Category Archives: Opinion

Planned Parenthood defends infanticide [VIDEO]

Planned Parenthood has worked tirelessly to ensure the long term viability of abortion-on-demand in America. With a mantra of “between a woman and her doctor” they have earned the title of America’s largest abortion mill. Perhaps now they will also become America’s largest infanticide provider as well. Some are calling this “post-birth abortion,” but that is erroneous. It is infanticide just as surely as practiced by the worshipers of Moloch in ancient history.

Recently, perhaps inadvertently, Planned Parenthood spokesperson Lisa LePolt Snow gave a chilling application to Planned Parenthood’s slogan “every child a wanted child.” Speaking before a Florida legislature committee Snow made it clear that abortion survivors, in the view of Parenthood Parenthood, have no right to life (see video below).


A botched abortion survivor can be a perfectly healthy newborn. Botched abortions do not feature dismembered torsos; those are successful abortions. The result of a botched abortion is a patient rather than a victim.

What is Planned Parenthood’s response? The life or death of a survivor should be determined by the birth mother, her doctor and her family. “We believe that any decision that’s made should be up to the family…the woman, her family and the physician,” said Snow. She was not speaking for herself, but for Planned Parenthood. (It is up to interpretation for her, as a spokesperson for PP, to say “I am not an abortion provider.” She may not personally do abortions, but she is a de facto provider via her company.)

What is Planned Parenthood’s reasoning? A trauma center might be too far away to help the child.

So, to wrap this up, Planned Parenthood’s official stance is if a child survives the first attempt to kill it, the mother, her family and her doctor should decide whether to kill if for good. If they decide to let it live but the logistics of getting the baby to a trauma center are too inconvenient, well, it’s into the bucket for the baby.

Snow also references a “neutrality clause” which means any “law would not change the legal status or legal rights of anyone prior to being ‘born alive’.” Supporting the “neutrality clause” does not mean PP takes no position, the normal meaning of being neutral. It means PP supports the law being neutral toward a child’s rights as a viable fetus if it is scheduled for abortion. In other words the law cannot be interpreted as providing rights to a fetus so “every child a wanted child” can remain intact.

According to Planned Parenthood a child’s desirability determines if he or she should live or die, but, essentially, its desirability determines its very humanity.

So, kudos to Planned Parenthood for their logical consistency in defending infanticide. Those who support the right of children to be born have long argued that if life is not from conception (or at the very, very least implantation) assignment of “living” is arbitrary. Planned Parenthood understands this and is merely being consistent in their view. If a child can be killed in the womb, there are no convincing arguments, either logical or a moral, as to why a child cannot be killed on the table, abandoned in the trash, burned alive in an incinerator or poisoned in the nursery.

Well done, PP. Well done.

Did Starbucks’ Howard Schultz really say, “We don’t want your business”?

In response to a question at the recent Starbucks corporation shareholders meeting, CEO Howard Schultz reiterated his and the company’s support for workplace diversity. This includes support for same-sex marriage.

As sure as night follows day a blatantly false meme began circulating on Facebook. The primary one is from Joe Miller’s Liberty Watch. His opening sentence reads:

At the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday, CEO Howard Schultz sent a clear message to anyone who supports traditional marriage over gay marriage: we don’t want your business.

Not to put too fine a point on it, that information is a complete fabrication.

Miller sourced his story through Examiner.com’s also deceptively entitled article, Starbucks CEO: No tolerance for traditional marriage supporters. The author, Victor Medina, opens with this:

At the Starbucks annual shareholders meeting on Wednesday, CEO Howard Schultz sent a clear message to anyone who supports traditional marriage over gay marriage: we don’t want your business.

Look familiar?

What did Howard Schultz say about traditional marriage

Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz [Image credit]

Medina’s article points to yet another article, this one from Forbes. Finally arriving at the truth, we see Schultz was never speaking to customers of Starbucks, but in response to a shareholder’s question. The article, Howard Schultz to Anti-Gay-Marriage Starbucks Shareholder: ‘You Can Sell Your Shares'” accurately reflects the context and statement.

In response to a shareholder’s question, Starbucks’ CEO responded:

If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much.

This was the statement, and the only statement. Schultz never said or implied people who support traditional marriage should take their business elsewhere.

The fact is Starbucks and Schultz are, unsurprisingly, supporting of same-sex marriage. It is also a fact that you can boycott, or get your caffeine fix elsewhere as many have chosen to do. You can also oppose same-sex marriage and continue to buy coffee from Starbucks…I do.

To be fair, each of the first two articles includes the shareholder further into the story, but the erroneous early statements are more than enough to mislead the average reader.

What Christians should avoid, however, is sloppiness. Disagreement is fine. Strong disagreement is fine. But, at least, let us strive for accuracy.

C’mon, followers of Jesus. We can do better.

(Less than HD video of Howard Schultz responding to shareholder question on gay marriage.)

Depression: When the black dog howls

A version of this was first posted as a Facebook note in 2009. Nothing in this post should be construed as medical or medicinal advice.

The term “black dog” was used by Winston Churchill to describe depression and, though it predates the British prime minister, is the sum total of familiarity most seem have with it. Regardless of who coined it, “black dog” is as apt a descriptor of the frustrating experience of depression as there is. Ask anyone who deals with it regularly.

At this point in my life I cannot even remember when I started dealing with depressive episodes. (I do not use the phrase “suffering from depression”; it just does not seem to fit me.) I’m pretty certain that it has not always been a part of my life, though it may have been unrecognized earlier on. For the last few years, however, there are three or four times each year that it hits.

