A Little More On Gun Control

I actually am in agreement with liberals on some aspects of gun control.  There are weapons which have been created for the specific purpose of killing other human beings--military weapons.  Those weapons should be kept in the hands of trained professionals and used only for military purposes.  No civilian needs a tank, bazooka, or nuclear bomb.  Or an AR-15, or any gun that can shoot dozens of rounds of ammunition within a few seconds' time.  Those are not hunting weapons, those are not for protection, they are either toys--or instruments of mass murder.  I have no need for an AR-15 and I don't see why anybody else does, either, for protection or otherwise.  One well-placed bullet from a handgun can stop any nut with an Uzi.

The problem, of course, is, if liberals are allowed to ban AR-15s and other "assault weapons", are they going to be happy and stop there?  No, they aren't, because EVERY weapon can ultimately be used as an "assault weapon."  Liberals aren't after AR-15s alone; they are after every gun that Americans own; make no mistake about that, and they will never rest until they have them all.  That's what makes giving in to liberals on this issue, even to the smallest degree, a very precarious matter.  The camel with his nose in the tent thing, the "give an inch, take a mile" argument.  They even have a saying for it in China:  得寸进尺 (de cun jin chi), or "reach for a yard after getting an inch."  Liberals aren't going to stop at AR-15s and other "assault weapons" because, to them, all guns are assault weapons.  They want the government to have all the guns, and they want to control the government.  And they want to tell you how to live and they want to punish you, maybe even kill you, if you don't do what they tell you, and they don't want you to have the ability to shoot back if they start shooting at you.  There was a very good reason why Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other tyrants were among the greatest gun control advocates in history.  And if we think it cannot happen in America, then that is an ignorance of history that could end as the most tragic ever recorded among the annals of mankind.

So, while I do agree that civilians have no business owning a military weapon, I cringe over giving liberals power to control that.  The answer, as I've said before, is within people.  Some countries have very strong gun control laws, and very few murders.  Some countries have very strong gun control laws--and a lot of murders.  Why?  The answer lies in the civilized behavior of the populace.  America built its traditions of civilized morality on the Christian religion.  As that tradition has been increasingly eroded by liberalism, uncivilized behavior has become increasingly the norm.  Rather than returning the country to a freedom based upon eternal moral law, liberals want to give government more power.  Do I have to say again that, given the history of government, the greatest of all mass murderers, I think a return to Christianity would be a far wiser, and more suitable, answer.

Some Interesting Recent Headlines

"Philly schools installing free condom dispensers over Christmas break..."

More “progressive” brilliance.  I’ve got a better idea—how about giving out free Bibles?  I bet churches would donate them and the taxpayers wouldn't even have to buy them.  Has anyone but me noticed that ever since liberals have booted God and the Bible out of schools and have been exalting condoms as the answer to sexual licentiousness, out-of-wedlock births in the black community has shot up to 70%, and is 40% of total births?  Of course, that is exactly what liberals want, because many of those people end up on government welfare—dependent on liberals. 

Paid for by decent, hard-working Americans.

If anybody thinks that that removing God from schools and a higher illegitimate rate (among other social problems) is merely a coincidence then…they are the perfect products of the government education system... 

"School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards..."

Good enough for the elite, not good enough for the rest of Americans.  Liberal hypocrites…Putting guards in the schools is not the ultimate answer, of course, but it is a start, as I (basically) suggested in my article on the subject last week.  But ultimately, that’s not the answer.  It’s mostly a moral problem, not solved by bullets but by Bibles.

Well, we could shoot all the liberals.  That would be a good start, heh heh heh…

"Sam Donaldson Tells Tea Partiers 'It's Not Your Country Anymore--It's Our Country'..."

He’s right.  Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, Newark, California, 70% black illegitimate rate, rampant drug abuse, millions of aborted babies, homosexual HIV infections, crazy people running loose killing innocents, half the country not paying income tax, Hollywood violence, 50 million people on food stamps, 8%+ unemployment, $16+ trillion dollar government debt, 12 million people illegally in the country—that is YOUR COUNTRY, LIBERALS, not the country of God-fearing, hard-working, decent, virtuous “tea partiers”…

And it’s why I want secession.  Let the decent people of America have a country of their own instead of having to pay for one they didn’t create and don’t believe in.  

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."--Thomas Jefferson

**********
Merry Christmas, everybody!  For those who believe in and love God, there are still many, many things to be very thankful for, salvation from this world being # 1.

Some Facts About Gun Control

--Some of the cities with the strongest gun control laws, like Washington, DC, have the highest murder rates;
--Gun ownership is higher in rural areas than urban areas.  But the murder rate is higher in urban areas;
--Gun ownership is higher among whites than blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks;
--Hand gun ownership doubled in America in the late 20th century, but the murder rate went down;
--Mexico, Russia, and Brazil have stronger gun control laws than America--and higher murder rates;
--Israel and Switzerland have higher rates of gun ownership than America--and lower murder rates. Finland and New Zealand also have high rates of gun ownership and low crime rates;
--Switzerland has 3 times the gun ownership of Germany, but has lower murder rates;
--For most of its history, England had very lax gun control laws.  A person could buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century.  New York had stricter gun control laws--and higher crime rates;
--"In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s—after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions—there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies" (Thomas Sowell, "Invincible Ignorance," Dec. 18, 2012; most of the information in this post comes from Sowell's article).  The crime rate in England has gone up as the rate of gun ownership has gone down.

Wicked, undisciplined people are the problem, not guns.  Youth, fed daily with violent music, violent TV shows and movies, and violent video games--and given no moral guidance because liberals have booted God and the Bible out of our education system--have no ability to distinguish right and wrong, no reason to control themselves, no cause to respect the rights and lives of others.  Our government and dominant liberal philosophy create an atmosphere of disregard for human life by paying for women to kill their unborn children, and then we are shocked when the children who are born kill each other.  And, keep in mind, this is "progressive."

We need liberal control, not gun control.

Searching for Answers

The college where I teach here in China has a television in the lobby.  It is tuned to CNN.  Almost every time I have walked by it this past week, there has been some discussion regarding the Newtown shooting and gun control.  Liberals sense that now, after this tragedy, there may be a chance to obtain one of their ultimate goals--the total disarming of Americans and the ultimate tyranny of the national government.  Liberals live in a dream world, a fantasy.  Their whole philosophy is chimerical, based in unreality, denying every law of morality, economics, and history.  And if they think the American people are going to willingly give up their guns....that is one of the biggest fantasies of all.  There will be civil war and secession before that happens.  And, I say, let it come.

I should clarify.  I do NOT want a civil war.  But I do want secession.  I want as many states as wish to govern themselves, apart from the busybody imposition of Washington, D.C.  Who knows better what the people of, say, Texas need--the people in Texas, or the people in Washington, most of whom despise Texas?  The federal government has far more power to control the states than the men who founded America intended--and for the very reason I just noted.  The people at home know better what they need than politicians far away.  The "one-size-fits-all" philosophy of the American national government just does not work effectively when there are 50 states with diverse geographies, economies, sizes, ethnic make-up and a 1,000 other differences.  "A single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth," Thomas Jefferson said.  And all one must do is look at Washington, right now, to see the wisdom and foresight of that remark.  Secession should have been allowed to happen in 1861.  Maybe it will finally occur.  And if liberals become too insistent on trying to ban "assault weapons" (every weapon can be used as an "assault weapon"), they might find they have less country to govern, ruin, and destroy.  Let them keep experimenting on Detroit and Newark (you get what you elect).  And Barack Obama seems determined to turn the entirety of America into another Detroit.  Blacks have governed Detroit for over a generation, and now a black governs America.  Obama has shown no more wisdom or ability to govern than Coleman Young or Kwame Kilpatrick, two of the black leaders who have turned Detroit into a cesspool.  Obama scares me to death; no, not him, the people who elected him, including whites!

The answer to Newtown, as I have said before, is not to blame an inanimate object that cannot think, will, or act on its own.  The answer has been in our hands for almost 2,000 years now.  It's called the Bible.  But liberals aren't going to look at that.  They will bring the whole nation down with them, destroying countless lives and creating misery for untold millions, before they accept the reality and truth of God's Word.

**********
For a great article about Detroit and its degeneration under liberal, black "leadership", read Walter Williams' current article, "A Hundred Percent of Nothing."  Follow this link:  http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/12/AHundredPercentOfNothing.htm

The End of the World

It didn’t happen, of course, though, as I write this, it is still December 21 in Mexico so I suppose it could still occur.  I can’t say I am amazed that so many people panicked over it; the education level among government-taught people on earth is (probably deliberately) extremely low, so worldwide ignorance is pervasive and, ultimately, destructive.  Actually, the Mayans never predicted that the world would end on December 21, 2012; it was simply the termination of one of their calendar cycles.  It would start all over again the next day.  Somehow that got lost in all the illiteracy and fear. 

Even if the Mayans had predicted the end of the world for December 21, there was no way it was going to happen—unless that is what God had ordained.  God has simply not given humans the ability to specifically predict the future; that knowledge belongs to the Almighty alone.  It is one of the major evidences for the inspiration of the Bible.  In the Old Testament, there are many, many specific predictions about future events, things that only God could have foreseen and revealed to man.  The most obvious relate to Jesus (for those interested, I have listed some of the more interesting Biblical prophecies at the end of this article).  For those who study history—and the Bible—we can see some vague outlines of future events.  This is why I said, four years ago, than an Obama administration, economically and many other ways, would be a failure.  There are certain moral and economic laws and principles that God has established for the governance of man on earth (we can find those in Scripture, too).  Violate those laws, ignore them, reject them, or try to legislate contrary to them and, more often than not in the short run, and always in the long run, negative consequences will accrue.  Wise men of the past have recognized this; however, finding a wise man in Washington, D.C., now is as difficult as Jeremiah finding a righteous man in Jerusalem (Jer. 5:1).  As I’ve written before, I’m sad for my country, but I’m not surprised.  It isn’t the first time in history that evil has been in the ascendancy.  Noah preached 120 years before the flood and didn’t convert anybody.

So, the world is still here, the next cycle of the Mayan calendar begins, 512 years from now there will probably be panic again, ignorance of the Bible, with all its consequences, will continue, but the earth will remain until the Lord returns and ends it.  That is my prediction.

**********

Regarding Biblical prophecy, Scripture foretells, in the Old Testament, the following about a Messiah who would come and redeem the world:  the people from whom He would be born (the Jews, Gen. 12:1-3); His direct lineage (Isaac, Gen. 21:12; Jacob, Gen. 26:4; Judah, Gen. 49:10; Boaz and Ruth, Ruth 4:18-22; such is the only explanation for why that book is in the Bible; David, II Sam. 7:12-14). The Bible tells us, 700 years in advance, where He would be born (Micah 5:2).  We know when He would be born (during the Roman empire, Dan. 2:44), we know the exact year of His death, Dan. 9:24-27.  His triumphal entry into Jerusalem is specifically mentioned in Zechariah 9:9.  Some of the events regarding His death are alluded to in Psalm 22, and His resurrection is predicted in Psalm 16:10.  This is just a smattering of prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Jesus.  There are also accurate predictions regarding nations (for example, the destruction of Babylon by Persia is predicted in Isaiah 13:17 well over 100 years before either of those countries became a significant power).   Jesus Himself predicted, 40 years in advance, the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21).  When combined with Christianity’s perfect moral code, its inerrant understanding of man, and its historical and scientific accuracy, then we have a book that could only have come from the mind of God.  The claim that the Bible was written by “priests” is nonsensical (very few of the Biblical writers were indeed priests; none of the New Testament writers were); priests come in for some of the harshest criticism in the Bible.  Why would priests write a book that condemned themselves?  No, man could not have written that Book had he wanted to; and he would not have written it if he could have.

The Solution? More Guns and Fewer Liberals

The tragedy last week in Connecticut is unspeakably, indescribably horrifying and heartrending.   Liberals think the answer to such violence is to ban guns; I think the answer is to ban liberalism. Which would be more effective in producing a virtuous, peaceful, respectful society?

Is taking guns out of the hands of decent Americans the solution?  (Nobody that I know of objects to criminals not having guns.)   I believe Connecticut does have a right-to-carry law, and perhaps more people need to start exercising that right.   Let’s suppose that half, or even a third, of the teachers, administrators, and support personnel at Sandy Hook had been armed; how many children would have died?   We don’t know the answer to that question, of course, but had the killer known, beforehand, that he was walking into a defended location, that might have been enough to deter him; how many armies will attack a country with far superior fire power?   Now, given the mental instability of Adam Lanza, that may have made no difference to him, but, with a well-armed cadre of staff, somebody could have nailed him before he did near as much damage as occurred.   More guns on the scene could have limited the tragedy significantly.   The police can’t be everywhere and generally only show up after the terror is over.   People are going to have to start protecting themselves, especially given what liberalism has done to morality and decency in American society.

Now, I’m certainly not in favor of giving everybody a gun.   Only responsible, decent people, who have proven that they possess the right kind of character and decision-making ability should be allowed to carry, and that only after they have received proper training and scrutiny.   A gun is dangerous.   But a gun in the hands of the right person could have saved a lot of lives in Newtown and Aurora, and everywhere else these sorts of tragedies are happening.

But the ultimate answer, of course, is to reform the hearts and character of humans so that such things become virtually impossible, morally.   After an event like Newtown, liberals always like to mockingly shout, "Why did your God allow such a thing to happen?"   Liberals boot God out of the schools, try to ban every mention or visible manifestation of Him and His laws in society, but then want to blame Him when people act in ungodly ways.   God has told humans exactly how we should act—"Thou shalt not kill" (not "Thou shalt ban anything where one human can harm another"). Why do we fault Him when we ignore what He says?

Noah Webster, great early American, said "Education is useless without the Bible."   How many more people, and children, are going to have to die at the hands of maniacs before we return to that truth?

Maybe they did occur, but I don’t recall tragedies like Newtown happening when I was growing up and "Father Knows Best" was a popular television program and theme for guiding culture and society.  Liberalism and feminism are hell-bent on destroying the American family; liberals are even trying to change the definition of "family" so that "two mommies" or "two daddies" is equivalent to what God established.   And then we wonder why so many youth have screwed-up minds.  They have no idea what is right or wrong, because liberals don’t, either!   They make it up as they go along! The family is the foundation and strength of any society—nurturing, caring for, and educating the next generation of citizens.   Motherhood and fatherhood are the most important responsibilities in any society, but the American family today has been destroyed by a liberalism that wants to exalt the state, and a secular elite who believes it knows better how to raise children than God does, and we end up with dysfunctional young people like Adam Lanza who don’t know the basics of civilized behavior.   Giving them pills is not going to solve the problem; giving them God will.   Liberals repeat, endlessly, "if he hadn’t had the gun, he couldn’t have done the killing, and all those children would be alive today."   That is certainly true. But if Adam Lanza had been a faithful, New Testament Christian, he wouldn’t have done the killing, either.   Which is better—take away guns from all people, including responsible citizens, but leave the godless dysfunctional philosophy in place, or creating the kind of moral, virtuous society, built upon the laws of God and Christianity where people respect human life and other people’s rights?   I’ll stand with God and Christ any day of the week over liberal politicians.   Indeed, the most dangerous person in the world is not someone like Adam Lanza, but is a godless politician with access to weapons and other people’s money.  The 20th century provides overwhelming, incontrovertible historical proof of that fact.

As long as liberal philosophy remains in the ascendancy in America, crime and wickedness will wax worse and worse.   That means people will need protection—protection against those who cannot discern right and wrong on their own, who have been taught there is no absolute right and wrong, who have been given no moral guidance by their family because that ascendant philosophy wants to destroy the family and has indeed gone a long way in doing so.  Protection can be found in many ways, but, to rephrase someone (Mao Zedong) who certainly knew a lot about defending himself, "protection comes out the barrel of a gun."   Ultimately, bottom line, when all is said and done, my body is mine, my property, and it’s up to me to protect it.  I’m certainly not going to trust Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer to do it.  Why would I trust thieves and liars to defend my life?

**********
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."--Theodore Roosevelt.  Before we take the rifles out of the hands of decent, God-fearing Americans, let’s take the vote out of the hands of godless, immoral miscreants who elect liberal politicians.

Hurry, Washington Post, Before The Man You Worship Raises Your Taxes

From the Associated Press:

"The Washington Post Co. will pay its 2013 dividends before the end of this year to try to spare investors from anticipated tax increases."

Just for the record:  there are no tax cuts planned.  Obama has no intention of cutting anybody's taxes.  Of course, almost half the people in America don't pay any income tax, anyway, so they do not care.  What will happen, if the country goes over the "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year, is that tax rates will revert to what they were before they were lowered in 2001 and 2003 in the Bush years.  If Obama and the Republicans make a deal (i.e., if the Republicans cave and give Obama what he wants), then part of that deal might be that tax rates for most people will stay the same!  That is not a tax "cut", folks, but that is how Obama and the media are selling it.  What the media is trying to portray is that Obama is trying to cut taxes for everybody, except the top 2% (now it's 2%, not 1%), and the Republicans are trying to protect "the rich" and not cut their taxes.  And so--according to Obama and his media lapdogs--the Republicans are standing in the way of a tax cut for 98% of Americans by holding out for tax cuts for the richest 2%！ That isn't the truth, but it's part of the political game.

If the Republicans will give Obama exactly what he wants, then he'll avoid going over the "cliff" at the end of the month.  Otherwise, he would be happy for the government to go over the "fiscal cliff" and let everybody's tax rates rise.  He can blame Republicans for it, because they were holding out against the top 2% paying their "fair share".  Then, next year, Obama can push for the 98% having their tax rate lowered to where it is now--and call it a tax cut!  Obama the Savior!  I really hate to call people "stupid," but...

Lots of folks, like those in the Washington Post, are trying to protect their money before the end of the year because they know that, next year, Obama is going to take as much of it as he can get.

Democracy.  I love it. 

I Love Democracy

Actually, I don’t.  I can’t stand it.  If a country gives mediocrity, stupidity, and wickedness the vote, then a country will end up with mediocrity, stupidity, and wickedness in power.  One only needs to look at places like Washington, D.C., Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and the whole state of California to see the truth in that.  The American Founding Fathers, contrary to almost universal belief, did not establish a democracy in America; most of them despised it.  They established an aristocracy of merit, far and away the best form of government possible—let people who have proven their virtue and ability be given the vote and political power.  It didn’t work, but then, they tried, destroyed by Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and…democracy.

My abhorrence to democracy is not unknown to the regular readers of my writings.  In this article, I have a few quotes from some folks in history about democracy that I would like to share.  Fascinating thoughts from perceptive minds…

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”—Benjamin  Franklin  The “tyranny of the majority” is a familiar phrase to America’s founders.  In a democracy, since the majority rules, what is to prevent 51% of the people from passing laws that deny the other 49% their rights?  Or, what is to prevent the majority from voting money out of the hands who have earned it and giving it to themselves?  This is freedom?  This is wisdom?  This is good government?

Incidentally, Bob Costas, you and your liberal buddies are not getting our guns.  It’s the only protection we have from you and…democracy.   The well-armed lamb….

I love this one:  “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”—Winston Churchill   Can you say, “Obamaphone”?  How, how, HOW can a country give the vote to a person like that and expect progress, strength, virtue, and success?  It can’t happen.  The right to vote is not a natural right, because the right to vote gives a person the right to rule somebody else, and nobody is born with that right.  It has to be earned, and it has to be earned through industry, wisdom, morality, frugality, and success.  Those are the virtues a country should want ruling it, not covetousness, laziness, profligacy, licentiousness, and failure.

“It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law.  This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.”—James Fenimore Cooper  This is brilliant.  The most critical thing, the most crucial element, of any government is to acknowledge there is a God Who has established eternal moral laws for the direction of mankind on earth.  When a country sets that aside, and allows majority opinion to define morality and law, then every kind of vice known to man will plague a people--vices such as abortion, homosexual “marriage”, theft in the name of “sharing the wealth,” and a thousand other such practices that are destroying the fiber and foundation of the United States.  People need guidance.  They need God.  “It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps,” Jeremiah said (10:23).  Democracies invariably set aside the laws of God for the opinions of man; they don’t have to do that, but they do.  History conclusively shows that the majority will ultimately nearly always be wrong, and that is why they cannot be trusted with political power.  But then, for that matter, nobody should be entrusted with too much political power.  It is too intoxicating an evil for most humans to control.

“Democracy is the road to socialism.”—Karl Marx  I need a little time to develop this theme—which is absolutely the truth—but for now, I will only say that, since equality (not freedom) is the guiding principle of both democracy and socialism, then it is never a surprise when democracies end up tending towards socialism.  All Marxists certainly know this; that is why the communist dictatorships usually call(ed) themselves “The People’s Republic” and say they are establishing true democracy.  Many, many of my students, who have, of course, been trained in the Chinese education (propaganda) system, actually believe that their country is a democracy.

Democracy, in theory, sounds so good with its talk of freedom, equality, and rights for the people.  But theory and the practice have been widely separate.  The current debased, debauched, licentious condition of the United States is almost totally the fault of democracy.  You give the masses the vote, and you take God away from them, and the conclusion is inevitable.  It has been written in history many times before.