Monday, May 20, 2013

farewell old girl

Like everything in this world we move constantly toward old age. No matter how strong or how fast or how young you are, as the days go bye the natural order is for things to get older and slower and weaker, until we all pass away.

Shadow was our rescue dog. We took her home from the pound as an 8 week old mixed breed puppy who faithfully guarded our house and gave us unconditional love for over 13 years.

Here she is giving a hug to my daughter

I miss you tearfully dog

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Celebrate with me

The most intelligent man I have ever known,
My son Kyle 
graduated from
The Southern California Seminary
A Master's Degree in Divinity
on Saturday 5/11/2013

seated- my son Kyle
left to right standing
-Whitney, a friend of my son
-two members of the youth group from the church where Kyle works
-Daniel (bearded) youth pastor at the church where Kyle works
-Amanda my beautiful daughter

Saturday, May 11, 2013

3801 Lancaster

Only 21 minutes
and I warn you now, the images, descriptions and comments are extremely graphic. But without them the horror of this event would be diminished and this topic needs to be shown in the brutal setting in which it occurs. Otherwise you will sit on your hands and continue in your ignorance.

if after watching this, you can say you are in favor of abortion, I pity you.

one person in this video asks repeatedly "Why did the state let this continue for 40 years?" and says they believe it was about money. Well make no mistake about it. This was allowed to continue, in my opinion, for purely political reasons. To keep women voting on the side of the liberals.

the numbers are staggering
100s of babies snipped
and only 8 murder charges leveled at Dr Gosnell

Sunday, May 5, 2013

gun vs Abortion which is the real child killer

today a friend of mine reminded me of saying we had in the military...

To those who fought for it, 


has a taste,

that the protected will never know!

Then he added the words, "until now" trying to make reference to the bombings in Boston. By now I would hope that you are not uninformed about the threat posed by Islamists to your everyday way of life as an.  American. But there's an even greater threat posed to America right now by faction of people who are running scared, and that are willing to sacrifice and give away not only their freedom and liberty but the freedoms and liberties of all future generations to secure some false sense safety. They make asinine arguments in favor of restricting possession of firearms or making declarations, that on their face sound reasonable. They say things like, "no one has a need for assault rifle" or "let's limit the capacity of the magazines" or "do away with Saturday night specials" or "let's institute a background check for firearm sales" or "how many bullets do need to go hunting"?

To address some of these issues will point out some facts that are not just my opinion.

1. It's only a very short read of the Second Amendment to the Constitution United States of America and if you are in any doubt that the rights of individual Americans to keep an own guns is guaranteed by that amendment,the Supreme Court has upheld that it is a right that cannot be infringed. In its decision 08-1521 McDonald v. Chicago (06/28/2009) United States Supreme Court affirmed a fundamental right of Americans to own firearms for self-defense purposes which reaffirmed a similar ruling for the city of New York,

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.

some reading outside the constitution will help clarify what meaning may have been intended by the framers of  the Second Amendment:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
         ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Doesn't sound much like guarding the rights of hunters to me...

and this,

The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.
Henry sneered,
O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?

Zacharia Johnson argued that the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression because:
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
 Which in fact makes the 2nd amendment the single element that gives Americans the ability to defend and uphold all the others rights.

The following quote is from Halbrook, Stephen P., That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, University of New Mexico Press, 1984.
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
         ---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable.


Sometimes leftist liberals will say things like, "You don't need a gun for  self defense, that's what we pay the police to do"
Well in most parts of America it's quicker to get a pizza delivered than it is to get a police officer to arrive on scene. But consider the fact that our courts have upheld that the police have no obligation to protect you. A case in point;

WARREN v. District of Colubia

In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.
Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 3." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Appellants' claims

Appellants' claims of negligence included:

  • the dispatcher's failure to forward the 0623 call with the proper degree of urgency;
  • the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside;
  • the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the call received at 0642 hours.


By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.
 No special relationship? does that mean only government big wigs deserve protection?

Then again in

Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) , 46 Cal.App.3d 6

The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.
Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
Appellant has failed to plead facts supporting an assumption that a special relationship existed between decedent and the San Jose Police Department. The allegation that the police had responded 20 times to her calls and had arrested her husband once does not indicate that the department had assumed a duty toward decedent greater than the duty owed to another member of the public. The police may have responded repeatedly to her calls, only to discover that she was not in danger. Absent an indication that the police had induced decedent's reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide her with protection, it must be concluded that no special relationship existed and that appellant has not stated a cause of action.
The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

Susman v. City of Los Angeles269 Cal. App. 2d 803

An action was brought by several landowners against the City of Los Angeles and the State pleading eleven separate causes of action for damages arising out of the ‘Watts’ Riots’ of 1965. The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The list proving this point is almost too much for this session. 
So moving on to
Gun grabbing leftist liberals will quickly point out that no one needs an assault style weapon, yet B.H. Obama has been open in his support of armed populations carrying assault weapons in Egypt, Syria and Libya, why the furor over these firearms in the good old USA?

What is an assault rifle anyway?  Do you know one when you see one?

OMG look how evil that thing is. All black and big and full of high power full metal jacketed death projectiles. This is the gun that American troops carried  in Vietnam, the AR15 and  the AR does stand for Assault Rifle. The shooter at Sandy Hook elementary was reported to have used one of these to kill 20 children and 6 adults. But as you will learn, that was just hysterical reporting and not true.

Same exact gun. But for some reason not nearly as menacing.

Remington Model 7600 semi auto hunting rifle.
This is almost a piece of art compared to that death machine viewed above it. Yet in functionality they are identical. Need proof?

Here's the same M 7600 with a black nylon stock and an aimpoint sight attached. OOOO that's scary now huh?
But now do you get  the point? In truth the M 7600 is a far more fearsome firearm than the ARs. Mostly because the Remington is chambered in 30-06 caliber while the ARs are .223.  You say you don't know the difference? well here

These 3 pieces of ammo are, from left to right, 22LR used for shooting at soda cans, .223 the bullet of current choice for all NATO military firearms, and the 30-06 the bullet used to dispatch German Italian and Japanese troops to the hinterlands during the Second World War. But in the military configuration the projectile is covered in a solid copper jacket to prevent it from expanding when it hits a soft target, like a human. While the civilian 30-06 can be had in many different projectile variations to allow maximum damage to be inflicted on your target. And as you can plainly see the 30-06 is considerably larger than its military cousin, and as with other things in life, so too in ballistics Bigger-is-Better.


Why not have a universal background check for all firearms sales?

Well aside from the protest of going down a slippery slope towards gun registration and the possible future confiscation of firearms there are these things to consider...
Who is going to  do the background checks and more importantly, who  is going to pay for doing them? The leftist liberals seem to believe there is some magic tree growing in Washington DC that money just falls off of every time they want to do something. Well police officers are unionized workers and they don't work cheap. But a cop with IT skills is at a premium and can cost $100 per hour or more. And all the many times this has come before the Senate it has never included a provision to fund it.

Then add to this the fact that the shooter at Sandy Hook stole the guns he used, no  background  check in the world would have stopped this. 

Pete Williams, who is NBC’s chief Justice correspondent, reported the following in the video posted above:

This continues to be a very complex investigation and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but we have some new information this morning (one month ago) from a couple of federal officials and state officials.
They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.
We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had an ‘assault-style’ AR-15 -style rifle that he had had taken to the school, it was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car, but we have been told by several officials that he had left that in the car.

James Huberty shot and killed people in a San Ysidro McDonald's on July 18, 1984 using a 9mm pistol a 12gauge shot gun and an Israeli 9mm carbine, all stolen. No background checks would have stopped this. In fact Huberty's wife later sued McDonald's blaming the company's high levels of mono-sodium glutamate.

So why do leftists keep offering this as a solution?

Quite frankly there are many interpretations of an answer for this question, but the one they state most often is that it could save one life of one child and that alone is worth it. Now this may sound a little cold and uncaring but no one life is worth sacrificing the freedoms of the entire nation regardless of who they are.
I find it disconcerting that I am confronted and opposed in my beliefs on this issue by people who feel it's necessary to defend the wholesale slaughter of over 3500 children every single day in America to defend a woman's right to choose to stay pregnant. Leftist liberals scream and shout all day long over the issue of they are right to birth control and abortion when not one single word of it is mentioned in the Constitution. And in the same breath bemoan the loss of one child who for some reason or other was fortunate enough to have parents that didn't kill it in the womb. 

This is a little bit hypocritical to me when a person says "I don't believe in abortion, but I also don't believe I should be forcing my beliefs on anybody else" when it comes to the issue of abortion. But on on the issue of gun control that have absolutely no inhibitions about forcing their will on somebody else.

It starts to sound disingenuous whenever anything happens, the leftists drag out poor little children as a reason to do something with the single exception of birth control. Why is that? Isn't that doing something for the children? Of course not this cold-blooded murder and why isn't the media making a big stink about this?it seems on every channel that carries a daily news program for pointing out how the NRA and other pro-gun bullies have forced Congress to stall off all legislation and allow the murder and mayhem to continue. Yet on what TV station news have you heard the name Kermit Gosnell lately? Have you ever heard that name before? If it all you've ever watched his NBC CBS and ABC news, chances are you've never heard that name…

Dr. Kermit Gosnell

Dr. Gosnell was the operator of an abortion mill – this was no clinic – located in West Philadelphia called the "Women's Medical Society" and set up in 1972. He was a product of the local neighborhood, and he had spent almost four decades running his establishment – "giving back" to the community he grew up in.
Of course, he had a peculiar form of charity: "Infant beheadings. Severed baby feet in jars. A child screaming after it was delivered alive during an abortion procedure."  Gosnell's mill was known for its willingness to carry out late-term abortions – the illegal practice (in Pennsylvania) of killing a child after the initial 24 weeks of pregnancy.  Indeed, as word spread about the doctor's services, women would come from all around to enjoy the benefit of his service.

"Among the relatively few cases that could be specifically documented, one was Baby Boy A. His 17-year-old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant – seven and a half months – when labor was induced. An employee estimated his birth weight as approaching six pounds. He was breathing and moving when Dr. Gosnell severed his spine and put the body in a plastic shoebox for disposal." As was his wont, Dr. Kermit B. Gosnell would try to lighten the mood with a bit joking.  Boy A was, he said, "big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop."
But Boy A will never have that chance. The good doctor saw to that.

 But despite the awful conditions, the illegal practices, and the innumerable women and children who were both injured and killed as a result of Gosnell's actions, the man was still able to operate for almost 40 years. The reason is a combination of politics, prejudice, and plain negligence.
After approving the Women's Medical Society to open an abortion clinic in 1979, the Pennsylvania Department of Health apparently conducted no site reviews for another 10 years. In both 1992 and 1993, Gosnell's mill was guilty of "numerous violations," but was allowed to stay open on the promise that he would go about fixing them.
"After 1993, however, even that pro forma effort came to an end. Not because of administrative ennui, although there had been plenty. Instead, the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions."
And if there is one thing democratic societies hate, it's barriers. The clinic was also a popular site for poorer and minority "customers" to seek abortions — a fact which, unfortunately, also tends to draw less attention from officials.
In short, "the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion."
That last sentence sums up the entire issue of guns and children and "Reproductive Rights". It's all politics plain and simple. Now where does the constitution even remotely refer to reproduction as a right and nor should it. For in this case they are really talking about non-reproducing by means of murder. And with all the political posturing after 20 children are killed in school, why is not our wonderful president speaking out on this case? The answer to this can be found on The Huffington Post web site...

WASHINGTON -- White House press secretary Jay Carney said Monday that President Barack Obama won't comment for now on the murder trial of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia doctor accused of performing illegal late-term abortions and running a clinic staffed by untrained workers.
"The president does not and cannot take a position on an ongoing trial, so I won't as well," Carney told reporters during his daily briefing. Obama is "aware" of the trial, Carney said, describing the case as "unsettling."
The Gosnell trial, now in its fifth week, has revealed disturbing details about how he ran his clinic. NBC Philadelphia reported that an unlicensed medical school graduate who worked at the clinic said he severed the spines of live babies with scissors in what he described as "beheadings." The man said that at times "it would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place."

He won't comment  on an ongoing trial? (if  it's about ABORTION).

But Obama doesn't have a problem weighing in on another homicide case when he gets to bash gun owners, the president spoke out about the case of Trayvon Martin, the African-American teenager killed by George Zimmerman in February 2012 and denounced the Florida laws know as "Stand Your Ground".

I'm Almost done, just one last point. 

Does strict gun  control mean safer streets?
The facts seem to indicate that guns are far more likely to be used to stop a crime than to  commit one.
here are some interesting facts

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Why would leftists want you to be defenseless? Because then you are dependent on them for your safety and well being in all matters foreign and domestic.
There is an agenda and we are in a power struggle for the liberty and freedom off Americans. If you let them take this one "RIGHT" the others are next.