HJ Sean Moon, Rod of Iron Kingdom book, Ch. 11 “The Choice” Selection
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything. C.K. Chesterton
The legislators in Germany’s Weimar Republic who passed gun registration of all firearms in 1931 may have had good intentions. Little did they know that within just two years the Nazis would take power and use those records to identify, disarm, and attack Jews and political opponents.
It’s tempting to take our freedoms in America for granted. We’ve been blessed with freedom and prosperity undreamed of in many parts of the world. We imagine that the American people could never have their freedoms taken away without their consent. Well, guess what, in many ways, it has already happened.
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that belief in natural marriage between one man and one woman was the expression of an irrational bias, and therefore unconstitutional. In that moment, those who believed in natural marriage, including tens of millions of committed Christians, were suddenly transformed into bigots in the eyes of the law. What was widely accepted and understood by most Americans just a few years earlier, was now a shameful sign of malicious prejudice.
If something as fundamental as marriage can suddenly be redefined by one Supreme Court vote, is there anything that cannot be thrown out with a “progressive” interpretation? The 1st Amendment?The 2 Amendment? The 4
We have already seen calls for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment by a former Supreme Courtjustice and other public figures. We have seen leaders of one political partycalling for gun bans and even confiscations.
In April 2018, one Chicago areasuburb passed a ban on “assault weapons,” which included semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. If the 18,000 residents of Deerfield, Illinois arefound carrying or possessing one of these firearms, they can be fined up to$1,000 per day. One resident gun owner declared to the city council: “You arebureaucrats that Thomas Jefferson warned us about!”
We have seen many of the nation’s media organizations give a high profile to youth who accuse 2nd Amendment supporters of having children’s blood on their hands, even when it is evident in several cases that it was the government which repeatedly failed to prevent or halt mass shootings.
Due to this shifting of blame onto citizens who had nothing to do with these horrific acts, America is potentially one or two elections away from turning millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals overnight.
This past week we released new research on the massive errors in the FBI's active shooting reports. The FBI claims over the eight years from 2014 to 2021, there were just eleven instances where news stories mentioned people legally using guns to stop attacks. By contrast, we show that there are at least 124 cases -- more than ten times the FBI claims. That is using the same definition that the FBI used. Unfortunately, the problems don't end there. I have tried to explain to the FBI staff why they should differentiate attacks that occur in gun-free zones from attacks where people can defend themselves because law-abiding people are unlikely to carry where a gun is banned. But I had no success. To give you an idea of the magnitude of these numbers, in 2021, over 59% of active shooting attacks in places where people were allowed to carry were stopped by armed civilians. However, people don't need to take our word for it. We provide the list of cases and links to each case so that people can check them out themselves.
Fox News, the Washington Examiner, Breitbart, and Sinclair Broadcasting, with its many affiliates across the country, were among the places that wrote up news stories on research. I did a very useful television interview on News Nation and a radio interview with Vince Coglianese on WMAL in Washington, DC.
The US DOJ gave $66.9 million to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. They won't say how much of that they spent finding those eleven cases, but whatever it cost, it was too much.
Of course, entertainment TV pushes the same narrative. This past week one episode of CBS' FBI Most Wanted had two cases where a defensive gun use went wrong.
Other work was published at Real Clear Politics and shows that the people who support gun control are the least well-informed about gun crime and gun-free zones. I think that piece turned out well, and that was the second study we did this week which got picked up in a news story by Fox News. A third news story at Fox News talked to me about the crime problems in Wilmington, Delaware.
I also had a letter this week in the Philadelphia Inquirer on the dangers of gun-free zones and an op-ed the previous week in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Another op-ed that I had this past Tuesday in the Washington Times discussed the implications of our work matching the number of voters who voted with the number of ballots cast. A vote fraud case from Philadelphia exemplifies how the data can catch vote fraud. In addition, we did interviews with radio stations from Los Angeles, Connecticut's WATR, Iowa's KSCJ, Colorado, and the Michigan Talk Network.
We have continued updating our list of someone legally carrying a gun stopping what likely would have been mass public shootings and updating our collection of entrainment TV's bias against gun here and here.
