Monday, February 19, 2018


 Do you have soyboys in your life that are goading you into a fruitless discussion on your right to defend yourself? Have you been told to politely engage with uselss people in a parle on your rights? 
Just say no, and say yes to standards.
 Dems Call For Banning Pro-Gun Speech, 
Claim It’s Russian Propaganda
 Dems waste no time in trying to grab all the guns they can and also trying to label gun talk as hate speech!
 Red Alert! Sen. Feinstein Introduces Bill 
To Ban All Semi-Autos
 Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) on Friday praised Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D., Calif.) proposed assault weapons ban for its lengthy definition of “assault weapon.”
 Dems Announce Plans To Repeal 
The 2nd Amendment
 Alex Jones breaks down the democrat establishment's plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.
 Left Wants Your Guns After Fomenting Imperialist Massacres
 Alex Jones delves into the history of massacres and details the recent phenomenon of copycat school shootings. The hypocrisy that the left would want the average citizen's second Amendment rights after recently fomenting untold bloodshed in other countries is as devious as global governance gets.
 Anti-Gun Lobby Planning March For Life
 Owen Shroyer lays out the hypocrisy laced within the intentions of the left as they organize and plan a "March For Our Lives" rally in the wake of the Parkland, Florida school shooting.
 Globalists Use Mourning Children 
To Advance Political Agenda
 Owen Shroyer exposes how globalist forces have been attempting to use the kids who died in the Parkland, Florida school shooting to advance their own anti-gun agenda.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Here is yet another example of how Leftist “journalists” present news articles designed to manipulate the public into holding the views they want them to hold. The Baltimore Sun’s Jonathan M. Pitts calls Hamas-linked CAIR “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights group.” He adds that “Guandolo frequently cites the claim that CAIR itself supports terrorism, an assertion the group has repeatedly denied,” as if Guandolo is the one making that claim, when in fact it comes from the Justice Department.
Pitts didn’t see fit to inform his readers that CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. A CAIR operative recently called for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
If Pitts were a real journalist, he would have framed the story in exactly the opposite way: Hamas-Linked Group Tries to Force Naval Academy to Cancel Counterterror Expert. But no establishment media “reporters” would ever do that. Why not? Are they all paid off? Are they all so thoroughly indoctrinated?

“Muslim civil rights group asks Naval Academy alumni association to drop speaker,” by Jonathan M. Pitts, Baltimore Sun, February 16, 2018:
The nation’s largest Muslim civil rights group has called for the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association to cancel a scheduled speech by a Texas-based security professional it calls an “anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist.”
John Guandolo, a 1989 graduate of the Naval Academy, former FBI agent and frequent commentator on what he has described as “the Global Muslim Movement,” is slated to address a chapter of the alumni group at a luncheon in San Diego on Feb. 21.
The alumni group chapter describes Guandolo on its website as ”a powerful, dynamic and highly credible speaker.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations disagrees, calling Guandolo “an infamous Islamophobe” who has made unsupported claims against a wide range of Muslim-Americans and others.
It’s not the first time CAIR has opposed an appearance by Guandolo, a former U.S. Marine. In January, Trevecca Nazarene University in Tennessee canceled a scheduled presentation by Guandolo after CAIR voiced its opposition. The Amherst County Sheriff’s Office in Virginia did the same with a scheduled speech by Chris Gaubatz, a Guandolo employee.
Gaubatz is a vice president at Understanding The Threat, the Dallas-based company Guandolo founded to provide “strategic and operational threat-focused” training to law enforcement and others interested in countering what he calls as a network of militant jihadists in the U.S.
Guandolo frequently cites the claim that CAIR itself supports terrorism, an assertion the group has repeatedly denied. He could not immediately be reached for comment….


Karen Swallow Prior,
the gay-friendly animal rights activist and feminist is a research fellow for the ERLC 
and a contributor to The Gospel Coalition:
 "She might also – if she wasn’t a Marxist Manchurian candidate using Jesus as a way to inject the church with rabid feminism, animal liberation theology and general theological ugliness"
 Karen Swallow Prior, Ph.D., is a professor of English at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. She is the author of Booked: Literature in the Soul of Me (T.S. Poetry Press) and serves on the faith advisory council of the Humane Society of the United States. She and her husband, Roy, serve as deacons in their church and keepers of their 100-year-old homestead, where they live with their horses and dogs—and, more recently, Karen's mom and dad.
EXCERPT:  "Prior is a Research Fellow with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, a Senior Fellow with Liberty University's Center for Apologetics and Cultural Engagement, and a member of the Faith Advisory Council of the Humane Society of the United States."
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Karen Swallow Prior is a radical animal rights activist who believes animals go to Heaven because naming them gives them personhood, says she’s more upset over animal abuse than abortion, says abortion isn’t murder and calling it such is unchristlike, promoted erotic gay literature, and has attended gay fundraisers and uses gay-affirming language. She calls herself a feminist and attacks complementarianism as unbiblical.
Karen Swallow Prior is also a professor at Liberty University and a research fellow for the leftist Southern Baptist organization, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC). The ERLC has been striving ardently to push amnesty for illegal aliens, and its president, Russell Moore, serves on the globalist Evangelical Immigration Table, which is funded by George Soros. In fact, the ERLC has even been caught retweeting anti-borders globalist propaganda produced by Soros.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that Karen Swallow Prior (associated as she is with the ERLC), has been busy promoting an open-borders, globalist position on immigration that is disguised as Christian charitability. Of course, progressive-left faux-Christianity is always disguised as bleeding heart Christian charitability, so we should see it as of little surprise. Swallow Prior wrote an article for The News and Advance along with one of her students who is an illegal immigrant. The article guilt-shames Christians for not doing enough to help those in the country illegally, known as DREAMers.
The term, “DREAMer” comes from a 2001 piece of legislation and references the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (Dream) Act. The Act was never passed by Congress and the DREAMers (the minors it references) are not protected by any enacted law. In other words, “DREAMers” don’t really exist because the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act was never passed into law. The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was a highly unconstitutional executive action by President Obama that would prioritize enforcing immigration law on childhood arrivals last, thus effectively legislating by executive fiat what was never passed by Congress.
The ERLC’s Russell Moore, the Progressive Liberals as the Social Gospel Coalition, Karen Swallow Prior and their acolytes (all of which are in one way or another beneficiaries of George Soros) have been trying to convince evangelical Christians that it is our responsibility to overthrow existing law, embrace illegal immigration as a Christian duty, and allow the executive branch of government to go unchecked.
Prior wrote the article with Bruno Yupanqui, who is a high school English teacher and a student of Swallow Prior’s at Liberty University. Yupanqui is an illegal immigrant, meaning that he came here criminally, against the laws of the United States and he remains here illegally, against the laws of the United States. Yupanqui writes:
…I don’t know how much longer I have to continue defending my humanity. I don’t know how much more I have to clarify that I’m more than just a statistic, whether that’s used positively or negatively. I don’t know how much more I have to continue telling others that I am American.
Because I am.
I am American when I teach students about Hawthorne’s short stories, or brag about how much the English language has changed over its life, from old to middle to modern. I am American when I donate money to just causes or donate blood two or three times a year. I was American when I purchased my first car on July 4, 2013, and when I bought a newer model exactly three years later.
Sadly, Yupanqui doesn’t know what it means to be an American. He thinks teaching English literature, donating blood or spending money here makes someone an American. In fact, three things make a nation; laws, borders and language. Without laws, borders and a common language there is no such thing as a nation-state. Yupanqui seems to have a grasp of our common language, but he is in violation of both our laws and borders. He has not taken a loyalty oath to the United States Constitution. He has not taken a test on the United States Constitution, as is required of immigrants who apply for Citizenship legally. He continues:
I have always been American, but it was Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) that made it official, however temporary.
Actually, not. Yupanqui has not always been an American, is not an American now and never has been. I mean that in the most literal of ways. In no meaningful, legal, constitutional, or real way is he an American; he is a foreign national living illegally in America. There is a difference between the two. Furthermore, DACA made nothing – absolutely nothing – official. It didn’t make a single person a Citizen. It simply meant that a United States President, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, chose to use his power of the Justice Department to order them to make enforcing U.S. law when it comes to childhood arrivals the last departmental priority. It made literally nothing official, and that’s the problem.
Then, the feminist, Karen Swallow Prior, writes:
Furthermore, as a Christian, I cannot ignore my neighbor Bruno — nor his fellow DACA recipients. Bruno is not only my former student; he is my brother in Christ, one who has served at my own church. Protecting Dreamers aligns with what the Bible tells us: All immigrants are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and deserve to be treated with dignity. Whatever policies we think best to advocate, Christians must not fail in this.
Of course, we Christians don’t want to ignore “Bruno,” nor do we want to ignore the sin of violating a nation’s laws and borders. While Bruno may be a “brother in Christ” (we strongly question whether or not Swallow Prior is a rightful judge of such things, her own Christianity being greatly suspect), there is absolutely no reason why being made in the image of God (which can be said of every criminal on the planet) means that we have to provide a path to Citizenship for people who are here against our nations’ legal provisions.
Swallow Prior makes statements that – at face value – all Christians can agree with. All people are made in God’s image and all people are due dignity. But what Prior means it is somehow our Biblical responsibility to show dignity by giving people an undeserved Citizenship and ignore the rule of law. The documentedly wicked woman writes:
Bruno has shared with me that his experiences of being undocumented, of hearing others (including fellow Christians) speak degradingly and derisively of “illegals,” has made him wonder why he would be considered an enemy rather than a brother in the faith. He has wondered why those with whom he worshipped, prayed and broke bread would treat the foreigners in their land so differently than the Bible commands.
Ms. Swallow Prior would be better off taking time to explain to Bruno that he doesn’t have a right to be in a country illegally, that the sin of his parents (yes, it is “sin”) has put him in the predicament where he now is, and that he is not entitled to Citizenship in the United States of America. Furthermore, if Ms. Swallow Prior was an expert in the Bible rather than in fiction, she might be able to explain that in the Bible, invaders in the land of Israel would be met with deadly force, and that criminal invaders are different than innocent sojourners traveling through. She might also – if she wasn’t a Marxist Manchurian candidate using Jesus as a way to inject the church with rabid feminism, animal liberation theology and general theological ugliness – have explained to her student some basic Biblical texts on the rule of law and role of government, like Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2.
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POSTS ALSO: (Prior a supporter of Common Core)