It is funny when you start talking about being depressed and experience the reactions of those around. The responses can range from the spiritual (“Pray more.”), to the physical (“Are you getting outside enough?”) to the ludicrous (“Just pull out of it.”)

One can no more “just pull out of” a depressive episode than they can “just pull” the moon out of its orbit.

This note is the result of my own observations and experiences over the last couple of years.


1. No one wants to be depressed. Nobody would choose it. It is not to get attention. There are easier and far more fun ways of getting attention.

2. Anything or nothing can trigger it. It can be turmoil on the job. Or not. It can be the kids growing older. Or not. It can be you growing older. Or not. It can be feeling inadequate on the job. Or not. All of the above, or none of it. Or anything else that you can put your finger on. It just shows up howling its blooming head off.

3. Sometimes you can be in it before you realize it. This is especially true with me. Sonya usually recognizes it before I do. I usually do not realize how depressed I am until I do not know if I can work another day, and that is even when things are good.

4. There are no easy steps out. Sometimes you just cannot tell if or when it will go away. I’ve awakened in the morning feeling pretty good only to have it return in half an hour leading to an entire day of “down” feelings.

5. Things may not be the same for every person with depression. It might be easier to relate to people in depressive episodes if they were all the same, but they are not.

What not to say to a depressed and why:

1. “Pray.” (Or these variants, “Pray more,” “Are you praying enough?” “Have you prayed about it?”) Depression is always a matter of prayer. If prayer was the solution there would not be any depressed Christians, since we all pray about it. Yes, I wish that God would always take it away for just the asking, but since Moses, Elijah and Paul dealt with it periodically, I don’t see that God will take it away just because He’s asked. It does bear remembering that prayer can actually make you more depressed since the tendency is to focus on the depression. This can be a tricky proposition.

2. “Cheer up.” Depression by nature is an emotional “out of whackedness.” A depressed person cannot simply get happy because they decide to do so any more than you can get from Nashville to Los Angeles by clicking your heels together. Although depression might be caused by various factors, in the end it is a feeling of sadness that usually seems impenetrable and, while you are in the midst of it, permanent. I’ve never been suicidal (or homicidal) during a depression, but I understand how some people can get that way. Just imagine the most sad you have ever been and then being convinced that it will never go away. The feeling of potential “lifelong sadness” is more than some can bear.

3. “Just trust God.” To do what, exactly? I do trust God and try to trust Him with every aspect of my life and depression still strikes. I trust Him to see me through it each time, but it does not make it go away immediately, though it always does with time.

4. “Don’t isolate yourself.” This one is actually true and helpful, but sometimes really hard to do. When depressed, there are few if any feelings of desire to socialize with ten or with one. Of course this exacerbates the situation but remains an issue. Depression can result from and cause a desire for isolation. It is not so much not wanting to be a wet blanket as it is not wanting to have to expend the emotional energy to carry on conversation. Any expenditure of emotion worsens the lack of emotional balance symptomatic of the depression itself. I have experienced great times of fun and laughter while depressed, then turned away and felt just as sad or “blue” as before. Laughter may be the best medicine, but it is not always the cure.

5. “Get some meds.” Some people are offended by the idea, since it is sometimes mentioned flippantly. I have not yet gotten a prescription, but I’m considering it. (Is it the purple pill, the blue pill or the hexagonal pill?) The thing that I am most working through is whether medication is necessary for something that happens three or four times a year.

What do to for a friend who is depressed:

1. If you deal with it, be open about it. Depression may be a black dog, but it should not be a dirty secret. Some men view it as weakness and thus it retains a hold on them. Bite the dog; don’t let it continue to gnaw on you. Be sensitive when you recognize that a friend is depressed, and be open when that friend is just realizing it for themselves. Sometimes depression makes you feel crazy; hearing from a friend who struggles through it and retains most of their sanity is an encouragement for others not to give up.

2. Don’t think that going to a ball game or a movie is “just what they need.” It may or may not be; depression is a tricky thing and when I am depressed, I often do not know what in the world I want to do. I do find that being in the company of another person, whether Sonya or a friend, who does not demand that I talk or interact can be helpful. Just hanging out. It takes a lot of energy to carry on conversation or “just be yourself” when there is no inner drive at all to do anything.

And on this note, don’t give a book, website, sermon, podcast, or other thing you think “might help.” The person typically feels broken already. Offers to “fix them” can serve to reinforce their feelings of inadequacy. Be friend enough to long time care without immediate repair.

3. Do pray because often your depressed friend finds little comfort in praying themselves. In addition prayer while depressed can be tricky. It is very easy for prayer itself to become depressing when depressed. I am not sure why.

4. Don’t judge the whys and wherefores, especially if you’ve never dealt with it. It’s very, very hard to explain; heck, it’s very, very hard to deal with emotionally, physically and spiritually. Depression may or not be spiritual and if it is not, then it is very frustrating to be given a simplistic answer revolving around a book, dvd or sermon series.

5. If the person begins to talk suicide or act suicidal to any degree, intervene; obviously, sadly some depressive episodes end in suicide. I knew a fellow many years ago who seemed for all the world to be ok. He woke up one morning to leave for vacation and saw that it was raining. Despondent over that particular situation, he went back into his house and killed himself. It was almost unbelievable to hear. At the time I thought, “How in the world…”

When writing this post originally I received a great amount of encouragement. I was steered to a natural product called St. John’s Wort available at almost any grocery store or drug store. It has proven to be very effective for me at both preventing and helping lift depression. I now take it only as needed which is infrequently.

