Skip to content

David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt charged in filming at Planned Parenthood – Washington Times

March 29, 2017

Daleiden uncovered Planned Parenthood selling parts of dead babies.  When California politicians hate the message, they accuse the messenger.  Here is the money quote-

“Kamala Harris, now a Democratic U.S. senator, began the investigation into the Center for Medical Progress when she was California attorney general. To replace her after her 2016 election, Gov. Jerry Brown picked Mr. Becerra, who had been a Democratic member of the U.S. House and part of the caucus’s leadership team.”

Mr. Daleiden accused the former attorney general of conducting a raid of his apartment in April, during which he said authorities unlawfully seized video footage related to the Planned Parenthood investigation.The pro-life activists were also charged with felonies by Houston prosecutors for tampering with government records. Those charges were dropped in July.

Source: David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt charged in filming at Planned Parenthood – Washington Times

California Bill Bans Churches from Enforcing Religious Beliefs |

March 29, 2017

Oceanside, California, you built this.

“A new California bill could prevent faith-based organizations from enforcing their own ethical standards and codes.

“Many religious organizations ask new employees to sign a code of conduct that aligns with what the Bible says about abortion, contraception, and sex outside of marriage. However, a new bill called AB 569 calls these provisions discriminatory and says they should be banned.

“The bill’s author, Democrat Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzales Fletcher, says religious organizations are “invading the privacy and personal lives of women” when they prohibit their “reproductive choices,” including abortion or extramarital sex.”

Source: California Bill Bans Churches from Enforcing Religious Beliefs |

Violence and Utopia- Realism and Idealism in the age of gun control

March 27, 2017

Evil is hard to accept.  I attended a self-defense training class last week where an expert described how callous and downright evil violent criminals can be. I don’t think I’m a coward, but recognizing evil takes an emotional toll.  I’m not alone in feeling that way. Gun “prohibition” laws give us psychological relief from facing evil.  Projecting evil intent on an inanimate object protects us from having to recognize violence as part of the human condition. By contrast, recognizing evil strips away our innocence and imposes obligations on us.  This psychological dynamic explains a lot about the political dynamics behind gun control.  Gun control continues to appeal to a certain type of person despite its record of failure.

We don’t know what a violent person looks like.  Violence would be so much easier to tolerate if every violent criminal came with a cartoon thought-bubble floating above them that said, “Watch out for this crazy person.”  In fact, criminals defy simple explanation.  Some criminals are poor and some are rich.  They can be crazy or sane.  Some criminals are addicts; others are as sober as the proverbial judge.  Some violent criminals grew up deprived and abused, while others grew up pampered and indulged.  

Violence will not go away despite our efforts to label or rationalize criminals and violent behavior. According to data from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, between one-out-of-two and one-out-of-three of us will be victims of violent crime in our lifetime.  Your chances vary widely with the local crime rate.  Though not an everyday occurrence, the sad fact is that criminal violence is with us.  It is uncomfortable to feel at risk. It can even be depressing.

This is where each of us faces a choice.  On one hand, we can view the world as imperfect and slightly dangerous.  A realist then takes responsibility for his or her own safety.   On the other hand, we can cling to a utopian view of the world.  Then, an idealist says that it is society’s duty to him against violence.

It is easier for the idealist to talk about utopian prohibitions against violence than to face the real day-to-day effort of personal protection. Idealists say it is up to the police to keep us safe.  Realists reply that we are our own first line of defense, and the police are only there to take reports and make arrests.

For the idealist, the benefits of being disarmed are real.  Placing the burden of protection on society allows the idealist to keep human evil at a psychological distance.  For example, ‘Violence is their problem, not mine.’  When someone they know is attacked, the idealist responds by proposing more gun control laws.  Weapons prohibition is psychic Valium to control the toxic emotional impact of real violence.

The idealist also condemns the realist. The level of psychological projection by idealists is several levels deep.  On the surface, the idealist turns the physical objects of the gun or the knife into a fetish.  It is the inanimate objects that are seen as dangerous rather than seeing danger in flesh-and-blood human beings.  At a deeper level, the placebo of firearms prohibition lets the idealist replace concern with complacency.

At a still deeper level, idealists not only blame the gun, but the gun owner.  The honest person who wants to use a firearm for personal protection disrupts the fantasy that guns are the problem.  Idealists cannot allow themselves to admit that honest citizens often prevent a crime or protect the innocent from violence.  Therefore, the idealist, especially those in the media, feel compelled to shield the public from this disturbing evidence.  That may seem to be a bold claim, but you can see the evidence for yourself.

Look at the typical news cycle after another innocent person is horribly attacked by a violent criminal.  Anti-gun activists and politicians run to the news media to say there is no personal responsibility to protect ourselves.  I’m paraphrasing here:

‘You don’t need to change how you live because we only need a little more gun-control and then everything will be fine.’

Gun prohibition has no effect on criminals.  For example, Maryland imposed strict gun control a few years ago.  They banning the sale of the most popular semi-automatic rifles and limited how many guns can be bought in a month.  Legislation also limited the number of cartridges allowed in a firearm.  Criminals don’t follow gun laws so the results of the Maryland legislation were entirely predictable.  The crime rate is now at record levels in Baltimore, Maryland (second source here).  Similar stories are repeated again and again in gun-control cities like Chicago and Los Angeles.  

Unfortunately, the idealist doesn’t stop with gun control.  He extends his antipathy beyond guns and knives to include any armed civilian.  Licensed concealed carry holders are the most law abiding segment of society.  They are charged with fewer firearms violations than other segments of society, including the police.  Licensed gun owners are the boy scouts of society.  Idealists say that since they don’t want to carry a firearm, we all should be disarmed.

The idealists say their laws stop crime, but gun laws miss their target the vast majority of the time.  These anti-gun laws really target the law-abiding gun owner.

We have already passed some 23 thousand firearms regulations.  They failed to stop or materially reduce violent crime.  We’ve seen prohibition fail time after time in country after country so this is the rule rather than the rare exception.

“But if criminals obeyed the laws then these gun laws would work.  We just need to pass another law!”

The antipathy towards gun owners is not based upon stopping violence, but upon reducing the discomfort felt by idealists.  For the idealist, letting society take the burden removes both the duty and the emotional cost of facing an imperfect world.  For the idealist, protecting the fantasy narrative is more important than respecting the facts.

In the meantime, the realist faces the daily grind of training and preparation for self-defense.

Which will you choose?

Thank you to William April, Tom Givens, and Anna Valdiserri for inspiring this article.  I received editorial help from Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse.

We said it before- Disarmed Civilians in Gun-Free Zones get Killed

March 23, 2017

We saw another muslim terrorist attack yesterday.  Disarmed civilians in so called gun-free zones got killed..again.  This isn’t a subtle trend.  This is as close to an “in your face” slap as an alert person can receive.  Unfortunately, too many of us look the other way.  Here are a few of my colleagues who don’t.

Today, my friend David Cole wrote about crowd-sourcing terrorism.  We might hear US politicians trade talking points about the latest attack by muslims.  These politicians will propose another layer of security in our already unwieldy government.  These politicians refuse to recognize that a centralized defense will never succeed against a decentralized threat.  Then again, there is no political profit for the politician if he proposes a dispersed solution.  The politician does what is good for him rather than what is good for us.

A few days ago, my friend Greg Hopkins talked about protecting ourselves and our families while we are away from high-value targets like schools, churches and hospitals.  For example, we are likely to have our family with us when we’re out on the street, at a store, or at a restaurant.  We can have the maximum legal protection allowed in those places.  In most states today, that legal protection can easily be a handgun.

A few years ago, I described how terrorism changed over time.  Both the intended target and the weapons evolved.   So has our response.  People like you save lives every month.

I want us to pull our heads out of our media and take control of our own safety.  I suspect that won’t happen until their is an app for that.

Why Paul Ryan Won’t Kill Obamacare- Greed and bureaucracy make it hard to do the right thing in DC

March 23, 2017

Republican legislators promised they would kill Obamacare.  The public tried the “Affordable Care Act.”  We tried it and now that we’ve seen it, we don’t like what’s in it.  We don’t want the government in our doctor’s office any more than we want bureaucrats in our bedroom or our schoolroom.  Voters felt so strongly about Obamacare that they dumped the Socialist majority in the House, the Senate, and in the Oval Office.  We elected Republicans to leave us alone, but now they they can’t do it.  Republican politicians went back on their word.  The reasons are simple and easy to understand.  Greed and bureaucracy make it hard to do the right thing in DC.

The problem runs deep.  Obamacare denied a generation of young people their first job.  Obamacare mandated health insurance for every full time job.  Obamacare increased the unemployment rate as it priced a generation out of the job market.  The price of medical care went up sharply.  As any economist could have told you, we have about the same number uninsured now as we did then.  Unfortunately, most of them are also unemployed.  There are no end of reasons to kill the A.C.A., so why do we still have it?

The short answer is greed.  The business of government is to concentrate benefits in a few hands and to widely distribute the costs.  You won’t make a huge political donation if every citizen is saved ten dollars.  You can bet there will be huge political donations when a single large healthcare insurer gets 3 billion dollars from the US government.  That is how politicians stay in office.  Now it is Congressman Paul Ryan’s turn at the feeding trough.  The Speaker of the House wants to receive those government kickbacks and donations from third party political action funds.  Distributing those dollars is how Ryan intends to maintain his office as Speaker.  That corrupt process isn’t as easy as it sounds.

Doing anything in Washington is hard. Legislative rules let many politicians kill a bill.   Bills are assigned to several committees in the House and the Senate.  The chairmen of those committees has a chance to kill the bill.  Each chairman wants to know how he benefits by killing Obamacare.

This isn’t a fault of government.  It is a feature.  Government is designed to operate that way.  Just as the economy is designed to deliver cheap goods to your door, government is designed to deliver expensive deals to a few powerful individuals.  If you want to live your own lives then you have to limit government power.

Government is designed to concentrate power into the hands of a few politicians and businesses.  The more concentrated the better.  That way those few businesses have the largest incentive to fund a few politicians.  Those politicians have the largest incentive to continue huge government programs.

That is the business of DC.  Health insurance is a inconsequential byproduct.

Back to the Future: Wind ‘Powered’ South Australia to Run on Diesel Generators

March 23, 2017

Taxpayers in South Australia face being slugged tens of millions of dollars for dirty carbon dioxide-emitting diesel generators the Weatherill government wants shipped in by December to prevent­ pre-election blackouts.

Source: Back to the Future: Wind ‘Powered’ South Australia to Run on Diesel Generators – STOP THESE THINGS

KING DAVID DID IT: Should American Churches Commission Security Teams? ⋆ Doug Giles ⋆ #ClashDaily

March 15, 2017

My friend, Greg Hopkins, talks about the need of, and the means to, protect churches.  Yes, violence happens to churches here in the US.  There is an attempted murder on church property every 5 days.

Have you considered a church security team? What plans do you have for heart attacks, domestic violence assaults, protesters, or a stranger suddenly leaping from a pew and striding toward your minister as he preaches?

Cops will be there in 10 minutes at the minimum. An armed mass killer will be done in two.

Source: KING DAVID DID IT: Should American Churches Commission Security Teams? ⋆ Doug Giles ⋆ #ClashDaily

%d bloggers like this: