Thursday, November 1, 2018






republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and 
research purposes:
In an effort to protect Christianity in Italy:
Lombardy’s populist League-led local government has blocked plans to turn an old chapel into a mosque after an Islamic group outbid Christians at the auction of a church in Bergamo, northern Italy.
Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini named Islam as “one of the greatest threats to Italy” and stated months ago:
Centuries of history are at risk of disappearing if Islamisation, which has been underestimated until now, finally wins.
Before the rise of Salvini’s “populist” movement, a scenario was reported two years ago that demonstrated the direction that Italy was taking with respect to mass migration. Christians at the Church of St. Anthony in Ventimiglia were ordered to “pray in silence” by the Catholic charity Caritas, which  facilitates mass migration to Europe, so as not to disturb Muslim migrants who were living there. The faithful were told by Caritas that they could not recite the rosary. The organization even boasted “that it contributes to and seeks to influence European Union (EU) asylum policies.”

“Italy: Populists Block Muslim Group’s Bid to Turn Chapel into Mosque,” by Virginia Hale, Breitbart, October 30, 2018:
Lombardy’s populist League-led local government has blocked plans to turn an old chapel into a mosque after an Islamic group outbid Christians at the auction of a church in Bergamo, northern Italy.
The region’s president, Attilio Fontana, announced at the weekend that the council had utilised a 2004 law which allows regional government to halt a sale in the name of safeguarding cultural sites.
According to local media, the auction for the former hospital chapel was won by the Muslim Association of Bergamo which sought to turn the building into another mosque in the city after outbidding the Romanian Orthodox Church, which had used the site for worship since 2015.
Lombardy “will exercise our right of preemption and there will be no room for an appeal” regarding the sale of the church, said Fontana, stating that the council intends to “protect” Christianity in Italy.
“I would never have put a church up for sale and I am amazed that the hospital management did not understand how sensitive this issue was,” the League politician said.
“I have already contacted Father Gheorghe Valescu, head of the Romanian Orthodox community in Bergamo, to reassure him and illustrate the actions that are being taken to ensure the community does not lose their place of worship,” added Fontana.
League leader Matteo Salvini, who has served as Italian Interior Minister since June, had vowed ahead of national elections earlier this year his party would “put a stop to any irregular or abusive Islamic presence in Italy”,….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and 
research purposes:
It is understandable that the Islamic State would want to murder the 
most prominent exponent of Christianity, but in this the jihadis are 
being short-sighted. Pope Francis and the Catholic Church are among 
their best and most useful friends. Ahmed al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of 
Cairo’s al-Azhar, thanked Pope Francis for his “defense of Islam against 
the accusation of violence and terrorism.”
Francis is not just a defender of Islam, but a defender of the Sharia death penalty for blasphemy: after Islamic jihadists murdered the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists who had drawn Muhammad, Francis obliquely justified the murders by saying that “it is true that you must not react violently, but although we are good friends if [an aide] says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch, it’s normal. You can’t make a toy out of the religions of others. These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits.”
So for the Pope, murdering people for violating Sharia blasphemy laws is “normal,” and it isn’t terrorism for “Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist,” he said in a speech. “There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalizations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia.”
So there is no Islamic terrorism, but if you engage in “intolerant generalizations,” you can “expect a punch.” The Pope, like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, apparently thinks that the problem is not jihad terror, but non-Muslims talking about jihad terror; Muslims would be peaceful if non-Muslims would simply censor themselves and self-impose Sharia blasphemy restrictions regarding criticism of Islam.
For Pope Francis has no patience with those who discuss such matters: “I don’t like to talk about Islamic violence, because every day, when I read the newspaper, I see violence.” He said, according to Crux, that “when he reads the newspaper, he reads about an Italian who kills his fiancĂ© or his mother in law.” The pontiff added: “They are baptized Catholics. They are violent Catholics.” He said that if he spoke about “Islamic violence,” then he would have to speak about “Catholic violence” as well.
That comparison made no sense, for Italian Catholics who killed their fiancĂ©s or mothers in law were not acting in accord with the teachings of their religion, while the Qur’an and Islamic teaching contain numerous exhortations to violence.
But Pope Francis, defender of Islam, cannot concern himself with such minutiae. Nor does he appear to be particularly concerned about the fact that all his false statements about the motivating ideology behind the massive Muslim persecution of Christians over the last few years only enables and abets that persecution, for if that ideology is not identified and confronted, it will continue to flourish.
“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

“ISIS in threat to assassinate POPE – ‘Don’t think you are safe from attack,'” by Alahna Kindred, Express, October 31, 2018:
AN ISIS-supporting media group has threatened to assassinate the Pope – a warning which has sparked fears of violence against the Vatican and Catholic Church.
Extremist media group Al-Abd Al-Faqir has twice issued threats within the last week in a push for violence during the upcoming Christmas holiday season.
The media group released online images threatening grenade attacks against the Pope.
In the most recent depiction, a photo of Pope Francis from his visit to Auschwitz in 2016 is used.
A gunman has his weapon pointed at the Pope with while wearing an ISIS wristband.
The text “Don’t think you are away from our attacks” in on the image.
Last year, another pro-ISIS group depicted a van full of weapons heading towards the Vatican and vowing “Christmas blood”.
Wafa Media foundation also released an image “beheading” Pope Francis and another one of a lone jihadist with a backpack, grenade and rile at St Peter’s Square.
The message on the image told jihadists that “the crusaders’ feast is approaching”.
It continued without punctuation: “Their convoys will crowd itself in front of you prepare and plan for them show them the meaning of terrorism kill them and do not hold back with your blood the reward is paradise and let them know that you are from an ummah [Muslim community] where mountains bow down to we will not forget our revenge for every drop of blood that they have shed we will not exclude the young, elderly or women you are all in the crosshairs of our arrows and what is about to come is more even worse.”…


Published on Oct 31, 2018
"Modern day fairy tales begin with once I am elected." Project Veritas Action Fund has released undercover video from Florida gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum's campaign, revealing his election strategy includes making empty promises to voters. • Empty Promises Exposed: "Fairy tales in the modern day begin with 'once I am elected.'" • Deceiving Voters: "None of the programs that people are hoping for would happen" but "That's not for [voters] to know." • Candidate's True Politics: "Gillum is a Progressive" and "He is a part of the crazy, crazy, crazies." • Election Strategy: "You whip 'em up. The poor, the middle income. You have to whip them up into a frenzy in order for them to vote." • Secret Gun Control Agenda Revealed: "three day waiting period for everybody," "small steps" to ban assault rifles; "I don't think he can say it [be]cause he's trying to get the moderates" • Florida is a "F***ed up," "cracker state," "you have to appeal to white guilt"

 O'Keefe Asks Gillum Staffer Why “it’s not for [voters] to know” “fairy tale” Policies Won’t Happen
 Andrew Gillum Has Jewish Journalist Laura Loomer Thrown Out Of Synagogue
 MUST WATCH: October 25th in Plantation, FL at Temple Kol Ami, Andrew Gillum had Conservative Investigative Journalist Laura Loomer, A JEWISH WOMAN forcibly removed from the SYNAGOGUE while she was peacefully waiting for the event to begin.
Gillum Staffer Caught Saying FL is an “F***ed Up Cracker State”!!!
Report by Dr. Steve Turley
 Democrat Andrew Gillum has strong ties to several radical left-wing groups
 Florida's Democrat gubernatorial candidate is once again coming under fire for his past affiliations with left-wing activist groups. One America's Kara McKinney explains.
Gillum Accuses Ron DeSantis of Anti-Semitism Over David Horowitz

A shameless leftist liar and hack hits a new low. 