All-in-all I see depression a result of the fall, not a part of God’s creation. As such Jesus died so that we might have ultimate deliverance from it. That may or may not happen in this life for me, but it gives me yet another reason to long for That Day.

To kill Americans

Let’s make this short and sweet.

senator rand paul

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul [Image credit]

For around 13 hours yesterday and into this morning, Kentucky senator Rand Paul (R) conducted a filibuster in the United States senate chamber. Ostensibly a delay to the probable confirmation of John Brennan as CIA chief, Paul allowed numerous times his main purpose was to draw attention to the targeted killing program operated by the Obama administration. Said program is primarily carried out by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, commonly known as “drones.”

While some may argue the necessity of drones in wartime, even considering the differences of the “War on Terror” (I do not), Paul’s argument with the administration was different. Currently, the Obama administration, via Attorney General Eric Holder, holds to the position of possible killing of American citizens on American soil without due process, without charge, without trial.

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. constitution reads:

In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. [EMPHASIS ADDED.]

All of these rights are set aside in each and every case of targeted killing. The nature of targeted killing is secrecy, not openness. It’s a secret list, a secret process, secret decision making, secret rules, secret records, and secret secrecy.

To put it another way: There is no due process when the charge is on the business end of a missile in your morning latte.

The Constitution must protect the worst of us if it is to protect the rest of us. No matter how strong the evidence against a person, a “day in court” is a constitutional guarantee. It is this guarantee that has historically separated the Republic from banana republics. Violation of this right by any president or administration is not only unconstitutional, it is uncivilized.

I take issue with Bush, Rice, Obama and Brennan that drone warfare is legitimate or the “collateral damage” acceptable. I also take issue with Holder that Americans may be killed by the government based on little more than circumstantial evidence. Murder by suspicion is not a comforting thought.

The years since 9/11 bear witness to the hurricane force erosion of the 4th Amendment. It appears the shores of the 5th will be the next to wash away.

Women given better odds of dying in the military

It seems all the government has to do to make some people happy is ensure that more women will be given better chances to die.

From the NYT:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is lifting the military’s ban on women in combat, which will open up hundreds of thousands of additional front-line jobs to them, senior defense officials said on Wednesday.

The groundbreaking decision overturns a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles, even though in reality women have found themselves in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more than 20,000 have served. As of last year, more than 800 women had been wounded in the two wars and more than 130 had died.

Some feminists cannot wait for for women to die in the name of equality:

“This is an historic step for

US solider

How long and how would a 125 lb. woman would last with such a load? [Image Credit]

equality and for recognizing the role women have, and will continue to play, in the defense of our nation,” said Democratic Senator Patty Murray from Washington, the outgoing head of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.

I am sorry. The purpose of the military is to demonstrate equality? I thought it is to provide for the national defense.

Another is content for women to swim–or sink–so long as no one keeps them from it:

Susan Farrell, who served on a Department of Defense advisory committee that recommended that more jobs be opened to women, lauded the decision as representing “a chance for women to sink or swim on their own merits. That’s all women have ever asked for: a chance to be as patriotic, as giving of themselves, as the men are.”

It sounds like Susan is ready for more women to die.

WSJ notes this is merely the last in an ongoing progression:

Twenty years ago, Congress lifted the ban on women flying in attack aircraft, and now the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force all have women pilots—although women don’t serve as special-operations pilots.

Female officers now serve on large submarines, and the Navy has plans to add female enlisted personnel on those vessels. The Navy also will allow women to serve on smaller classes of submarines.

I am not of the opinion women cannot serve or serve with distinction in the military. It is clear they have and can.

I do, however, question the wisdom of putting females, who are, in almost all cases physically weaker than men, in hand-to-hand combat situations. One struggles to fathom repeated instances in which a platoon of females, each carrying 40 pounds of equipment and facing an equal number of enemy males in close combat, emerging victorious time and again.

Certainly my egalitarian friends may cry foul; some may even call me “sexist” or “chauvinistic.” That is fine. I, however, do not consider it a remnant of faltering patriarchy that I am moved, even called, to protect my family, especially my wife and daughters. If we meet a gun or knife wielding mugger on the street I will put myself between them and the attacker until my lifeless body is prone on the sidewalk.

Contrariwise, if I happen to be walking down the sidewalk with a female who, owing to a need to demonstrate equality, inserts herself between the mugger and me, I might consider myself freed and run to live another day. Hey, equality is equality is it not? If she wants to be dead is that not “giving of herself”? Should I also be lifeless so “equality” is clearly demonstrated?

Yes, I delve into hyperbole. A little. Perhaps the logical, non-exaggerated conclusion should, in the end, be considered by those who want to be “equal.” Equal must be equal in the glory and the blood, in the show and the shame.

As the military considers sweeping changes for women in combat, the ongoing epidemic of rape in all branches of the service continues almost unabated. Repeated promises of “zero tolerance” are decreasingly believable with each new scandal. Reports the L.A. Times:

As of this week, 32 basic training instructors at Lackland are under investigation stemming from sexual misconduct allegations and 59 alleged victims have been identified by the base.

woman soldier

Maybe some of those idiots should be in her sights.


A report in mid-November found that a fractured command culture and “leadership gap” at Lackland helped fuel the scandal. Six basic training instructors at the base have been convicted of sexual misconduct dating to 2008 and nine trials are scheduled. Staff Sgt. Eddy C. Soto faces a possible life sentence at trial next week for the alleged rape of a female trainee.

Gen. Mark Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, told the House Armed Services Committee, Obscene images, songs and stories “will not be accepted as part of our culture.” Uh, huh. Tell us more, General.

