I have come to some realizations that taste very bad. This blog is now private and will be adding people I trust 100% as I think of them. Google, love it or hate it, it has changed everything. Not only can someone find the perfect gag item whether it be fart spray or a toilet monster, but employers or potential employers can use it find out about people. That is if your "arrogant" enough to think you can write about conservative views openly on the internet without apology and still have some semblance of professional success.
Lets face it, conservative and openly Christian views can either mark you as someone that wont fit in or something positive depending on the persons perspective. Unfortunately, it seems the Christian/Conservative world view is most definitely in the minority, especially in the high tech sector. This is something I new subconsciously but had no idea the potential effects it could have on certain types of peoples perception of me.
So I am officially going to start to review my internet footprint and start taking my uncles advice which is never to mix politics or religions with work unless its a 1 on 1 situation and you know who is listening. I need to learn to keep my mouth shut, but its hard, especially when a group of liberals are have a pow wow right in the same room Every apologetic fiber in my body screams.....retaliation, retaliation....must defend Christian world view.
Oh well, live and learn I guess...
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Saturday, July 07, 2007
I sense a change in the winds says I....Aaaargh
What can I say, June ended up being quite a month of change for me. It seems that I am once again in the job market. I knew once the Corillian/Checkfree buyout was announced, nothing good would come of it. It's always the same. Big companies are ruthless and give little regard to no regard for the little guy. Nothing wrong with that, its capitalism at its best and I am a capitalist at heart.
So now what? Well, for now I am applying for obvious jobs and spending lots of time with the family. We spent the last few days camping in the 5th Wheel out on the farm in Molalla. My uncle Jack (http://www.priderunsdeep.net/) keeps the pool at 90 degrees plus! It actually doesn't bother me like it seems to bother some, especially when its really hot outside. Plus, its great for Samuel as he seems to turn blue in water colder than 80 degrees. Now we are waiting to see if we will get the extra week in Sunriver and also getting ready to take a trip to S. California to visit my fathers side of the family.
I am optimistic at this point about job/business opportunities. I did finally get to talk to my old boss from Corillian yesterday and feel better since the conversation. I have applied for some openings at Corillian which I am more than qualified for. It will be interesting to see how seriously I am taken. I guess I will find out what some individuals really think of me. I had a great talk with my Uncle about politics, corporate America PC'ness, and Fred Thompson.
I am a lot like my Uncle in that I tend to lack tact at times, spot and expose BS without hesitation, and speak my mind. He is retired from the Pipeline Safety division of the PUC. Talk about politics, it doesn't get much worse than a state job. I decided that if I am seriously going to pursue a state job I had better get the straight poop on making it in a pungently PC environment. After discussing how JFK destroyed public education in America by allowing the unionizing of teaching and the creation of the NEA, we got down to the nitty gritty.
The bottom line is that its important to carefully choose your battles. It also seems to be advantages to have an advocate in high places that understands and even appreciates bluntness and distaste for unnecessary BS.
So, its onward and hopefully upward for me, with a new sense of caution in personal perception. Pictures of the family, the 4th, and the last few days of camping here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9807174@N07/
Over and out!
So now what? Well, for now I am applying for obvious jobs and spending lots of time with the family. We spent the last few days camping in the 5th Wheel out on the farm in Molalla. My uncle Jack (http://www.priderunsdeep.net/) keeps the pool at 90 degrees plus! It actually doesn't bother me like it seems to bother some, especially when its really hot outside. Plus, its great for Samuel as he seems to turn blue in water colder than 80 degrees. Now we are waiting to see if we will get the extra week in Sunriver and also getting ready to take a trip to S. California to visit my fathers side of the family.
I am optimistic at this point about job/business opportunities. I did finally get to talk to my old boss from Corillian yesterday and feel better since the conversation. I have applied for some openings at Corillian which I am more than qualified for. It will be interesting to see how seriously I am taken. I guess I will find out what some individuals really think of me. I had a great talk with my Uncle about politics, corporate America PC'ness, and Fred Thompson.
I am a lot like my Uncle in that I tend to lack tact at times, spot and expose BS without hesitation, and speak my mind. He is retired from the Pipeline Safety division of the PUC. Talk about politics, it doesn't get much worse than a state job. I decided that if I am seriously going to pursue a state job I had better get the straight poop on making it in a pungently PC environment. After discussing how JFK destroyed public education in America by allowing the unionizing of teaching and the creation of the NEA, we got down to the nitty gritty.
The bottom line is that its important to carefully choose your battles. It also seems to be advantages to have an advocate in high places that understands and even appreciates bluntness and distaste for unnecessary BS.
So, its onward and hopefully upward for me, with a new sense of caution in personal perception. Pictures of the family, the 4th, and the last few days of camping here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9807174@N07/
Over and out!
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Gordon Smith needs to go
I thought I would post this write up by Beill Sizemore:
The Case Against Gordon Smith
By Bill Sizemore
Gordon Smith, one of Oregon’s two United States Senators, is a Republican. You can tell he’s a Republican by checking his registration in the state’s voter files. Sure enough, there it is: Republican. The problem is, you can’t tell Gordon Smith is a Republican by his voting record. In fact, after examining his votes carefully, one can conclude that Republican or not, Gordon Smith is not a conservative.Recently, the American Conservative Union released its annual scorecard for all members of the United States Congress, both House and Senate. Several of Gordon Smith’s Republican colleagues in the Senate scored a perfect 100 percent. The cut-off for what the American Conservative Union considers a conservative is 80 percent. Gordon Smith has a lifetime score of only 74.5 percent, but his score for 2005 was a meager 58 percent. That means that in 2005 Gordon Smith did not vote conservatively nearly 50 percent of the time. That’s a lot of bad votes, making Smith one of the least conservative Republicans in the United States Senate.
Let’s examine how his voting record fleshes out on specific issues.First - hate crimes legislation. Oregon’s Gordon Smith has taken the lead in the U.S. Senate as a major driving force behind efforts to pass hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes legislation calls for increased criminal sentences based on what a person is thinking when he commits a crime. In other words, if you assault a gay person, it would be a worse crime than assaulting a straight person. You would get a harsher sentence, because of what you were thinking when you committed the assault. If you assaulted a little old lady, you would get off easier than if you assaulted a gay or lesbian, because a “hateful, (i.e. discriminating”) thought” would be assumed by the courts.Senator Smith’s support for hate crime legislation has won him the endorsement of some of the national gay and lesbian organizations. It has not, however, won him many points with conservatives.Another issue raising conservative brows is Smith’s support for light rail. I first crossed swords with the senator on this issue when he was the President of the Oregon State Senate back in the mid 1990s. At the time, Smith was twisting the arms of fellow Republicans, trying to get them to vote for several hundred million dollars in state money for a $3.4 billion light rail project for the Portland area. (The rest of the money was to come from a huge local property tax increase, federal money, and some money from a neighboring state.)If you knew Oregon, you would be asking why a senator from Pendleton, a city on the east side of the state and 200 miles from Portland, would be twisting arms, wielding threats and offering political bribes to fellow Republicans for votes on a ridiculously expensive ($100 million per mile) mass transit project for Portland? How would that help his home district? You see, Gordon Smith had decided at the time that he wanted to be a United States Senator, not a measly state senator. Gordon Smith wanted to join that elite Club of 100. He also knew that a Republican cannot win statewide in Oregon, unless he garners at least 33 or 34 percent of the vote in vote-rich Multnomah County where the City of Portland is located. A Republican can win every county in Oregon, except Multnomah County, and still lose the election unless he gets around 34 percent of the Portland vote.
Truth is, Gordon Smith was pushing a $3.4 billion light rail project in hopes that it would gain him enough votes in Portland to win him a seat in the United States Senate. As it turned out, a couple of friends and I stopped his North South Light Rail Project and come election day, Gordon Smith ended up with only 29 percent of the vote in Multnomah County and consequently lost that coveted senate seat to Congressman Ron Wyden, a liberal Democrat from Portland. A year or so later Gordon Smith ran for a newly vacated U.S. Senate seat and won the prize he had sought so fervently.Moving quickly along - Recently, self-proclaimed “pro-life” Senator Gordon Smith voted for embryonic stem cell research, a type of research that knowingly results in killing human embryos. Meanwhile, adult stem cell research has proven to be far more valuable and useful than research using stem cells from human embryos. The embryonic stem cell vote should have been an automatic “No” for a pro-life conservative, but not for Gordon Smith.Gordon Smith also joined a small handful of Republican Senators voting against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). There are reportedly billions of barrels of oil beneath the frozen tundra; all ours for the taking. The drilling process would affect less than one-hundredth of one percent of the total acreage of the reserve and would have almost zero impact on the local wildlife. Yet Gordon Smith, currying favor with the environmental crazies of the world, voted against drilling in ANWR, further subjecting America’s entire economy to dependence on oil from the Middle East, the most unstable, politically volatile region of the world.Gas prices have now topped $3.00 a gallon (by a fair bit in some parts of the country) and the hotbed Middle East is once again the focal point of the world. But you need not worry. Thanks to the junior senator from Oregon, we won’t disturb the mating habits of Arctic caribou by drilling in a tiny fraction of their habitat.
Remind yourself of that, the next time some gas station attendant explains that you will need a co-signer, if you want to fill your gas tank.Recently, Gordon Smith was one of only two Republican senators to vote with the Democrats to set a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. Regardless of how one feels about the war or how we got into Iraq, al Qaeda has chosen to make Iraq their focal point for terrorism. Al Qaeda’s highest priority in all the world is to defeat the United States in Iraq and send us home with our tails between our legs. An American defeat in Iraq would inspire them to export terror to American cities, schools, shopping malls, and sports arenas. Volunteer suicide bombers would line up for “service,” gloating over the weakness of American resolve. And that’s not to mention the hundreds of thousands of human lives that will be lost when we exit the country and a very bloody civil way breaks out, as it surely will. Iran and al Qaeda will see to that.Even if we should never have gone to Iraq in the first place, we “broke it” and we owe it to the good people of Iraq to fix it. And we owe it to the more than 3,000 Americans who have died there to insure that they did not die in vain.Back to Gordon Smith. As if the “timetable vote” weren’t bad enough, Smith even commented publicly that our military presence in Iraq might be “criminal”. Yes, he actually used the word “criminal”.
With American soldiers on the ground, risking and giving their lives everyday, this reckless comment was one of the most foolish statements I’ve ever heard from a Republican officeholder. That single remark made me ashamed that Gordon Smith represents my home state and the Oregon National Guard, and that he calls himself a Republican.Can a greater case be made against Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon? Hate crimes legislation; boondoggle mass transit funding; voting against drilling in ANWR; voting for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and calling our troops’ presence in Iraq “criminal”. That ought to be enough of an indictment. But there’s more.Gordon Smith recently stood proudly alongside Oregon’s liberal Democrat governor endorsing a huge increase in the state cigarette tax to fund more government health care. Since when is socialistic, government run health care a Republican mantra? Sure, such programs pull at the heart strings, but where do they ultimately lead us?
That’s not all. Gordon Smith also voted against funding for building a fence along ourborder with Mexico and wants to see a “path to citizenship” for the 10-12 million illegal aliens currently living in our country. In other words, Gordon Smith wants to provide legal amnesty for those who broke our laws and ignored our sovereign border. Gordon Smith wants to make them citizens. Gordon Smith wants to let them vote. Maybe he thinks they will be grateful for his support and vote Republican. Yeah, just like all of those Portland Democrats voted for him after he tried to deliver them billions in light rail funding.We could go on ad nauseam about Gordon Smith’s non-conservative votes and positions, but let’s review just one more major issue to round out the indictment: Social Security. For years, Gordon Smith has been sitting on the powerful Senate Revenue Committee, including when his own party was in the majority. The entire time, Smith did nothing to address the one fiscal issue that could sink the entire American ship: The looming social security crisis. Even after George W. Bush took the lead on the issue on national television, risking his political future, Gordon Smith, who was in a perfect position to address the looming crisis, chose to do nothing. He chickened out. He placed his own political future ahead of an entire generation of Americans.
The reality is, if we do not make meaningful progress towards social security reform; if we do not do something that protects those currently dependent on social security and also allows future generations the freedom to set up private retirement accounts and gain control of their own retirement destinies, this country will face a fiscal crisis unprecedented in American history, at least back to the Great Depression. We face outright generational warfare. Young people will be forced to pay unconscionably high social security taxes to fund the pensions of millions of Baby Boomers, who are no longer working. Those young people will be understandably angry that so much of the money they earn each paycheck is absconded for the benefit of others. Meanwhile, Baby Boomers understandably will demand the pensions promised to them from a Social Security trust fund that is trillions of dollars in the hole; a hole dug by Gordon Smith and countless other politicians who have spent other people’s pension money buying votes and winning elections. The ugly truth about social security sounds more like one of those union pension fund scandals than the actions of the United States Congress, but the scandal is just as real because all that pension money is just as gone.So where does all this leave us? At the national level, Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of defeating Gordon Smith. After all he has done for liberals in Oregon, they still want to take him out, simply because he is a Republican. To them, a Republican in name only is still a Republican. Smith’s political vulnerability is no secret. National pundits consider him the most vulnerable member of the U.S. Senate in 2008. While the Democrats are planning and scheming to beat Gordon Smith in the 2008 General Election, I am wondering whether Smith ought to make it out of the Republican primary. With a 2005 score of only 58 percent from the American Conservative Union and a lifetime score of only 74.5 percent, with so many votes that read like the voting record of a left wing Democrat, a lot of conservatives will have a hard time voting for Gordon Smith again. I, for one, am convinced that there has to be a better choice. The Republican primary is after all still a year away.
The Case Against Gordon Smith
By Bill Sizemore
Gordon Smith, one of Oregon’s two United States Senators, is a Republican. You can tell he’s a Republican by checking his registration in the state’s voter files. Sure enough, there it is: Republican. The problem is, you can’t tell Gordon Smith is a Republican by his voting record. In fact, after examining his votes carefully, one can conclude that Republican or not, Gordon Smith is not a conservative.Recently, the American Conservative Union released its annual scorecard for all members of the United States Congress, both House and Senate. Several of Gordon Smith’s Republican colleagues in the Senate scored a perfect 100 percent. The cut-off for what the American Conservative Union considers a conservative is 80 percent. Gordon Smith has a lifetime score of only 74.5 percent, but his score for 2005 was a meager 58 percent. That means that in 2005 Gordon Smith did not vote conservatively nearly 50 percent of the time. That’s a lot of bad votes, making Smith one of the least conservative Republicans in the United States Senate.
Let’s examine how his voting record fleshes out on specific issues.First - hate crimes legislation. Oregon’s Gordon Smith has taken the lead in the U.S. Senate as a major driving force behind efforts to pass hate crimes legislation. Hate crimes legislation calls for increased criminal sentences based on what a person is thinking when he commits a crime. In other words, if you assault a gay person, it would be a worse crime than assaulting a straight person. You would get a harsher sentence, because of what you were thinking when you committed the assault. If you assaulted a little old lady, you would get off easier than if you assaulted a gay or lesbian, because a “hateful, (i.e. discriminating”) thought” would be assumed by the courts.Senator Smith’s support for hate crime legislation has won him the endorsement of some of the national gay and lesbian organizations. It has not, however, won him many points with conservatives.Another issue raising conservative brows is Smith’s support for light rail. I first crossed swords with the senator on this issue when he was the President of the Oregon State Senate back in the mid 1990s. At the time, Smith was twisting the arms of fellow Republicans, trying to get them to vote for several hundred million dollars in state money for a $3.4 billion light rail project for the Portland area. (The rest of the money was to come from a huge local property tax increase, federal money, and some money from a neighboring state.)If you knew Oregon, you would be asking why a senator from Pendleton, a city on the east side of the state and 200 miles from Portland, would be twisting arms, wielding threats and offering political bribes to fellow Republicans for votes on a ridiculously expensive ($100 million per mile) mass transit project for Portland? How would that help his home district? You see, Gordon Smith had decided at the time that he wanted to be a United States Senator, not a measly state senator. Gordon Smith wanted to join that elite Club of 100. He also knew that a Republican cannot win statewide in Oregon, unless he garners at least 33 or 34 percent of the vote in vote-rich Multnomah County where the City of Portland is located. A Republican can win every county in Oregon, except Multnomah County, and still lose the election unless he gets around 34 percent of the Portland vote.
Truth is, Gordon Smith was pushing a $3.4 billion light rail project in hopes that it would gain him enough votes in Portland to win him a seat in the United States Senate. As it turned out, a couple of friends and I stopped his North South Light Rail Project and come election day, Gordon Smith ended up with only 29 percent of the vote in Multnomah County and consequently lost that coveted senate seat to Congressman Ron Wyden, a liberal Democrat from Portland. A year or so later Gordon Smith ran for a newly vacated U.S. Senate seat and won the prize he had sought so fervently.Moving quickly along - Recently, self-proclaimed “pro-life” Senator Gordon Smith voted for embryonic stem cell research, a type of research that knowingly results in killing human embryos. Meanwhile, adult stem cell research has proven to be far more valuable and useful than research using stem cells from human embryos. The embryonic stem cell vote should have been an automatic “No” for a pro-life conservative, but not for Gordon Smith.Gordon Smith also joined a small handful of Republican Senators voting against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). There are reportedly billions of barrels of oil beneath the frozen tundra; all ours for the taking. The drilling process would affect less than one-hundredth of one percent of the total acreage of the reserve and would have almost zero impact on the local wildlife. Yet Gordon Smith, currying favor with the environmental crazies of the world, voted against drilling in ANWR, further subjecting America’s entire economy to dependence on oil from the Middle East, the most unstable, politically volatile region of the world.Gas prices have now topped $3.00 a gallon (by a fair bit in some parts of the country) and the hotbed Middle East is once again the focal point of the world. But you need not worry. Thanks to the junior senator from Oregon, we won’t disturb the mating habits of Arctic caribou by drilling in a tiny fraction of their habitat.
Remind yourself of that, the next time some gas station attendant explains that you will need a co-signer, if you want to fill your gas tank.Recently, Gordon Smith was one of only two Republican senators to vote with the Democrats to set a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. Regardless of how one feels about the war or how we got into Iraq, al Qaeda has chosen to make Iraq their focal point for terrorism. Al Qaeda’s highest priority in all the world is to defeat the United States in Iraq and send us home with our tails between our legs. An American defeat in Iraq would inspire them to export terror to American cities, schools, shopping malls, and sports arenas. Volunteer suicide bombers would line up for “service,” gloating over the weakness of American resolve. And that’s not to mention the hundreds of thousands of human lives that will be lost when we exit the country and a very bloody civil way breaks out, as it surely will. Iran and al Qaeda will see to that.Even if we should never have gone to Iraq in the first place, we “broke it” and we owe it to the good people of Iraq to fix it. And we owe it to the more than 3,000 Americans who have died there to insure that they did not die in vain.Back to Gordon Smith. As if the “timetable vote” weren’t bad enough, Smith even commented publicly that our military presence in Iraq might be “criminal”. Yes, he actually used the word “criminal”.
With American soldiers on the ground, risking and giving their lives everyday, this reckless comment was one of the most foolish statements I’ve ever heard from a Republican officeholder. That single remark made me ashamed that Gordon Smith represents my home state and the Oregon National Guard, and that he calls himself a Republican.Can a greater case be made against Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon? Hate crimes legislation; boondoggle mass transit funding; voting against drilling in ANWR; voting for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and calling our troops’ presence in Iraq “criminal”. That ought to be enough of an indictment. But there’s more.Gordon Smith recently stood proudly alongside Oregon’s liberal Democrat governor endorsing a huge increase in the state cigarette tax to fund more government health care. Since when is socialistic, government run health care a Republican mantra? Sure, such programs pull at the heart strings, but where do they ultimately lead us?
That’s not all. Gordon Smith also voted against funding for building a fence along ourborder with Mexico and wants to see a “path to citizenship” for the 10-12 million illegal aliens currently living in our country. In other words, Gordon Smith wants to provide legal amnesty for those who broke our laws and ignored our sovereign border. Gordon Smith wants to make them citizens. Gordon Smith wants to let them vote. Maybe he thinks they will be grateful for his support and vote Republican. Yeah, just like all of those Portland Democrats voted for him after he tried to deliver them billions in light rail funding.We could go on ad nauseam about Gordon Smith’s non-conservative votes and positions, but let’s review just one more major issue to round out the indictment: Social Security. For years, Gordon Smith has been sitting on the powerful Senate Revenue Committee, including when his own party was in the majority. The entire time, Smith did nothing to address the one fiscal issue that could sink the entire American ship: The looming social security crisis. Even after George W. Bush took the lead on the issue on national television, risking his political future, Gordon Smith, who was in a perfect position to address the looming crisis, chose to do nothing. He chickened out. He placed his own political future ahead of an entire generation of Americans.
The reality is, if we do not make meaningful progress towards social security reform; if we do not do something that protects those currently dependent on social security and also allows future generations the freedom to set up private retirement accounts and gain control of their own retirement destinies, this country will face a fiscal crisis unprecedented in American history, at least back to the Great Depression. We face outright generational warfare. Young people will be forced to pay unconscionably high social security taxes to fund the pensions of millions of Baby Boomers, who are no longer working. Those young people will be understandably angry that so much of the money they earn each paycheck is absconded for the benefit of others. Meanwhile, Baby Boomers understandably will demand the pensions promised to them from a Social Security trust fund that is trillions of dollars in the hole; a hole dug by Gordon Smith and countless other politicians who have spent other people’s pension money buying votes and winning elections. The ugly truth about social security sounds more like one of those union pension fund scandals than the actions of the United States Congress, but the scandal is just as real because all that pension money is just as gone.So where does all this leave us? At the national level, Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of defeating Gordon Smith. After all he has done for liberals in Oregon, they still want to take him out, simply because he is a Republican. To them, a Republican in name only is still a Republican. Smith’s political vulnerability is no secret. National pundits consider him the most vulnerable member of the U.S. Senate in 2008. While the Democrats are planning and scheming to beat Gordon Smith in the 2008 General Election, I am wondering whether Smith ought to make it out of the Republican primary. With a 2005 score of only 58 percent from the American Conservative Union and a lifetime score of only 74.5 percent, with so many votes that read like the voting record of a left wing Democrat, a lot of conservatives will have a hard time voting for Gordon Smith again. I, for one, am convinced that there has to be a better choice. The Republican primary is after all still a year away.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Feinstein's Corruption Ignored by Socialist controlled Mainstream Media
This is very simple. You will not hear about this type of thing in the MSM because it is highly influenced by the Left-wing Democratic machine. Yes that's right. Those who tout freedom of speech, defeating the "Man", are most definitely censoring and waging an information war on the American public. Talk radio and the Internet is all that is left!
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Don't think Christians are being persecuted? THINK AGAIN!
Turkish church requests prayer after three Christians martyred in MalatyaApril 26, 2007
On April 18, five Muslims entered a Christian publishing company and killed three believers in the southeastern province of Malatya. Two of the victims were Turkish converts from Islam and the third man was a German citizen who had lived in Turkey for 10 years. News reports said four of the attackers admitted that the killings were motivated by both “nationalist and religious feelings.”
Below is a letter received by The Voice of the Martyrs from a church in Turkey. This letter contains a description of the torture suffered by the martyred believers, and the information is graphic in nature.
The Voice of the Martyrs has already been actively involved in assisting the families of these courageous Christians. We encourage you to pray for them as they grieve, and to pray that this
will be a significant turning point for the gospel in Turkey.
“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write...
“Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” (Rev. 2: 8-11)
Pray that God will use the testimony of our brothers, who were faithful until death, to build His Kingdom.
A letter to the Global Church from The Protestant Church of Smyrna
Dear friends,
This past week has been filled with much sorrow. Many of you have heard by now of our devastating loss here in an event that took place in Malatya, a Turkish province 300 miles northeast of Antioch, the city where believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).
On Wednesday morning, April 18, 2007, 46 year old German missionary and father of three Tilman Geske prepared to go to his office, kissing his wife goodbye taking a moment to hug his son and give him the priceless memory, “Goodbye, son. I love you.”
Tilman rented an office space from Zirve Publishing where he was preparing notes for the new Turkish Study Bible. Zirve was also the location of the Malatya Evangelist Church office. A ministry of the church, Zirve prints and distributes Christian literature to Malatya and nearby cities in Eastern Turkey. In another area of town, 35 year old Pastor Necati Aydin, father of two, said goodbye to his wife, leaving for the office as well. They had a morning Bible Study and prayer meeting that some other believers in town would also be attending. Ugur Yuksel likewise made his way to the Bible study.
None of these three men knew that what awaited them at the Bible study was the ultimate testing and application of their faith, which would conclude with their entrance into glory to receive their crown of righteousness from Christ and honor from all the saints awaiting them in the Lord’s presence.
On the other side of town, ten young men all under 20 years old put into place final arrangements for their ultimate act of faith, living out their love for Allah and hatred of infidels who they felt undermined Islam.
On Resurrection Sunday, five of these men had been to a by-invitation-only evangelistic service that Pastor Necati and his men had arranged at a hotel conference room in the city. The men were known to the believers as “seekers.” No one knows what happened in the hearts of those men as they listened to the gospel. Were they touched by the Holy Spirit? Were they convicted of sin? Did they hear the gospel in their heart of hearts? Today we only have the beginning of their story.
These young men, one of whom is the son of a mayor in the Province of Malatya, are part of a tarikat, or a group of “faithful believers” in Islam. Tarikat membership is highly respected here; it’s like a fraternity membership. In fact, it is said that no one can get into public office without membership in a tarikat. These young men all lived in the same dorm, all preparing for university entrance exams.
The young men got guns, breadknives, ropes and towels ready for their final act of service to Allah. They knew there would be a lot of blood. They arrived in time for the Bible Study, around 10 o’clock.
They arrived, and apparently the Bible Study began. Reportedly, after Necati read a chapter from the Bible the assault began. The boys tied Ugur, Necati, and Tilman’s hands and feet to chairs and as they videoed their work on their cellphones, they tortured our brothers for almost three hours*
Graphic details of the torture are included at the end of this letter.
Neighbors in workplaces near the printhouse said later they had heard yelling, but assumed the owners were having a domestic argument so they did not respond.
Meanwhile, another believer Gokhan and his wife had a leisurely morning. He slept in till 10, ate a long breakfast and finally around 12:30 he and his wife arrived at the office. The door was locked from the inside, and his key would not work. He phoned and though it had connection on his end he did not hear the phone ringing inside. He called cell phones of his brothers and finally Ugur answered his phone. “We are not at the office. Go to the hotel meeting. We are there. We will come there,” he said cryptically. As Ugur spoke Gokhan heard in the telephone’s background weeping and a strange snarling sound. He phoned the police, and the nearest officer arrived in about five minutes. He pounded on the door, “Police, open up!” Initially the officer thought it was a domestic disturbance. At that point they heard another snarl and a gurgling moan. The police understood that sound as human suffering, prepared the clip in his gun and tried over and over again to burst through the door. One of the frightened assailants unlocked the door for the policeman, who entered to find a grisly scene. Tilman and Necati had been slaughtered, practically decapitated with their necks slit from ear to ear. Ugur’s throat was likewise slit and he was barely alive.
Three assailants in front of the policeman dropped their weapons.
Meanwhile Gokhan heard a sound of yelling in the street. Someone had fallen from their third story office. Running down, he found a man on the ground, whom he later recognized, named Emre Gunaydin. He had massive head trauma and, strangely, was snarling. He had tried to climb down the drainpipe to escape, and losing his balance had plummeted to the ground. It seems that he was the main leader of the attackers. Another assailant was found hiding on a lower balcony.
To untangle the web we need to back up six years. In April 2001, the National Security Council of Turkey (Milli Guvenlik Kurulu) began to consider evangelical Christians as a threat to national security, on equal footing as Al Quaida and PKK terrorism. Statements made in the press by political leaders, columnists and commentators have fueled a hatred against missionaries who they claim bribe young people to change their religion. After that decision in 2001, attacks and threats on churches, pastors and Christians began. Bombings, physical attacks, verbal and written abuse are only some of the ways Christians are being targetted. Most significant is the use of media propaganda.
From December 2005, after having a long meeting regarding the Christian threat, the wife of Former Prime Minister Ecevit, historian Ilber Ortayli, Professor Hasan Unsal, Politician Ahmet Tan and writer/propogandist Aytunc Altindal, each in their own profession began a campaign to bring the public’s attention to the looming threat of Christians who sought to “buy their children’s souls”. Hidden cameras in churches have taken church service footage and used it sensationally to promote fear and antagonism toward Christianity.
In an official televised response from Ankara, the Interior Minister of Turkey smirked as he spoke of the attacks on our brothers. Amid public outrage and protests against the event and in favor of freedom of religion and freedom of thought, media and official comments ring with the same message, “We hope you have learned your lesson. We do not want Christians here.”
It appears that this was an organized attack initiated by an unknown adult tarikat leader. As in the Hrant Dink murder in January 2007, and a Catholic priest Andrea Santoro in February 2006, minors are being used to commit religious murders because public sympathy for youth is strong and they face lower penalties than an adult convicted of the same crime. Even the parents of these children are in favor of the acts. The mother of the 16 year old boy who killed the Catholic priest Andrea Santoro looked at the cameras as her son was going to prison and said, “he will serve time for Allah.”
The young men involved in the killing are currently in custody. Today news reported that they would be tried as terrorists, so their age would not affect the strict penalty. Assailant Emre Gunaydin is still in intensive care. The investigation centers around him and his contacts and they say will fall apart if he does not recover.
The Church in Turkey responded in a way that honored God as hundreds of believers and dozens of pastors flew in as fast as they could to stand by the small church of Malatya and encourage the believers, take care of legal issues, and represent Christians to the media.
When Susanne Tilman expressed her wish to bury her husband in Malatya, the Governor tried to stop it, and when he realized he could not stop it, a rumor was spread that “it is a sin to dig a grave for a Christian.” In the end, in an undertaking that should be remembered in Christian history forever, the men from the church in Adana (near Tarsus), grabbed shovels and dug a grave for their slain brother in an un-tended hundred year old Armenian graveyard.
Ugur was buried by his family in an Alevi Muslim ceremony in his hometown of Elazig, his believing fiance watching from the shadows as his family and friends refused to accept in death the faith Ugur had so long professed and died for.
Necati’s funeral took place in his hometown of Izmir, the city where he came to faith. The darkness does not understand the light. Though the churches expressed their forgiveness for the event, Christians were not to be trusted. Before they would load the coffin onto the plane from Malatya, it went through two separate xray exams to make sure it was not loaded with explosives. This is not a usual procedure for Muslim coffins.
Necati’s funeral was a beautiful event. Like a glimpse of heaven, thousands of Turkish Christians and missionaries came to show their love for Christ, and their honor for this man chosen to die for Christ. Necati’s wife Shemsa told the world, “His death was full of meaning, because he died for Christ and he lived for Christ… Necati was a gift from God. I feel honored that he was in my life, I feel crowned with honor. I want to be worthy of that honor.”
Boldly the believers took their stand at Necati’s funeral, facing the risks of being seen publicly and likewise becoming targets. As expected, the anti-terror police attended and videotaped everyone attending the funeral for their future use. The service took place outside at Buca Baptist church, and he was buried in a small Christian graveyard in the outskirts of Izmir.
Two assistant Governors of Izmir were there solemnly watching the event from the front row. Dozens of news agencies were there documenting the events with live news and photographs. Who knows the impact the funeral had on those watching? This is the beginning of their story as well. Pray for them.
In an act that hit front pages in the largest newspapers in Turkey, Susanne Tilman in a television interview expressed her forgiveness. She did not want revenge, she told reporters. “Oh God, forgive them for they know not what they do,” she said, wholeheartedly agreeing with the words of Christ on Calvary (Luke 23:34).
In a country where blood-for-blood revenge is as normal as breathing, many many reports have come to the attention of the church of how this comment of Susanne Tilman has changed lives. One columnist wrote of her comment, “She said in one sentence what 1000 missionaries in 1000 years could never do.”
The missionaries in Malatya will most likely move out, as their families and children have become publicly identified as targets to the hostile city. The remaining 10 believers are in hiding. What will happen to this church, this light in the darkness? Most likely it will go underground. Pray for wisdom, that Turkish brothers from other cities will go to lead the leaderless church. Should we not be concerned for that great city of Malatya, a city that does not know what it is doing? (Jonah 4:11)
When our Pastor Fikret Bocek went with a brother to give a statement to the Security Directorate on Monday they were ushered into the Anti-Terror Department. On the wall was a huge chart covering the whole wall listing all the terrorist cells in Izmir, categorized. In one prominent column were listed all the evangelical churches in Izmir. The darkness does not understand the light. “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.” (Acts 17:6)
Please pray for the Church in Turkey. “Don’t pray against persecution, pray for perseverence,” urges Pastor Fikret Bocek.
The Church is better having lost our brothers; the fruit in our lives, the renewed faith, the burning desire to spread the gospel to quench more darkness in Malatya …all these are not to be regretted. Pray that we stand strong against external opposition and especially pray that we stand strong against internal struggles with sin, our true debilitating weakness.
This we know. Christ Jesus was there when our brothers were giving their lives for Him. He was there, like He was when Stephen was being stoned in the sight of Saul of Tarsus.
Someday the video of the deaths of our brothers may reveal more to us about the strength that we know Christ gave them to endure their last cross, about the peace the Spirit of God endowed them with to suffer for their beloved Savior. But we know He did not leave their side. We know their minds were full of Scripture strengthening them to endure, as darkness tried to subdue the unsubduable Light of the Gospel. We know, in whatever way they were able, with a look or a word, they encouraged one another to stand strong. We know they knew they would soon be with Christ.
We don’t know the details. We don’t know the kind of justice that will or will not be served on this earth.
But we pray-- and urge you to pray-- that someday at least one of those five boys will come to faith because of the testimony in death of Tilman Geske, who gave his life as a missionary to his beloved Turks, and the testimonies in death of Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel, the first martyrs for Christ out of the Turkish Church.
DESCRIPTION OF TORTURE (WARNING: GRAPHIC)
Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count. They were disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated and watched as those body parts were destroyed. Fingers were chopped off, their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open. Possibly the worst part was watching as their brothers were likewise tortured. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated.
Reported by Darlene N. Bocek, 24 April 2007
Contact The Protestant Church of Smyrna at www.izmirprotestan.org / izmirprotestan@gmail.com.
On April 18, five Muslims entered a Christian publishing company and killed three believers in the southeastern province of Malatya. Two of the victims were Turkish converts from Islam and the third man was a German citizen who had lived in Turkey for 10 years. News reports said four of the attackers admitted that the killings were motivated by both “nationalist and religious feelings.”
Below is a letter received by The Voice of the Martyrs from a church in Turkey. This letter contains a description of the torture suffered by the martyred believers, and the information is graphic in nature.
The Voice of the Martyrs has already been actively involved in assisting the families of these courageous Christians. We encourage you to pray for them as they grieve, and to pray that this
will be a significant turning point for the gospel in Turkey.
“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write...
“Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.” (Rev. 2: 8-11)
Pray that God will use the testimony of our brothers, who were faithful until death, to build His Kingdom.
A letter to the Global Church from The Protestant Church of Smyrna
Dear friends,
This past week has been filled with much sorrow. Many of you have heard by now of our devastating loss here in an event that took place in Malatya, a Turkish province 300 miles northeast of Antioch, the city where believers were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).
On Wednesday morning, April 18, 2007, 46 year old German missionary and father of three Tilman Geske prepared to go to his office, kissing his wife goodbye taking a moment to hug his son and give him the priceless memory, “Goodbye, son. I love you.”
Tilman rented an office space from Zirve Publishing where he was preparing notes for the new Turkish Study Bible. Zirve was also the location of the Malatya Evangelist Church office. A ministry of the church, Zirve prints and distributes Christian literature to Malatya and nearby cities in Eastern Turkey. In another area of town, 35 year old Pastor Necati Aydin, father of two, said goodbye to his wife, leaving for the office as well. They had a morning Bible Study and prayer meeting that some other believers in town would also be attending. Ugur Yuksel likewise made his way to the Bible study.
None of these three men knew that what awaited them at the Bible study was the ultimate testing and application of their faith, which would conclude with their entrance into glory to receive their crown of righteousness from Christ and honor from all the saints awaiting them in the Lord’s presence.
On the other side of town, ten young men all under 20 years old put into place final arrangements for their ultimate act of faith, living out their love for Allah and hatred of infidels who they felt undermined Islam.
On Resurrection Sunday, five of these men had been to a by-invitation-only evangelistic service that Pastor Necati and his men had arranged at a hotel conference room in the city. The men were known to the believers as “seekers.” No one knows what happened in the hearts of those men as they listened to the gospel. Were they touched by the Holy Spirit? Were they convicted of sin? Did they hear the gospel in their heart of hearts? Today we only have the beginning of their story.
These young men, one of whom is the son of a mayor in the Province of Malatya, are part of a tarikat, or a group of “faithful believers” in Islam. Tarikat membership is highly respected here; it’s like a fraternity membership. In fact, it is said that no one can get into public office without membership in a tarikat. These young men all lived in the same dorm, all preparing for university entrance exams.
The young men got guns, breadknives, ropes and towels ready for their final act of service to Allah. They knew there would be a lot of blood. They arrived in time for the Bible Study, around 10 o’clock.
They arrived, and apparently the Bible Study began. Reportedly, after Necati read a chapter from the Bible the assault began. The boys tied Ugur, Necati, and Tilman’s hands and feet to chairs and as they videoed their work on their cellphones, they tortured our brothers for almost three hours*
Graphic details of the torture are included at the end of this letter.
Neighbors in workplaces near the printhouse said later they had heard yelling, but assumed the owners were having a domestic argument so they did not respond.
Meanwhile, another believer Gokhan and his wife had a leisurely morning. He slept in till 10, ate a long breakfast and finally around 12:30 he and his wife arrived at the office. The door was locked from the inside, and his key would not work. He phoned and though it had connection on his end he did not hear the phone ringing inside. He called cell phones of his brothers and finally Ugur answered his phone. “We are not at the office. Go to the hotel meeting. We are there. We will come there,” he said cryptically. As Ugur spoke Gokhan heard in the telephone’s background weeping and a strange snarling sound. He phoned the police, and the nearest officer arrived in about five minutes. He pounded on the door, “Police, open up!” Initially the officer thought it was a domestic disturbance. At that point they heard another snarl and a gurgling moan. The police understood that sound as human suffering, prepared the clip in his gun and tried over and over again to burst through the door. One of the frightened assailants unlocked the door for the policeman, who entered to find a grisly scene. Tilman and Necati had been slaughtered, practically decapitated with their necks slit from ear to ear. Ugur’s throat was likewise slit and he was barely alive.
Three assailants in front of the policeman dropped their weapons.