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Christians have a theological view of the world that is given us by the Holy Scriptures. Our epistemology, that is what we believe is true and why, is predicated upon our conviction that the 66 books known as the ‘Holy Bible’ is inspired, inerrant, sufficient, and true. In the overarching worldview through which we see history, current events, and the world at large, Christians have room to accommodate the notion of evil. In fact, a primary doctrine of Christian theology for thousands of years has been the core belief that man is essentially bad. Mankind is a race of fallen creatures, suffering from the disease of wickedness which we have inherited from Adam. This negative anthropology is as much the heart of our religion as the solution to such a problem, who is Jesus. If we weren’t inherently bad, we wouldn’t need a Savior who is inherently good, who could reach into time and space and give us new natures that aren’t depraved.
Paul wrote it best in Romans 3, in which he painted an abysmal picture of the heart of man:
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave;
 they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
This view of mankind as essentially evil is in stark contrast to the collective wisdom of our modern age, which holds to John Locke’s tabula rasa theorem that man is born with a blank slate. Locke’s hypothesis was a departure from classical Christian thought that man is born evil. It is peculiar, then, that the American Founding Fathers considered so heavily the work of Locke when designing our system of governance, which is contrastingly formed upon the Christian notion that people are naturally evil.
The Federalist Papers 51 addressed the topic of human depravity in relation to government head-on, and the famous quotation is most often attributed to James Madison:
The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
Human nature, according to the Federalists, was inherently wicked. Because mankind does not consist of angels, it must have government. Because government is comprised of men, government must be limited, because even the governors are wicked. Therefore, the Founders saw fit to install a form of government in which the wickedness of man is checked and balanced at all levels, both for the governed and for the governors.
However, 21st Century American society has largely abandoned the negative Christian anthropology and adopted an indomitably positive anthropology that believes men – in general – are innately good. So then, when tragedies happen like what occurred this week at a Parkland, Florida public school, Christians and secularists have startlingly different perspectives on the problem and thus, the solution. Secularists have no theological framework to accommodate for the notion of evil. Postmodern in philosophy, secularists don’t believe in an absolute truth, and without absolute truth, there’s no such thing as immutable morality. With postmodern philosophy, what is “right” and “wrong” becomes little more than subjective opinion. Likewise, secularists have no theological framework to accommodate for evil because they are evolutionist in their biology. If there is no God, there is no Law Giver, and if there is no Law Giver, there is no law. And if there is no Law, there is no “evil,” in any real or meaningful sense. Therefore, both philosophically and biologically, secularists have to find different reasons for mass murder besides sheer wickedness. Christians, much more easily, call such behavior “wickedness, sin, depravity, or evil.”
For secularists, there must be some reason why this gunman murdered 17 innocent people other than that he is evil. Facts that have surfaced which lead one to believe the shooter was paranormally influenced by Satan, such as the Daily Mail reporting he heard the voices of demons or that he cut himself and banged his head against the wall, are dismissed by secularists as nothing but mental illness. Testimonies from classmates that he was “dark,” “evil,” or “demonic” are quickly overlooked as synonyms for “crazy.” And while the use of prescribed psychotropic drugs is a clear common denominator among almost all mass shooters – including this one – our secular society assumes that such prescriptions are the source of the problem and not a mere symptom of it.
For other secularists, the problem isn’t only mental illness but it is a crime-investigation system that is dysfunctional. The FBI was warned that he publicly stated on YouTube that he was going to be a school shooter, and they didn’t forward the concern on to the local field office that could investigate further. His Instagram account was a vocal cry for help. He conducted training exercises with a supposed White Nationalist group. He bragged about hurting animals. He had taken ammunition and other contraband to school. He wasn’t even allowed to school with a backpack because of the obviousness of his threats. He was abusive to his girlfriend. He was expelled for fighting. He was a “Peeping Tom,” a stalker, and stopped his mental health treatment. He has a sibling who has suffered from mental illness. If someone could compile a list of warning signs, the gunman’s page would set a record for “should have seen this coming.” In fact, his classmates are on record as vocally supposing it was him even during the shooting. For anyone paying attention to the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, they might include “law enforcement incompetency” as another reason why this tragedy occurred.
For even more secularists, the problem is the easy access to firearms. Like so many other mass shooters, this gunman chose as his weapon the most widely-owned rifle in America, the AR-15. It is a black, scary, and ominous looking rifle. For many, it doesn’t matter that this rifle has the same functionality as any semi-automatic rifle that is commonplace in more than forty million homes. It doesn’t matter, to many, that this carbine has no better functionality to kill than most hunting rifles. To those secularists, the problem isn’t that the gunman was evil; it’s that the gun itself was evil. Oddly enough, even a secular society can see evil within inanimate objects, even though they aren’t capable of seeing evil within the hearts of men. This is because for secularists, there really is no “heart” at all in an evolutionary view of humanity; there is only the brain, and that brain isn’t evil (because evil requires a good, and good is subjective), but it must be mentally ill. So then, Parkland Florida students and certain members of the community are shouting “shame on you” to legislators for not doing more to curb Second Amendment freedoms because to them, it’s the guns that are the problem.
However, for Christians, we recognize that sometimes the problems in someone’s head are nothing but an extension of the problems in someone’s heart. We recognize that some people are wicked, and they don’t shoot up innocent people because they’re driven to by madness, but by sheer hatred. More often than not, these mass murderers commit their crimes with cold calculation and forethought in a way that a truly mentally ill person is incapable. Their minds are functioning at high capacity; it is their soul that is ill.
Likewise, Christians recognize that if one evil man is a danger, then a hundred wicked men are even worse. We recognize that a society without a means to protect itself from a government that is more wicked than this mass murderer, it will lead to only more carnage but on a much more massive scale. We recognize that the words of Madison are still true, that it’s because of the evil of human nature that the Citizenry must always be prepared to curtail the power of a government that is comprised of men, who from time to time are capable of extreme wickedness. We, as Christians, are not blind to world history, in which an unarmed Citizenry has been murdered far more efficiently and methodically than this gunman could ever have imagined. This man’s offense pales in comparison to that of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Pasha, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Yahya Kahn and those mass murders conducted by countless warlords and despots even today, in smaller numbers and more easily overlooked because of their unfortunate impertinence to American life, but far more orderly and successful than any school shooting in the United States. We believe that evil on a small scale should not overshadow the possibility of evil on a large scale, perhaps even conducted by a legally constituted government.
It is the negative Christian anthropology that allows us to blame certain actions upon the not-overly-simplistic reality of evil that makes us unwilling to give up our only earthly defense against it, which is the use of force. Because we recognize that there will always be wolves, we refuse to turn ourselves into unarmed sheep. For the secularist who believes ultimately that the government is the closest thing to God in the world, they hold out optimistic hope that with enough laws and government control, tragedies will not occur. In doing so, they tragically overlook the reality that more times than not, the government itself can be a far greater evil. We Christians believe that evil will be in this world until Jesus comes in his fullness, and until then, we have to be realists and prepare ourselves to confront it.
From a Christian worldview, the ownership of weapons is a necessary protection against evil. While it is true that Jesus told Peter to put away His sword because he must be crucified for the sins of the world (Matthew 26:52), he told them that very night to buy a sword in advance of their coming persecution (Luke 22:36). While Jesus’ exhortation that we turn the cheek from insult (Matthew 5:39) has been taken by pacifists (defined by JD’s dictionary as “those who let others die for their lives and liberties”) to be the locus classicus text for passive non-resistance, a robust theology of persecution reveals that the thrice-holy God has indeed called his people to self-defense, protection of the innocent through violent means, and promotion of the general welfare through war. There is no logical reason to believe that God’s call to arms throughout Scripture has been abrogated in this current dispensation, for God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and his Word is immutable (Hebrews 6:17). Furthermore, the call to martyrdom that we see repeated throughout the New Testament does not imply that our death for the sake of the cross be a peaceful surrendering of ourselves over to injustice or voluntary death.
A thorough analysis of God’s divine hand guiding the body-politic of ancient Israel reveals an understood right of self-defense. We are to deliver the innocent from those that seek them harm (Proverbs 8:4). While murder is clearly prohibited (Leviticus 24:16-17), the taking of a murderer’s life is not prohibited and neither is it murder (Genesis 9:6). The qualifying distinctions between killing and murder are found in places like Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. In the commonwealth laws of Israel, delivered by God, one had the right to take the life of one breaking into their home in the night (Exodus 22:2). The general equity of this Old Testament law (to use words from the London Baptist and Westminister Confession) – that is, what is moral, universal and perpetual in nature – is that it is morally acceptable to take the life of one who will harm the innocent.
Even though our enemies are not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), the same is true for the Israelites as they were rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, when they were instructed to arm themselves for potential conflict (Nehemiah 4:17). The realization of spiritual enemies did not negate the reality that there might be some people in need of a good killing, and God’s people were to be prepared to fight back. When Haman’s plans went awry because of Esther’s obedience, God’s people were instructed to kill those who sought their lives (Esther 9:2-5). When Abraham’s family was in jeopardy, he raised an army and killed their captors (Genesis 14:14-18) and was later blessed by God for that action.
David’s hands were taught to operate a lethal weapon by God (Psalm 18:24). And while we do not trust in our weapons, but in God (Psalm 44:7), this presupposes the ownership of weapons. On any given day, I may carry a number of different lethal weapons, but my trust is in God that they will fire properly, hit their target, or in God’s kind providence, I’ll find their use unnecessary.
Although we are, indeed, sheep sent out to wolves, the Good Shepherd never intended and neither does he ask us to provide a pacifistic buffet of mutton for any wolf that would seek to devour us.
So then, it is because of these deep-seeded differences in theological worldviews that we Christians refuse to be disarmed. We recognize that evil people will always do evil things and that they will find ways (guns or not) to accomplish such things. So then, recognizing the reality of evil, we’ve chosen the best course of action to repel that evil in the temporal realm; chiefly, this means having the right to keep and bear arms, a right our Constitution says, “Shall not be infringed.”

Sunday, February 18, 2018


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 COLUMBUS, Ohio — The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio (ACLU), two 
local branches of Planned Parenthood and several other abortion facilities have 
filed a lawsuit to challenge a new Ohio law that prohibits mothers from killing 
their unborn child simply because he or she has been diagnosed with Down 
“Plaintiffs challenge H.B. 214 because it undermines their mission to honor and support the decisions their patients make, whether it is to continue or to end a pregnancy,” the suit asserts.
The legal challenge suggests that the “right decision”—life or death—is different for each mother.
“For many families, the right decision is to continue the pregnancy and parent a child with Down syndrome; for some, it is to give birth and place the child for adoption; and for others, it is abortion,” it claims.

“In the case of patients who have received a positive test for fetal Down syndrome, and who choose not to continue the pregnancy, H.B. 214 prevents Plaintiffs from providing nonjudgmental, medically appropriate care. H.B. 214 wrests from those patients and their families the ability to decide what is right for them.”
Gov. John Kasich signed the bill in December, two days after the measure passed in the Senate. It is set to become law on March 23. The ACLU and the abortion facilities it represents are seeking an injunction against the legislation, which carries penalties including the revocation of the abortionists’ medical license.
“Being forced to continue a pregnancy against her will can pose a risk to a woman’s physical, mental, and emotional health, and even her life, as well as to the stability and wellbeing of her family, including her existing children,” the groups claim in the complaint.

“Plaintiffs wish to continue providing safe and nonjudgmental abortion care to patients who have knowingly and voluntarily decided to terminate their pregnancies, regardless of the particular reason for the decision,” it states.
Read the lawsuit in full here.

As previously reported, the baby food company Gerber just announced this month that it had chosen Lucas Warren, a child with Down syndrome, to be its spokesbaby for 2018.
“He may have Down syndrome, but he’s always Lucas first,” Lucas’ mother Cortney outlined to TODAY Parents. “He’s got an awesome personality and he goes through the milestones of every child. … We’re hoping when he grows up and looks back on this, he’ll be proud of himself and not ashamed of his disability.”
“We’re hoping this will impact everyone—that it will shed a little bit of light on the special needs community and help more individuals with special needs be accepted and not limited,” her husband Jason also remarked. “They have the potential to change the world, just like everybody else.”
However, in December, as the vote on Ohio’s H.B. 214 went forward, a number of abortion advocates assembled in a line so that their t-shirts spelled out “stop the bans.” Pro-life groups said that Down syndrome babies shouldn’t be killed just because of who they are.
“Every Ohioan deserves the right to life, no matter how many chromosomes they have,” remarked Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life.
Some pro-life Americans believe that laws should not solely apply to children with disabilities, as they consequently allow the murder of healthy children to legally continue.

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
‘Guns,’ ‘depression,’ ‘trouble’ cited – but key information not yet disclosed
Feb. 15th, 2018
by David Kupelian

Here we go again. A horrific mass shooting occurs. Everyone is in shock and grief. Democrats blame guns and Republicans. Pundits urge the public, “If you see something, say something.” And everyone asks, “Why?”
As information about the perpetrator emerges, a relative confides to a newspaper that the “troubled youth” who committed the mass murder was on psychiatric medications – you know, those powerful, little understood, mind-altering drugs with fearsome side effects including “suicidal ideation” and even “homicidal ideation.”
Yet the predictable response from the press is always the same – not only a total lack of curiosity, but disdain for any who ask the question, as though connecting psychiatric meds to mass shootings is pursuing a “conspiracy theory.”
Here’s a good way to tell whether or not something is a conspiracy theory: If it’s true, it’s not a conspiracy theory.
In the case of Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old Florida mass-shooter, his mother’s sister, Barbara Kumbatovich, told the Miami Herald that she believed Cruz was on medication to deal with his emotional fragility.
This is strikingly similar to reports right after the 2013 school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, when Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of shooter Adam Lanza and his mother, were interviewed on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: “I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldn’t deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life.” And here,Tambascio tells ABC News, “I knew he was on medication, but that’s all I know.”
But there was little journalistic curiosity or follow-up, and one wonders whether that will be the case this time around.
But, you may well be asking, why is the issue of psychiatric medications even important?
Fact: A disturbing number of perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications. A few of the most high-profile examples, out of many others, include:
  • Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s one in 25 – developed mania,a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.
  • Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, California, in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.
  • Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Oregon, and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.
  • In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Illinois, killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.
  • In Paducah, Kentucky, in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.
  • In 2005, 16-year-old Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.
  • In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Kentucky, killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.
  • Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”
  • John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.
  • Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug. Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.
  • One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability he’d ever known in his turbulent life. “When I was lying in my bed that night,” he testified, “I couldn’t sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them.” Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them. “I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger,” he recalled. “Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you can’t do anything to stop it.”Pittman’s lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of “involuntary intoxication,” since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders.
Paxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others. The preceding examples are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes – there are many others.
Whether we like to admit it or not, it is undeniable that when certain people living on the edge of sanity take psychiatric medications, those drugs can – and occasionally do – push them over the edge into violent madness. Remember, every single SSRI antidepressant sold in the United States of America today, no matter what brand or manufacturer, bears a “black box” FDA warning label – the government’s most serious drug warning – of “increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24.” Common sense tells us that where there are suicidal thoughts – especially in a very, very angry person – homicidal thoughts may not be far behind. Indeed, the mass shooters we are describing often take their own lives when the police show up, having planned their suicide ahead of time.
Never lost a lawsuit
Pharmaceutical manufacturers are understandably nervous about publicity connecting their highly lucrative drugs to murderous violence, which may be why we rarely if ever hear any confirmation to those first-day reports from grief-stricken relatives who confide to journalists that the perpetrator was taking psychiatric drugs. After all, who are by far the biggest sponsors of TV news? Pharmaceutical companies, and they don’t want any free publicity of this sort.
The truth is, to avoid costly settlements and public relations catastrophes – such as when GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay millions of dollars to the family of 60-year-old Donald Schell who murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil – drug companies’ legal teams have quietly and skillfully settled hundreds of cases out-of-court, shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to plaintiffs. Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret – and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit.
Which brings us back to the key question: When are we going to get official confirmation as to whether Nikolas Cruz, like so many other mass shooters, had been taking psychiatric drugs?
Websites Links

Spring Unregistered Baptist Fellowship Meeting
March 19 – 20, 2018
Victory Baptist Church
Okeechobee, Florida
Johnny Jarriel, Host Pastor

National UBF Meeting: Oct. 15-17, 2018
Victory Baptist Church
Paducah, KY
Homer Fletcher, Host Pastor
(270) 559-9105


 Sessions Calls For Immediate Review Of FBI

 Proof FBI Ignored Cruz Warnings 
To Investigate Russia
 FBI Ignored Cruz Warning To Investigate Russia
 Owen Shroyer provides evidence of the FBI's obtaining of dozens of warnings and crime tips about Nikolas Cruz prior to his deadly shooting rampage, yet the Bureau chose to investigate Russia.
 FBI Knew Nikolas Cruz Was A Threat





republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
U.S.A.-( “Enough is enough!” “This can't go on!” “This has to stop!”
These were among the comments that came through the blizzard of commentary after the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County. We have heard these words before.
Unfortunately, such atrocities are not going to stop. For the ingredients that produce such slaughters are present and abundant in American society.
And what can stop a man full of hate, who has ceased to care about his life and is willing to end it, from getting a weapon in a country of 300 million guns and killing as many as he can in a public place before the police arrive?
An act of “absolute pure evil,” said Gov. Rick Scott, of the atrocity that took 17 lives and left a dozen more wounded. And evil is the right word.
While this massacre may be a product of mental illness, it is surely a product of moral depravity. For this was premeditated and plotted, done in copycat style to the mass killings to which this country has become all too accustomed.
Nikolas Cruz thought this through. He knew it was Valentine's Day. He brought his fully loaded AR-15 with extra magazines and smoke grenades to the school that had expelled him. He set off a fire alarm, knowing it would bring students rushing into crowded halls where they would be easy to kill. He then escaped by mixing in with fleeing students.
The first ingredient then was an icy indifference toward human life and a willingness to slaughter former fellow students to deliver payback for whatever it was Cruz believed had been done to him at Douglas High.
In his case, the conscience was dead, or was buried beneath hatred, rage or resentment at those succeeding where he had failed. He had been rejected, cast aside, expelled. This would be his revenge, and it would be something for Douglas High and the nation to see — and never forget.
Indeed, it seems a common denominator of the atrocities to which we have been witness in recent years is that the perpetrators are nobodies who wish to die as somebodies.
If a sense of grievance against those perceived to have injured them is the goad that drives misfits like Cruz to mass murder, the magnet that draws them to it is infamy. Infamy is their shortcut to immortality.
From the killings in Columbine to Dylann Roof's murder of black parishioners at the Charleston Church, from the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando to the slaughter of first-graders in Newtown, to Las Vegas last October where Stephen Paddock, firing from an upper floor of the Mandalay Bay, shot dead 58 people and wounded hundreds at a country music festival — these atrocities enter the social and cultural history of the nation. And those who carry them out achieve a recognition few Americans ever know. Charles Whitman, shooting 47 people from that Texas tower in 1966, is the original model.
Evil has its own hierarchy of rewards. Perhaps the most famous man of the 20th century was Hitler, with Stalin and Mao among his leading rivals.
Some of these individuals who seek to “go out” this way take their own lives when the responders arrive, or they commit “suicide by cop” and end their lives in a shootout. Others, Cruz among them, prefer to star in court, so the world can see who they are. And the commentators and TV cameras will again give them what they crave: massive publicity.
And we can't change this. As soon as the story broke, the cameras came running, and we watched another staging of the familiar drama — the patrol cars, cops in body armor, ambulances, students running in panic or walking in line, talking TV heads demanding to know why the cowards in Congress won't vote to outlaw AR-15s.
Yet, among the reasons gun-owners prize the AR-15 is that, not only in movies and TV shows is it the hero's — and the villain's — weapon of choice, but in real life, these are the kinds of rifles carried by the America's most-admired warriors.