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and 
research purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Andrew Gillum, the Bernie candidate aspiring to run Florida, has a compelling platform. Racism.
Gillum isn’t saying he’s a racist. Everyone else is a racist. And I do mean everyone.
If you call Andrew Gillum “Andrew” instead of Mayor Gillum (Andy currently runs Tallahassee, a city with the highest crime rate in Florida), you’re a racist.
“I'm a sitting mayor and he had the nerve to address me only as Andrew,” Gillum had whined about former Rep. Ron DeSantis, his Republican opponent, at a black college.
It was a debate and Gillum had actually been standing at the time. Also Andrew had compared Ron to a dog and found two hundred different ways to accuse Ron of racism.
“I wanted to correct him, y’all, but I didn’t want to be petty,” he told students.
Good thing, Andrew chose not to be petty about it. When you’re a standing mayor of a city with a higher murder rate than Miami, you’ve gotta think big, y’all.
Just wait until you see what happens to those Floridians sent to the swamp gulags for failing to genuflect before Governor Gillum when the gubernatorial limo swings by.
Also if you pay attention to Gillum’s lies about corruption in an FBI investigation, you’re a racist.
“They’ve wanted the people of this state to believe somehow," Gillum ranted. "I’m unethical, participated in illegal and illicit activity. I mean, you name it. The goal is obviously to use my candidacy as a way to reinforce, frankly, stereotypes about black men.”
The FBI was just using its investigation to reinforce stereotypes about black men. That explains the Hamilton tickets.
But Andrew Gillum, I’m sorry, Mayor Andrew Gillum, has only the highest evidentiary standards when accusing his political opponents of racism.
"I'm not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist," Gillum once said. "I'm simply saying the racists believe he’s a racist."
And the crooks allegedly believed that Andy was a crook. So by his own standards, he’s a criminal.
But whatever the FBI investigation finds, Mayor Andy continues breaking new ground in racist shamelessness. After the mass shooting of Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue, Gillum decided to shake up his game a little bit by accusing Rep. Ron DeSantis of racism… and anti-Semitism.
On The Daily Show, Andrew accused his Republican opponent of giving “too much harbor to racists and xenophobes and anti-Semites.”
When you give too much harbor to racists, where is everyone else going to dock their yachts?
As evidence of the racist and anti-Semitic harbor crisis, Gillum mentioned that Ron DeSantis had “spoken at conferences with them.”
The conferences in question would be the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend events. The Washington Post and other media outlets had tried and failed to slur DeSantis as a racist for attending Freedom Center events alongside African-American speakers.
But accusing DeSantis of anti-Semitism for appearing at a conference organized by David Horowitz, a Jewish man, is ridiculous even by Gillum’s ludicrous criteria for accusing other people of bigotry.
Then, because Andrew Gillum can only top ridiculous accusations of racism with more ridiculous accusations of racism, he went on to falsely claim that his opponent had, “authored a book justifying slavery”.
The book was, “Dreams From Our Founding Fathers: First Principles in the Age of Obama”, which in no way, shape or form justifies slavery. Instead it explained the difficult compromises that the Founders had to make at the early onset of the country.
“For anti-slavery delegates like Hamilton and Franklin, abolition of slavery would be a moot point if a failure to erect a functioning government snuffed out the ideals of the American Revolution in their infancy; then, the future of all Americans, the free as well as the slave, would eventually be as serfs to a despotic government,” DeSantis wrote.
That’s not a justification of slavery. It explains why opponents of slavery decided not to break up the United States over it.
It’s a history book. A text which, like the dictionary, the duly elected ruler of a place where 1 in 5 adults struggles with reading, Hizzoner appears to be woefully unfamiliar with.
But, according to Andrew, history is also racist, as is the corruption investigation hanging over his head and referring to a standing mayor of a hellhole by his first name, instead of by his full mayoral title.
Then, because shame and Gillum haven’t been on speaking terms since 1982, he went right back to the primal smear.
After winning the GOP primary, DeSantis had gone on FOX News and warned voters that ,"The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state.”
The media and Gillum claimed that this was a covert way of accusing him of being a monkey, rather than a commonplace figure of speech.
At the time, Gillium grumped, “I’m not going to go down in the gutter.” Sitting in a restaurant opposite Trevor Noah, the sitting mayor of Tallahassee decided that the gutter looked pretty good after all.
“But I mean ‘monkey around,’ right? ‘Monkey business.’ ‘Monkey it up.’ I mean this guy is Harvard- and Yale-educated. He could come up with a better phrase," Gillum insinuated. “He said exactly what he meant to say. He communicated exactly what he wanted to say to his voters, to his constituents, and then, when he got called on it, he tried to run from it."
As usual Gillum is projecting. He’s the one who is communicating exactly what he wants to say to the voters before running away from it. He had originally claimed that DeSantis wasn’t a racist, but that “the racists believe he’s a racist.”
Apparently one of those racists is Gillium.
If you believe Andrew Gillium, “monkey this up”, “monkey business” and “monkey around” are all the signature phrases of racists. If you doubt that Ronald Reagan was a bigot, just consider his starring role in Bedtime for Bonzo (1951) opposite a chimp. And Clint Eastwood’s conservative turn could have been read in his appearance in Every Which Way but Loose (1978) opposite an orangutan.
Reading racism into everything isn’t a sign of critical awareness. It means you’ve failed the Rorschach test and have no career options except campus agitator, as a field organizer for a leftist group fighting American “genocide”, or as the lying mayor of Tallahassee.
But Andrew Gillium wasn’t just satisfied with false accusations of racism, he decided to appropriate the pain and grief of the Jewish community in yet another false accusation, this time that of anti-Semitism.
Accusing Ron DeSantis of being anti-Semitic because he attended conferences organized by a Jewish man isn’t just a lie; it shows how shameless and ignorant Andrew Gillium’s accusations of bigotry are.
There is no depth to which he will not sink. No low that Andy will not descend to further his own career.
After using false accusations of racism to rally black voters, he’s now trying to use false accusations of anti-Semitism in a state with a large Jewish population. And it won’t matter to the media, which has helped spread his lies with its fake news, that the man he’s accusing of anti-Semitism is Jewish.
And yet, what does it say that about a movement that the man some Democrats are preemptively touting as vice presidential timber isn’t running on much except false accusations of racism?
That, and accusing one of the conservative movement’s most prominent Jews of anti-Semitism.


