jump to navigation

Political/Venting through meme July 13, 2018

Posted by JP in Discussion.
add a comment

Image may contain: 2 people, text

Image may contain: 1 person, text


Illegal Alien family separation, the truth June 19, 2018

Posted by JP in Discussion.
add a comment

“In March of 1993, The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in Reno v Flores. (Yes, “That” Reno. Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s first Attorney General who ordered that young Elian Gonzalez be torn from his family’s arms while hiding in a Miami closet. You might remember the iconic photograph.)

The Court in Flores decided that minors could not be incarcerated with the adults accompanying them across the United States border illegally. The decision was the result of a long dispute over how to best care for these children while the adults were detained for criminal proceedings.

You see, when aliens cross the border illegally, they are incarcerated until their criminal case is decided. The understandable argument at the time was “why should children be incarcerated while their parents are in jail?” It seemed a fundamental violation of international human rights. Makes sense, right?

As a result, The Flores case drew a line in the sand. Children could not be incarcerated with their parents or accompanying adult while being held for illegal immigration violations. And a subsequent 1997 agreement stipulated that children must be placed in a safer environment where they could enjoy certain privileges, including education, a clean, safe environment and other normal life cycle amenities that incarcerated individuals do not enjoy.

It was considered a “victory” for human rights. By separating adult and child, we protected the children, reducing any harm done to them for their parent’s or accompanying adult’s decisions.

A lot has happened since then. However; bottom line, these juvenile shelters have been operating in accordance with the law and overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services to protect those children from the hazards of parental incarceration since 1997.

So, since Donald Trump was running his real estate empire, selling wine and casinos in 1993, we are left to determine just how he managed to orchestrate this cruel “separation of immigrant parent and child” 25 years BEFORE he was President of the United States. The obvious answer is, he didn’t. He had nothing to do with establishing this United States immigration policy. Today, he simply enforces it.

This one story illustrates how important it is for us to do our research regarding today’s headlines. The Corporate Media either refuses to do the research, is incapable of doing the research or has done the research and decided to lie to you about its findings. Either way, this would make the Corporate Media lazy, incompetent or just plain deceptive. Liars, if you will.”

My view and the biblical view on Illegal Immigration June 16, 2018

Posted by JP in Discussion.
add a comment

Recently I had someone question my spiritual integrity regarding my stance on illegal immigration, and the separation of children from their parents when those parents are arrested for crossing the border illegally.

I shared with this liberal lemming something from GotQuestions.org which sums up my biblical and spiritual view on the issue. you can read it here:

We wholeheartedly believe that Christians are called to be compassionate and merciful toward immigrants (Exodus 22:21; Leviticus 19:33–34; Matthew 25:35). We also believe that the United States should have a more compassionate and merciful immigration policy. However, that is not the question at hand. The question at hand concerns illegal immigration—whether it is wrong to violate a nation’s borders and transgress its immigration laws.

Romans 13:1–7 makes it abundantly clear that God expects us to obey the laws of the government. The only exception to this is when a law of the government forces us to disobey a command of God (Acts 5:29). Illegal immigration is the breaking of a government’s law. There is nothing in Scripture that contradicts the idea of a sovereign nation having immigration laws. Therefore, it is rebellion against God to unlawfully enter another country. Illegal immigration is a sin.

Illegal immigration is definitely a controversial issue in the United States (and some other countries) today. Some argue that the immigration laws are unfair, unjust, and even discriminatory—thus giving individuals justification to immigrate illegally. However, Romans 13:1–7 does not give any permission to violate a law just because it is perceived as unjust. Again, the issue is not the fairness of a law. The only biblical reason to violate a government’s law is if that law violates God’s Word. When Paul wrote the book of Romans, he was under the authority of the Roman Empire, led by Emperor Nero. Under that reign, there were many laws that were unfair, unjust, and/or blatantly evil. Still, Paul instructed Christians to submit to the government.

Are the immigration laws of the United States unfair or unjust? Some think so, but that is not the issue. All developed countries in the world have immigration laws, some more strict than the USA’s, and some less strict, and all have to deal with illegal immigration. There is nothing in the Bible to prohibit a country from having completely open borders or to have completely closed borders. Romans 13:1–7 also gives the government the authority to punish lawbreakers. Whether the punishment is imprisonment, deportation, or even something more severe, it is within the rights of the government to determine.