Meanwhile Gokhan heard a sound of yelling in the street. Someone had fallen from their third story office. Running down, he found a man on the ground, whom he later recognized, named Emre Gunaydin. He had massive head trauma and, strangely, was snarling. He had tried to climb down the drainpipe to escape, and losing his balance had plummeted to the ground. It seems that he was the main leader of the attackers. Another assailant was found hiding on a lower balcony.
To untangle the web we need to back up six years. In April 2001, the National Security Council of Turkey (Milli Guvenlik Kurulu) began to consider evangelical Christians as a threat to national security, on equal footing as Al Quaida and PKK terrorism. Statements made in the press by political leaders, columnists and commentators have fueled a hatred against missionaries who they claim bribe young people to change their religion. After that decision in 2001, attacks and threats on churches, pastors and Christians began. Bombings, physical attacks, verbal and written abuse are only some of the ways Christians are being targetted. Most significant is the use of media propaganda.
From December 2005, after having a long meeting regarding the Christian threat, the wife of Former Prime Minister Ecevit, historian Ilber Ortayli, Professor Hasan Unsal, Politician Ahmet Tan and writer/propogandist Aytunc Altindal, each in their own profession began a campaign to bring the public’s attention to the looming threat of Christians who sought to “buy their children’s souls”. Hidden cameras in churches have taken church service footage and used it sensationally to promote fear and antagonism toward Christianity.
In an official televised response from Ankara, the Interior Minister of Turkey smirked as he spoke of the attacks on our brothers. Amid public outrage and protests against the event and in favor of freedom of religion and freedom of thought, media and official comments ring with the same message, “We hope you have learned your lesson. We do not want Christians here.”
It appears that this was an organized attack initiated by an unknown adult tarikat leader. As in the Hrant Dink murder in January 2007, and a Catholic priest Andrea Santoro in February 2006, minors are being used to commit religious murders because public sympathy for youth is strong and they face lower penalties than an adult convicted of the same crime. Even the parents of these children are in favor of the acts. The mother of the 16 year old boy who killed the Catholic priest Andrea Santoro looked at the cameras as her son was going to prison and said, “he will serve time for Allah.”
The young men involved in the killing are currently in custody. Today news reported that they would be tried as terrorists, so their age would not affect the strict penalty. Assailant Emre Gunaydin is still in intensive care. The investigation centers around him and his contacts and they say will fall apart if he does not recover.
The Church in Turkey responded in a way that honored God as hundreds of believers and dozens of pastors flew in as fast as they could to stand by the small church of Malatya and encourage the believers, take care of legal issues, and represent Christians to the media.
When Susanne Tilman expressed her wish to bury her husband in Malatya, the Governor tried to stop it, and when he realized he could not stop it, a rumor was spread that “it is a sin to dig a grave for a Christian.” In the end, in an undertaking that should be remembered in Christian history forever, the men from the church in Adana (near Tarsus), grabbed shovels and dug a grave for their slain brother in an un-tended hundred year old Armenian graveyard.
Ugur was buried by his family in an Alevi Muslim ceremony in his hometown of Elazig, his believing fiance watching from the shadows as his family and friends refused to accept in death the faith Ugur had so long professed and died for.
Necati’s funeral took place in his hometown of Izmir, the city where he came to faith. The darkness does not understand the light. Though the churches expressed their forgiveness for the event, Christians were not to be trusted. Before they would load the coffin onto the plane from Malatya, it went through two separate xray exams to make sure it was not loaded with explosives. This is not a usual procedure for Muslim coffins.
Necati’s funeral was a beautiful event. Like a glimpse of heaven, thousands of Turkish Christians and missionaries came to show their love for Christ, and their honor for this man chosen to die for Christ. Necati’s wife Shemsa told the world, “His death was full of meaning, because he died for Christ and he lived for Christ… Necati was a gift from God. I feel honored that he was in my life, I feel crowned with honor. I want to be worthy of that honor.”
Boldly the believers took their stand at Necati’s funeral, facing the risks of being seen publicly and likewise becoming targets. As expected, the anti-terror police attended and videotaped everyone attending the funeral for their future use. The service took place outside at Buca Baptist church, and he was buried in a small Christian graveyard in the outskirts of Izmir.
Two assistant Governors of Izmir were there solemnly watching the event from the front row. Dozens of news agencies were there documenting the events with live news and photographs. Who knows the impact the funeral had on those watching? This is the beginning of their story as well. Pray for them.
In an act that hit front pages in the largest newspapers in Turkey, Susanne Tilman in a television interview expressed her forgiveness. She did not want revenge, she told reporters. “Oh God, forgive them for they know not what they do,” she said, wholeheartedly agreeing with the words of Christ on Calvary (Luke 23:34).
In a country where blood-for-blood revenge is as normal as breathing, many many reports have come to the attention of the church of how this comment of Susanne Tilman has changed lives. One columnist wrote of her comment, “She said in one sentence what 1000 missionaries in 1000 years could never do.”
The missionaries in Malatya will most likely move out, as their families and children have become publicly identified as targets to the hostile city. The remaining 10 believers are in hiding. What will happen to this church, this light in the darkness? Most likely it will go underground. Pray for wisdom, that Turkish brothers from other cities will go to lead the leaderless church. Should we not be concerned for that great city of Malatya, a city that does not know what it is doing? (Jonah 4:11)
When our Pastor Fikret Bocek went with a brother to give a statement to the Security Directorate on Monday they were ushered into the Anti-Terror Department. On the wall was a huge chart covering the whole wall listing all the terrorist cells in Izmir, categorized. In one prominent column were listed all the evangelical churches in Izmir. The darkness does not understand the light. “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.” (Acts 17:6)
Please pray for the Church in Turkey. “Don’t pray against persecution, pray for perseverence,” urges Pastor Fikret Bocek.
The Church is better having lost our brothers; the fruit in our lives, the renewed faith, the burning desire to spread the gospel to quench more darkness in Malatya …all these are not to be regretted. Pray that we stand strong against external opposition and especially pray that we stand strong against internal struggles with sin, our true debilitating weakness.
This we know. Christ Jesus was there when our brothers were giving their lives for Him. He was there, like He was when Stephen was being stoned in the sight of Saul of Tarsus.
Someday the video of the deaths of our brothers may reveal more to us about the strength that we know Christ gave them to endure their last cross, about the peace the Spirit of God endowed them with to suffer for their beloved Savior. But we know He did not leave their side. We know their minds were full of Scripture strengthening them to endure, as darkness tried to subdue the unsubduable Light of the Gospel. We know, in whatever way they were able, with a look or a word, they encouraged one another to stand strong. We know they knew they would soon be with Christ.
We don’t know the details. We don’t know the kind of justice that will or will not be served on this earth.
But we pray-- and urge you to pray-- that someday at least one of those five boys will come to faith because of the testimony in death of Tilman Geske, who gave his life as a missionary to his beloved Turks, and the testimonies in death of Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel, the first martyrs for Christ out of the Turkish Church.
DESCRIPTION OF TORTURE (WARNING: GRAPHIC)
Tilman was stabbed 156 times, Necati 99 times and Ugur’s stabs were too numerous to count. They were disemboweled, and their intestines sliced up in front of their eyes. They were emasculated and watched as those body parts were destroyed. Fingers were chopped off, their noses and mouths and anuses were sliced open. Possibly the worst part was watching as their brothers were likewise tortured. Finally, their throats were sliced from ear to ear, heads practically decapitated.
Reported by Darlene N. Bocek, 24 April 2007
Contact The Protestant Church of Smyrna at www.izmirprotestan.org / izmirprotestan@gmail.com.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Why I DESPISE the Clintons and anyone who voted for them!
Why Clinton Bombed the Serbs - A National Disgrace Few American Even Know Nor Care About
1. To appease the Islamic world for our daily bombing of Iraq. President Clinton wanted to prove to the Muslim world that we really cared and that we were willing to destroy a Christian people to prove it.
2. The Saudis wanted the first Islamic country in the belly of Europe, and Clinton wanted cheap oil and Saudi money. The Saudis had signed a letter of intent to buy $6 billion worth of Boeing aircraft. The day after we bombed the Serbs in 1995 based on the self-inflicted Markale market place massacre by Bosnian Muslim forces, the Saudis signed on the dotted line. A coincidence? I don't think so. This is what Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," had to say in his 1995 book, "Offensive in the Balkans:"
- "Phase Three started with the self-inflicted major terrorist provocation. On Friday 5, 1994, a major explosion rocked the Markale -- Sarajevo's main market place -- causing heavy casualties. What was immediately described as the ubiquitous "Serb mortar shell" was actually a special charge designed and built with help from HizbAllah experts and then most likely dropped from a nearby rooftop onto the crowd of shoppers. Video cameras at the ready recorded this expertly-staged spectacle of gore, while dozens of corpses of Bosnian Muslim troops killed in action (exchanged the day before in a 'body swap' with the Serbs) were paraded in front of cameras to raise the casualty count.
- "This callous self-killing was designed to shock the West especially sentimental and gullible Washington, in order to raise the level of Western sympathy to the Bosnian Muslims and further demonize the Serbs so that Western governments would be more supportive of Sarajevo's forthcoming aggressive moves, and perhaps even finally intervene military."
There were other reports from European newspapers such as The [London] Sunday Times," with headlines that read, "Serbs 'not guilty' of massacre, Experts warned US that mortar was Bosnian" (1 Oct. 1995), and "US Framed Serbs for Market Bombing," from the Stoneyhill Center, a British think tank (Oct 1995). No such headlines appeared in US national newspapers.
3. Clinton needed a new mission for NATO. The Soviet Union had collapsed and if you recall, the NATO Treaty was a collective security agreement between member nations that if one NATO nation were attacked by the Soviet Union (CCCP), other NATO members would go to its defense. In violation of International law, the NATO Treaty, the UN Charter and without the approval of Congress, Clinton and his administration, along with Serb-hating Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton gang, bombed tiny Yugoslavia that did not attack us or any NATO nation, was never a threat to us, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction.
One graphic example of Madeleine Albright's animosity towards the Serbs was the time she was entering the United Nations building as US ambassador and a Serb called out and asked why she was doing these terrible things to the Serbs. She answered, "Because they deserve it!" A more humorous account regarding Ms. Albright is the story of how the war in the Balkans really began. During a meeting of Madeleine Albright with the all-male NATO ministers, she asked the question, "Well gentleman, do we make love or do we make war?" Of course, the answer was unanimously for war.
4. Clinton couldn't let this pip-squeak of a nation defy The New World Order.
5. Our wag-the-dog president had to have a diversion from his affair in the Oval Office with a woman young enough to be his daughter.
6. Clinton also needed a war to prove he was a wartime president in the mold of FDR in order to put to rest his draft-dodging days and his contempt for the US military. The propaganda against the Serbian people has not been equalled since Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said, "If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." In civil wars all sides do terrible things, but in this war all blame fell on the Serbs. President Clinton was (and continues to be) the biggest con artist this nation has ever seen and it is unfortunate that the American people believed every word uttered by him regarding the events in the Balkans even though over 75% of the American people believed him to be a liar. The fate of the Serbs from Bosnia to Kosovo was sealed.
It is a sad reflection on all Americans what William Jefferson Clinton did to the Serbian people in our name. Sadder still is the realization that if he or his wife were able to run for president again he/she might very well be elected.
1. To appease the Islamic world for our daily bombing of Iraq. President Clinton wanted to prove to the Muslim world that we really cared and that we were willing to destroy a Christian people to prove it.
2. The Saudis wanted the first Islamic country in the belly of Europe, and Clinton wanted cheap oil and Saudi money. The Saudis had signed a letter of intent to buy $6 billion worth of Boeing aircraft. The day after we bombed the Serbs in 1995 based on the self-inflicted Markale market place massacre by Bosnian Muslim forces, the Saudis signed on the dotted line. A coincidence? I don't think so. This is what Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," had to say in his 1995 book, "Offensive in the Balkans:"
- "Phase Three started with the self-inflicted major terrorist provocation. On Friday 5, 1994, a major explosion rocked the Markale -- Sarajevo's main market place -- causing heavy casualties. What was immediately described as the ubiquitous "Serb mortar shell" was actually a special charge designed and built with help from HizbAllah experts and then most likely dropped from a nearby rooftop onto the crowd of shoppers. Video cameras at the ready recorded this expertly-staged spectacle of gore, while dozens of corpses of Bosnian Muslim troops killed in action (exchanged the day before in a 'body swap' with the Serbs) were paraded in front of cameras to raise the casualty count.
- "This callous self-killing was designed to shock the West especially sentimental and gullible Washington, in order to raise the level of Western sympathy to the Bosnian Muslims and further demonize the Serbs so that Western governments would be more supportive of Sarajevo's forthcoming aggressive moves, and perhaps even finally intervene military."
There were other reports from European newspapers such as The [London] Sunday Times," with headlines that read, "Serbs 'not guilty' of massacre, Experts warned US that mortar was Bosnian" (1 Oct. 1995), and "US Framed Serbs for Market Bombing," from the Stoneyhill Center, a British think tank (Oct 1995). No such headlines appeared in US national newspapers.
