Your Destiny Now, Edited by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D., Political Blog, Conservative Bloggers, Republican Blogspot, Political Blogs

Alt. Pelosi

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:39:15 PM

Alt. Pelosi

Tags: Alt. Pelosi

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

The Jihadist Is Always the Victim

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:38:25 PM

The Jihadist Is Always the Victim

''Just think: Islam as violent jihad trumped Major Hasan’s Americanization and more important, trumped his training as both a soldier and as a psychiatrist! He is a Trauma expert, specialized to help people who have faced disasters. (Or so I’ve been told). All the brakes failed, no dam could withhold a Jihadist whose time had come.''

The same Instant Personal Jihad Syndrome once led another Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, to shoot Robert Kennedy in cold blood. Remember the Seattle shooter who killed and wounded Jewish women? Off his meds, off his rocker, but he knew that he had to hunt Jews down.
Jihadic literature raves about Muslims being attacked (not by other Muslims which is often the case) but by Jews, Americans, Zionists, Crusaders, infidels. Terrorist leaders talk about Muslim Holy lands being “occupied” by the invader. They therefore fly two planes into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon because Muslims are fed up with taking all that abuse lying down. (And that’s before America invaded Afghanistan and Iraq).
The attackers are really self-defenders. The jihadist is always the victim.
Ask any of the Muslim fathers who have honor murdered their daughters in America in cold blood. They’ll tell you the same thing. She attacked my honor. I had to defend myself. It was an act of pure self-defense. This is precisely what Zein Isa, another Palestinian, and a member of the Abu Nidal terrorist gang, said about killing his 16 year old daughter, Palestina (“Tina”) Isa in 1989 in St Louis, Missouri.
Male Muslim jihadic rage? That is equivalent to 4000 pounds—the weight of the car that Faleh AlMaleki drove over his daughter Noor who died of her profound injuries in Arizona. Ironically, AlMaleki has just been placed on a suicide watch in Arizona—and his compatriot in crime, Muzammil Hassan in Buffalo, is trying to plead temporary insanity (“extreme emotional disturbance”) to explain why he finally beheaded his wife Aasiya, whom he had continually battered.
So: The 4000 pound father in Arizona is really the victim, as is the Buffalo beheader.
Sudden Jihad Syndrome, Personal Jihad Syndrome, call it what you will—these terrible acts should not be psychiatrically diagnosed and excused. At the risk of being called a racist, allow me to suggest that we must connect the dots before it is too late. Islam now=jihad=hate propaganda=9/11=the tragedy at Ft. Hood. http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/11/05/the-jihadist-is-always-the-victim/2/

Tags: The Jihadist Is Always the Victim

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Wedlock should be a padlock

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:37:39 PM

Wedlock should be a padlock

''I have yet to meet a couple who is planning to get divorced and is also doing what the Bible says. I don't think I ever will. Because if a couple does what God says, they will not be headed for divorce court. And if they don't do what God says, then it is only a matter of time until they will have trouble.''

I have never known a time when the family is under attack like it is today – from those who want to redefine what it is to those who simply want to undermine it. Our culture is largely hostile toward the family and everything it stands for.
And when it comes to marriage, I would venture to say that our society doesn't know anything about what it takes to have a successful marriage. Take, for example, Hollywood celebrities whose marriages seem to last for about eight minutes before they end in divorce.
If you want to have a lasting marriage, you need to find a credible source on the subject. And that credible source is the Creator of marriage – God himself. In fact, the Bible speaks clearly and directly about how to have a successful marriage.
I know a little bit about marriage and a little bit about divorce. Although I have never been divorced, my mother was married and divorced seven times. So for many years of my childhood, I observed what not to do in marriage. And later, when I was about to get married, I knew that I was making a lifelong commitment that I planned, by the grace of God, to keep.
Because I am a pastor, people will sometimes ask me to redo their vows. While I don't have a problem with this, I have never felt a great desire to redo my vows, because I haven't broken them. I think having said them once is good enough, because I meant my vows when I said them, and I know that my wife meant them when she said them as well.
I remember the day we got married as though it were yesterday. My wife was a vision of beauty, while I looked like something the cat dragged in. Not only did I wear the ugliest tuxedo ever made, but I had long hair and a big, bushy, red beard. As I look at our wedding photos now, I wonder what I was thinking. But my wife could see that underneath all that hair was a bald man.
Perhaps the most encouraging film on marriage of our time -- own it for yourself: "Fireproof"
We sought to build our marriage on biblical principles, and our love has only grown stronger. I know they work, not only because they are from the pages of Scripture, but because I have seen them work. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115250

Tags: Wedlock should be a padlock

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Al Gore: Junk-science blowhard

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:37:01 PM

Al Gore: Junk-science blowhard

''Indeed, contrary to Gore's false assertions, there has been no global warming for a decade – and Earth has actually cooled slightly since 2002 – even as atmospheric CO2 levels continue to rise. Climate alarmists habitually magnify the alleged risks of warmer temperatures, ignore the potential economic and health benefits of a warmer world and obfuscate the clear dangers to agriculture and life from planetary cooling.''

House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming Chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass., was outraged that a renegade freelance lobbyist had sent a dozen phony letters to members of Congress, urging them to vote against cap-and-trade legislation.
Congress will not tolerate "forgery and identity theft" in attempting to influence the passage of legislation, members solemnly intoned. The letters misled Congress and imperiled its integrity and deliberative process.
Few Americans would disagree. But after their usual pontificating, the Democrats once again proved that, if they didn't have double standards, they would have no standards.
Markey and his big-D colleagues excoriated the guilty parties they had summoned to their Star Chamber. They then refused to allow testimony by the Republicans' proposed witness. Competitive Enterprise Institute lawyer Chris Horner had intended to discuss a recent hoax by environmentalists, who had impersonated U.S. Chamber of Commerce officials, forged Chamber documents and staged a phony news conference to announce that the Chamber had reversed its position on global-warming legislation.
Read the truth about climate change in "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed"
That and Horner's other examples of green fraud would confuse people and diffuse the anti-industry venom of Democrats, who didn't even mention the bogus Chamber event.
Worst, all this fakery pales next to what the full Energy and Commerce Committee had blessed as proof of imminent Climate Armageddon in April 2009. The Democrats' superstar witness was renowned climatologist Al Gore, who had earned a C and a D in the only science courses he took in college. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115253

Tags: Al Gore: Junk-science blowhard

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

What's wrong with the Constitution?

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:36:22 PM

What's wrong with the Constitution?

'I offer the flaw of the Constitution as presented by President John Adams: 'Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.'"

In last week's column, I expressed my concern that our country is rapidly moving away from the governmental restraint outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I invited people to briefly tell me why they thought the Constitution was flawed or unfair, or with what parts they disagree.
I received so many replies that I had to pick and choose what to include. I received few e-mails from true liberals, though I received many replies from conservatives who gave me their thoughts as to how liberals interpret these documents. The replies were extremely polite, for which I thank everyone.
I'm not making judgments on these answers; I'm just reporting them as a glimpse into how people interpret the Constitution. Each paragraph is input from a different reader:
"The Constitution is flawed in that it does not contain a mechanism for The People to enforce it, other than the ballot box (which doesn't repeal legislation) – or revolution."
"Is Social Security constitutional? How did the politicians and the Supreme Court justify this Ponzi scheme back in the 1930s?"
"I don't think the liberals think or believe the Constitution is flawed. I think that they love to play with and tweak words to suit what they distortedly believe is their 'right' to have what they have not earned. They hate to see people work hard, have what they have not earned, and tear us down because they feel jealous and inferior. They feel that they are owed and want to force charity upon the working people. Granted, many of these liberals do work, but I do not think that their brainwashed minds of entitlement allow them to fathom the magnitude of these (Pelosi, Reid, Congress, Obama) decisions and the impact it will have on all of our lives. They love being lied to because it gives them a cause. ... Liberals love to have a cause, no matter how twisted and false it may be. They have not learned what is really important in life, therefore push their own selfish and destructive agendas."
When did government officials start ignoring our national charter – and why does it continue? Find out in "Who Killed the Constitution?"
"Liberals will no doubt respond to the challenge by quoting the preamble to the Constitution – they always do. They will say that their liberal policies 'promote the general Welfare' and thus are constitutional. My top two responses: 1) In saying the general-welfare clause is unlimited, you are saying the founders were trying to establish a government without limits on what it can do – Soviet-style? 2) However, the preamble exactly means that 'in order to promote the general welfare we do establish and ordain this specific set of enumerated powers and limits to government action, namely, this Constitution.' You cannot quote the general-welfare clause without also saying the rest of the Constitution (not every pie-in-the-sky scheme you can think of) is the modifier to the general-welfare clause. So it is entirely appropriate that Nancy Pelosi be challenged: If you are trying to promote the general welfare, as you clearly think you are, where in the CONSTITUTION do find that power enumerated? You can't quote the general-welfare clause without pointing out that it is strictly limited to what is in the rest of the Constitution." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115243

Tags: What's wrong with the Constitution?

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Ramping up the welfare state

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 3:35:44 PM

Ramping up the welfare state

''We rejected “Hillary Care” in the 1990’s. We must again reject the latest liberal invasion of marriage and look to “Marriage Values” policies provably beneficial to everyone – especially women and children.''

Feminists have exercised nearly unfettered control of Congress’s social policy philosophy since the creation of the Great Society. That arrangement, designed to help a few women in trouble, evolved into an industry executing the feminist goal of destroying marriage. The ever-escalating demands to entitle non-marriage and out-of-wedlock procreation never end.
Welfare state expansions have eviscerated the function of marriage. Marriage naturally guarantees women the economic support and domestic assistance of their husbands. The feminist Oleanna is truly a nightmare burdening women with “doing it all”, earning a living, raising the children, doing the laundry, and everything else around the household.
Welfare-state expansions brought on an explosion of divorce and illegitimacy only justifying another round of welfare-state expansions. Today, the welfare state costs approximately 1-trillion annually, nearly the size of the projected federal deficit, with no end in sight.
Democrats now hope to double the size of the welfare state by adding health care to their long list of entitlements. Feminists hope to expand the destruction of marriage by dragging the medical profession, businesses, and taxpayers into the grandest expansion the Great Society has ever proposed. http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/david189.htm

Tags: Ramping up the welfare state

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Teaching kids to use drugs

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:34:34 AM

Teaching kids to use drugs

Arousing Curiosity and Suggesting Experimentation
''Forbid as little as possible, for to forbid is to suggest the thing forbidden. -J. L. Spalding''
It should have been no surprise to anyone when drug education courses served only to arouse curiosity and promote experimentation on the part of children exposed to them. You don't discuss a subject day-in and day-out if you want children to stop thinking about it.
To this day if I try to explain the danger of drug education courses to those who are lamenting the "drug problem," the majority will respond with nothing but a dumb smile. Then they will anxiously try to change the subject. Why do so many people want to evade the truth? Were they among the experimenters of the '70s?
Perhaps there is someone reading this now who does want to know what happened and is happening to the children. For you, I am going to reveal the stupid ideas and programs that were sold to parents as attempts to solve the "drug problem" nearly forty years ago. I recorded my experiences in several "Truth In Education" columns between 1973 and 1976. http://www.newswithviews.com/Erica/Carle162.htm

Tags: Teaching kids to use drugs

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Armed Christians

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:33:50 AM

Armed Christians

''The apostles were armed men, but they were also men of peace. They were “gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.” They supported the weak, patient toward all men, with “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, [of] faith,” but they were armed.''