They are the modern version of muskets over the fireplace.

Another factor helps to explain what happened Wednesday: We are a formerly Christian society in an advanced state of decomposition.
Nikolas Cruz was a product of broken families. He was adopted. Both adoptive parents had died. Where did he get his ideas of right and wrong, good and evil? Before the Death of God and repeal of the Ten Commandments, in those dark old days, the 1950s, atrocities common now were almost nonexistent.
One imagines Nikolas sitting alone, watching coverage of the Las Vegas shooting, and thinking, “Why not? What have I got to lose? If this life is so miserable and unlikely to get better, why not go out, spectacularly, like that? If I did, they would remember who I was and what I did for the rest of their lives.”
And, so, regrettably, we shall.

About Patrick J. BuchananPat Buchanan
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.
 FPC Statement Regarding Douglas High School Shooting
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
SACRAMENTO, CA-( Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement concerning yesterday’s tragic shooting of innocent people at a Florida high school:
We grieve for our fallen American brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters who lost their lives at the hands of an evil killer in yesterday’s horrific mass murder at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims, the community of Parkland, Florida, and all those affected by this horrific and senseless murder of innocent people.
It is both heartbreaking and infuriating to see that, once again, opportunistic politicians and the craven gun control lobbyists who pay them would rather leverage this tragedy to push their dangerous agenda than to take meaningful steps to protect America’s students and teachers. But the crimson thread in attacks on our school campuses is not the methodology or motive of the killers, but the lack of truly effective security measures and an irrational reliance on mythical “gun-free zones” to keep armed violent criminals out.
Time and time again, we see that evil and insane people intent on causing death, injury, and chaos simply ignore the thousands of federal, state, and local criminal laws that prohibit acts like murder, terrorism, assault, and illegally carrying guns onto school grounds—and wreak havoc until they voluntarily end their attack, commit suicide, or are stopped by a law-abiding hero….usually one that is armed.
Yet, instead of deploying serious and effective safety measures at our schools, the too-common refrain of the anti-gun fetishists is to attack the rights of law-abiding people. America’s legislative buildings, courthouses, airports, and government offices are protected by robust physical security measures, controlled ingress, and weapon detection devices—backstopped, just in case, by law-abiding people with firearms. But too many schools have little-to-no real ability to deter, repel, or quickly stop a violent attacker before innocent lives are lost. Are our children and teachers less worthy of effective security measures than our legislators, judges, and government agency workers? We think not.
Earlier today, President Donald Trump said that “no child, no teacher should ever be in danger in an American school.” We agree. But until our state and local governments enact laws that actually protect our children and teachers with real physical security barriers, controlled access to school grounds, and armed quick-response officers on every campus, our children and the people entrusted to care for them at places of learning will remain at risk.
As we have said before, law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for evil or insane killers who use firearms in their immoral acts, just as peaceable Muslims are not responsible for radical Islamic terrorists flying planes into our buildings and killing thousands, slaying hundreds in bomb blasts, or even running over dozens with vehicles. We reject the idea that the American people and our fundamental human right to keep and bear arms for self-defense must suffer for the crimes of the wicked.
The right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech and the right to due process, is a bright-line rule that separates the people from tyranny and servitude. Our nation’s founders, and their Reconstruction-era counterparts, wisely took great pains to protect fundamental rights like those contained in the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments in the very textual threads of our social fabric—not because they are benign, but because they are both inherently dangerous and necessary to an enduring free Republic.
Firearms Policy Coalition demands that state and local governments immediately implement serious and robust physical security measures at our schools. FPC will continue fighting to defend and advance the fundamental human right to keep and bear arms for self-defense inside and outside our homes.

About the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition ( is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
FPC Statement Regarding Douglas High School Shooting


In this new edition of the Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie focuses on Joy Behar Mocks Jesus (But Not Mohammed), reflecting on where cowardice, hatred and darkness meet.
Don’t miss it!
Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Twitter: @JamieGlazov.
Please donate through our Pay Pal account to help The Glazov Gang keep going. Thank you!