The truth is only by devious intent or a full scale ground war could more women die in combat than currently are raped in the United States military. Estimates place the total number of female rape victims from all branches of the military at half-a-million. As in civilian life, many rapes are not reported and many that are reported are not prosecuted. Until early last year a significant number of victims had to report their attack to the very person who had raped them. That is not so much like civilian life. (Oh, and by the way, what better way to get rid of a potential witness to rape than to re-assign her to the front lines. Bible students might remember a guy named Uriah.)

Although some men are raped as well–usually by heterosexuals–women bear the brunt. If you have not yet seen The Invisible War you simply must take the time to watch it. There are several places to rent or buy it online. It may be available on Netflix now. The trailer is below.

The list of Obama’s 23 executive orders on gun control

I’m still looking for the one that calls for the confiscation of all legal weapons. (See a brief explanation on the purpose and use of executive orders historically.) It’s also important to remember not everything the president writes is an executive order.

From Yahoo News:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.


3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

There is more in the list about mental health than gun ownership. I thought that’s what gun owners were hoping to see. Honestly, I do not know why gun-control advocates are not more upset about these EOs than 2nd amendment defenders. They seem pretty benign to me.

The same is indicated by Forbes:

It does not appear that any of the executive orders would have any impact on the guns people currently own-or would like to purchase- and that all proposals regarding limiting the availability of assault weapons or large ammunition magazines will be proposed for Congressional action. As such, any potential effort to create a constitutional crisis—or the leveling of charges that the White House has overstepped its executive authority—would hold no validity.

C’mon folks, even Slate realizes how wigged out this all became. From political reporter David Weigel:

And also: Me. For a while on Wednesday, I referred to Obama’s “executive orders,” printing the list of actions in full, but muffing the terminology. Why did all of us do that? You know, I think the pre-game panic about the very idea of Obama “signing executive orders” — I think that got into our heads. The result, ironically, was that a lot of people learned that Obama did something very scary — 23 ORDERs, above and beyond the will of Congress! — that he didn’t do, at all. If nominating an ATF director was done by “an executive order,” the Senate wouldn’t have to confirm him.

So which of the lazy journalists got it wrongest? One point goes to Carl Azus, for referring incoherently to “laws that don’t have to be approved by Congress.” Another to Brooke Baldwin, who addes the drama of Obama “signing” these 23 orders as children watched, even though CNN had a camera on Obama as he didn’t do that. But the Marvel No-Prize surely goes to Cavuto, for his scary count-off of “23, 23!” orders that suggest a “president out of control.”

Honesty should have led Weigel to the conclusion most of us have already reached: his profession is overflowing with those both lazy and out of control. It is clear enough to the rest of the world, it should be clear to them.

Can we have a civil gun discussion or not?

The Daily Beast thinks so.

The well known site asked its readers to weigh-in on the issue. Gun owners and non-owners alike responded with over 600 reasonable comments (DB discarded an unknown number considered “misguided attempts at humor—from both sides of the fence. Others were downright puerile”).

Comments included:

Readers from rural areas said that they own guns for practical concerns, like personal safety in homes located far from law enforcement, or as a necessary tool for their livelihoods.

“We target shoot. We live in a rural area with livestock,” LP from Colorado said. “We have to be able to defend ourselves from aggressive wildlife, put an animal out of its misery if it is severely injured, and defend ourselves in our isolated environment. People are responsible with their guns here.”

A respondent from New Mexico said he or she owns a “.22 pistol to shoot rattlesnakes only in my yard.”

Hunters, not surprisingly, represented a good number of gun owners who responded to our survey. “I grew up in a family that hunted and fished,” said Jeff from Minnesota. “However, I do believe that private ownership of semi-automatic and automatic guns and handguns should be totally prohibited. I am perfectly willing to give up all of my guns for the greater good.”

A third group of gun owners was made up of hobbyists. An anonymous reader from Minnesota wrote that he or she owns a gun “because the hunting and shooting culture I grew up in taught me to respect life, my elders, and firearms. The relationship between me and my father that developed out of firearms and hunting is incredibly meaningful and the most positive one in my life.”

[…]

“Shooting sports are fun, and legitimate,” Andy from Texas wrote of why he chooses not to own a gun. “But the anxieties of the self-defense crowd are just too much for me. I refuse to believe there are that many bogeymen in the world.”

“I don’t need one today, but would want the option to buy one if I change my mind. I could agree with special, renewable permits/licenses and required annual safety training for owners,” wrote one anonymous reader.

Other respondents wrote that they see no need to put the fearsome power of a firearm in the hands of civilians, outside of controlled circumstances like hunting. Christina from California wrote that “the purpose of a gun is to kill someone or something. God is the judge of people’s actions, not me. You don’t need an assault weapon to kill a deer or pheasant. If your life feels threatened, you are in the wrong place.”

“I have curious kids,” wrote Matt from Maryland in a post that summed up many respondents’ feelings about the unreliable hands even a legally purchased weapon might fall in to. “I might lose my job or my wife and have a nervous breakdown.”

If this anywhere resembles a cross-section it appears most Americans are not opposed to gun ownership, but support more restrictions than are currently in place.

I was raised in a gun owning family and am a gun owner. My wife and kids are familiar with firearm use. They will soon become even more proficient.

Personally, I have never seen or felt the need for owning a hundred round ammo drum. I do not know of anyone who hunts with them either. It is true assault-style rifles are not used for hunting quail; but neither are .22s or a .40 Glock. And neither is a chef’s knife or a baseball bat.

I have been to firing ranges with and without someone in charge. Danger never felt near even though every other person was unknown to me. Pay attention when the range is hot and keep your gun pointed toward your target. I have been hunting when the person who knew the least about what was going on was me. Made it through.