Does a modern Christian have a right to self defense? With every right there is a correlative responsibility. The ancient right to bear arms has been described in antiquity as the obligation to bear arms in defense of your community. In those ancient times if you would not arm yourself to defend your community you were often shunned if not run out of town all together.
Chuck Baldwin in an article published by NewsWithViews.com quoted the statistic that “as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms.” My first reaction was, why so few? As someone who once wore a badge and a gun to protect the property and lives of citizens I can testify that my biggest disappointment was the apathy and even cowardice of the people I was often expected to protect.
To refuse to come to the aid of others has been considered a crime and good Samaritan laws have prosecuted citizens who failed to assist and aid people in need of assistance or protection.
Yet, I have heard many people say they would not own a gun or they did not believe in guns. On further inquiry everyone of these purveyors of pseudo-pacifism confirmed that if someone was breaking into their house they would call the police, who will come with guns. The truth is they do believe in guns, but they are either too lazy, too cheap, too cowardly, or just too irresponsible to own one. http://www.newswithviews.com/Gregory/williams109.htm

Tags: Armed Christians

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

2 ways to spur a Republican renaissance

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:33:03 AM

2 ways to spur a Republican renaissance

''Those who don't appreciate the importance of the social agenda should consider that when Reagan was elected in 1980, 18 percent of American babies were born to unwed mothers. Today it is 40 percent. This kind of family disintegration is incompatible with a free and functioning society.''

RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the New York Yankees can look back on a good week. Maybe Steele deserves extra credit.
No one was writing obituaries a year ago for the Yankees as was the case for the Republican Party.
Now we have a different picture. Borrowing from the words of Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Republican Party were greatly exaggerated.
The operative question today for Mr. Steele and his party, in the wake of winning governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, both Obama states in 2008, is "Now what?"
Will voter discontent that led to these Republican victories be parlayed into a genuine Republican renaissance?
As independent voters move away from Democrats and lean back toward Republicans, which is what happened in Virginia and New Jersey, and what polling over the year has shown to be happening nationwide, will Republicans build a solid new tent?
Will they rebuild their party with values critical for restoring a sick nation to health?
In order to genuinely rebuild, Republicans must successfully take on two big challenges – one internal and one external.
It's not too late to rescue the nation! Read how in "Save America Now! The New Revolution to Save Freedom and Liberty"
First, a notion that has divided the party – that free-market economics and the social "values" agenda are separate cards to be played – must be purged. The more libertarian stream – Republicans whose principal concerns are limited government, low taxes and free markets – have viewed Christian social conservatism as dead weight in the party. This is a mistake. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115241

Tags: 2 ways to spur a Republican renaissance

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Responding to modern Marxism

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:32:19 AM

Responding to modern Marxism

''When asked by a reporter to identify the constitutional authority for the current health-care bills, Sen. Patrick Leahy said: "We have plenty of authority, why would you say we don't have authority?" Speaker Nancy Pelosi's reply to the same question was: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Obviously, neither one is "preserving, protecting or defending" the Constitution when they ignore its limitation of congressional power.''
The first unmistakable tremors were recorded on April 15. The earth shook again throughout the month of August, when politicians returned home to face their constituents. Those brave souls who dared to hold a town hall meeting were met with enthusiastic questions about cap-and-trade, about the stimulus, about health care and about what appears to be a mad rush to socialism.
Despite efforts by the White House and the media to downplay the significance of these events and to denigrate the people who participated in them, another tremendous tremor rolled across Washington on Sept. 12. More than a million people – by most estimates – filled the street from Freedom Square to the Capitol. They were not there to worship Obama; they were there to bury his policies.
Tuesday's elections sent a plume of political fallout across the nation. Obama invested heavily in the incumbent New Jersey governor – who was soundly defeated by a conservative Republican. A parade of Democrat dignitaries campaigned for the governor's office in Virginia; the more conservative Republican won by a landslide.
The only Democrat victory was in New York's District 23 where it took both the Democrat and liberal Republican candidate, who withdrew from the race to endorse the Democrat, to narrowly defeat a conservative independent. Conservatism also prevailed in Maine, where the voters rejected same-sex marriage.
She took the nation by storm in 2008 and could be the best hope for the future of the GOP. Get Sarah Palin's best-seller, "Going Rogue: An American Life"
Denial is not that river in Egypt. It seems to be a river that begins in the White House and flows freely through the Democrat Party and the media. The rest of the nation seems to be encouraged by the prospects of reining in the runaway policies Obama's majority is trying to impose. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115242

