Satan Thrilled With Jihadists and Police Killers

The first degree murders in Boston, Paris, San Bernadino, Brussels, Istanbul airport, Orlando, Dallas, Nice and Baton Rouge are a sign of his handiwork.  The Father of Lies has been angry at the God, the Author of Life since before the universe and he continues to use those with poorly formed consciences as his pawns.1,2

Sadly, we see more and more falling prey to his message of hate and revenge.  Those who so wantonly despise and execute anyone who believes differently are not on a holy mission.  The perpetrators of the police deaths forget that revenge belongs to God.3

Jihadists and police murderers should recall that their virulently negative emotions are not from God, but from the one who allowed pride to throw away his spot in eternal happiness. But, perhaps I’m assuming too much on their behalf.

So, I ask them, on whose side do they want to be for now and, more importantly, for eternity?


1 – ”Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan.  Their choice against God is definitive.  They try to associate man in their revolt against God.”  Paragraph 414 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 25th printing; November, 2013.

2 – “The education of the conscience is a lifelong task.  From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience.  Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults.  The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.”  Paragraph 1784, Ibid.

3 – “Beloved, do not look for revenge, but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.”  (Romans 13:19) from The New Catholic Answer Bible, Fireside Catholic Publishing; Wichita, KS, 2005.


Hillary’s Emails ARE Potentially More Dangerous than Gun Violence

Most Americans of mature thought are tired of the Left’s treatment of Hillary’s at-risk classified emails  as if it were merely a harmless use of communication.  Today, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) made the dismissive statement in a Congressional hearing that it appears her emails are taking precedence over gun violence.  His comment emphasizes his party’s desire to deflect attention from the huge danger her irresponsible actions, in violation of State Department regulations, have put us at risk.  What she did endangers ALL Americans for the foreseeable future and in many ways we cannot easily prevent.

Gun violence is far more preventable.  However, unlike Clinton’s negligence (which requires consequences, Mr. Comey), it can be better curbed by returning to the values which made the U.S. special, and not by even more laws which handcuff honest citizens.  As evidenced in a Walter Williams column:

“Youth involvement with guns has a long history. The 1911 second edition of the Boy Scout Handbook made qualification in NRA’s junior marksmanship program a prerequisite for obtaining a BSA merit badge in marksmanship. In 1918, the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. established its own Winchester Junior Rifle Corps. The program grew to 135,000 members by 1925. In New York City, high school gun clubs were started at Boys, Curtis, Commercial, Manual Training and Stuyvesant high schools. I would like to ask America’s anti-gun fanatics what accounts for today’s mayhem: Have guns become more evil or have people become more evil?1

… Wonder why Rep. Conyers is overlooking abortion violence which takes hundreds of thousands of innocent lives each year across our nation?


1—“Isn’t it Strange?,” by Walter E. Williams,, 2/16/2016.



Baltimore Councilman Brandon Scott and John 3:20 Call it Right, Would Have Reduced Monday’s Destruction

This Baltimore councilman, who is also a Baltimore native, said it perfectly when he described the heartache he felt because of the rioters who were destroying a part of his beloved hometown. As he said that evening: “… and we cannot stand idle and let, as thugs, whatever you want to call them . I don’t even say they’re “thugs.” We’re just going to call them cowards.”1

His choice of words is supported by the gospel of John. “For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.”2 This is why there is always concern about greater violence after sundown in these situations.

And what is the best way to defeat a coward? By challenging him, not by staying back in fear of not escalating the situation, Madam Mayor Rawlings-Blake.3 History, which you likely disregard, has taught civilized society the folly of this many times over. Responsible preparation would have allowed this undaunted councilman and those like him to have succeeded in protecting their community.

1 – Fox News, 4/27/2015, 8:04 PM

2 – from the “The New Catholic Answer Bible,” Fireside Catholic Publishing; Wichita, KS, 2005.

3 – Councilman Scott also said, “Get out there and get in between these folks. When we leave here, I’m going out there. Get out there and stand tall and stand up for your neighborhood.” Later excerpt from his comments noted in footnote #1

“They Might be Considered as Weak”

This was the answer to a Fox News reporter around 10:15 PM tonight when asked to explain why a number of protesters were not showing signs of observing the 10:00 PM curfew which began tonight in Baltimore.

Strangely, during the entire exchange, both the reporter and the citizen failed to recall that the order to clear the streets was a result of the curfew established by the mayor. She used her legal authority to prevent the kind of trouble experienced last night. It was not an attempt by the police to “antagonize” the crowd by “intimidating” it as claimed by an interviewee this afternoon. It was merely the act of being prepared after 144 cars and fifteen houses were set afire the night before.

When fragile egos override respect for legitimate authority, it becomes impossible to build a stable society.

Should Live News Coverage of Mass Shootings Be Limited?

