Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Murder’ Category

Image result for pro-life

The problem that I have with the “pro-life” movement in general is that much of it appeals to the woman as being the victim/or merely the accomplice to the crime. Rather, the mother is the transgressor who in the majority of cases, knowingly tested positive in her pregnancy test and nevertheless, storms into the abortion mill with premeditated murder. Whether the sin is done in ignorance or not, she is still morally culpable before God.  She is not a victim.  To make matters more cumbersome, some in the pro-life movement, such as Dr. Albert Mohler (http://www.albertmohler.com/2016/04/01/the-briefing-04-01-16/), who is considered a stalwart defender of Christianity,  says this shocking statement,

But here’s where the pro-life movement returns back to say, who is the guilty party in an abortion? It is the person who brings about the death of the child. The woman seeking the abortion is not without moral responsibility, but she is not herself bringing about the death of the unborn human baby. That’s the crucial issue here, and that’s why the pro-life movement has consistently sought to criminalize abortion at the level of the person performing the abortion. That is, unlike what Nicholas Kristof argues here, a morally consistent argument and it has been consistent over time.”

Really? Can an abortive mother who has malice of forethought be considered a victim and be morally responsible the same time? Morally responsible for what? when they are already deemed a victim.  His words now hold no water.  This statement from Dr. Mohler violates the law of non-contradiction.  With all due respect to Dr. Mohler, there is not a shred of evidence given from Scripture.  Simple logic obliterates this mentality. Imagine a young teenager who is desperate for money and convenience’s sake, bullies another teenager named David in school for his money. The bully bruises David and leaves cuts and scars on his face.  The next day, the bully endeavors to beat-up David again. However, he is not at school.  The bully is desperate and needs money soon.  He finds out that David is at home with an illness.  Since the bully is unable to drive, he calls some of his friends who lives in the same neighborhood to go into the home of David and rob him.  The bully promises to give them movie tickets if they enter David’s home and rob him.  Now, is the bully the victim? because he did not act out the crime? Of course, not!  Yet, that is the absurdity of the lingo used by many in the pro-life movement when mothers abort their babies.

Here is the question I have for those who think abortive mothers are victims.  When is the mother who hires the assassin, become guilty of murder?  We have the audacity to label wives and mothers as guilty of murder for hiring a hit-man to murder their husbands and children, but we dare not label mothers who storms into the abortion mill for abortive services as murderers?  Really?  If that is the case, then the word victim has no meaning at all.  We have committed fallacies and undermined biblical anthropology (Romans 3:23).  I dare some of the proponents in the pro-life movement who advocate the notion that abortive mothers are victims share that with ardent pro-choice proponents at the abortion mill.  It does more harm than good.  How so?  Take it from Kristina Harrhof:

I asked the pro-aborts in an abortion group the following: “What do you guys think of Cruz and Trump referring to those of you who have aborted as “victims”? Do you agree that that’s appropriate terminology to use for someone who is getting an abortion or who is post-abortive?”

Here were their responses:

— “No. It is not. Abortion is a choice. Not something that is inflicted upon you.” — Laura

— “No. Victims don’t have choices and don’t decide to be victims.” — Donna

— “Neither Trump not Cruz have a clue what they’re talking about. I’m not a victim. I exercised my right to choose and in return [obtained] the freedoms to pursue my American Dream. What they propose is just offensive.” — Susan

— “I emphatically disagree that it is an appropriate usage. It is a dishonest, manipulative, cowardly choice of words.” — Kurt

— “This is a long-standing tactic of theirs [to label us all “victims”]. Because of course women are too stupid to know what they’re doing.” — Evan

— “[Like] We are incapable of sound judgement.” — Cheri

— “Not unless the person was forced into it. Otherwise, they made a choice. If they feel regret, they’re not a victim, but I do feel bad for them.” — Sandra

— “‘Victim’ is only appropriate in a discussion about abortion for someone who is forced to have an abortion.” — Kristen

I then asked Kristen, “Do you think, by and large, that women are being forced to have abortions in the U.S?”

She responded,

— “No, I do not. I believe that most abortions are taking place following a very tough decision that has to be made by the woman who is pregnant. I do not believe that the majority of abortions in the US are forced. Do I believe that some pregnant women are forced to have abortions? Yes I do. Because I know men controlling enough to do things either way. But that is why I do not support the use of the word “victim” to describe just anyone who has an abortion.”
____________________________________________

Folks, even the victims here are denying that they are victims. In fact, they find it offensive terminology. It’s not winning them over; it’s making them feel like we’re calling them “idiots.”

And frankly, as my friend Patte put it in her video, there are some who are supporting the use of this term who should know better theologically.

‪#‎notavictim‬

Paul too committed sins in ignorance with his involvement in the murder of Christians. In his ignorance, he still labeled himself a “blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor” (1 Timothy 1:12-13).  He had no excuse for his nefarious sins. Did Paul shy away from biblical labels that could offend or strike a nerve? No! Because he upheld the doctrine of love, he was incited to tell the truth.  Father of biblical counselor, Jay Adams has this to say about the significance concerning accuracy in labels:

In order to identify the cause of a problem, we need to decide whether the problem is an error, a wilful sin, or a failure to overcome a pattern.  In doing so, we must recognize that if the Bible calls a given practice a “sin,” it is wrong to call it anything else.  For instance, to call sin “sickness” or “immaturity,” or to use any of the other psychological or sociological jargon that distorts or disguises its true nature, is to lead yourself and your counselee astray.

Words, the semanticists tell us, are signs of the things they signify.  But that’s not all.  They are also signposts.  Label a sinful action or practice a “sickness,” and you have altered the situation significantly.  To call homosexual behavior “sickness” for instance, when the Bible calls it an “abomination” and “something worthy of death” is to point the homosexual in the direction of a physician for the solution to his problem.  To call it “sin” is to point him to Jesus Christ.  Labels, you see, are signposts, not merely signs; they point in the direction of a solution.  Therefore, it is very important to give marriage problems either biblical or biblically derived labels.  Other labels tell lies about problems and inevitably point to the wrong solutions.

Per Jay Adams’s words, they almost seem prophetic to this topic (not that he is a prophet). I am afraid, we have circumvented his wise counsel.  I pray that Christian leaders divert from their errors and ask Christ for forgiveness. As teachers, we will be responsible before God for every careless word we say.  Some words are minuscule in its implications and some are vast in its implication.  There is too much at stake. Thousands of babies are murdered everyday.  We need to be anchored in Scripture, not in the philosophies of the pro-life movement.  At this juncture, I can say, I am pro-life, but I feel uncomfortable being part of the pro-life movement.  There is too much toxic perspectives.  Now in this milieu, to be pro-life, needs to mean something more than trying to preserve the life of the baby. To be pro-life, is to see the nefarious crime of abortion as murder.

An ardent upholding of the inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency of Scripture demands that we be faithful with biblical labels despite the legal and political milieu in society. To go contrary to that is to be inconsistent and arbitrary.

Lastly, a lack of empathy towards preborn babies is due a logical fallacy that appeals to emotions rather to an objective standard. When one appeals to human emotion or political correctness, the victim who is the little image bearer is dehumanized, which inevitably fosters the perpetuation of child sacrifice.

I leave you all with a quote for further meditation concerning this issue:

For the fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light.” – John Calvin – Commentary, Exodus 21:22

Read Full Post »

planned parenthood 3 percent abortion 2013

One of the defense that Planned Parenthood supporters try to use is the line: “Planned Parenthood’s Abortion is only 3% of what it does.”  For instance we see Congressman Bill Foster use this argument in one of his Tweet:

Does that justify the murdering of the preborn or harvesting their bodies for sale?

Here’s my response:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

pp-undercover-video

 

Four days ago I posted my .  I want to revisit one of Cecile Richards’ quote again:

While predictably these videos do not show anything illegal on Planned Parenthood’s part, medical and scientific conversations can be upsetting to hear, and I immediately apologized for the tone that was used, which did not reflect the compassion that people have come to know and expect from Planned Parenthood.

My response to this quote has already been given in the previous post but here I want to make a further observation that according to Planned Parenthood’s own president these videos show Planned Parenthood’s “medical and scientific conversations.”  Cecile Richards herself admits this.

Now what exactly do we find in these medical conversations?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

You know, I feel very strongly about guys that have never been in the military, that pretends to be veterans, and then use the oppourtunity to tell lies that are not even real and falsify alleged immoral violent acts.

Those of you who read this blog might also as well, especially those of you with prior service or are currently still in the military…you know what I’m talking about. 

Meet Jessie Macbeth

macbethredux.jpg

Jessie Macbeth’s interview and documentary, which I’ve seen the whole thing (and I can’t stomach it) made me rather upset some time ago; as a military history buff at a young age and an avid Sun Tzu ‘young grasshoppa’  who believe that there is power in the knowledge of one’s opponent and one’s side (not just marines, our other military branches as well…), everything just didn’t seem right in the interview….and it didn’t require me to dig deep either, through old Army uniform regulation in his ‘graduation’ photo nor did I have to consult Army’s Table of Organization, Ranger SOP or research about base instillation and bases…the talking head was a wannabe.

Well, after a fake documentary, earning a place of being a hero to the anti-war crowd, slandering our military, falsifying alleged military documentation of military service, collecting $10,000 of Veteran’s benefits (how this guy get away with it when guys who really need the money don’t even see any money?!) and last week being arrested finally for assulting a girl (now that’s low, let me tell you),

Mr. Jessie Macbeth has finally been detained.

Read Full Post »

I’ve sat on this and thought about it, and revised it before I posted this here…

I’ve had various inquiry in private messages, comments and also people asking me about whether the rights to bear arm make sense in light of Virginia Tech shooting. This is what this entry is about.

capt-2.jpg

1.) Protecting your life–Who’s responsibility is it?

That’s something that needs to be taken into consideration: Is it ultimately your responsibility or someone else’s?

Is your life worth protecting? If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it? If you believe that it is the police’s, not only are you wrong — since the courts universally rule that they have no legal obligation to do so — but you face some difficult moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk his life to protect yours, when you will assume no responsibility yourself? Because that is his job and we pay him to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value, but his is only worth the $30,000 salary we pay him? If you believe it reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so for you?

Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you’re a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

(SOURCE: http://golubski.blogspot.com/2007/04/bleating-for-security.html)

What about the police? Where do they fit in?

070416shooting_cnn.jpg

most people readily believe that the existence of the police relieves them of the responsibility to take full measures to protect themselves. The police, however, are not personal bodyguards. Rather, they act as a general deterrent to crime, both by their presence and by apprehending criminals after the fact. As numerous courts have held, they have no legal obligation to protect anyone in particular. You cannot sue them for failing to prevent you from being the victim of a crime.

If its your ultimate responsibility, and not that of the police to protect your own life, what tools and means then do you have, to protect yourself and especially of someone who want to take your life?

2.) Does Gun Control necessarily save lives?

England has one of the most toughest gun laws, yet:

“While Britain has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world, the recent spate of gun murders in London has highlighted a disturbing growth in armed crime.”

Despite the anti-gun laws, we find disturbing empirical data during 2001:

Between April and November 2001, the number of murders in the Metropolitan Police area committed with a firearm soared by almost 90% over the same period a year earlier

(SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1741336.stm)

And also as well in 2002 of gun crimes and over all crimes:

RECORDED CRIME RISES

  • Overall crime: 9.3%
  • Gun crime: 35%
  • Robbery: 14.5%
  • Domestic burglary: 7.9%
  • Drug offences: 12.3%
  • Sexual offences: 18.2% Source: Home Office
  • (SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/politics/2640817.stm)

    In 2003, despite being into the fifth year of English total gun ban, gun control still did not produce its desired effect but rather:

    there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes.

    So much crime increase that,

    According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world’s 20 leading nations.

    So what does England do? Pass more laws:

    Now, in the wake of Birmingham’s New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we’ll just pass more laws for them not to obey.

    (SOURCE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/01/05/do0502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/05/ixopinion.html)

    If they won’t obey the laws already, what makes them obey a total gun ban by passing another total gun ban?

    3.) Gun Control: Who benefits and who loses?

    We have already seen who are the victims of gun control, especially a total weapons ban above.  There are more victims with the rise of gun control.

    Virginia2520Tech2520shootings.jpg

    Should citizens try to help other citizens and defend yourself when there are criminal activies that victimizes people with the use of gun?

    When you disarm the citizenry, when you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should “walk on by” if they happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will obviously be the criminals.

    (SOURCE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/01/05/do0502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/05/ixopinion.html)

    Taking away a law abiding citizen’s deterrent, it makes law abiding citizens easier to target, because law abiding citizens will abide with the gun control laws while the criminal will not.

    Having disarm the population, those who are armed (the totalitarian state, criminals, etc) will benefit.

    4.) Does responsible Gun ownership protect lives and property?

    Did you know that yesterday, on April 20th, there was an:

    armed robbery of a convenience store in Hoopa that ended when the suspected robber was shot.

    (SOURCE: http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=23108)

    And on the same day somewhere else, it saved the life of a victim of an armed burglary that ended with the criminals shooting and wounding the home owner?

    One of the robbers shot at him, hitting him in the neck. He ran into the street. The robbers followed him outside.

    The homeowner told police he fired at the robbers. As the robbers returned fire, two retreated into the house. The third, Price, continued to exchange gunfire with the homeowner.

    (SOURCE: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/77569.html)

    Or, in the hands of a citizen working as a security guard, it ended a robbery?

    A suspected robber was shot and wounded by security guards after he and another man allegedly robbed a business in Hyde Park on Monday, Gauteng police said.

    (SOURCE: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=nw20070416164408862C252156 )

    Imagine being a mom eight months pregnant with a two year old child, and someone is physically being aggressive towards you and is now heading towards your two year old:

    The store surveillance tape shows the suspect aggressively confronting Susana while her 2-year-old daughter sits nearby.

    “She walked to just right to her quick … and went to attack her right away,” said Joe. “My wife has a big stomach like this, she’s eight months pregnant.”

    The two women struggled briefly at the counter…

    When the suspect appeared to move toward their daughter, Susana shot the suspect in the shoulder blade, near the collarbone.

    (SOURCE: http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_098095821.html)

    Imagine a place where every body has guns.  Some people believe that with more guns, we:

    would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts.

    But is this necessarily true?

    In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

    The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

    Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

    (SOURCE: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288)

    In summarizing the above, this town mandated everyone to own a gun and this have a dramatic turnaround in crime reduction.

    Contrast to its sister city of Morton Grove, which was the first city with a law to ban guns for those who are not officers:

    More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent.

    (SOURCE: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288)

    Does the good outweigh the bad, in having guns?

    firearms are used defensively an estimated 2.5 million times every year, four times more than criminal uses. This represents some 2,575 lives protected and saved for every life lost to a gun. According to the national Safety Council, the loss of life to accidental firearm death is at its lowest point since records were begun nearly a hundred years ago.

    (SOURCE: http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/opinion/48570.php)

    gun

    I just hope that those who are swept by the emotions of anti-gun rhethorics in light of the tragic incident in Virginia Tech might take the time to take into consideration the four factors I’ve stated.

    Will having more weapon mean that violence will never happen? I don’t think so, and I don’t know anyone that does argue that.  Its because of the sinfulness of man’s nature that violence are born.  But taking everything into consideration, more gun control is not the solution.

    THE END.

    Read Full Post »

    MSNBC’s “Hokie Nation Supports Steger” notes the criticism that the President of Virginia Tech, Charles Steger, “has come under criticism for the delay of more than two hours before an e-mail was sent to students and staff notifying them that there had been a shooting on campus.”

    My message to the critics: Stop criticizing Virgina Tech for failing to send an email out sooner. In real life things require time and there’s the uncertainty of what’s going on, and the location or activity of people.

    There are several things to consider in order to understand the delay in shutting down the college. First, the speed of communication and uncertainty due to such.

    Communications is extremely important during combat. Most institutions do not have a communication system in place to deliver rapid information from the sender to the addressee. The uncertainty and delay in communication is apparent from BBC’s excellent time-line of events:

    VT Shooting Timeline

    Of special importance was that, “At the time the shootings [were] believed to be an isolated, domestic incident.” For one, the shooting stopped. Two, the shooter was not found. The police treated it as an isolated incident, because at the time- it was an isolated incident! Do police normally wait two hours before assuming the murderer has finished killing?

    Also, the police treated it as an isolated incident and the campus would have been told so.

    Three, the criticism does not take into account that the police were still there taking security precautions and pursuing leads!

    “Police seal off the hall, home to about 900 students, and tell students to stay indoors. Blacksburg police help to establish a safety perimeter and close nearby Washington Street.

    Officers question students and, by 0730, a “person of interest” is being investigated.

    At 0825 senior university staff meet to assess what is happening and how to tell students. At 0900 the leadership team is briefed by the campus police chief. “

    No doubt the police told the president and the rest of the senior university staff of the investigation and security precautions currently being taken. Thus the president and the police both acted under the assumption that the two killings were isolated. In other words, they did not assume there going to be more killings, they did not assume the shooter had not finished but took precautions regardless. The police already isolated the building as well as closing down the street, which probably seemed adequate for just one building. Additionally the campus was already acting quickly, having a meeting shortly after an hour later.

    Why is an hour quick? Because most likely the first notification after the shootings was to campus security- either by phone or finding a security guard to radio it in. Minus 5 minutes from confusion and fear from gunshots and subsequent call of situation and location to 911. Second, after the dispatcher sent officers as well as paramedics to respond to the call, the police dispatcher would have likely notified the sergeant or supervisor on watch at the time. The supervisor would likely have then either called or walked over and notified the chief of police or acting person in charge at the police station at the time. Minus five minutes. The acting commander would probably consider finding the suspect, assuming he hasn’t already fled, by searching the building and possibly the campus, securing a perimeter to prevent students and others from going in and out, isolating the crime scene and contacting outside forensics and homicide detective (I doubt campus police would have those departments on a college university). Minus five minutes.

    My point is that contacting the president or any of the other staff would have been the last priority to securing the area, providing medical attention, and locating the shooter. So finally when the message actually got to the university, either directly to the president or to an assistant, the person would likely ask the assistant to make calls to all the senior staff notifying them of the situation and asking them to come in if they haven’t already. Minus at least another five to ten minutes for this. If the senior staff were not on campus one must allot time for driving to the meeting place. Minus 10 to 20 minutes. It is even more worthy of note that the senior staff met at 8:25, before the chief even briefed the leadership at 9am.

     At this point of time during more meeting deliberating how to react to the chief’s brief and how to announce it to the students that the second series of shootings began an Norris Hall. It is also notable to observe that the staff finished discussion in less than 30 minutes after the chief briefed them and sent an email out at 9:26am.

    It would not be unusual that there were no security guards at the lecture halls and classrooms. Most likely, due to the already alerted presence, the police would be able to respond- it would not be immediately after the gunshots could be heard. There might also require additional consideration because the police assets were focused on the securing the area, shutting down the street, and processing the crime scene that any police or security that may have been near Norris Hall was moved from guarding a hall to the more pressing murders. Additionally even if police immediately responded to the gunshots half a mile away, police shutting down the street or securing the dorms would drop everything they’re doing and run toward the gunshots. Most likely a call would’ve been put out that gunshots were heard and the direction they may have heard.

    It would not be until later that either a person in the classrooms might have called 911 or responding police identify the specific building the new gunshots were coming from. Standard procedure would have most likely to secure the perimeter, though because of the need to save students and the small police force may have prompted a few to attempt to enter the building- only to discover that some of the doors were chained closed. Once the second shooting location was finally established, the police may have finally notified the senior staff.

    Thus even though the second email was 40 minutes after the second series of shootings began, it only 10 minutes after the police even responded to the call. Thus from the time the police knew, it required only 10 minutes for the police to contact university staff, and the university staff to send the second email as well as emergency phone calls.

    Last thing to note is that after the second series of shooting began at 9:15 the cell phone calls would have definitely been overloaded with cell phone calls if it hadn’t already by the first shooting incident. The only ways of communicating effectively were land lines and radio.

    Read Full Post »

    Who’s responsibility is it to protect yourself?

    I could finally sit down and write here on wordpress for a little bit!

    What a tragedy it has been for the Virginia Tech shooting incident. That was alot of people.

    For those who were interested, Xanga featured had this Xanga user who went to Virginia Tech that might be interesting for some of you here: http://www.xanga.com/whosjennel/584546877/please-pray.html

    Don’t want to be too political but I found this Blog made some good points

    The question that has been in my head is, who’s primary responsibility is it, for the protection of your own life–is it the state, or you? Who would be better at defending your own life???

    For over a hundred years, U.S. courts have ruled that individuals have no right to police protection. But given the numerous — almost routine — warnings from police spokesmen not to “take the law into your own hands” by resisting criminal violence with reasonable force, you really can’t blame people like the Shourds for thinking they have a right to the protection of the State.

    You could read the rest here: http://golubski.blogspot.com/2007/04/bleating-for-security.html

    You ever wonder about what goes through someone’s head that does things like this?

    It such an evil…yet, not to make light of what he has done but I wonder what could possibly drove him to be so mad and angry to do such a thing?

    Its a tragedy for everyone…

    Read Full Post »

    Older Posts »