Illegal immigration is a complex issue. The vast majority of illegal immigrants in the United States have come for the purpose of having a better life, providing for their families, and escaping poverty. These are good goals and motivations. However, it is not biblical to violate a law to achieve a “good.” Caring for the poor, orphans, and widows is something the Bible commands us to do (Galatians 2:10; James 1:27; 2:2–15). However, the biblical fact that we are to care for the unfortunate does not mean we should violate the law in doing so. Supporting, enabling, and/or encouraging illegal immigration is, therefore, a violation of God’s Word. Those seeking to emigrate to another country should always obey the immigration laws of that country. While this may cause delays and frustrations, it is better than acting illegally. A frustrating law is still a law.

What is the biblical solution to illegal immigration? Simple—don’t do it; obey the laws. If disobedience is not a biblical option, what can be done in regards to an unjust immigration law? It is completely within the rights of citizens to seek to change immigration laws. If it is your conviction that an immigration law is unjust, do everything that is legally within your power to get the law changed: pray, petition, vote, peacefully protest, etc. As Christians, we should be the first to seek to change any law that is unjust. At the same time, we are also to demonstrate our submission to God by obeying the government He has placed in authority over us.

“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God” (1 Peter 2:13–16).

A Father’s Job June 10, 2018

Posted by JP in Discussion.
add a comment

In light of this year’s impending Father’s day

JP's Mind

My wife and I raised 3 children together, while we have not always been successful at being parents (we all have our weak points and occasionally fall short of our goals – after all we’re only human) we have for the most part succeeded in raising 3 healthy, happy, productive and loving children.  So what I will share with you here is not coming from a parental “educator”, it is the hard won knowledge of a father with 70+ year experience raising children.

As father’s it is our job, our God-given duty, role, responsibility and ultimately, our loving pleasure and privilege to embody and demonstrate the following traits for our children:

Person of Refuge

Dad’s we are the person in our children’s lives that they think of when they need protection. We are the person they will run to for refuge. That means we have to always be available to…

View original post 937 more words

CRAZY Feminist Makes 10 Rules Before Dating Men May 14, 2018

Posted by JP in Discussion.
add a comment

via CRAZY Feminist Makes 10 Rules Before Dating Men

Thy Rod and Thy Staff May 6, 2018

Posted by JP in Bible Study, Discussion.
add a comment
A Psalm of David.
1 The Lord is my Shepherd [to feed, to guide and to shield me],  I shall not want.  2 He lets me lie down in green pastures; He leads me beside the still and quiet waters. 3 He refreshes and restores my soul (life); He leads me in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake. 4 Even though I walk through the [sunless] Or valley of deep darknessvalley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You, are with me; Your rod [to protect] and Your staff [to guide], they comfort and console me.


I was thinking yesterday that there is meaning to this Psalm that for the most part goes undiscovered as people read, and take solace in, the commonly held meaning: God is with us in times of sorrow and danger and that we have no need to fear because of this.
I think that understanding is fantastic all on its own. However, I was thinking about the concept of God’s rod and staff, and the valley of the shadow of death and what further meaning we can find therein.
First, we must point out that the ‘valley of the shadow of death, more closely means deep shadow, or darkness, with the connotation of ‘death-like shadow’. Either way, the meaning is clear – even though I travel through dangerous times, or places, I need not fear.
What struck me yesterday is a correlation between Psalm 23 and Proverbs 13:24 (Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them.). It occurred to me that discipline is an essential part of loving, training, and protecting one’s children, or one’s flock. Additionally, discipline is an essential element of discipleship.
To make one a disciple you must teach them, train them, protect and guide them. In other words, you must shepherd them. The two essential tools of a shepherd are his rod and his staff. The staff is used mostly to guide the sheep, to catch on to them and bring them back into the fold, and to test the surety of new ground so the flock can graze in safety.  The rod, basically a club, was used for protection and discipline. The shepherd used the rod to drive off predators and sometimes to give the sheep a whack to the flank to get their attention and to bring them back in line. Much like a parent would use a rod (discipline) to punish and redirect the focus of a child.
The other correlation I saw was between the valley of the shadow of death and other allusions to death in scripture. In Rom 6-23 we are told:  23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a]Christ Jesus our Lord
So when I looked at Psalm 23 I connected the valley of the shadow of death to sin and the commission of sin.
We all sin, always have and always will, but sometimes we get so entrenched in a sinful practice or lifestyle we are literally walking through the valley of the shadow of death. Our hope is deliverance from that valley and protections from the dangers of that valley. We find we are living in our sin and cannot get ourselves out.
The good news is simply that God is with us and He disciplines us and He guides us, so through His discipleship, we find we do not need to fear the effects of our sin as He will lead us out of that valley safely.

Gun Control debate – A Comedy of Errors March 29, 2018

Posted by JP in Discussion, Politics.
add a comment

Since the Parkland shooting the gun control debate has raged as never before. The idea of banning all guns has gained tremendous strides, led by some of the students of Marjory Stoneman High School, and has garnered the hefty support of the media, celebrities, and alt-left factions.

The issue, unfortunately, has been colored by a large number of falsehoods, unsupported assertions, and outright ignorance. While most in this push for ‘common sense gun control’ claim they simply want to make it more difficult for bad actors to get their hands on guns, and to rid the country of the dreaded AR 15, the underlying truth is these proponents of ‘gun control’ simply want a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Sadly, the facts interwoven throughout this issue have been misrepresented, misunderstood, or even more common; ignored.

Take a look at the actual shooting, and the events leading up to the actual incident:

Nicholas Cruz, a troubled young man, orphaned, endured incessant bullying at school which was never addressed by school authorities. He had been reported to Broward County Sheriffs (BCS) up to 39 times for violence, including brandishing a weapon, but was never arrested.  A year prior to the shooting Cruz himself posted an Instagram picture of him brandishing a weapon and stating he would be a school shooter. The post was reported to the BCS but no action was taken

After the death of his mother, a member of his extended family requested that BCS confiscate his weapons due to his behavior and emotional difficulties, but no action was taken.

In the Fall of 2016, his school discovered bullets in his backpack after he was in a fight. The school responded by banning him bringing backpacks to school.

Ultimately the FBI was notified when Cruz posted on YouTube that he was going to be a professional school shooter. Again, no action was taken.

This all points to one inarguable truth: The Parkland shooting could have been prevented if the authorities had acted when opportunity, ample opportunity, had presented itself.  The fact is that Nicholas Cruz was not a ‘new phenomenon’. His behavior and actions have been documented numerous times in the past by others and protocols and policies have been put in place in law enforcement to address such occurrences. The sad fact is that neither the school, the BCS, nor the FBI did what they were supposed to do and 17 children died due to their failure to act.

Another truth that is being ignored in this debate is the existence of numerous laws regulating the purchase and ownership of firearms.  There are a plethora of laws on the books and the most common thread in all mass shootings in this country is that more often than not, the laws were not enforced properly, if at all, and subsequently people who legally could not possess firearms were able to purchase them. The Las Vegas shooting is a prime example: because the Air Force failed to follow law, policy, and protocol Stephen Paddock was able to purchase weapons which resulted in the death of 58 people.

To this particular point, I have to stress the hypocrisy of the proponents of ‘common sense’ gun control laws and the ignorance of those that hop on that bandwagon. The fact here is that more laws will not be effective if authorities cannot or will not enforce existing laws.

If existing laws are insufficient to protect us, and more laws would do no better then the ‘progressives’ have offered the solution of banning ‘certain’ firearms.

Their idea is to ban AR 15’s because that is the firearm Cruz used to kill 17 kids in Parkland and while the use of AR15s in mass shootings has increased in recent years it still accounts for an insignificant percentage of firearms used in crimes, and the deaths intentionally caused by firearms are far outweighed by handguns.

Furthermore, deaths caused by firearms are disproportionately outweighed by the deaths by numerous other causes. Abortion = 45.5 million deaths, deaths from disease = 1.9 million, Automobile deaths = 1.3 million, Firearm deaths = 16 thousand Firearm deaths account for less than .001% of US deaths. Upon reviewing these statistics it’s apparent that ‘saving lives’ is likely not the impetus for the proponents of gun control as they could easily put their efforts towards prevention of automobile deaths, or abortions and save significantly more lives.

This leads me to believe the motive for gun control is to begin the process of weakening the 2nd Amendment with the ultimate goal of repealing the Amendment.