I’ve known of one person who was killed because he did not unload his gun before he started to clean it. If fell off the table, discharged and fatally wounded him. I also read of a woman who turned around in her kitchen while holding a knife and fatally wounded a family member. I went to the home of a man whose car had slid of the jack stands and crushed him to death in his own yard. Accidents do happen and they involve guns, knives, cars, rocks, construction, the old and the young.

People even die having sex. I’ll move to Canada when someone tries to outlaw that.

If you are a complete pacifist and refuse to engage violence in any way, then it really should not matter to you whether I choose to defend myself with a firearm, a length of 2×4 or 3 feet of tire chain. I respect your right to allow yourself to be killed. I even respect your right to allow your family to be brutalized while you do nothing. I will defend mine with every ounce of strength and by all available means. Defending the defenseless is not only about abortion.

(As an aside, it amuses me when people decry gun ownership, yet when faced with violence themselves, call the police who come to the rescue…with billy-clubs, pistols, body armor and, if need be, assault weapons. As an aside within an aside, it is a little-known fact that a large number of accidental shootings come from…wait for it…the police shooting themselves and each other. Also, waiting for the police is not recommended in the face of evil people with guns. Check these interesting stats.)

As I perceive the issue of guns, a few things jump out to me. First, if there is a problem with mentally imbalanced people going on rampages it could be a different discussion than the gun discussion. Frankly, we cannot say of every person who goes on a rampage they are mentally challenged or emotionally damaged. This is the easy, lazy way out and is an insult to the millions of mentally challenge or depressed people who never commit a crime.

That said, if weapons that allow for mass or spree murders are falling into the hands of the mentally ill tightening a few processes is the least we can do to protect our friends, family and ourselves until we can get the other issues in society addressed. As a gun owner I confess it makes little sense that I must pass an eye test every time a driver’s license renewal is needed, but have to pass a range test only once.

Second, while the Second Amendment provides the right to keep and bear (“carry”) arms, it does not necessitate the right to own any armament the mind of man can create. I’m not in favor of my next door neighbor having a cache of white phosphorous rounds in his basement. Even if we are attacked by aliens. (Anyone whose ever seen Independence Day knows we need a nerdy code-writer before any weapons will do any good anyway.)

The flip side of this is the musket argument, and that being a poorly conceived one. The 2nd was written during a time that our arms were equal to or superior to those of our enemies. That they were single shot rifles and manual reloads is completely irrelevant. If the constitution was being written today with the same intent we still would be addressing a situation where our choices should be what allows for practical defensibility. As weapons became more advanced–and that before the NRA–the 2nd Amendment was not modified.

Third, the problem of evil is real. Demonic possession is real. The hearts of people are blackened with hurt, hate, cruelty and violence. I do not expect our congress to engage this part of the conversation, but followers of Christ must do so. We cannot legislate away evil but we can recognize and give ministry to those who are being overcome by it. Jesus changes hearts and lives.

Fourth, lawbreakers do not need permission or permits. One reason we have drive-by shooting deaths is gangsters are apparently bad shots while in moving vehicles. Why should they not be? When you are under-aged, have an illegal firearm, and are intending to kill people, you cannot exactly go to a range and practice. (“Hey Harold, how much to access the urban setting firing range for some practice today? Could you set some cardboard kid cutouts on front porches and such? I hit too many last time.”)

Many gun deaths are a result of not one, but a large number of accumulated broken laws. Though an old axiom, “If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns,” is very true. Gun crime is again on the rise in England where citizens do not own or carry. Things have degenerated in some areas to the point *gasp* the police have once again started packing.

In a free country law abiding people should be able to defend themselves against aggression, point for point. Those who abide by the law should never be faced with defending themselves against a 9MM using a rolled up magazine. I’m not Jason Bourne. Neither is anyone I know.

Will we be able to have a rational discourse on this? Given that my definition of rational my differ from yours and everyone else’s?

One Christ follower thinks about Gaza, Israel and Palestinians, Part 2

In the first part of this series we considered a little of the history of modern Palestine. A few things were noted most evangelicals may not know including a position in the Israeli government since pre-1948: that the Palestinians should be dispossessed.

If you have not read the above I encourage you to do so before continuing. Some context will be helpful. For reasons probably obvious let me state I am not against Israel, their right to exist as a sovereign nation, nor their right to self-defense. If my posts seem one sided it is due to my effort in providing needed balance within the evangelical community. In most cases I am not reiterating that which is commonly accepted as true; those arguments have been made many times. I also do not defend terroristic or militaristic threats from either side.

Israeli flag
Hatred flows both ways in this struggle. Much is made about Hamas’ platform that Israel should not exist, but little is made of Israel’s ongoing desire (and forced effort) to occupy as much of Palestine as possible. Remember the King-Crane commission found a mindset among the Jews to completely dispossess the non-Jewish residents of Palestine. This matched the desire of many in the Arab nations to have neither the Jews in Palestine nor the displaced Palestinians in their own country (though thousands ended up inside those borders anyway).

So what is really going on in Gaza? This from Diane Buttu, a Canadian attorney who has counseled both the PLO and Mahmoud Abbas:

Today, the people of Gaza suffer from a brutal blockade that has lasted for more than 6 years and isolation that has lasted for more than 20 years. Israel strictly controls imports into Gaza and exports are virtually non-existent. Palestinian life is so controlled by Israel that the Israeli government even sets policies on the minimum number of calories needed to prevent malnutrition. Access to the sea – one of their main sources of livelihood – is strictly curtailed and the water of the Gaza Strip is barely drinkable, with less than 5 per cent of their water supply fit for human consumption.

This via Wikileaks and published in the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz:

“As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to (U.S. embassy economic officers) on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge,” one of the cables read.

Israel wanted the coastal territory’s economy “functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis”, according to the Nov. 3, 2008 cable.

Note two of the objectives: to regulate the amount of food–down to the number of calories residents received–to avoid an official humanitarian crisis (ie, Darfur), and keep the economy on the brink of collapse. Note the source of the economic warfare is not a shrieking Palestinian terrorist, but an official diplomatic cable.

Water is needed for any people to survive as we all know. Prolific author and M.I.T. professor, Noam Chomsky, wrote in a November 9, 2012 article,

Sitting in a hotel near the shore, one can hear the machine-gun fire of Israeli gunboats driving fishermen out of Gaza’s territorial waters and toward land, forcing them to fish in waters that are heavily polluted because of U.S.-Israeli refusal to allow reconstruction of the sewage and power systems they destroyed.

The Oslo Accords laid plans for two desalination plants, a necessity in this arid region. One, an advanced facility, was built: in Israel. The second one is in Khan Yunis, in the south of Gaza. The engineer in charge at Khan Yunis explained that this plant was designed so that it can’t use seawater, but must rely on underground water, a cheaper process that further degrades the meager aquifer, guaranteeing severe problems in the future.

The water supply is still severely limited. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which cares for refugees but not other Gazans, recently released a report warning that damage to the aquifer may soon become “irreversible,” and that without quick remedial action, Gaza may cease to be a “livable place” by 2020.

Writing in the Boston Globe last week, Sara Roy addressed the issues of arable land and fishing, both of which have been curtailed by Israel’s government:

Gaza’s economic decline is seen in the near collapse of its agricultural sector. One factor is the destruction of around 7,800 acres of agricultural land during Cast Lead. Consequently, approximately one-third of Gaza’s total arable land is out of production. Furthermore, Israeli-imposed buffer zones — areas of restricted access — now absorb nearly 14 percent of Gaza’s total land and at least 48 percent of total arable land.

Similarly, the sea buffer zone covers 85 percent of the maritime area promised to Palestinians in the Oslo Accords, reducing 20 nautical miles to three, where waters are fouled by sewage flows in excess of 23 million gallons daily.

And it is not limited to Gaza. According to Pakistani reporter M. AQavi, writing in the Tribune, dispossession is still taking place in East Jerusalem. From March of this year, he writes,

Sheikh Jarrah, an Arab neighbourhood in East Jerusalem, is across the road from the American Colony Hotel where Mr Tony Blair and his staff have their offices. It is also one of the sites where a Jewish Settlers’ organisation is planning to build a 200 unit Settlement in place of the existing Arab housing.

Arab homes are being forcibly occupied by Settlers and their Arab occupants thrown out on the street…A Mr Al Kurd, who is one of the evicted Arabs, stands out and of course a swarm of children from the neighbourhood also gather around. The routine is to gather around the Sheikh Jarrah mosque holding banners in Hebrew, Arabic and English and clutching Palestinian flags. After 15 minutes or so, we march to visit each occupied house in turn, to remind the new occupants they are living in someone else’s house. Each occupied house is guarded by border police, video monitors, and at one of the houses I notice barbed wire as well. On the way back from visiting the last occupied house I see male members of a Settler family heading home for the Sabbath, all dressed in fine traditional dress with circular fir hats and all that.

In the last few days, a Israeli government official, in response to the U.N. granting non-member observer status to Palestine, confirmed “a report that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had decided build the 3,000 units in response to the Palestinians success at the UN…’It’s true – in (east) Jerusalem and the West Bank,’ without saying exactly where.”

In Israel possession continues to be 10/10ths of the law and dispossession is the means of keeping it.

After 6+ decades of dissension there is no end of examples, but Bob Roberts, Jr. can summarize the situation better than I. Theologian, missiologist, pastor and statesman, Roberts has friends in both Israel and among the Palestinians. He has been on the ground there. He is aware of the dire situation in Gaza. This is an excerpt from his blog on November 17, 2012. All emphasis is mine.:

First, each side overwhelmingly in every survey done wants a two state solution. From Jewish & Palestinian college students, cabbies, men, women, faith leaders, and yes – even governmental leaders on each side, I’ve heard the same thing.

[…]

Second, as one Palestinian scholar told me – the biggest problem is they are both “victim” cultures. The Jewish statement “never again” causes overreach on the part of the Jews in how they can be heavy handed with the Palestinians. The displacement of millions of Palestinians having been driven from their homeland after centuries and millennia prevents them from thinking about moving forward with where things are versus what they wish they could go back to.

[…]

Third, not just during this current crisis – but everyone who has been living in bunkers with sirens for the past 60+ years – this has got to be incredibly destabilizing for people as individuals and culture in general. Gaza is the most densely populated places in the world. Putting a wall around it with automatic movement operated machine guns, mines and trying to cut the people off from the world and daily necessities is a recipe for an explosion. People when forced to live in that animal environment become animals. Frankly, I’m amazed there hasn’t been more conflict – if it was Texas, speaking as a Texan – I assure you there would be. Ever heard of the Alamo?

[…]

Let’s be clear, there are Palestinian terrorist [sic] that don’t want to compromise, respect Israel, her right to exist and would circumvent any movement towards peace – this cannot be. Let’s be equally clear, it isn’t a fence or a barrier – it is a 30 foot concrete wall, with machine gun towers pointing down on the people that has been built around Palestinians in Gaza, Bethlehem, Ramallah, other cities – putting entire populations of millions in virtual “prison” – this is simply unsustainable.