Learning of these senseless acts brings much sadness.  Today, two retail employees were shot dead by an assailant in a Columbia, MD mall before he was killed, possibly by his own hand.1  Details concerning this incident dominated many forms of information media, especially television.  This caused my analytical girlfriend to make an insightful suggestion which may not be well-received by the ratings-conscious media enterprises, but deserves thoughtful consideration.

The suggestion is to minimize news coverage of such events.  Local information streams for those in the area immediately affected by the crimes should still have access to critical updates of people they know or if the situation is on-going and could impact a greater area.  However, by restricting news coverage, the opportunities for achieving notoriety by other deranged potential criminals would be greatly reduced.

Granted, some individuals are so incapable of discerning right from wrong that this will not prevent them from committing heinous deeds.  And, while psychiatrists may not be able to prove empirically how many crimes this would prevent, this suggestion has some basis in human nature.

Misguided  Desire  for  Notoriety  can  be  a  Motivator

This parallel is not to trivialize the tragedies which kill some and devastate the survivors.  Nevertheless, it may be of a similar cause and effect.  A few decades ago, major league baseball was experiencing a significant increase in the number of fans deliberately interrupting a game by accosting a player or enjoying the spotlight by running around trying to avoid being caught, and not always while clothed, unfortunately.  MLB increased its security measures at stadiums, but it also prohibited visual coverage of the disruption for televised games.  These misdemeanors have become fewer since.

What  is  Gained  by  Saturating  Coverage  of  Non-National  Security  Tragedies?

For tragedies of a local nature, people deserve to know in “real time” with constant information of what is happening to their families and fellow citizens as well as whether the situation has become contained.  Those in a position to provide assistance also need to be kept informed of the latest developments.  However, they usually have specialized and more direct means than television for their updates.

For everyone else, constant news coverage is truly ”immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent” to borrow in-court words of objection from the Perry Mason series.  All that is necessary for outsiders to know is that the events have happened.  This can be accomplished simply by text on the television moving news flash on the bottom of the screen.  At this point, those who may have relatives or close friends in the affected area can take steps to learn of their situation.  The rest of us “believers” can turn to prayer.

Any more coverage than that is simply “immaterial and irrelevant.”  It will not increase the aid to those who need it at that moment.  It can also have a negative effect by creating a sense of despair and helplessness in some people or possibly desensitizing others who have a perverse interest in calamities.  If it instigates those at risk to carryout similar crimes, then that would make the reporting “incompetent”.

In  Summary

Motivations to commit felonious crimes originate from many sources.  Unfortunately, creating a 100% safe environment in a free society is not possible.  However, we must continue to look for new, civilized ways to discourage these tragedies from occurring.  One way could be as simple as the restriction of on-going news coverage of unfolding crimes.   It has real possibilities in creating a healthier society.

1 – Information as of 6:30PM today, the day of the shootings

Anti-Second Amendment Proponents Simulate Tactics From Minority Voter Discrimination Days

Protecting constitutional rights has been a banner carried by political progressives.  Voting rights for women took center stage in the early part of the 20th century.  It was to be followed several decades later by finally securing voting rights for minorities.  It had actually been the law of the land since five years after the Civil War, but unethical practices had kept it from being universal.

But now the children of these civil rights champions have made a 180-degree turn against the civil right to bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment.1  During the January 14 edition of the O’Reilly Factor (Fox News), John Stossel reported his experience attempting to purchase a gun in New York City. The deliberately restrictive process was strikingly reminiscent of some of the tactics used to prevent black Americans from exercising their right to vote.

Parallel  Methods  for  Disenfranchising  Law-Abiding  Voters  and  for  Disarming  Law-Abiding  Citizens

Final guarantee of the right to vote for all U.S. citizens was a painfully slow process.  It took another ninety-four years after the 15th Amendment was adopted in 1870 before the 24th Amendment was ratified making poll taxes and similar discriminating taxes unconstitutional.

The second amendment concerning the right to bear arms was passed 222 years ago along with its fellow amendments in the Bill of Rights.  This amendment is seeing increased attempts to curtail its practice.

Following are descriptions of the unethical methods used to prevent blacks from voting in the South (taken from  After each is the hurdle John Stossel ran into in his attempt to purchase a gun (in italics).

1)  Literary tests- where “some jurisdictions adopted a ‘reasonable interpretation’ clause’ which effectively ensured that whites passed and blacks failed.”  The 50-page procedure required Stossel to answer questions which included obscure weapons terms which had no relevance to the application (e.g.”dirk,”stiletto,” and “gravity knife”).

2)   Poll tax- “a flat fee required before voting; it was often levied as high as $200 per person.”  This amount would be equivalent to $1000 today.  It effectively wiped out a black person’s chance of voting.  Stossel on the required fee: “I can afford the $430 application fee, but there are poor people who can’t afford that and can’t afford to take the time off from work to apply.”


3)   “Grandfather clause”- this was an arbitrary law which by its definition made it impossible for blacks to qualify.  The civil rights web site said:  “that those who had enjoyed the right to vote prior to 1866 or 1867 or their lineal descendants would be exempt from educational, property, or tax requirements for voting. Because former slaves had not been granted the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified in 1870, these clauses effectively excluded blacks from the vote.”   While not a legal parallel, it was similar in its impudence.  Stossel was denied a gun because he could not present a “special need” for having one.  He produced copies of death threats against him, but they were discounted because he had not reported them to the police. 

That last excuse used by Big Brother typifies the growing lack of respect for the individual.  It should serve as a warning to us:  Be wary of any government which demands proof of a “special need” for a constitutional right to be in force. 


1 – Amendment II reads: “”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Recently, “The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521).  The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens.  In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine.”  From

2 – Amendment XV,ratified Feb. 3, 1870, Section 1: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—“ and Amendment XXIV, ratified 1/23/1964, Section 1: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.” from

Milwaukee County Sheriff Speaks Common Sense

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. released a 30-second commercial where he offered encouragement and solidarity to local citizens in the light of last year’s budget cuts which caused 48 deputies to be laid off.1

His key comments were, “I need you in the game.  With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.”  He adds, “You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. … Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there.”

Of course, Sheriff Clarke has his detractors.  Roy Felber, president of the Milwaukee Deputy Sherriffs Association said, “That doesn’t sound too smart.  People have the right to defend themselves, but they don’t have the right to take the law into their own hands.”  The AP article indicated he said it sounded like a call to vigilantism.  [If he had listened, the Sheriff didn’t suggest anyone take the law into his own hands, just to buy some time until the professionals arrive.]

Incidentally, “vigilante” is defined as “a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly: a self-appointed doer of justice.”Is someone acting in self-defense, while waiting for the police to arrive, a “vigilante?”

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett’s office released a satirical comment: “Apparently Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie.”1  [Juvenile humor indicates the lack of a case against you, Sheriff Clarke!]

The AP article also said that Clarke believes self-defense isn’t for everyone, but he wants citizens to know what their options are.  He added, “I’m not telling you to `Hey, pick up a gun and blast away.’ … People need to know what they are doing if they chose that method — to defend themselves.”1

Jeni Bonavia, executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, brought up the George Zimmerman case and added, “I feel like this is such an irresponsible thing for our chief public safety officer of a county to do.  I think he owes this community an apology. And if he really believes that he’s not capable of providing for our public safety he should get a different job.”

Two responses to this:  1)  if I’m ever threatened by an armed assailant, the last thing I’ll be saying is “let’s be non-violent about this so I won’t be hurt”  2) if she thinks the Sheriff’s comment indicates a lack of confidence in his ability, then how does she feel about doctors who make suggestions on preventing disease and steps to treat symptoms if affected?

Enough of my thoughts.  We’ve heard of numerous accounts of individuals who protected themselves while waiting for authorities to arrive and secure the safety of the victims.  And it’s not just adults who are threatened.  There’s the story of the 12-year old girl in Bryan County, Oklahomaand the 14-year old boy in Phoenix who protected himself and his three younger siblings.Both had happy endings because they subscribed to Sheriff Clarke type of self-defense.

Perhaps Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. is making sense.

1 – Associated Press article, 1/27/2013, posted on  Read more:
3 – “…a young 12-year old girl in Bryan County, Oklahoma was able to protect her life when an intruder kicked in her back door and entered her house. Frantically, she called her mother who advised her to grab their household gun, hide in the closet, and call 911. The intruder made his way through the house, and as he was opening the door of the closet, the young girl shot him through the closet door. The intruder left the house and the girl was found unharmed. The police arrived and took the man into custody.”  (Celia Bigelow,, 10/20/2012)
4 – “A 14-year-old boy shot and almost killed an intruder who broke into his house and pulled a gun on him while he was babysitting his younger siblings on Friday.  The teenager and his three siblings, aged 8, 10 and 12, were alone at their Phoenix, Arizona, home when a woman the children didn’t recognise rang the doorbell at around 4.30pm.  Having been taught not to open the door to strangers, the kids, who have not been named, didn’t answer but after they heard a loud bang on the door, the boy rushed his siblings upstairs and grabbed a handgun from his parent’s bedroom.  As he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man breaking in through the front door holding a rifle, which he proceeded to point at the boy. The teenager shot the 37-year-old intruder, then the four children ran to a neighbour’s home where they called police and their father.  The man, who didn’t get a shot off, was taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center where he underwent surgery.  He remains in critical condition but is expected to survive and be booked into jail within the week, at which point his name will be released.  Police Officer James Holmes said the intruder would face aggravated assault and burglary charges.  The woman who rang the home’s doorbell got away, police said.” (from, 6/23/2012)