approaching the issue in this manner, Wheaton ignores the truth of Romans 1:18–32. The people sitting in those seats and even the professor know God exists. The existence of God is not the question—whether they are willing to bow to Him as King is.
Wheaton could have agreed to the debate and used the Word of God as his foundation, as Jesus did in the wilderness temptation, but he chose to appeal to reason—the reason of fallen men and women whose minds are blinded by the god of this age.”
Reason is the modus operandi of the mind. Biblically, the mind is not merely a physical tool that keeps us alive, it is part of the soul. The bridge between a presupposition and a stable hypothesis is reason; however, there is nothing beyond a hypothesis to be found anywhere but in the Word of God. Wheaton’s foundation was the word of God, the issue is that, once again, he didn’t specify young earth creationism in his dialogue. It’s foolish to dismiss an entire movie and not help promote it simply because it encourages kids to think, but doesn’t clarify that they need to think exactly as you do. I would even go so far as to say this makes them as guilty as the atheists that claim audacious absolutes.
Wheaton’s goal was to open them up to the idea that a God exists, to make them think, not to appease the young earth creationist ideals, or the theist evolutionist ideals.
At the end of the movie all of the students proclaim that “God’s not dead”, but only one student gives his life to Christ. I would venture to guess that the majority of those in classrooms across America have at some point in time heard the gospel, yet walk away from faith because they were offered absolutely no reasoning. He used the bible to prove his point, he just didn’t articulate AiG’s exact position. Once again, he didn’t advocate for young earth creationism or theistic evolution, he simply asked people to think with an open mind.
I also take issue with their assumption that Atheists are simply lying about their belief in God. I would argue that while God writes His laws on the hearts of all men, it is possible that they have developed a suppression of knowledge.
Example: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting.” – Romans 1:28
God didn’t suppress their knowledge. They, and the world, in an act of free will built presuppositions that suppressed or belittled the existence of God. So, I could argue that what God’s Not Dead encouraged was not only belief in the existence of God, but they mainly wanted to bulldoze down the presuppositions built by man. It’s the idea of intuitive knowledge vs. beliefs built on human perception. Most atheists are not simply liars that actually believe in God but just aren’t telling anyone because they enjoy being deceitful. We won’t encourage them to think openly by vilifying their intentions. They’ve suppressed their intuitive knowledge like Pharaoh suppressed his intuitive knowledge of what was right in Exodus.
We can see that atheists exercise their biblical intuitive knowledge daily by attributing worth to human life, that doesn’t mean they have conscious awareness of their intuitive knowledge. SO, from that standpoint, it is quite logical to assume that no, their conscious awareness is not in the know that God exists. Yet, their anger towards a God that their conscious awareness claims doesn’t exist is indicative of the fact that intuitive knowledge is present, but deeply buried under the presuppositions of societal views on God. So yes, AiG, the existence of God is the question.
Additionally, if everyone knows about God, why does their site exist? To simply educate believers, or to encourage reasoning from both believers and unbelievers. I’ve always thought it was both.
“In other instances, the Christians endorsing the movie are happy to accept the big bang and biological evolution as proof of God’s work in the universe.”
Huh? No, I’m happy to continue researching scientific findings knowing all the while that whether the earth was created yesterday, or 7 billion years ago, the only way it happened is through God and God alone. I’m also completely thrilled if a movie has the power to make students mull over the creator of the universe, regardless of when He demanded there be light.
Ultimately – and in my opinion – and certainly AiG and I would disagree as to whether or not it agrees philosophically with the bible, but the goal of the movie was neither to promote evolution nor creation, but, by Wheaton’s own admission in his opening statement, prove that modern philosophy cannot disprove the existence of God. Plain and simple. Ergo, the title of the movie. And again, in my opinion, mission accomplished.