I have thought often about the scenario Roberts references in his “Remember the Alamo?” statement. Unless you literally move to flatten every structure in Gaza and commit genocide on this race of people, the increases in pressure will result in eruptions. Whether a masked Hamas terrorist, a teenager throwing rocks or a kid making obscene gestures, there will be a response. And we should not be surprised when there is.

One Christ follower thinks about Gaza, Israel and Palestinians

Anyone within 500 miles of a television or the Internet last week could scarcely have missed the near warlike conditions between Israel and Hamas in the Middle East. Following a continuous storm of unguided missiles from inside the Gaza strip, primarily into southern Israel, the lone democracy in the Middle East fired back with tanks, gunships, artillery and guided munitions. A ground invasion was a very real possibility before a cease fire was reached

One count (subject to change if more wounded Palestinians die) is 130 Palestinians killed and five Israelis dead. Many additional Palestinians were injured, while a handful of Israelis were also hurt.

This serves not to minimize the damage of either side, but the simple facts are more Palestinians than Israelis were both killed and injured. This includes damage and loss of life from the many, many rockets fired leading up to this conflict.

The narrative in the West is almost always the same. Indeed, there is virtually no deviation: Palestinians elected Hamas to govern them, Hamas conducts random attacks on Israel using rockets smuggled into Gaza (usually) procured from an enemy of Israel such as Iran, Israel shows great restraint in not answering every attack, Israel is forced to finally defend herself with force. This force is always overwhelming and disproportional in type of weapons used, amount of damage caused, amount of combatant lives lost, and amount of civilian life lost.

Among some conservative Evangelicals the narrative is even more pronounced as it is founded on a specific biblical interpretation. Books and sermons by Joel LaHagee have all but instilled this view as a test of orthodoxy this amongst many of them. Consequently it is held, based on specific interpretations of biblical prophecy, that Israel has a God given right to all of the land of Palestine including Gaza and the West Bank. (More on this in Part 3.)

wall between gaza and israel gaza wall

A portion of the Israeli constructed wall confining Gaza. [Image credit]

(Another fantastic image of the Gaza wall is here. )

Through my years in church, which are more by far than my years in the Kingdom, I was taught the year 1948 saw the fig tree bud which was an answer–in our day–to Bible prophecy. The date was May 14 the exact date Israel’s fledgling government declared independence. The land was theirs and they were back in it.

While told of Israel’s “miraculous” victories in the 1948 War and the Six Day War, rarely, if ever, were the former inhabitants of the land we call Palestine mentioned in any way other than haters of Israel. The story of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael was constantly called to mind. “We can expect nothing but warfare because that is what the Bible promised, but we most surely should pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”

Left to our own research efforts was understanding the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War 1 which led to the geographic creations of Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq and Palestine, as mandates of England or France. Barely mentioned were the divisions–often conflicting–within the movement known as Zionism which led the political charge for a Jewish homeland. Left unmentioned was the dispossession that took place as tens of thousands of Jewish families immigrated to Palestine. As British historian Peter Mansfield notes regarding the findings of the King-Crane commission,

the Zionist programmes would have to be greatly modified if the promises of the Balfour Declaration to protect the rights of the non-Jews in Palestine were to be upheld. After discussion with Zionist leaders in Jerusalem, they had no doubt that the Zionists looked forward ‘to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. [Emphasis added] “A History of the Middle East,” p. 180-181

A number of years ago a very pro-Israel acquaintance recommended a book by Elias Chacour entitled, Blood Brothers. It chronicles Chacour’s years growing up in Palestine, living through the dispossession mentioned above. As a youth he was witness to Palestinian land owners, orchard and grove owners, whose houses, lands and agricultural products were taken from them by force. This often happened at the point of a gun by Zionists intent of removing Palestinians by force or “asking” them to leave. Orchards owned by Chacour’s family were occupied by military forces then sold to an investor.

The dispossession–over a space of years–of some 700,000 Palestinians created a humanitarian crisis that continues nearly unabated until this day. Thousands and thousands of the early refugees were either absorbed into surrounding countries, or fitted into camps in those countries. Tens of thousands were gathered into Gaza (the biblical home of the Philistines) to endure restrictions they have now faced to varying degrees for many decades.

Little known to American evangelicals is the Zionist leadership never intended for a two state solution even though both Jews and non-Jews had lived peacefully in Palestine. Even before May 14, 1948, future prime minister David Ben-Gurion and others planned to drive the non-Jewish residents completely out of Palestine. United States diplomat and future ambassador to Lebanon, Robert McClintock, underscored president Truman’s concern when Israel refused to accept a truce in early 1948.

The Jewish Agency refusal exposes its aim to set up its separate state by force of arms–the military action after May 15 will be conducted by the Haganah [the unofficial Jewish army] with the help of the [Jewish] terrorist organizations, the Irgun and LEHI, [and] the UN will face a distorted situation. The Jews will be the real aggressors against the Arabs, but will claim they are only defending the borders of the state, decided upon [by the UN]. “How Israel Was Won,” Baylis Thomas, p. 69, 70. [Emphasis added]

Another future prime minister, Golda Meir, secretively secured a non-agression pact with Transjordan that Israel never intended to keep and, as night follows day, they violated. In 1976 the Koenig Memorandum reiterated the goal to “examine the possibility of diluting existing Arab population concentrations.” During the conflagration last week Gilad Sharon wrote in the Jerusalem Post:

There is no justification for the State of Gaza being able to shoot at our towns with impunity. We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.