There is much more below. I think that we are making a difference, and I want you to know how your support makes all our work possible.
For information on activities at the Crime Prevention Research Center, here is a link to our “info deck.” Please view in full-screen mode and scroll using the arrow buttons at the bottom of the screen.
But we need help getting this message out. If you have friends you think might find our emails of interest, please encourage them to sign up by sending them the link here.
Thank you very much for all your support. We have some tough battles ahead, and I just want you to know how much your support has been greatly appreciated.
Massive errors in FBI’s Active Shooting Reports regarding cases where civilians stop attacks: Instead of 4.4%, the correct number is at least 34.4%. In 2021, it is at least 49.1%. Excluding gun-free zones, it averaged over 50%.
Biden'sCollege Loan Bailout is Sinful
By Rev. Michael P. Orsi |September 6, 2022 | 2:27pm EDT
In a recent Gospel reading, Jesus uses the occasion of dinner to make an important point about expectations and generosity. He observes that inviting wealthy guests to a banquet doesn’t really demonstrate true hospitality, because those guests are likely to return the favor, thus paying you back.
Better to invite people whose poverty or physical infirmities make it impossible for them to reciprocate. This shows you expect nothing in return. You get to be generous (amoral good), with no expectation of payback.
Jesus’ point highlights a principle that applies to many aspects of life: If you’re the one throwing the party, assume you’re the one paying the bill.
That lesson is especially relevant just now, as we debate Joe Biden’s proposal to “forgive” student loans.
It’s easy to reject Biden’s scheme as a transparent ploy to “buy” votes for Democrats from among the college educated.
I would also suggest that it’s a dandy way to pay back all those Antifa and BLM shock troops who spent their college years training to become street activists. After all, you want to make sure they remain loyal and ready to be mobilized in time for the next election.
Political concerns aside, however, let’s focus on the moral implications of reimbursement. There are three fundamental moral flaws that make this projected $240 billion program detrimental to the soul, and therefore sinful.
First, and most obvious, it heightens the sense of entitlement that’s already rampant in our society. Welfare and social-assistance programs, originally intended to provide a “safety net” for the poor, have grown into the primary source of income for a large and growing portion of our population.
One-time presidential candidate Mitt Romney took heat for his remark that “47 percent” of Americans are on some form of government subsidy. After the post-Covid stimulus checks, we can assume the current percentage is much higher.
Second (and a consequence of the first), Biden’s scheme robs people of the satisfaction that comes with paying off a debt. “Burning the mortgage” was once a valued symbol of accomplishment, a milestone in the life of a family, something of which to be proud.
If college becomes an entitlement, where’s the pride? For that matter, where’s the morally edifying sense of gratitude you might feel toward Mom and Dad for their sacrifices on behalf of your education, or to the donor of some scholarship for which you had to compete?
Third, in a very real sense, Biden’s “reimbursement” is a form of theft.
If enacted, this program wouldn’t just make all those loans go away. In actuality, it would shift responsibility for paying them off from the people who committed to these obligations — and received an education — to those who paid for their own college, those who never went to college at all, or (given the enormity of the plan and its indefinite ongoing extension) to generations yet unborn.
Now, you could argue that the cost of any government assistance is spread across the entire tax-paying population, and that’s true. But a far greater percentage of people are eligible to participate in other benefit programs.
When it comes to higher education, 80 percent of Americans don’t even have any student debt (60percent have no bachelor’s degree), leaving only 20 percent eligible for Biden’s reimbursement. And of those, most will be in higher-earning categories than the population at large.
So Biden’s plan would represent a huge redistribution of assets from the less affluent to the more affluent — like Robin Hood stealing in reverse.
The truth is you’re not entitled to much of anything in this life.
You do have God-given rights: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as the Constitution puts it. But along with those rights come responsibilities, among which is the moral obligation to pay off your debts, and not to expect somebody else to pick up the bill for you.
That’s called integrity. Biden’s scheme undermines it, along with undermining the integrity of our political system.
That’s detrimental to your individual soul, and to the soul of the nation.
A priest of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, Rev. Michael P. Orsi currently serves as parochial vicar at St. Agnes Parish in Naples, Florida. He is host of “Action for Life TV,” a weekly cable television series devoted to pro-life issues, and his writings appear in numerous publications and online journals. His TV show episodes can be viewed online at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyFbaLqUwPi08aHtlIR9R0g
John Fetterman’s Absurd Argument AgainstVoter ID
-September 3, 2022
Last week, Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidateDemocrat John Fetterman saidthat requiring a voter I.D. is “insidious and unnecessary,” “outrageous,”“illogical,” “unfair,” and “simply voter suppression.” He says that concernsabout vote fraud are a myth. But if concerns about vote fraud are a delusion,it is a delusion shared by virtually all other countries and by the vastmajority of American voters (79%).
All 47 European countries, except for parts of the United Kingdom,require a government-issued photo I.D. to vote. The U.K. has introducedlegislation to mandate I.D.s, which are already required in Northern Irelandand parts of England.
In some countries, even driver’s licenses aren’t acceptable formsof voter identity verification. The Czech Republic and Russia requirespassports or military-issued I.D.s. Most other countries use national identitycards to also verify citizenship. Still others, such as Colombia and ourneighbor, Mexico, require biometric voter I.D.s. Our other neighbor, Canada,also requires a government-issued photo voter I.D. to vote.
Despite Fetterman’s claims of voter suppression, requiring voterphoto I.D.s has increased voter turnout in other countries and U.S. states.Turnout in Mexico increased after sweeping reforms were enacted in 1991.Inconveniently, people have to go in person to apply for the I.D.s and thenpick them up at a later date. For some Mexicans, that means trips each way ofalmost 100 miles. Absentee ballots are completely banned.
You would think that voter turnout would plummet, but that’s notwhat happened. In the three presidential elections after Mexico’s reforms, 68%of eligible citizens voted compared to only 59% in the three elections beforethe changes.
When Georgia took the modeststep of requiring voters to include the last four digits of their SocialSecurity numbers on absentee ballots, the reform was met with corporateboycotts. Compare that with Europe, where35 of the 47 countries entirely ban absentee voting for citizens who residedomestically.
Another ten countries have absentee ballots, but voters can onlycollect them by going in person and presenting photo I.D. Most of those tencountries limit absentee voting to those who can provide third-partyverification of hospitalization or military service.
Even during the COVID lockdowns, unlike the U.S., Europe madefew exceptions. Poland allowed mail-in ballots for everyone in 2020 as aone-time measure, as did two cities in Russia. But Poland’s plan played outpoorly. Other countries saw these problems and were dissuaded from followingsuit. France made very limited exceptions, temporarily allowing sick or at-riskindividuals to vote absentee.
In all European and developed countries, strict chain of custodyregulations exist for ballot boxes. Ballot boxes being left out unattended at 3a.m., as we saw in Pennsylvania, is not something that we see outside of theUnited States. Other countries not only monitor ballot boxes at all times, butthey also check government-issued photo I.D.s to ensure who is putting ballotsin the boxes.
Although the rest of the developed world also debates how tobalance voter fraud preventionwith ease of voting, there is agreement across the political spectrum (e.g.,Canada and Mexico) that people need to verify their identities.
Some countries have learned their lesson the hard way. InNorthern Ireland, where a bitter sectarian conflict extended to hardballelectoral machinations, voter fraud was described as “widespread and systemic”on all sides. As a result, both Conservative and Labour governments institutedreforms. In 1985, conservative Margaret Thatcher passed legislation requiringvoters to identify themselves before being given a ballot.
After a 1998 government report found that medical cards wereused as I.D.s and could be “easily forged or applied for fraudulently,” theleft wing Labour government made voter identification cards much more difficultto forge and took other measures to prevent people from registering to votemultiple times. These anti-fraud provisions led to an immediate 11 percentreduction in total registrations.
Former IRA Belfast commander Brendan Hughes recounted to a groupof academics in their 2017 report how he had used a fleet of taxis to ferryfraudulent voters from one polling station to another, and how wigs, clothes,and glasses were used to alter voters’ appearances.