Archive for October, 2017

Acoustic forensics video

October 15, 2017

Witness posts and videos saying there are multiple shooters are disappearing from Facebook and Youtube.

Here is a link to a professional demonstrating forensic acoustics FWIW, FYI:

Second Amendment

October 14, 2017

Second Amendment was a reference to the right and duty of citizens of a “free state” — a state where citizens are free– to protect themselves from their own government. That means the government and legislators have a conflict of interest in this issue.

We cannot trust governments with the individual natural right of self defense.

That’s why the opponents of the new Constitution made the Bill of Rights a condition for letting the Constitution get ratified. Because they did not trust the new government, and they thought it would restrain them. Note that ALL of the Bill of Rights recognize the rights of citizens to clip the wings of government power, and to remove their claws. The Bill of Rights does not protect anything. What restrains our governments is only WE THE citizens.

[In] a series of debates on socialism published in 1914, in which John Basil Barnhill said, “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.”

-Apparently, it was not Jefferson who originated this wording: Source:

Hans Herman Hoppe and Brownshirt (antifa) thugs

October 13, 2017

Herman Hoppe just clarified what Paul was talking about in Romans 13. That instead of blindly condemning an occupying armed force that enforces restrains the worst “fellows of the baser sort” (a phrase in Acts about false witnesses against Christians).

Paul used the Roman sword for protection against an enraged Jewish mob in Jerusalem, invoking his right to appeal to Caesar as a Roman citizen.

But remember also, in another epistle, he warned Christians away from trusting in the secular authority.

Like it says in Isaiah, learning is “precept upon precept, line upon line”.

Texas shooting

October 12, 2017

Christopher Smith is a musicology teacher at the Texas college where a girl walked into a police station and shot one. He told NBC what he did when he got the notice of the lockdown sent out. After one student asked which students had concealed carry on their person, and several of them nodded (as to say Yes), he said:

“I went to the people who nodded and said, ‘I suggest you keep your weapons concealed, because if the police enter, they won’t be able to tell the difference between a good guy and a bad one.”

He thinks it should be illegal for students to bring guns on campus, and in a spectacular demonstration of oxymoronic thinking, uses this incident as an example of why he thinks so.

In case all the propaganda has muddied the issue, the fact that there were enough students to stop any killer who entered the place, is proof enough that you WANT them to be armed.

This should be enough for anyone to realize that they were safer with those students armed in case it was the BAD guy who came in.

I’m a pacifist but I do feel safer if there are a bunch of good guys around to stop a shooter. Armed civilians have stopped a LOT of people in just that way.

Those armed students were glad they were ready, you think?

But self-defense is not the most important reason that the Second Amendment should be treated as an absolute right of individuals to bear arms. Suzanna Hupp made the point to the Congress when they considered the ban on so-called “assault weapons” during the Bill Clinton years, which is still law today:

The most important reason for the Second Amendment, aka 2A, is to protect the citizens from “you guys”, meaning the politicians and the government itself.

NRA: No compromise: Ask Suzanna Gratia Hupp about what guns are most needed for

October 12, 2017

The video clip shows Chuck Schumer a couple times, watching her testify, and he can’t hide the most smug look (maybe he knew his ban was in the bag?):

In the above video clip there is a part about 30 seconds starting at about the five minutes, where she lays out the real purpose of the Second Amendment: “the 2Second Amendment. am is not about duck hunting. It is about our rights …all our rights (she waves her hand to show the non-legislators sitting behind her) to be able to protect ourselves from all you guys, up there (and she pointed to the legislators considering a new gun control law)”.

Gun control is borne in racism: Dred Scott

October 11, 2017

Chief Justice in the Dred Scott case used the fact that free “persons of the negro race”, if so granted, would also mean that they (and he) would have Second Amendment rights, and of course they had to have those gun control laws to prevent such Negros from having guns:

More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.

Press conference with CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality:

Can a Christian be a libertarian?

October 10, 2017

First, the primary identifier for a Christian should be “I am a Christian”. All other descriptives of beliefs and viewpoints a Christian has should be secondary.

Therefore, it is most proper to say you are a “libertarian Christian”.

So many people with wildly diverse beliefs call themselves Christian today, many doctrines of devils included, but a “Christian” in the context of this forum is most properly used for Bible believers. “Study to show thyself approved”. “To the word and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”.

I have lived many years, and I have been through the whole “spectrum” of beliefs, atheist and Communist after public school and Ivy League indoctrinations, then a missionary during the “Jesus People Movement” days, and now, working a secular job.

It now seems most apparent to me that the Biblical, godly view for a Christian’s relationship to society as a whole is the libertarian view. Of course before allowing myself this view, it had to check out with Scripture.

I’ll share some verses that are the basis for this, and it is not a new view in Christendom at all, but ancient. But in today’s modern times, paganism and atheism are so strong in the world that just as God has unleashed even stronger science as testimony to himself, and even so, this as Christian doctrine gets confirmation as being the best approach for society in general from secular theoreticians of the Austrian economics school of philosophy. (Which also has a great many Christians as well, Gary North and Laurence Vance being good examples.) I speak of the late Ludwig von Mises, the late Murray Rothbard, and Walter Block. Ayn Rand, rabidly anti-God anti-socialist author, is superfluous and irrelevant to the point. The three named economists are friendly to Christians in history, and even see Christianity as a historical driver in the advance of individual freedom.

In the times of the book of Joshua and Judges there was NO KING in Israel. There was NO government at all. The last verse in Joshua was both good and bad: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. Good because there was no government, bad because it does not say they did what was right in God’s eyes.

When the elders came to Samuel and demanded a king, God told Samuel they had rejected God himself and not Samuel, and confirmed Samuel’s warning, that the king would send their sons to war and take their daughters to his palaces to prepare his “dainties”, and would confiscate burdensome parts of their increase to himself.

In Daniel 2, Daniel interpreted the king’s dream as a prophetic vision, showing the most important future empires to come, but then God sends down a rock that smashes into pieces all these kingdoms and replaces them all with his own eternal kingdom.

That means every one of those empires is NOT of God: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, the two empires (Rome and Constantinople) that grew from the Roman Empire, and still to come, the Beast’s kingdom.

It is impossible to view America with God’s eye today and claim that it is a godly nation, or a Christian nation. The Israeli kingdom is not of God either, because they deny God’s own son.

Jesus showed the coin and said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s.” But can one say that Caesar actually “owns” in that sense what he takes by force, or else?

Then in Matthew 18 Jesus gives a lesson on taxes asking whether the children of the kings and rulers and the ones that tell you what to pay, do they children have to pay them? No, just the fact that they take taxes by threat of force (theft) makes it a corrupt and sinful act. Nonetheless, pay them so as not to “offend” them, lest you get the other side of “Agree with thine adversary quickly”.

In other words, pay taxes as much as you must, so you can use the rest to do God’s work.

As to Romans 13, the authorities Paul describes there do not describe rule by Caligula, or Nero (who beheaded him).

There is one Baptist pastor of a mega-church in the United States today who is telling whoever listens that Trump can do anything because Romans 13. NOT SO!

“Here a little, there a little. Precept upon precept, line upon line”. So does Romans 13 discredit First Samuel, Daniel 2, and Elijah’s pronouncements against Ahab and Jezebel, and his killing of 300 prophets of Baal –the official religion of the land? NO!

To qualify for Romans 13, a government must follow the description of it in the passage.

Does the Trump administration qualify? It looks increasingly like he’s either boxed in by the government he supposedly heads up, or he was not being totally sincere in his pronouncements, or something in between.

Some of us know there is not only an entrenched “Deep State”, that the Federal Reserve is the most visible Money Changers rulers in the land today, but there is also a “shadow government” (that Oliver North mentioned), but “people of the Prince that shall come” (Daniel 9), and more.

Jesus told the apostles that he that wants to be great among the Gentiles seeks power, seeks to rule over them, but in the kingdom of God he that would be great will be the servant of them.

“Thou shalt not steal” is the commandment that makes taxation a sin.

The Mark of the Beast will tell the tale anyway.


Politicized Sustainability Threatens Planet and People

October 8, 2017

How about let’s talk about economic sustainability?

They never get into details about that. They are fools. At least most sane people understand you can’t even beat some sense into them, so just let them prattle on.

Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him . — Proverbs 27:22

Gun control, freedom and genocide

October 6, 2017

What is missing in Octopus Media debates about gun control?

The reason that the writers of the U. S. Constitution wrote themselves about why they added the Second Amendment.

It wasn’t just a reaction to England or to protect against foreign invasion, although that is part of the reason. It was a recognition that citizens, “the people”, need the means to repel any type of invasion or aggression from any government anywhere.

The biggest danger, as they made clear, is from one’s own government. In our case, the government based in Washington, D. C.

So restrictions based on hunting, or even self defense against crime, are irrelevant to the biggest reason, and that is that the people should have the means to protect themselves against the very government that is debating how much to allow individuals to legally defend themselves.

Minorities especially have reason to doubt the ability of governments to protect them.

The first gun control laws passed in the U. S. were bans on “Negro” ownership of firearms. Jim Crow laws were created and interpreted to restrict blacks’ ownership of guns.

The Nazis in Germany passed draconian gun laws in the 1930s, and began their mass murders of Jews, Gypsies, leftist Nazis (aka Communists), and anybody who voiced opposition to the regime.

The Armenians had their own genocide after Turkey enacted draconian gun control laws and the Armenians were left without the means to repel it.

The American Indians were powerless against the encroaching white man until they got ahold of some weapons themselves, too late.

The leaders in Bosnia, when their people they were getting slaughtered by Serbs, begged and pleaded with United Nations and NATO leaders to stop “protecting” them with the arms boycott (ignored and just sell them arms, even sell them to them, so they could protect themselves.

Somebody must be waiting in the wings for another round of oppression or even nation-sized mass murder, with so much push for it.

And a tip about real arguments with real facts, Gun Owners of America is a better source than the NRA. Note that Octopus Media would rather people think of the NRA, the “more moderate” group.

Orwell quote

October 5, 2017

George Orwell – “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”