3. Clinton needed a new mission for NATO. The Soviet Union had collapsed and if you recall, the NATO Treaty was a collective security agreement between member nations that if one NATO nation were attacked by the Soviet Union (CCCP), other NATO members would go to its defense. In violation of International law, the NATO Treaty, the UN Charter and without the approval of Congress, Clinton and his administration, along with Serb-hating Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton gang, bombed tiny Yugoslavia that did not attack us or any NATO nation, was never a threat to us, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction.
One graphic example of Madeleine Albright's animosity towards the Serbs was the time she was entering the United Nations building as US ambassador and a Serb called out and asked why she was doing these terrible things to the Serbs. She answered, "Because they deserve it!" A more humorous account regarding Ms. Albright is the story of how the war in the Balkans really began. During a meeting of Madeleine Albright with the all-male NATO ministers, she asked the question, "Well gentleman, do we make love or do we make war?" Of course, the answer was unanimously for war.
4. Clinton couldn't let this pip-squeak of a nation defy The New World Order.
5. Our wag-the-dog president had to have a diversion from his affair in the Oval Office with a woman young enough to be his daughter.
6. Clinton also needed a war to prove he was a wartime president in the mold of FDR in order to put to rest his draft-dodging days and his contempt for the US military. The propaganda against the Serbian people has not been equalled since Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said, "If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." In civil wars all sides do terrible things, but in this war all blame fell on the Serbs. President Clinton was (and continues to be) the biggest con artist this nation has ever seen and it is unfortunate that the American people believed every word uttered by him regarding the events in the Balkans even though over 75% of the American people believed him to be a liar. The fate of the Serbs from Bosnia to Kosovo was sealed.
It is a sad reflection on all Americans what William Jefferson Clinton did to the Serbian people in our name. Sadder still is the realization that if he or his wife were able to run for president again he/she might very well be elected.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Blame Bush, Blame Guns, Blame anything but Cho!
Its the progressive freethinking way! I mean lets just forget about the fact the kid was sucking down Liberal mind control bullets (otherwise known as SSRI's). Lets forget about the fact he was an obvious mental case who stared at his wall without saying a word for hour after hour according to his room mate. Lets forget about the fact he wrote plays that were so disturbing school-mates and teachers recommended him for counseling.
And don't forget the fact he names his Dad twice in his play as being his molester. Noooo lets blame Bush and Heston! You want to really blame "up the chain"?
I blame the feminist movement, the Liberal agenda, the feminization and de-testosterinization of the American male by the ASA and the Public education system through medication, indoctrination, and flat out anti-Tom Sawyer brain washing! So kiss my butt all you Blame Bush for everything leftist commies and start taking credit for the demise of our country.
And don't forget the fact he names his Dad twice in his play as being his molester. Noooo lets blame Bush and Heston! You want to really blame "up the chain"?
I blame the feminist movement, the Liberal agenda, the feminization and de-testosterinization of the American male by the ASA and the Public education system through medication, indoctrination, and flat out anti-Tom Sawyer brain washing! So kiss my butt all you Blame Bush for everything leftist commies and start taking credit for the demise of our country.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
BBC News | Sci/Tech | Doubt cast on 'gay gene'
BBC News Sci/Tech Doubt cast on 'gay gene'
Recent post I made to a gay person looking for a Church on the craigslist religion thread:
I am sure that you have been totally indoctrinated by the currant ASA and educationally "decision" that being gay is not a choice. I would agree that some people have "tendencies" toward this behavior. There is a big difference between being part of a group of people with certain tendencies and being part of a type of people. Example: I know of plenty of ex-Gays, but I have never met an ex-Black person. The research about the supposed "gay gene" has been proven flawed many times over. The fact is that militant left has had a purposeful agenda to change the morays of our society through the ASA and public education for decades. The feminization of the American male is one of the results. That is kind of separate issue but I would argue strongly related to homosexuality. Think about how many gay men started out as boys who were fatherless, had a father who left, had an un-accepting un-loving father, and/or were abused by another male at a young age or exposed to pornography at a young age. In light of these things, any thinking person must admit there is compelling evidence that there are plenty of contributing factors that result in homosexual behavior, none of which are genetic.
My advice to you is to quit drinking the Liberal cool-aid, find a Bible and study it for all its worth and/or take a Theology course (free video base one found at bible.org)don't focus on tradition or a "Church" per say, focus on a relationship with Christ. Try to remember that Christ was not a Liberal despite what the current apostate Church may have convinced you, BUT, he does love sinners. He just hates the sin. Also know that I do not think of you as any less of a person, or worse of a sinner than myself. The only difference between you and I is that I have accepted there is a problem and that there is NOTHING I can do on my own to reconcile myself with God. I am still tempted everyday, and still sin everyday. I try very hard to turn away from sin and temptation and after almost 20 years of "willful" sin I realized what had happened and how I had drifted to the point I no longer even viewed my behavior as sin. The bible talks about "seared conscience". When one sins long enough and separates himself long enough, his conscience is dulled. Back to you, the Bible talks about an apostate Church in the end times and how right will be wrong, and wrong will be right. Think about that when you think you have found a Church that claims nothing is wrong with homosexuality.
I would seriously consider dealing with any emotional issues you might have and don't rule out physical as well. For example, I have been on medication that caused a state of very low testosterone. So I got it treated. I would consider finding a strong Bible teaching Church and stay away from revisionist Churches. Remember that there were tons of heresies during the beginning of the Church, why is today any different? I would stay away from any Church that puts works before grace and faith, or puts anything or anyone above Christ, including tradition. I would also consider doing some research into exactly why Luther and hundreds more died to reform the Church and get back to including only the Books that the Jews included in the Old Testament. I know this is a lot, but if you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob then be the best Christian you can be. No other Religion offers a way to deal with guilt through a perfect atonement. You believe this bunk science based on faulty research. The Bible has more evidence to authenticity than that, so believe it.
I recommend reading this link: http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/austriaco_gay_gene.htm
God bless you in your search for truth. Remember the Bible says God will accept you no matter what you have done, but he expects repentance and acceptance of his son Jesus Christ.
V
PS: As far as you burning in Hell. The Bible is very clear that if one chooses to be separated by God he can be, and that God will not force anyone to be in his presence in the afterlife if they chose not to be during life. I am sure you can find a Church that will allow you to attend without addressing your lifestyle, but I guarantee you they are not teaching the whole word of God, in context, and with sound Theology. I hear there are even Churches with gay pastors now, so I am not sure why you’re asking here if that’s all your looking for. Ciao...
Recent post I made to a gay person looking for a Church on the craigslist religion thread:
I am sure that you have been totally indoctrinated by the currant ASA and educationally "decision" that being gay is not a choice. I would agree that some people have "tendencies" toward this behavior. There is a big difference between being part of a group of people with certain tendencies and being part of a type of people. Example: I know of plenty of ex-Gays, but I have never met an ex-Black person. The research about the supposed "gay gene" has been proven flawed many times over. The fact is that militant left has had a purposeful agenda to change the morays of our society through the ASA and public education for decades. The feminization of the American male is one of the results. That is kind of separate issue but I would argue strongly related to homosexuality. Think about how many gay men started out as boys who were fatherless, had a father who left, had an un-accepting un-loving father, and/or were abused by another male at a young age or exposed to pornography at a young age. In light of these things, any thinking person must admit there is compelling evidence that there are plenty of contributing factors that result in homosexual behavior, none of which are genetic.
My advice to you is to quit drinking the Liberal cool-aid, find a Bible and study it for all its worth and/or take a Theology course (free video base one found at bible.org)don't focus on tradition or a "Church" per say, focus on a relationship with Christ. Try to remember that Christ was not a Liberal despite what the current apostate Church may have convinced you, BUT, he does love sinners. He just hates the sin. Also know that I do not think of you as any less of a person, or worse of a sinner than myself. The only difference between you and I is that I have accepted there is a problem and that there is NOTHING I can do on my own to reconcile myself with God. I am still tempted everyday, and still sin everyday. I try very hard to turn away from sin and temptation and after almost 20 years of "willful" sin I realized what had happened and how I had drifted to the point I no longer even viewed my behavior as sin. The bible talks about "seared conscience". When one sins long enough and separates himself long enough, his conscience is dulled. Back to you, the Bible talks about an apostate Church in the end times and how right will be wrong, and wrong will be right. Think about that when you think you have found a Church that claims nothing is wrong with homosexuality.
I would seriously consider dealing with any emotional issues you might have and don't rule out physical as well. For example, I have been on medication that caused a state of very low testosterone. So I got it treated. I would consider finding a strong Bible teaching Church and stay away from revisionist Churches. Remember that there were tons of heresies during the beginning of the Church, why is today any different? I would stay away from any Church that puts works before grace and faith, or puts anything or anyone above Christ, including tradition. I would also consider doing some research into exactly why Luther and hundreds more died to reform the Church and get back to including only the Books that the Jews included in the Old Testament. I know this is a lot, but if you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob then be the best Christian you can be. No other Religion offers a way to deal with guilt through a perfect atonement. You believe this bunk science based on faulty research. The Bible has more evidence to authenticity than that, so believe it.
I recommend reading this link: http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/austriaco_gay_gene.htm
God bless you in your search for truth. Remember the Bible says God will accept you no matter what you have done, but he expects repentance and acceptance of his son Jesus Christ.
V
PS: As far as you burning in Hell. The Bible is very clear that if one chooses to be separated by God he can be, and that God will not force anyone to be in his presence in the afterlife if they chose not to be during life. I am sure you can find a Church that will allow you to attend without addressing your lifestyle, but I guarantee you they are not teaching the whole word of God, in context, and with sound Theology. I hear there are even Churches with gay pastors now, so I am not sure why you’re asking here if that’s all your looking for. Ciao...
Sunday, March 18, 2007
The Anti-Gun people are at it again!
GovTrack: H.R. 1022: Text of Legislation
Its abosolutely amazing to me how relentless these people are at sending down the road to tyranny. I found this excellent paper at a site that has many other well written insights into what I call "The Slow Cooking of America".
See above link for Legislation and petition.
Now on to the essay....
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D. righter@therighter.com
"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."
"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."
"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."
How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?
How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?
One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.
Defense Mechanisms
Projection
About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1
How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.
Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.
Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6
All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.
Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them.
This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8
(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)
Denial
Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.
Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder.
Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.
Reaction Formation
Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister.
Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them.
This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues.
Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" – or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.
In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.
Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses
Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "mentally ill".
Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of external reality will be seriously distorted."17
Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his own is so horribly out of control.
Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit.
Defense mechanisms distort reality
Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms.
People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21
The Common Thread: Rage
In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.
Identity as Victim
If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:
(1) People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."
(2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims."
(3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.
Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality.
Why, for example, would a 6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim?
I would argue it's because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims – not because they have actually been victimized, but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure.
In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."
Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders
Two reasons for these groups to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs.
Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24
Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless.
Victim hood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless – and therefore dependent.
Anti-gun groups love victims!
From my observations, pro-victim hood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are inner-city minorities.
If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free.
The psychological price of being a victim
In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously – and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression.
But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life.
So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy".
Say NO to being a victim!
But no one needs to be a victim! Quite simply, it's not very easy to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It's nearly impossible to enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people.
Communicating with anti-gun people
How can you communicate more effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should keep in mind.
Anger and attacks do not work
Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don't believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren't banned from such places – but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive.
It's not helpful to attack the person you're trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make informed decisions.
Be Gentle
You should never try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won't do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out that he's using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This cannot be done in one hour or one day.
As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life.
Reversing Irrational thoughts
The Mirror Technique
One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position.
Another example might be, "Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses.
Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies.
It's important to ask "open-ended" questions that require a response other than "yes" or "no". Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership.
The "What Would You Do?" Technique
Once you have a dialogue going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses, and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but "other people" would, especially if they had guns. (Projection again.) You can then ask him who these "other people" are, why they would shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so.
Don't try to "win" the argument. Don't try to embarrass the person you're trying to educate. Remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear "I told you so!" Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant, condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people – who should not be trusted with guns!
Defusing Emotional reactions
The "You Are There" Technique
Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts.
One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?"
Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses.
The Power of Empathy
Another emotion-based approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person.
Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for the inevitable to occur.
Not very pleasant, is it?
This is the world in which opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives when we felt "different" and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co- workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified people. Say something like, "It must be awful to live in fear of being assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team, workplace) – and even then I didn't think anyone was going to kill me." It's essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you're glib or sarcastic, this won't work.
Using empathy works in several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Instead of an "evil, gun-toting, extremist", you are now a sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, in which you can each discover that your "opponent" is a person with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is so prevalent.
This empathy technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of "guns save lives" vs. "the only reason to have a gun is to murder children." With empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns "solely for the purpose of murdering children".
You should not expect any of these approaches to work immediately; they won't. With rare exceptions, the anti-gun person is simply not going to "see the light," thank you profusely, and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person's defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years. But it does work!
Corrective Experiences
Perhaps the most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective experiences30. Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing.
For example, the anti-gun person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners are uneducated "rednecks," or by treating you as if you are an uneducated "redneck." If you get angry and respond by calling him a "stupid, liberal, socialist", you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your daughter's ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to correct his misconceptions.
If you have used the above techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people who care about their families, friends and even strangers.
As many gun owners have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably.
For example, if you're dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship – a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc. – you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like "I'm carrying a gun right now and you can't even tell," especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, "threatening" behavior. But you might consider saying something like, "I sometimes carry a firearm, and you've never seemed to be uncomfortable around me." Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach.
First-hand experience
Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience.
First, you want to encourage the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety.
Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into anti-government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk!
Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman's hand.
Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single "beer-swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces.
In my experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don't feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you're lucky, you'll recruit a new firearms enthusiast.
But even if your guest decides that shooting is "not for him", he will have learned many valuable lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows – a few months or years later he may decide to become a gun owner.
Why these techniques do not always work
You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered.
You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31
Conclusion
By better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety.
Educating others about firearms is hard work. It's not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done one person at a time. But it's a very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not he's ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self- defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun.
© 2000, Sarah Thompson. Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, http://www.utgoa.org/ and also writes The Righter, http://www.therighter.com/, a monthly column on individual rights.
Notes
1 Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999.
2 Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2.
3 Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20.
4Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433.
5 Brenner 1973. P. 91.
6 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432.
7 Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137.
8 "Kids Suspended for Playground Game." Associated Press. April 6, 2000.
9 Lightfoot, Liz. "Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest." The London Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.
10 Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. [Analyzes the law in 54 U.S. jurisdictions]; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) [no federal constitutional right to police protection.]
11 Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150-187.
12 Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
13 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.
14 Brenner 1973, p. 85.
15 Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern m: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 [ m exalts nature, animals and environment].
16 Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54.
17 Brenner 1973, p. 92.
18 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219.
19 American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410.
20 Lott 1998, pp. 11-12.
21 Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential killers. "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system." Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69 (Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093.
22 Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14). http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
23x Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful memories. Jewish World Review (July 12).
24 Dworkin, Andrea. "Terror, Torture and Resistance". http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/TerrorTortureandResistance.html
25 Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999. http://www.naacp.org/president/speeches/90th%20Annual%20Meeting.htm
26 Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000. http://uahc.org/yoffie/mmm.html
27 "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a.
28 Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women's Resources and Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5.
29 Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37.
30 Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 216-217.
31 Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1
Its abosolutely amazing to me how relentless these people are at sending down the road to tyranny. I found this excellent paper at a site that has many other well written insights into what I call "The Slow Cooking of America".
See above link for Legislation and petition.
Now on to the essay....
Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D. righter@therighter.com
"You don't need to have a gun; the police will protect you."
"If people carry guns, there will be murders over parking spaces and neighborhood basketball games."
"I'm a pacifist. Enlightened, spiritually aware people shouldn't own guns."
"I'd rather be raped than have some redneck militia type try to rescue me."
How often have you heard these statements from misguided advocates of victim disarmament, or even woefully uninformed relatives and neighbors? Why do people cling so tightly to these beliefs, in the face of incontrovertible evidence that they are wrong? Why do they get so furiously angry when gun owners point out that their arguments are factually and logically incorrect?
How can you communicate with these people who seem to be out of touch with reality and rational thought?
One approach to help you deal with anti-gun people is to understand their psychological processes. Once you understand why these people behave so irrationally, you can communicate more effectively with them.
Defense Mechanisms
Projection
About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn't want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don't know that this person is a "he", but I'm assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm1 and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.1
How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn't. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud. This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one's own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn't have to own them.3 In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,4 so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.
Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.5 They operate without our awareness, so that we don't have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e-mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.
Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.6
All people have violent, and even homicidal, impulses. For example, it's common to hear people say "I'd like to kill my boss", or "If you do that one more time I'm going to kill you." They don't actually mean that they're going to, or even would, kill anyone; they're simply acknowledging anger and frustration. All of us suffer from fear and feelings of helplessness and vulnerability. Most people can acknowledge feelings of rage, fear, frustration, jealousy, etc. without having to act on them in inappropriate and destructive ways.
Some people, however, are unable consciously to admit that they have such "unacceptable" emotions. They may have higher than average levels of rage, frustration, or fear. Perhaps they fear that if they acknowledge the hostile feelings, they will lose control and really will hurt someone. They may believe that "good people" never have such feelings, when in fact all people have them.
This is especially true now that education "experts" commonly prohibit children from expressing negative emotions or aggression. Instead of learning that such emotions are normal, but that destructive behavior needs to be controlled, children now learn that feelings of anger are evil, dangerous and subject to severe punishment.7To protect themselves from "being bad", they are forced to use defense mechanisms to avoid owning their own normal emotions. Unfortunately, using such defense mechanisms inappropriately can endanger their mental health; children need to learn how to deal appropriately with reality, not how to avoid it.8
(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self-defense. It does not apply to the anti- gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)
Denial
Another defense mechanism commonly utilized by supporters of gun control is denial. Denial is simply refusing to accept the reality of a given situation.9 For example, consider a woman whose husband starts coming home late, has strange perfume on his clothes, and starts charging flowers and jewelry on his credit card. She may get extremely angry at a well-meaning friend who suggests that her husband is having an affair. The reality is obvious, but the wronged wife is so threatened by her husband's infidelity that she is unable to accept it, and so denies its existence.
Anti-gun people do the same thing. It's obvious that we live in a dangerous society, where criminals attack innocent people. Just about everyone has been, or knows someone who has been, victimized. It's equally obvious that law enforcement can't protect everyone everywhere 24 hours a day. Extensive scholarly research demonstrates that the police have no legal duty to protect you10 and that firearm ownership is the most effective way to protect yourself and your family.11 There is irrefutable evidence that victim disarmament nearly always precedes genocide.12 Nonetheless, the anti-gun folks insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that "the police will protect you", "this is a safe neighborhood" and "it can't happen here", where "it" is everything from mugging to mass murder.
Anti-gun people who refuse to accept the reality of the proven and very serious dangers of civilian disarmament are using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Likewise, gun owners who insist that "the government will never confiscate my guns" are also using denial to protect themselves from the anxiety of contemplating being forcibly disarmed and rendered helpless and vulnerable.
Reaction Formation
Reaction formation is yet another defense mechanism common among the anti-gun folks. Reaction formation occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite.13 For example, a child who is jealous of a sibling may exhibit excessive love and devotion for the hated brother or sister.
Likewise, a person who harbors murderous rage toward his fellow humans may claim to be a devoted pacifist and refuse to eat meat or even kill a cockroach.14 Often such people take refuge in various spiritual disciplines and believe that they are "superior" to "less civilized" folks who engage in "violent behavior" such as hunting, or even target shooting. They may devote themselves to "animal welfare" organizations that proclaim that the rights of animals take precedence over the rights of people.15 This not only allows the angry person to avoid dealing with his rage, it allows him actually to harm the people he hates without having to know he hates them.
This is not meant to disparage the many wonderful people who are pacifists, spiritually inclined, vegetarian, or who support animal welfare. The key issue is not the belief itself, but rather the way in which the person experiences and lives his beliefs. Sincere practitioners seek to improve themselves, or to be helpful in a gentle, respectful fashion. They work to persuade others peacefully by setting an example of what they believe to be correct behavior. Sincere pacifists generally exhibit good will towards others, even towards persons with whom they might disagree on various issues.
Contrast the sincere pacifist or animal lover with the strident, angry person who wants to ban meat and who believes murdering hunters is justified in order to "save the animals" – or the person who wants to outlaw self- defense and believes innocent people have the obligation to be raped and murdered for the good of society. For example, noted feminist Betty Friedan said "that lethal violence even in self defense only engenders more violence."16 The truly spiritual, pacifist person refrains from forcing others to do what he believes, and is generally driven by positive emotions, while the angry person finds "socially acceptable" ways to harm, abuse, or even kill, his fellow man.
In the case of anti-gun people, reaction formation keeps any knowledge of their hatred for their fellow humans out of consciousness, while allowing them to feel superior to "violent gun owners". At the same time, it also allows them to cause serious harm, and even loss of life, to others by denying them the tools necessary to defend themselves. This makes reaction formation very attractive from a psychological point of view, and therefore very difficult to counteract.
Defense Mechanisms Are Not Mental Illnesses
Defense mechanisms are normal. All of us use them to some extent, and their use does not imply mental illness. Advocates of victim disarmament may be misguided or uninformed, they may be stupid, or they may be consciously intent on evil, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are "mentally ill".
Some defense mechanisms, however, are healthier than others. A safe general rule is that a defense is healthy if it helps you to function better in your personal and professional life, and unhealthy if it interferes with your life, your relationships, or the well-being of others. Young children utilize projection and denial much more commonly than do healthy adults. On the other hand, "if projection is used as a defense mechanism to a very great extent in adult life, the user's perception of external reality will be seriously distorted."17
Defense mechanisms are also frequently combined, so that an anti-gun person may use several defense mechanisms simultaneously. For example, my unfortunate correspondent uses projection to create a world in which all his neighbors want to murder him. As a result, he becomes more angry and fearful, and needs to employ even more defense mechanisms to cope. So he uses projection to attribute his own rage to others, he uses denial that there is any danger to protect himself from a world where he believes he is helpless and everyone wants to murder him, and he uses reaction formation to try to control everyone else's life because his own is so horribly out of control.
Also, it's important to remember that not all anti-gun beliefs are the result of defense mechanisms. Some people suffer from gun phobia18, an excessive and completely irrational fear of firearms, usually caused by the anti-gun conditioning they've been subjected to by the media, politicians, so-called "educators," and others. In some cases, gun phobia is caused by an authentic bad experience associated with a firearm. But with all due respect to Col. Jeff Cooper, who coined the term "hoplophobia" to describe anti-gun people, most anti-gun people do not have true phobias. Interestingly, a person with a true phobia of guns realizes his fear is excessive or unreasonable,19 something most anti-gun folks will never admit.
Defense mechanisms distort reality
Because defense mechanisms distort reality in order to avoid unpleasant emotions, the person who uses them has an impaired ability to recognize and accept reality. This explains why my e-mail correspondent and many other anti-gun people persist in believing that their neighbors and co- workers will become mass murderers if allowed to own firearms.
People who legally carry concealed firearms are actually less violent and less prone to criminal activity of all kinds than is the general population.20 A person who has a clean record, has passed an FBI background check, undergone firearms training, and spent several hundred dollars to get a permit and a firearm, is highly unlikely to choose to murder a neighbor. Doing so would result in his facing a police manhunt, a trial, prison, possibly capital punishment, and the destruction of his family, job, and reputation. Obviously it would make no sense for such a person to shoot a neighbor - except in self-defense. Equally obviously, the anti-gun person who believes that malicious shootings by ordinary gun owners are likely to occur is not in touch with reality.21
The Common Thread: Rage
In my experience, the common thread in anti-gun people is rage. Either anti-gun people harbor more rage than others, or they're less able to cope with it appropriately. Because they can't handle their own feelings of rage, they are forced to use defense mechanisms in an unhealthy manner. Because they wrongly perceive others as seeking to harm them, they advocate the disarmament of ordinary people who have no desire to harm anyone. So why do anti-gun people have so much rage and why are they unable to deal with it in appropriate ways? Consider for a moment that the largest and most hysterical anti-gun groups include disproportionately large numbers of women, African- Americans and Jews. And virtually all of the organizations that claim to speak for these "oppressed people" are stridently anti-gun. Not coincidentally, among Jews, Blacks and women there are many "professional victims" who have little sense of identity outside of their victimhood.
Identity as Victim
If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:
(1) People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."
(2) In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims."
(3) Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization.
Thus the concept of "identity as victim" is essential. How and why do members of some groups choose to identify themselves as victims and teach their children to do the same? While it's true that women, Jews, and African- Americans have historically been victimized, they now participate in American society on an equal basis. And other groups, most notably Asian-Americans, have been equally victimized, and yet have transcended the "eternal victim" mentality.
Why, for example, would a 6'10" NBA player who makes $10 million a year see himself as a "victim"? Why would a successful, respected, wealthy, Jewish physician regard himself as a "victim"? Conversely, why might a wheelchair bound woman who lives on government disability NOT regard herself as a victim?
I would argue it's because the basketball player and the physician believe that their identities are dependent on being victims – not because they have actually been victimized, but because they're members of groups that claim victim status. Conversely, the disabled woman was probably raised to believe that she is responsible for her own success or failure.
In fact, many people who have been victims of actual violent crime, or who have survived war or civil strife, support the right of self-defense. The old saying is often correct: "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged."
Special Treatment and Misleading Leaders
Two reasons for these groups to insist on "victim" status seem likely. First, by claiming victim status, members of these groups can demand (and get) special treatment through quotas, affirmative action, reparations, and other preferential treatment programs.
Second, these people have been indoctrinated to believe that there is no alternative to remaining a victim forever. Their leaders remind them constantly that they are mistreated in every imaginable way (most of them imaginary!), attribute every one of life's misfortunes to "racism" or "sexism" or "hate crimes", and dream up ever more complex schemes for special treatment and favors.22 These leaders are the ones who preach that the entire Black experience is slavery and racism, or that Jewish history before and after the Holocaust is irrelevant,23 or that happily married women are really victims of sexual slavery.24
Likewise, the NAACP is suing firearms manufacturers to put them out of business,25 and is especially opposed to the inexpensive pistols that enable the poor to defend themselves in gang-ridden inner cities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed evicting anyone who dares to keep a tool of self-defense in any of its crime-infested housing projects. Jewish leaders, especially those in the politically correct "Reform" branch, preach that gun control is "a solemn religious obligation",26 contrary to the teachings of their sacred scriptures and their own history.27 Law enforcement agencies falsely teach women that they are safest if they don't resist rapists and robbers,28 while women's organizations advocate gun control, thus rendering women and their children defenseless.
Victim hood is good business for organizations that foster victim status. As victims, the members depend upon the organization to protect them, and the organization in turn relies on members for funding and political power. In the interest of self-preservation, these organizations work hard at preserving hatred and bigotry and at keeping their members defenseless – and therefore dependent.
Anti-gun groups love victims!
From my observations, pro-victim hood is a feature of all of the anti-gun special interest groups, not just the ones mentioned here. Every organization that supports gun control apparently wants its members to be helpless, terrified and totally dependent on someone else to control every aspect of their lives. It doesn't matter whether it's a religious, racial, ethnic, political, social, or charitable group. From Handgun Control, Inc. to the Anti- Defamation League to the Million Mom March, they all want you to live in fear. In this scheme, soccer moms are "victims" just as much as are inner-city minorities.
If these organizations truly cared about the people for whom they claim to speak, they would encourage safe and responsible firearms ownership. They would help people to learn how to defend themselves and their families so that they wouldn't have to live in fear. They would tell everyone that one of the wonderful things about being an American is that you have the right to keep and bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and how these rights preserve the right to be free.
The psychological price of being a victim
In our current society, victimhood has many perceived benefits, but there are some serious drawbacks. Victims tend to see the world as a scary and threatening place. They believe that others treat them differently, unfairly, and even maliciously – and that they are helpless to do anything about it. This belief, that they are being mistreated and are helpless to resist, generates tremendous rage, and often, serious depression.
But for victims to show rage openly can be dangerous, if not outright suicidal. For example, a battered woman who screams at or hits her attacker may provoke worse beatings or even her own murder. And a person who successfully defends himself loses his status as "victim." For someone whose entire identity is dependent on being a victim, the loss of victim status is just as threatening as loss of life.
So, unable psychologically to cope with such rage, people who view themselves as victims: (1) use defense mechanisms to displace it into irrational beliefs about neighbors killing each other, and the infallibility of police protection, and (2) attempt to regain control by controlling gun owners, whom they wrongly perceive as "the enemy".
Say NO to being a victim!
But no one needs to be a victim! Quite simply, it's not very easy to victimize a person who owns and knows how to use a firearm. If most women owned and carried firearms, rapes and beating would decrease.29 Thugs who target the elderly and disabled would find honest work once they realized they were likely to be looking down the barrel of a pistol or shotgun. It's nearly impossible to enslave, or herd into concentration camps, large numbers of armed people.
Communicating with anti-gun people
How can you communicate more effectively with an anti-gun person who is using unhealthy defense mechanisms? There are no quick and easy answers. But there are a few things you should keep in mind.
Anger and attacks do not work
Most gun owners, when confronted by an anti-gun person, become angry and hostile. This is understandable, because gun owners increasingly face ridicule, persecution and discrimination. (If you don't believe this, ask yourself if anyone would seriously introduce legislation to ban African- Americans, women, or Jews from post offices, schools, and churches. Even convicted felons aren't banned from such places – but peaceful armed citizens are!) But an angry response is counterproductive.
It's not helpful to attack the person you're trying to persuade. Anything that makes him feel more fearful or angry will only intensify his defenses. Your goal is to help the person feel safe, and then to provide experiences and information that will help him to make informed decisions.
Be Gentle
You should never try to break down a defense mechanism by force. Remember that defense mechanisms protect people from feelings they cannot handle, and if you take that protection away, you can cause serious psychological harm. And because defense mechanisms operate unconsciously, it won't do any good to show an anti-gun person this article or to point out that he's using defense mechanisms. Your goal is gently and gradually to help the person to have a more realistic and rational view of the world. This cannot be done in one hour or one day.
As you reach out to people in this way, you need to deal with both the illogical thought processes involved and the emotional reactions that anti-gun people have to firearms. When dealing with illogical thought processes, you are attempting to use reason and logic to convince the anti-gun person that his perception of other people and his perception of firearms are seriously inaccurate. The goal is to help him to understand that armed citizens and firearms are not threats, and may even save his life.
Reversing Irrational thoughts
The Mirror Technique
One approach that can be helpful is simply to feed back what the anti-gun person is telling you, in a neutral, inquisitive way. So, when replying to my anonymous e-mail correspondent (above), I might respond, "So you fear if your neighbors had guns, they would use them to murder you. What makes you think that?" When you simply repeat what the person has said, and ask questions, you are not directly challenging his defenses. You are holding up a mirror to let him see his own views. If he has very strong defenses, he can continue to insist that his neighbors want to murder him. However, if his defenses are less rigid, he may start to question his position.
Another example might be, "Why do you think that your children's schoolteachers would shoot them?" You might follow this up with something like, "Why do you entrust your precious children to someone you believe would murder them?" Again, you are merely asking questions, and not directly attacking the person or his defenses.
Of course the anti-gun person might continue to insist that the teachers really would harm children, but prohibiting them from owning guns would prevent it. So you might ask how using a gun to murder innocent children is different from stabbing children with scissors, assaulting them with baseball bats, or poisoning the milk and cookies.
It's important to ask "open-ended" questions that require a response other than "yes" or "no". Such questions require the anti-gun person actually to think about what he is saying. This will help him to re-examine his beliefs. It may also encourage him to ask you questions about firearms use and ownership.
The "What Would You Do?" Technique
Once you have a dialogue going with an anti-gun person, you might want to insert him into a hypothetical scenario, although doing so is a greater threat to his defenses, and is therefore more risky. You might ask how he would deal with a difficult or annoying co-worker. He will likely respond that he would never resort to violence, but "other people" would, especially if they had guns. (Projection again.) You can then ask him who these "other people" are, why they would shoot a co-worker, and what the shooter would gain by doing so.
Don't try to "win" the argument. Don't try to embarrass the person you're trying to educate. Remember that no one likes to admit that his deeply held beliefs are wrong. No one likes to hear "I told you so!" Be patient and gentle. If you are arrogant, condescending, hurtful or rude to the anti-gun person, you will only convince him that gun owners are arrogant, hurtful people – who should not be trusted with guns!
Defusing Emotional reactions
The "You Are There" Technique
Rational arguments alone are not likely to be successful, especially since many people "feel" rather than "think". You also need to deal with the emotional responses of the anti-gun person. Remember that most people have been conditioned to associate firearms with dead toddlers. So you need to change the person's emotional responses along with his thoughts.
One way to do this is to put the anti-gun person (or his family) at a hypothetical crime scene and ask what he would like to have happen. For example, "Imagine your wife is in the parking lot at the supermarket and two men grab her. One holds a knife to her throat while the other tears her clothes off. If I see this happening and have a gun, what should I do? What would happen next? What if after five minutes, the police still haven't arrived?"
Just let him answer the questions and mentally walk through the scenario. Don't argue with his answers. You are planting seeds in his mind than can help change his emotional responses.
The Power of Empathy
Another emotion-based approach that is often more successful is to respond sympathetically to the plight of the anti-gun person.
Imagine for a moment how you would feel if you believed your neighbors and co-workers wanted to kill you and your family, and you could do nothing at all about it except to wait for the inevitable to occur.
Not very pleasant, is it?
This is the world in which opponents of armed self-defense live. All of us have had times in our lives when we felt "different" and had to contend with hostile schoolmates, co- workers, etc. So we need to invoke our own compassion for these terrified people. Say something like, "It must be awful to live in fear of being assaulted by your own neighbors. I remember what it was like when I was the only (Jew, Mormon, African-American, Republican) in my (class, football team, workplace) – and even then I didn't think anyone was going to kill me." It's essential that you sincerely feel some compassion and empathy; if you're glib or sarcastic, this won't work.
Using empathy works in several ways. First, it defuses a potentially hostile interaction. Anti-gun people are used to being attacked, not understood, by advocates of gun rights. Instead of an "evil, gun-toting, extremist", you are now a sympathetic, fellow human being. This may also open the door for a friendly conversation, in which you can each discover that your "opponent" is a person with whom you have some things in common. You may even create an opportunity to dispel some of the misinformation about firearms and self-defense that is so prevalent.
This empathy technique is also useful for redirecting, or ending, a heated argument that has become hostile and unproductive. It allows you to escape from the dead end of "guns save lives" vs. "the only reason to have a gun is to murder children." With empathy you can reframe the argument entirely. Instead of arguing about whether more lives are saved or lost as a result of gun ownership, you can comment on how terrifying it must be to live in a country where 80 million people own guns "solely for the purpose of murdering children".
You should not expect any of these approaches to work immediately; they won't. With rare exceptions, the anti-gun person is simply not going to "see the light," thank you profusely, and beg you to take him shooting. What you are doing is putting tiny chinks into the armor of the person's defenses, or planting seeds that may someday develop into a more open mind or a more rational analysis. This process can take months or years. But it does work!
Corrective Experiences
Perhaps the most effective way to dissolve defense mechanisms, however, is by providing corrective experiences30. Corrective experiences are experiences that allow a person to learn that his ideas about gun owners and guns are incorrect in a safe and non-threatening way. To provide a corrective experience, you first allow the person to attempt to project his incorrect ideas onto you. Then, you demonstrate that he is wrong by your behavior, not by arguing.
For example, the anti-gun person will unconsciously attempt to provoke you by claiming that gun owners are uneducated "rednecks," or by treating you as if you are an uneducated "redneck." If you get angry and respond by calling him a "stupid, liberal, socialist", you will prove his point. However, if you casually talk about your M.B.A., your trip to the Shakespeare festival, your vegetable garden, or your daughter's ballet recital, you will provide him with the opportunity to correct his misconceptions.
If you have used the above techniques, then you have already provided one corrective experience. You have demonstrated to the frightened, anti-gun person that gun owners are not abusive, scary, dangerous and sub-human monsters, but normal, everyday people who care about their families, friends and even strangers.
As many gun owners have already discovered, the most important corrective experiences involve actually exposing the fearful person to a firearm. It is almost never advisable to tell someone that you carry a concealed firearm, but there are ways to use your own experience favorably.
For example, if you're dealing with an anti-gun person with whom you interact regularly and have a generally good relationship – a coworker, neighbor, church member, etc. – you might indirectly refer to concealed carry. You should never say anything like "I'm carrying a gun right now and you can't even tell," especially because in some states that would be considered illegal, "threatening" behavior. But you might consider saying something like, "I sometimes carry a firearm, and you've never seemed to be uncomfortable around me." Whether to disclose this information is an individual decision, and you should consider carefully other consequences before using this approach.
First-hand experience
Ultimately, your goal is to take the anti-gun person shooting. Some people will accept an invitation to accompany you to the range, but others are too frightened to do so, and will need some preliminary experience.
First, you want to encourage the anti-gun person to have some contact with a firearm in whatever way feels most comfortable to him. Many people seem to believe that firearms have minds of their own and shoot people of their own volition. So you might want to start by inviting him simply to look at and then handle an unloaded firearm. This also provides you the opportunity to show the inexperienced person how to tell whether a firearm is loaded and to teach him the basic rules of firearms safety.
Encourage the newcomer to ask questions and remember that your role is to present accurate information in a friendly, responsible and non-threatening way. This is a good time to offer some reading material on the benefits of firearms ownership. But be careful not to provide so much information that it's overwhelming. And remember this is not the time to launch into anti-government rants, the New World Order, conspiracy theories, or any kind of political talk!
Next, you can invite your friend to accompany you to the shooting range. (And if you're going to trust each other with loaded guns, you should consider yourselves friends!) Assure him that no one will force him to shoot a gun and he's free just to watch. Let him know in advance what he will experience and what will be expected of him. This includes such things as the need for eye and ear protection, a cap, appropriate clothing, etc. Make sure you have a firearm appropriate for your guest should s/he decide to try shooting. This means a lower caliber firearm that doesn't have too much recoil. If your guest is a woman, make sure the firearm will fit her appropriately. Many rifles have stocks that are too long for small women, and double-stack semi-autos are usually too large for a woman's hand.
Remember that just visiting the range can be a corrective experience. Your guest will learn that gun owners are disciplined, responsible, safety-conscious, courteous, considerate, and follow the rules. He will see people of all ages, from children to the elderly, male and female, enjoying an activity together. He will not see a single "beer-swilling redneck" waving a firearm in people's faces.
In my experience, most people who visit a range will decide they do want to try shooting. Remember to make sure your guest understands all the safety rules and range rules before allowing him to handle a firearm. If you don't feel competent to teach a newcomer to shoot, ask an instructor or range master to assist. Remember to provide lots of positive feedback and encouragement. If you're lucky, you'll recruit a new firearms enthusiast.
But even if your guest decides that shooting is "not for him", he will have learned many valuable lessons. He will know basic rules of firearms safety, and how to clear a firearm should he need to do so. This may well save his life someday. He will know that guns do not fire unless a person pulls the trigger. He will know that gun owners are friendly, responsible people, not very different from him. Even if he chooses not to fire a gun ever again, he will be less likely to fear and persecute gun owners. And who knows – a few months or years later he may decide to become a gun owner.
Why these techniques do not always work
You should remember that you will not be successful with all anti-gun people. Some people are so terrified and have such strong defenses, that it's not possible for someone without professional training to get through. Some people have their minds made up and refuse to consider opening them. Others may concede that what you say "makes sense," but are unwilling to challenge the forces of political correctness. A few may have had traumatic experiences with firearms from which they have not recovered.
You will also not be successful with the anti-gun ideologues, people like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein. These people have made a conscious choice to oppose firearms ownership and self-defense. They almost always gain power, prestige, and money from their anti-gun politics. They are not interested in the facts or in saving lives. They know the facts and understand the consequences of their actions, and will happily sacrifice innocent people if it furthers their selfish agenda. Do not use these techniques on such people. They only respond to fears of losing the power, prestige and money that they covet.31
Conclusion
By better understanding advocates of civilian disarmament, and by learning and practicing some simple techniques to deal with their psychological defenses, you will be much more effective in your efforts to communicate with anti-gun people. This will enable you to be more successful at educating them about the realities of firearms and self- defense, and their importance to our liberty and safety.
Educating others about firearms is hard work. It's not glamorous, and it generally needs to be done one person at a time. But it's a very necessary and important task. The average American supports freedom of speech and freedom of religion, whether or not he chooses to exercise them. He supports fair trials, whether or not he's ever been in a courtroom. He likewise needs to understand that self- defense is an essential right, whether or not he chooses to own or carry a gun.
© 2000, Sarah Thompson. Dr. Thompson is Executive Director of Utah Gun Owners Alliance, http://www.utgoa.org/ and also writes The Righter, http://www.therighter.com/, a monthly column on individual rights.
Notes
1 Lott, John R., Jr. 1998. More Guns, Less Crime. University of Chicago Press. Pp. 11-12; Proposition B: More Security Or Greater Danger?, St. Louis Post-Dispatch. March 21, 1999.
2 Lott 1998, Pp. 1-2.
3 Kaplan, Harold M. and Sadock, Benjamin J. 1990. Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry. Williams & Wilkins. P. 20.
4Brenner, Charles. 1973. An Elementary Textbook of Psychoanalysis (rev. ed.). Anchor Books. Pp. 91-93; Lefton, Lester A. 1994. Psychology (5th edition). Allyn & Bacon. Pp. 432-433.
5 Brenner 1973. P. 91.
6 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 432.
7 Talbott, John A., Robert E. Hales and Stuart C. Yudofsky, eds. 1988. Textbook of Psychiatry. American Psychiatric Press. P.137.
8 "Kids Suspended for Playground Game." Associated Press. April 6, 2000.
9 Lightfoot, Liz. "Gun Return to the Nursery School Toy Chest." The London Telegraph. May 22, 2000. Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.
10 Stevens, Richard W. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Mazel Freedom Press. [Analyzes the law in 54 U.S. jurisdictions]; see, e.g., Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982) [no federal constitutional right to police protection.]
11 Kleck, Gary and Gertz, Marc. 1995. Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self- Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 86 (Fall), pp. 150-187.
12 Simkin, Jay, Zelman, Aaron, and Rice, Alan M. 1994. Lethal Laws. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
13 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 20; Lefton 1994, p. 433.
14 Brenner 1973, p. 85.
15 Veith, Gene Edward, Jr. 1993. Modern m: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing. Pp. 39-40 [ m exalts nature, animals and environment].
16 Japenga, A. 1994. Would I Be Safer with a Gun? Health. March/April, p. 54.
17 Brenner 1973, p. 92.
18 Kaplan and Sadock 1990, p. 219.
19 American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. P. 410.
20 Lott 1998, pp. 11-12.
21 Most American gun owners are not violent criminals and will not be potential killers. "The vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record and many prior contacts with the justice system." Elliott, Delbert S. 1998. Life Threatening Violence is Primarily a Crime Problem: A Focus on Prevention. University of Colorado Law Review. Vol. 69 (Fall), pp. 1081-1098, at 1093.
22 Sowell, Thomas. 2000. Blacks and bootstraps. Jewish World Review (Aug.14). http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
23x Wein, Rabbi Berel. 2000. The return of a Torah scroll and confronting painful memories. Jewish World Review (July 12).
24 Dworkin, Andrea. "Terror, Torture and Resistance". http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/TerrorTortureandResistance.html
25 Mfume, Kweisi, speech at the 90th annual NAACP meeting, July 12, 1999. http://www.naacp.org/president/speeches/90th%20Annual%20Meeting.htm
26 Yoffie, Rabbi Eric H. Speech supporting the Million Mom March, May 14, 2000. http://uahc.org/yoffie/mmm.html
27 "If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him." The Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin. 1994. The Schottenstein Edition. New York: Mesorah Publications. Vol. 2, 72a.
28 Rape and Sexual Assault, Dean of Students Office for Women's Resources and Services McKinley Health Education Dept., University Police, University of Illinois; Hazelwood, R. R. & Harpold, J. 1986. Rape: The Dangers of Providing Confrontational Advice, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Vol. 55, pp. 1-5.
29 Lott 1998, pp. 78, 134-37.
30 Frank, Jerome D. 1961. Persuasion and Healing. The Johns Hopkins Press. Pp. 216-217.
31 Richardson, H. L. 1998. Confrontational Politics. Gun Owners Foundation. 1
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Recent Email/Response to GOP NC.
Thank you for contacting the Republican National Committee. Your comments will be included in the daily report to the Chairman. We appreciate your input.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Nightingale [hidden]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:33 PM
To: Info Services Temp
Cc: hidden
Subject: From member - please forward to President of GOP
Dear GOP Leadership,
I saw the Subject line of this email in a recent Newsmax article. So, the first thing I thought was, they must be looking for another actor. The reason is that John Cox appears to be as Reagan-like as I have seen in a long time but no mention of him. So what is the problem? Is he not in the bohemian “in” crowd? Is it because he does not have an extensive political background? I am about as close to a common conservative as it gets. I am an evangelical Christian who collects guns and trains in his free time to defend the constitution against both foreign AND domestic no matter what, by any means necessary. I still work in I.T. after barely surviving the dotcom bust and am 100% convinced the ONLY way to financial freedom is what I do outside my regular job. My family struggles on a single income but we both agreed our kids going to the caliber of public school in our area (Yamhill county, OR) was simply not an option. This is mostly due to the fact that the teachers don’t have time to help our kids advance because they are spending all available time with legal and probably some illegal Mexican students on basic language, behavior, and hygiene issues. I also have a strong entrepreneurial itch that flares up every once in a while and in process of starting an IT Security consulting firm, my second home business. I am 35 years old, married, with 3 kids, 3 bedroom, 2 bath house, 2 dogs and 2 cars both with over 100K miles on them. I spend as much time at work standing up to liberals and debating religious and political issue as much as I can without creating and ulcer.
I have already entered and exited the conspiracy theory stage of my life and am a better man because of it. I figure there is no point in worrying about what you guys do in front of a stupid owl statue, when I have enough on my plate to worry about already. Not to mention, most of these guys that are obsessed, are selling stuff.
My point to all of this is to establish that I am an average republican guy. I grew up in family that wasn’t super rich but has a lot of assets and have hung onto them through the generations. I grew up on a tree/timber farm and learned to work hard physically as a young kid. I suppose that’s what motivated me to learn computers on my own. I have made some wrong and right choices. I am not overly paranoid, but I know the smell of cow manure when I smell it, and am a good judge of character. I love freedom, like to help the weak to help them self, and those who can’t; stand in the Gap for them. I like to spread the good news of our Lord and Savior without prejudice. John Cox claims to be a Reagan like candidate, but there was no mention of him in the article. Did anyone from Newsmax call you guys about the article they were writing? What do you honestly think about John Cox? Frankly, no political experience to a guy like me is a bonus, not a detriment.
I am sure you all have seen the effects of letting the party slide into Rhino territory. I cant count the number is disgruntled Republicans I have met and know personally, some have even left the party and some are even voting Liberal out of spite. Did you know that was happening? The general feeling is, we need more Patton and less patent leather, to coin a phrase from a popular radio talk show host. Kick the media out of the Middle East, drop leaflets with a 72 hour warning, put together a rebuild fund, and turn the Sunni Triangle into a parking lot. It would probably be cheaper and produced less causalities in the long run anyway. I realize this is simplistic, but you get the general idea. I would really like to continue to support the Republican Party, but need to see some changes and willingness to go outside the old boys club. I am very interested in your thoughts concerning John Cox, and very interested in seeing him progress to the elections. I hope you will forward this to someone in the GOP leadership.
God Bless the United States of America.
Respectfully,
David Nightingale
vanight@gmail.com
-----Original Message-----
From: David Nightingale [hidden]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:33 PM
To: Info Services Temp
Cc: hidden
Subject: From member - please forward to President of GOP
Dear GOP Leadership,
I saw the Subject line of this email in a recent Newsmax article. So, the first thing I thought was, they must be looking for another actor. The reason is that John Cox appears to be as Reagan-like as I have seen in a long time but no mention of him. So what is the problem? Is he not in the bohemian “in” crowd? Is it because he does not have an extensive political background? I am about as close to a common conservative as it gets. I am an evangelical Christian who collects guns and trains in his free time to defend the constitution against both foreign AND domestic no matter what, by any means necessary. I still work in I.T. after barely surviving the dotcom bust and am 100% convinced the ONLY way to financial freedom is what I do outside my regular job. My family struggles on a single income but we both agreed our kids going to the caliber of public school in our area (Yamhill county, OR) was simply not an option. This is mostly due to the fact that the teachers don’t have time to help our kids advance because they are spending all available time with legal and probably some illegal Mexican students on basic language, behavior, and hygiene issues. I also have a strong entrepreneurial itch that flares up every once in a while and in process of starting an IT Security consulting firm, my second home business. I am 35 years old, married, with 3 kids, 3 bedroom, 2 bath house, 2 dogs and 2 cars both with over 100K miles on them. I spend as much time at work standing up to liberals and debating religious and political issue as much as I can without creating and ulcer.
I have already entered and exited the conspiracy theory stage of my life and am a better man because of it. I figure there is no point in worrying about what you guys do in front of a stupid owl statue, when I have enough on my plate to worry about already. Not to mention, most of these guys that are obsessed, are selling stuff.
My point to all of this is to establish that I am an average republican guy. I grew up in family that wasn’t super rich but has a lot of assets and have hung onto them through the generations. I grew up on a tree/timber farm and learned to work hard physically as a young kid. I suppose that’s what motivated me to learn computers on my own. I have made some wrong and right choices. I am not overly paranoid, but I know the smell of cow manure when I smell it, and am a good judge of character. I love freedom, like to help the weak to help them self, and those who can’t; stand in the Gap for them. I like to spread the good news of our Lord and Savior without prejudice. John Cox claims to be a Reagan like candidate, but there was no mention of him in the article. Did anyone from Newsmax call you guys about the article they were writing? What do you honestly think about John Cox? Frankly, no political experience to a guy like me is a bonus, not a detriment.
I am sure you all have seen the effects of letting the party slide into Rhino territory. I cant count the number is disgruntled Republicans I have met and know personally, some have even left the party and some are even voting Liberal out of spite. Did you know that was happening? The general feeling is, we need more Patton and less patent leather, to coin a phrase from a popular radio talk show host. Kick the media out of the Middle East, drop leaflets with a 72 hour warning, put together a rebuild fund, and turn the Sunni Triangle into a parking lot. It would probably be cheaper and produced less causalities in the long run anyway. I realize this is simplistic, but you get the general idea. I would really like to continue to support the Republican Party, but need to see some changes and willingness to go outside the old boys club. I am very interested in your thoughts concerning John Cox, and very interested in seeing him progress to the elections. I hope you will forward this to someone in the GOP leadership.
God Bless the United States of America.
Respectfully,
David Nightingale
vanight@gmail.com
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
FOXNews.com - National Guard Involved in South Carolina High-School Cheerleading Controversy - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
FOXNews.com - National Guard Involved in South Carolina High-School Cheerleading Controversy - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
What do you expect? Most educators are flaming liberals and liberals are famous for believing and pushing the "There is no right and wrong". So why wouldn't beer fall into the same category.
What do you expect? Most educators are flaming liberals and liberals are famous for believing and pushing the "There is no right and wrong". So why wouldn't beer fall into the same category.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
FOXNews.com - Lawmakers, Advocacy Groups Launch Last-Ditch Effort to Save Two Border Patrol Agents From Jail
FOXNews.com - Lawmakers, Advocacy Groups Launch Last-Ditch Effort to Save Two Border Patrol Agents From Jail
This is the kind of thing that makes me sad about what is happening to this country. It amazes me how this PC thing has infected our government, our jobs, our schools like a cancer destined to destroy our Republic. IT HAS TO STOP!
This is the kind of thing that makes me sad about what is happening to this country. It amazes me how this PC thing has infected our government, our jobs, our schools like a cancer destined to destroy our Republic. IT HAS TO STOP!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