Tags: Responding to modern Marxism

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Stopping the next alien amnesty is not enough

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53:38 AM

Stopping the next alien amnesty is not enough

''To end the stealth amnesty of current law, we need three things at a minimum: true border security, mandatory verification of employment eligibility through the E-Verify program and the end to "anchor baby" citizenship for children of illegal aliens.''

If you think a congressional amnesty for 15 million illegal aliens is a bad idea, think about a stealth amnesty for 50 million. That's what we've got now even without any new legislation from the 111th Congress.
Whether or not Obama pushes for the new amnesty – which will again be packaged as "comprehensive immigration reform" as it was in 2006 and 2007 – proponents of border security and immigration control need to look beyond that battle. We need a strategy to end the stealth amnesty created through non-enforcement of our immigration laws.
Non-enforcement is the policy of our federal government on our borders, in our employment laws, in our courtrooms and in our school buildings. Non-enforcement allows at least 2 million illegal aliens to join our society each year – a million coming across our open borders and at least another million coming on tourist visas, student visas and guest worker visas, and then never going home. Those people are called "visa overstays," and the number is at least 20 million and growing daily.
Non-enforcement of our immigration laws needs to be called by its correct name, stealth amnesty, and it needs to be confronted. Stopping a new legislative amnesty is vital, but that does not begin to deal with the ongoing, continuous amnesty-by-stealth that is now the official policy of the federal government – and many state and local governments as well.
The Border Patrol trumpets the fact that official apprehension numbers on the border are down for the third straight year from the high of 1.1 million in 2005. That's a good thing, but those numbers do not tell the whole story. Apprehension numbers are down in part because Border Patrol manpower has been doubled to 18,500 since 2001, and 350 miles of border fencing has been built. So, why has he Obama administration put a freeze on new fence construction and a halt to Border Patrol recruitment?
Concerned about the unstemmed flow of illegal aliens over our border? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security"
Time magazine concluded in its September 2006 cover story on cross-border traffic that three to four times as many intruders evade the Border Patrol as are apprehended. Other independent observers have come to similar conclusions. So, if the Border Patrol stopped 750,000 people in 2008, probably 2.5 million made it across the border successfully. Is that acceptable level of border security? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115252

Tags: Stopping the next alien amnesty is not enough

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Stonewall transparency

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:52:57 AM

Stonewall transparency

''...the issue that makes his notorious promise of "transparency" seem so hollow – and false – is his steadfast refusal to provide to the public who deserves and wants it an actual copy of his birth certificate! Not the "certification of live birth" that has been produced and accepted by a strangely gullible and meek Congress.'' Let's see. I seem to remember a declarative, emphatic promise from candidate Barack Obama, something about "a new transparency in government."
Yes, and a resounding, fervent promise by the newly elected President Obama: "My administration will bring a new transparency in our governance."
That sounded so good, didn't it?
Over the last several decades, the American people have become very angry about the many ways elected representatives have created to feather their own nests, curry favor with special-interest groups and, worst of all, enact legislation that restricts traditional freedoms – without consulting with the people who elected them.
Candidate Obama, and the people who were composing his speeches, showed sensitivity to the simmering furor over "earmarks," giant slabs of "pork" added to appropriations and other bills in Congress. Elected politicians have used this sneaky, rotten process for many years; into a multi-billion-dollar bill these scoundrels salt their own local, self-serving, pet projects – often without their names attached – correctly assuming that a few million dollars here or there won't be noticed, and they'll be heroes to their constituents back home. All at the expense of unsuspecting, unknowing taxpayers. You and me.
Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens sneaks in an appropriation of $140 million for a "bridge to nowhere." Pennsylvania's Rep. Jack Murtha saddles us with a new airport facility in his district, costing millions, to accommodate two or three flights a day – between Washington and his district. Candidate Obama swore that he'd veto any of these porky earmarks that found their way into any bill that crossed his desk.
Now watch the red-hot eligibility story on DVD: "A Question of Eligibility: Is Obama's presidency constitutionally legitimate?"
His promise of accountability – of transparency – of responsibility to the voting taxpayers sounded so great. He was elected by voters who believed his words. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115265

Tags: Stonewall transparency

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Muslim radicals call Hasan 'Officer and a Gentleman'

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:52:10 AM

Muslim radicals call Hasan 'Officer and a Gentleman'

"We pray that we may witness the dismantlement of western, secular dominance across the world as we hold it to be pagan and idolatrous in the majority of its presumptions. We seek a resurrection of the just example set forth by centuries of Islamic rule throughout the ages and we hold it to be self evident for the objective soul and mind that Allah is One and that Muhammad ibn Abdullah is His Prophet and that the religion offers the solution to all of the world’s ills and afflictions."

A website run by radical Muslims today honored Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the man accused of killing 13 people at Ford Hood in Texas, as an "Officer and a Gentleman," saying his actions should not be denounced.
The massacre yesterday, which also left more than two dozen injured, was called a "pre-emptive attack" by supporters of the Revolution Muslim website.
Hasan, a Muslim psychiatrist who reportedly had been disciplined for pushing Islam on his patients at one point in his career, had given away his furniture and handed out Qurans before going to the military base and firing on soldiers at a processing center where soldiers prepared to deploy.
Why the left loves tyrants, terrorists – $4.95 today only! Save $21 on Jamie Glazov's acclaimed exposé 'United in Hate'
There were multiple reports he had objected to being placed in the position of possibly having to fight fellow Muslims by his scheduled deployment to the Middle East. "Get Well Soon Major Nidal We Love You," said the website run by radicals who follow an imam once jailed in Britain. "Major Nidal Hasan M.D. An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack."
The website lists as its imam Sheik Abdullah el-Faisal, who in February 2003 was sentenced to nine years in jail, reduced to seven on appeal, after being convicted of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred in England.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115325

Email It |

Print It |

Comments (0) |

Trackbacks (0) |

Flag as Offensive

Armed Christians

Posted by Miguel Diocuore Ph.D. on Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:51:20 AM

Al Gore: Junk-science blowhard

Armed Christians

Does a modern Christian have a right to self defense? With every right there is a correlative responsibility. The ancient right to bear arms has been described in antiquity as the obligation to bear arms in defense of your community. In those ancient times if you would not arm yourself to defend your community you were often shunned if not run out of town all together.
Chuck Baldwin in an article published by NewsWithViews.com quoted the statistic that “as of 2004, 50% of the adults in the United States own one or more firearms.” My first reaction was, why so few? As someone who once wore a badge and a gun to protect the property and lives of citizens I can testify that my biggest disappointment was the apathy and even cowardice of the people I was often expected to protect.
To refuse to come to the aid of others has been considered a crime and good Samaritan laws have prosecuted citizens who failed to assist and aid people in need of assistance or protection.
Yet, I have heard many people say they would not own a gun or they did not believe in guns. On further inquiry everyone of these purveyors of pseudo-pacifism confirmed that if someone was breaking into their house they would call the police, who will come with guns. The truth is they do believe in guns, but they are either to lazy, to cheap, to cowardly, or just to irresponsible to own one.