It does not take much history to see Israel began with a plan of territorial expansion, implemented it and have always kept it in mind.

This is not in any way to insinuate that terroristic activity should be without account. The Palestinian Liberation Organization, Fatah, and Hamas have done all within their power to wreak havoc on Israel. There has been a significant amount of push and push-back throughout this uneasy existence. However, Yasir Arafat was only a schoolboy when the dispossession began. His Fatah movement (which merged with the PLO) was not formed until years after Israel declared statehood. Hamas, in its nascent form, was shepherded along by Israel. From the WSJ in 2009 (“How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas”):

Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor’s bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile’s trajectory back to an “enormous, stupid mistake” made 30 years ago.

“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.

Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. Israel cooperated with a crippled, half-blind cleric named Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, even as he was laying the foundations for what would become Hamas. Sheikh Yassin continues to inspire militants today; during the recent war in Gaza, Hamas fighters confronted Israeli troops with “Yassins,” primitive rocket-propelled grenades named in honor of the cleric.

Hamas, then, is to Israel what Al Queda is to the United States. And, like our son has turned against the father–complete with retaliation–the same thing has been played out between Israel and Hamas over and over in Gaza.

It bears asserting my purpose in this series is not to absolve Hamas from guilt or blame the government of Israel for every death in the region. Hamas, Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have had their own problems. My hope is to provide, perhaps, some balance to how the situation is viewed especially as it relates to some Christians in America who think all actions of national Israel are beyond any and all criticism. In the Middle East, as in all cases, we need to look for the truth with eyes wide open.

Part two will cover the ongoing situation in Gaza, while part three will suggest how Christ followers might react to the situation there.

Friedersdorf on the abject failure of conservative media

Rush Limbaugh

Conservative radio theater host, Rush Limbaugh [Image credit]

Over the last few weeks I have come to appreciate the writings of Conor Friedersdorf, columnist for The Atlantic. Following last night’s election results he addressed the failure of the conservative media to see the big pre-election stories, opting instead for conspiracy theories, and faux news.

The losers, according to Friedersdorf, were the “rank-and-file” conservatives who took Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, as authoritative and truthful casting a wary eye at all other outlets.

From the article:

Barack Obama just trounced a Republican opponent for the second time. But unlike 4 years ago, when most conservatives saw it coming, Tuesday’s result was, for them, an unpleasant surprise. So many on the right had predicted a Mitt Romney victory, or even a blowout — Dick Morris, George Will, and Michael Barone all predicted the GOP would break 300 electoral votes. Joe Scarborough scoffed at the notion that the election was anything other than a toss-up. Peggy Noonan insisted that those predicting an Obama victory were ignoring the world around them. Even Karl Rove, supposed political genius, missed the bulls-eye. These voices drove the coverage on Fox News, talk radio, the Drudge Report, and conservative blogs.

Those audiences were misinformed.

Outside the conservative media, the narrative was completely different. Its driving force was Nate Silver, whose performance forecasting Election ’08 gave him credibility as he daily explained why his model showed President Obama enjoyed a very good chance of being reelected. Other experts echoed his findings. Readers of The New York Times, The Atlantic, and other “mainstream media” sites besides knew the expert predictions, which have been largely born out. The conclusions of experts are not sacrosanct. But Silver’s expertise was always a better bet than relying on ideological hacks like Morris or the anecdotal impressions of Noonan. Sure, Silver could’ve wound up wrong, but people who rejected the possibility of his being right?

They were operating at a self-imposed information disadvantage.

[…]

You haven’t just been misinformed about the horse race. Since the very beginning of the election cycle, conservative media has been failing you. With a few exceptions, they haven’t tried to rigorously tell you the truth, or even to bring you intellectually honest opinion. What they’ve done instead helps to explain why the right failed to triumph in a very winnable election.

Why do you keep putting up with it?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because Romney supporters like Jennifer Rubin and Hugh Hewitt saw it as their duty to spin constantly for their favored candidate rather than being frank about his strengths and weaknesses. What conservative Washington Post readers got, when they traded in Dave Weigel for Rubin, was a lot more hackery and a lot less informed about the presidential election.

Conservatives were at an information disadvantage because so many right-leaning outlets wasted time on stories the rest of America dismissed as nonsense. World Net Daily brought you Birtherism. Forbes brought you Kenyan anti-colonialism. National Review obsessed about an imaginary rejection of American exceptionalism, misrepresenting an Obama quote in the process, and Andy McCarthy was interviewed widely about his theory that Obama, aka Drone Warrior in Chief, allied himself with our Islamist enemy in a “Grand Jihad” against America. Seriously?

Conservatives were at a disadvantage because their information elites pander in the most cynical, self-defeating ways, treating would-be candidates like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain as if they’re plausible presidents, rather than national jokes who’d lose worse than George McGovern.

I encourage you to read the entire piece.

I’m sure some will say, “But what about Benghazi? What about Fast and Furious? What about socialism? What about Obamacare?”

To which I answer, “What about the boy who cried wolf?” As conservative media beats the birther drum, the Obama 2016 drum, and every other drum of suspiciousness, why should conservatives be surprised to find the wolf soundly dismissed even when loudly announced?

Conservative media, like liberal media, does not exist to tell the truth. It exists to relate a narrative. Each narrative fulfills–they hope–two functions: to sell ads and to make money. I really do not see this as cynicism. This is just reality.

The air inside any bubble eventually becomes toxic.

As long as Americans–conservative and liberal, Right and Left–eat pablum like it is a 5-star breakfast and drink muddy water like Italian roast, media sources will be content to serve it up as a never ending feast.