 'Trump ain't playin': Video Shows Hundreds of Military Vehicles Being Shipped to Border
 Footage of train heading southbound reportedly captured in Arizona
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and 
research purposes:
A video posted to Twitter Tuesday showed a shipment of hundreds of military vehicles reportedly being sent to the US border in anticipation of a showdown with the migrant caravan currently headed to the US.
“Train in Arizona recently heading southbound,” @RightWingLawMan wrote on Twitter. “Trump ain’t playin’.”
The footage comes as President Trump announced he would be sending 5,200 troops to strengthen border security after reports that a caravan of about 14,000 migrants, made up of mostly Hondurans, has continued making its way towards the US border.

Watch: Alex Jones breaks down Trump’s deployment of heavy tanks & APC’s to the Arizona border.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Is being Christian and robustly conservative now against tech companies’ terms of service? It increasingly seems so. A good example is the report that the pro-life, pro-family was recently blacklisted by its hosting company and given only 12 hours to find a new one — or risk being offline.
LifeSite is a Christian entity that covers a range of issues, with special focus on life, family, and the sexual devolution. Frequent readers also may recognize it as a site from which I sometimes quote. As for its problems, LifeSite reported October 27:
This is extremely urgent. I need to inform you that LifeSite just received an email at 8:30 p.m. EST from our web-hosting company alerting us that they will be taking our website down within 12 hours, if not sooner.
They wrote: “we are implementing our ‘SUSPENSION OF SERVICES’ clause...and giving you 12 hours notice to move your web site operations off of our servers..."
We received absolutely no forewarning whatsoever about this decision.
LifeSite doesn’t mention the hosting company’s name, but according to the former’s DNS record and an LGBT-activist blog (which I won’t publicize by linking to), it’s San Francisco-based Cloudflare.
While LifeSite covers many issues, it was, unsurprisingly, focus on homosexuality that got it in trouble. In particular, the news organ explains, “The [hosting] company told LifeSite it is acting in response to a months-long campaign of complaints against us by Adam Flanders. Flanders is a convicted sex abuser and homosexual activist who is angered over our reports exposing him and his past.”
LifeSite continues, writing that Flanders “has already succeeded in taking down other pro-family websites by targeting their server companies.” For example, the site related in September that the “entire website for Americans For Truth About Homosexuality ( was shut down for more than two weeks beginning August 24 after … Flanders … threatened a lawsuit against FirstLight Fiber, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for AFTAH’s web host company. Flanders claimed his mugshot photo from a 2006 assault arrest against a minor boy was ‘copyrighted’ material.”
According to AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera, Flanders “pleaded guilty in 2008 to ‘Sexual Abuse of a Minor’ involving a boy aged 14 or 15” and had sexual relations with a 14-year-old lad when he was 18. He’s in Maine’s and California’s sex-offender registries, and his registry pages are found here and here, according to LifeSite.
In a Sunday morning update, LifeSite reported that its web developer spent all night working and ensured that the site would remain online. However, the news organ states that it’s only a temporary solution and that it’s currently searching for another hosting company.
Tech-company censorship/squelching of traditionalist dissent is nothing new. Facebook’s cancelling/suppression of conservative pages, Twitter’s “shadowbanning” and closing of conservatives’ accounts, and Google’s leftist manipulation of search results are already well known. Moreover, big tech appears to be intensifying its censorship efforts to sway the midterm elections.
Yet there’s something even more ominous here. Consider: Drawing parallels with our time, LifeSite’s Jonathon van Maren pointed out in a 2015 piece that, counterintuitively, Cold War-era Hungarian communists didn’t outlaw Christianity. But they did enforce a certain standard:
“You could either be a Christian — or you could be successful.”
(The same can increasingly be said of being conservative today.)
We’ve seen this already in North America. Examples include:
• Christian bakers and other businessmen punished — and sometimes forced to shut down — because they refused to service so-called same-sex weddings;
• efforts to force doctors to perform abortions and provide contraception;
• efforts to deny Christian colleges accreditation or prevent their law-school graduates from practicing law;
• laws mandating that adoption agencies — including Christian ones — must place children with same-sex couples;
• California’s erstwhile prohibition against judges participating in the Boy Scouts organization; and
• hate-speech laws in Canada (among other places) used to punish those expressing certain Christian moral positions.
Obviously, if it’s impossible for faithful Christians to enter certain fields or earn a living if they exercise (a word referencing action) their religion — guaranteed under the First Amendment — they won’t enter those fields or earn a living. This is how you disempower a class of people.
As van Maren points out, this extends to politics in Canada where, increasingly, the Christian view of life is a disqualifier from holding office. He writes that this is “a clever tactic, and a dangerous one, as it gives Christians less and less control over their own futures.”
To paraphrase what follows, “If fewer Christians enter politics, our voice in government grows quieter. If fewer Christians enter the field of medicine, the entire field suffers. And if organizations like Legal Leaders for Diversity have their way, there will be far fewer Christian lawyers — which means that as Christians increasingly need legal assistance to defend their dwindling religious freedoms, they will have fewer lawyers to rely on.”
And as Christian/conservative voices are banished from the public square by big (and little) tech, we’ll have fewer opportunities to speak out against the above.
By the way, illustrating tech-company manipulation, I searched for van Maren’s article based on memory using certain terms. His piece was nowhere to be found on Google’s first three pages (and few users go beyond the second page). So I then pasted the same terms into search engine — van Maren’s article was the very first result. This again underlines how, as I’ve explained, Google is no longer truly a search engine. It’s a propaganda engine.
As for this suppression of speech and beliefs, many will reflexively say there should just be “freedom of expression” with all points of view heard. Yet it’s not that simple.
Our First Amendment only protects against government trampling of speech, and most of the entities effecting this censorship are private. Yet the point almost universally missed is that while you may avoid government laws suppressing speech, social laws are a different matter: All civilizations censor the tongue in some way.
Years ago, for instance, there was a strong social prohibition against using foul language around women and children, and we’ve long had indecency laws. Moreover, espousing ideas considered heretical got you in trouble not just in medieval Europe but in colonial America, where you could be scorned and ostracized. In ancient Greece, philosopher Socrates was convicted and later executed for corrupting the young and “mocking the gods.” And in the 1950s United States, being an avowed Marxist or Nazi meant you couldn’t be successful.
So it’s not a matter of whether we’ll have socially enforced speech codes, but only of what they will be — and, most significantly, of what is censored. Are lies shamed and banished?
Or is the Truth?
It’s clear what is increasingly being banished today. But seldom understood is why: Conservatives fight for political power at election time.
But they generally fail to fight for cultural power anytime.
As philosopher G.K. Chesterton put it, “All conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change.”
The rule, simply, is that if you don’t control the culture, the culture controls you. To be tolerant of evil is to be visited with, and vanquished by, the intolerable.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:

Recent shootings, such as in the Pittsburgh synagogue, are the justification cited by Dr. Ana Maria Lopez, president of the American College of Physicians (ACP), for doctors getting involved in the gun debate. According to Dr. Lopez, such incidents illustrate “how important and poignant it is for there to be policies that can be really effective in keeping guns away from both those who are either a risk to themselves or to others.”
Accordingly, the ACP released some recommendations this week on how doctors can play a role in reducing “gun violence.” Specifically, the ACP wants physicians to pry into whether their patients have guns in the home, so they can offer them counsel on gun safety, and in some cases, report them to the police.
“Firearm-related injuries and deaths really continue to be a part of what is harmful to patients and families,” Lopez said.
But the ACP wants more than just friendly advice from your family doctor. The ACP has supported “appropriate regulation of the purchase of legal firearms to reduce firearms-related injuries and death,” as well as more child access prevention laws that would hold the owners of firearms accountable for the safe storage of their guns.

In addition, ACP advocates for laws banning the manufacture, sale, transfer, and even ownership of so-called rapid-killing semiautomatic firearms for civilian use.
Along with asking patients about guns in the home, ACP favors new laws (popularly known as “red flag laws”) that will allow families and law enforcement to petition a court to “temporarily” remove firearms from individuals who may be a risk to themselves and others. In other words, if a doctor were so inclined, he could turn his patient in to the cops, if he suspected that patient should be stripped of his right to have a gun in the home. While some might argue that physicians could be expected to only take such steps in extreme cases, the reality is that a doctor motivated enough to ask such intrusive questions about guns is much more likely to be an anti-gun rights crusader.
Dr. Lopez attempts to justify this war on the private ownership of firearms arguing, “We speak with our patients about, ‘do you use a seat belt?’ If they ride a bike or ride a motorbike, ‘do you use a helmet?’ So, these are public health issues, and it’s similar to ask patients if there’s a gun in the home.”
Actually, I have never been asked such questions by my doctors, and if I were I would probably find a different doctor. It would seem rather strange to me to visit a physician for an upper-respiratory infection and be asked if I use a seat belt.
Another physician, Dr. Garen Wintemute, an emergency-room physician in California, agreed with the recommendations, noting, “I talk with patients about firearms almost every shift I work as an emergency physician.”
David Hemenway, professor of health policy at Harvard, also supported the recommendations, arguing, “The evidence is overwhelming that firearm violence in the United States — firearms killing people, scaring people, injuring people — is an enormous public health problem.”
Another doctor, Timothy Wheeler, has a different take, however, calling such political advocacy during the doctor-patient situation a “boundary violation.” Dr. Wheeler offered the illustration of a person visiting a doctor for back pain, and being asked if he has a gun in the home. The doctor may even suggest that the patient would be better off “if you had no guns at all in your house.”
Wheeler contends that while an anti-gun rights doctor may profess concern for patient safety, “their ulterior motive is a political prejudice against guns and gun owners.” A patient who seeks medical help or psychiatric treatment “is often in a uniquely dependent, anxious, vulnerable, and exploitable state.” Wheeler charges that this physician is putting his own needs and political beliefs “before the needs of the patient,” and has crossed the line form healer to political activist.
Besides that, the intrusive questions about guns in the home are based on several fallacies. The often cited work of Dr. Arthur Kellerman, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is used to argue that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who do not. However, Dr. Edgar Suter, chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research, refutes Kellerman’s research, contending that gun-control researchers fail to consider and underestimate the protective benefits of guns. Dr. Suter wrote, “The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected.”
Kellerman’s work has also been debunked in that he used study populations that have disproportionately higher rates of serious psycho-social dysfunction. Fifty-three percent of the case subjects, according to the website of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), had a history of a household member being arrested, and 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight.
In the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Dr. Gary Kleck found that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to a 2.5 million uses per year. Kleck argues that between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun.
The actual U.S. healthcare costs of treating gunshot wounds is only about 0.2 percent of annual healthcare expenditures.
Finally, many argue that a gun in the home makes suicide more likely, but the evidence does not support that assertion. In Japan, Hungary, and Scandinavia, countries that have very strict gun-control laws have much higher rates of suicide — two or three times higher — than the United States. With no gun available, they simply use other methods, such as knives, drowning, suffocation, or hanging.
The usual liberal mantra is that it is all about the children, but Professor John Lott’s studies have found that children 14-15 years of age are 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries and even three times more likely to die from a bicycle accident than from a gun accident.
Allowing that some of these anti-gun advocates sincerely believe that they are protecting the population from itself, we must also consider that for many, getting doctors to harangue patients about having a gun in the home is just another way to reduce the number of law-abiding Americans who own a firearm.
The ultimate goal for many of those who express concern about “gun violence” is the elimination of the private ownership of firearms, but that goal is counter to American history and law. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1833, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
If a doctor were to ask you if you have a gun in the home, ask him if he has ever read this quotation from Justice Story or simply ask him to keep his questions medically related.


Here is an excellent video review by Dale Brown of my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, which you can order here now.
 Muhammad's Bloody Creed

Robert Spencer’s new magisterial work reveals Jihad as a holy war to convert the world.