Coming soon to a blog near you: What is the 2nd Amendment, why is it important, and why must it stand?

#MarchforOurLives is BS March 24, 2018

Posted by JP in Discussion.
add a comment

Image may contain: 1 person, text
No automatic alt text available.

Liberal Hate Tweets March 4, 2018

Posted by JP in Discussion.
add a comment

Reality Check: Gun Control vs. Shooting Deaths October 4, 2017

Posted by JP in Discussion, Politics, Uncategorized.
add a comment

Recent events have me thinking about gun related violence and laws controlling gun ownership. My purpose for this post is to evaluate any correlation between the two and to fix in my own mind what is truth, and what is political rhetoric.

Let me preface my findings with a personal disclaimer and a short summary of my own feelings about the 2nd Amendment:

  1.  I am a disabled US Army Veteran. I do not own a gun, nor do I have a desire to own a gun. I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I have a desire to be a member of the NRA, although:
  2. I believe firmly in the Constitutional right to ‘bear arms’, meaning that the founders of this great nation viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
    • enabling the people to organize a militia system.
    • participating in law enforcement;
    • deterring tyrannical government;
    • repelling invasion;
    • suppressing insurrection, 
    • facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

I had prepared to present evidence that restrictive gun laws had either a significant impact on the reduction of gun related deaths, or what I admittedly believed to be the case; restrictive gun laws had little or no impact on gun related deaths. What I have found, much to my dismay is that there is no correlation between gun laws and gun related deaths. The raw numbers out there do not point to either conclusion factually.

I could however select my data and statistically manipulate that data to show a strong correlation for either side of the issue, but that would not be the truth. Sadly, that is what we are constantly bombarded with from proponents of both sides of this issue.

If you wanted to take the time to do the research and pull the raw data you would find the task arduous. As I dove into the numbers I found that clear and concise data is very hard to come by. Most findings have so blended the numbers that it is impossible to get a clear picture. I found that most statistics for gun violence, or more specifically; gun deaths, include suicide and accidental shootings. It is very difficult to find hard data that simply says: There were X number of gun related homicides in these states, or cities, for this given year.  Further more, the groups or organizations that present the data at all have convoluted there statistical values to point to a preconceived conclusion.

So, in the end, I have come to the conclusion that there is no direct correlation between the restriction of gun ownership and the reduction of gun related deaths. Nor did I find the opposite conclusion (a correlation between gun freedom and lower gun related deaths).

To be honest, this leaves me completed frustrated. I like to come down on the ‘factual’ side of and issue. If the facts tell me that such and such is true, then I want to be a proponent of that truth. If the facts are not there to support that conclusion then I am saddled with weighing the moral, ethical, social, and political ramifications for supporting an issue.

Gun control is such a case. I cannot say that stricter laws would reduce gun violence, nor can I say it would not. What I can do is look to the Constitution and extrapolate what the Founding Fathers thought could happen to this country if the right to bear arms were not specified as they were.

This country was born of a people who rose up against a tyrannical government. They achieved our independence because of their ability to fight that tyranny, and they were able to do that because they had the means of arms to fight their oppressors.

You may state that we do not have that fear because we are a free nation governed by laws established in accordance with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To that I would have to reply that we are a governed people. Although we are a Republic and supposedly ‘represented’ by those we elect to serve our wishes, the truth is that not enough of us care to involve ourselves in what those representatives are doing. If they choose, as a body, to restrict our freedoms and pass laws that does that, what are we to do?  Rise up?  Absolutely.  If we have the means to resist this possible oppression and restriction of our freedoms we could absolutely rise up and resist.

If, however, we do not have the ability to resist, what are we to do then? We would simply bend under the yoke of oppression, wouldn’t we?

As I talk about this, and as I have thought about it while contemplating gun control legislation, my mind wanders and lands in the middle of the movie “Red Dawn” (both versions). I find myself thinking: if we, as a nation, abolished all arms for its citizens, what would we do if that scenario came into play?  Depend on our military to save us, and possibly die while waiting for help that possibly may never come?  I can continue on with numerous ‘what if’ scenarios and all of them lead me to one conclusion: I need the ability to own a firearm if I choose to do so. As a US Citizen I now have that right, and as a US Citizen I assert that I should be able to retain that right.

%d bloggers like this: