Results of Inquiry Into the Shooting Death of Andrea Rebello

The reported facts do not seem to be in question: Dalton SMITH held Andrea Rebello captive in a residence, physically holding Miss Rebello in a headlock (according to AP account) while holding a ‘loaded gun’ to her head. Smith then pointed that ‘loaded gun’ at an unnamed Nassau County Police Officer who fired in response, killing SMITH and Miss Rebello as well.

Andrea Rebello was a student at Hofstra University. Her entire involvement in this event seems to be that of random victim. Nothing seems to indicate she invited this problem in any manner, save being ‘convenient’ to attack. One must also note under the laws of New York, she was barred from being able to defend herself from violent attack by the myriad of ‘gun laws’ preventing citizens owning firearms. This also applies to the other two victims in the event – who happily escaped physical harm. The late Miss Rebello was twenty-one years of age when she was killed.

Dalton SMITH has been identified as thirty years of age. One news account (http://newyork.newsday.com/news/region-state/cops-hofstra-student-andrea-rebello-armed-suspect-dalton-smith-fatally-shot-by-officer-1.5289639) reports SMITH as a convicted felon with an extensive criminal history wanted for violating parole. Please note, under Federal law – and most states as well – a convicted felon cannot lawfully purchase or possess a firearm. The account notes the serial number on the handgun in question was obliterated; in itself a Federal violation and an indication the possessor (or perhaps the seller in this case) is attempting to prevent back tracking the ownership of the firearm.

The Nassau Police officer has not been named, a common practice at this stage of the investigation. (No doubt some unscrupulous ‘journalist’ will obtain the name by some mechanism and publish it to gain a bonus or raise.) According to the account cited above, he worked for the New York (City) Police Department for seven or eight years prior to joining the Nassau County Police, where he has worked for twelve years. So the officer has nineteen to twenty years of police experience and training. He is currently on medical leave and will be monitored and offered counseling.

Addressing the shooting proper, as a long time armed law enforcement officer, shooter and student of armed force application, I note the following:

The report of the shooting is very sketchy. One sentence says Miss Rebello was being held in a ‘headlock’, but other comments indicate SMITH was holding Miss Rebello in front of him, as a shield. No mention is given of the distance of the shooting encounter, but it took place in a single room of a residential dwelling. Therefore, the range was most likely no further than seven yards (twenty-one feet). For an untrained handgun shooter, seven yards can be daunting for any precision; for a competent shooter, seven yards is not too difficult and for an advance shooter, seven yards is uncomfortably close.

Firing eight shots in rapid succession is demonstrative of one of two factors: Either lack of effect on target, or fear.

When confronted by an armed adversary who in the process of attacking or committing a dangerous action, one fires a shot to render the adversary incapable of continuing the threat, attack or dangerous action. If the adversary does not immediately abandon his threatening action(s), one fires another shot and re-assesses the result. This continues as needed. Please note, there is no time limit required for the assessment; do not get the incorrect idea that a defensive shooter must pause a certain amount of time between shots. The typical reason fired shots do not affect the attacker is a lack of power in the round itself, or poorly delivered hits.

When a defensive shooter is overcome by fear, he shoots rapidly and repeatedly in order to end the threat. This fear is normally generated by a lack of self-confidence due to a known lack of ability to hit the target. This is referred to in the discipline as ‘panic shooting’.

In the instant case, the caliber of the police officer’s weapon is not known. Commonly issued in the area – notably NYPD – are pistols in caliber 9×19 NATO (also known popularly as 9mm Luger and 9mm Parabellum.) Also unknown is the type of ammunition issued and used. One notes the specific ammunition has a great deal to do with the effectiveness of a shot delivered. The military style, Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) ammunition – used by NYPD as recently as the Amadou Diallo shooting in 1999 – is noted for a lack of ability to render an attacker unable to carry out further attack.

It is possible the combination of firearm and ammunition used by the Nassau County Police officer was ill-considered for ability to stop the illegal actions of a determined attacker. Further discussion on this point is purely conjecture and I will stop here on that aspect.

Another reason recipients of gunshot wounds (note I do not use the term ‘victim’) are not incapacitated is the shots were not delivered to a critical portion of the anatomy. The commonly accepted ‘desired’ bullet placement is in the Central Nervous System (CNS), comprised of the portion of the brain that controls volitional movement and the spinal column. Disrupting the function of the CNS will prevent the attacker further independent movement and render such attacker incapable of continuing a threat. However, as shown by shooting reports, not all ‘head shots’ are CNS shots. Body shots, which may in time cause death from blood loss, are not CNS shots and will not reliably stop an attacker from further threat. Mere pain may indeed end an attack, but will not in the case of a determined attacker and will certainly not deter an attacker under the influence of a host of pain suppressing agents, including alcohol and surely many mood altering drugs. Shots to limbs may or may not be fatal in time, but cannot be relied upon to instantly stop an attack. This paragraph is the reason behind many reports of a person being shot multiple times prior to death or other end of an encounter. This is the legitimate reason for law enforcement officers shooting a suspect multiple times; the suspect was shot X number of times because after being shot X-1 times, the suspect was still posing a threat.

However, the common reason for multiple shots fired in such circumstances is basic fear.

Between any given agency’s budget and manpower allocation requirements, and the abusive power of unions, law enforcement officers are given what can be generously described as ‘minimal’ training in the serious use of firearms.

Make no mistake; law enforcement agency management view all training as ‘down time’. The officer being trained is not on duty and therefore ‘wasted’. An officer being trained must be replaced ‘on line’, requiring hiring of an additional officer or overtime payments to another current officer. This cost is in addition to the direct costs of training; the trainers (typically officers who also are not on line), the equipment (a range and attendant facilities), the materials (ammunition, targets, alternate firearms and various props) and potential for added medical expenses for injuries suffered in training mishaps. From a management standpoint, these are all additional expenditures not directly related to the goal of ‘enforcing the law and preserving the peace’. Even more frustrating, the ‘value’ of such training cannot be directly applied to the yearly budget report. (From time to time, an officer will use the CPR training to save a life, providing a positive image of the agency to the populace served; however, the cost of the CPR training is still substantial and must be paid, up front.)

At the same time, all agencies can claim their employees are trained to the ‘required level and criteria’. What that means is the arbitrary standards of proficiency established by either the agency itself or a politically oriented and governed, over-seeing body. I have shot – and fired qualifying scores – on no less than nine different courses of fire over my life time. The only ones I felt ‘challenging’ were those I fired as a new shooter. They all deal with ‘ready’ positions, static problems, little stress and very little attention to firing a single, reactive shot – the first shot under stimulus – rather than multiple shots in a specific time period.

What can I say about law enforcement unions? From my own observations, law enforcement unions have the goal of raising wages while reducing the effectiveness of the individual officer. In specific, unions constantly protest against firearms qualifications as ‘too difficult’ and unreasonable in scope.

So: Here’s what the ‘inquiry’ will announce as findings.

1. The officer acted in the best interests of all involved. He did the best he could under horrible circumstances and is exonerated of any wrong-doing or culpability.

[This is true, but only in a limited sense. He acted in his own best interests first; he didn't engage the suspect while the suspect was pointing the gun at the victim and announcing his intention to kill her. The officer only engaged when the suspect shifted the gun toward the officer. The officer did the best he could based on the rather basic and infrequent training provided by the agency; he fired rapidly and repeatedly at the suspect (and victim). The officer probably never did any individual training or practice for such an encounter on his own.
This will not be mentioned.]

2. The primary cause of the incident and subsequent deaths was the suspect, Dalton SMITH.

[Again true, in a limited sense. SMITH was loose on the streets because the State of New York turned him loose. Based on his rather questionable past, one wonders why in the world anyone would allow such a man any degree of freedom among relatively decent citizens? Ah, I have it! The 'law' demands it. The laws of the State of New York are written in such a way that such predators cannot be incarcerated to protect the citizenry. Did anyone notice SMITH's photo? He appears to be a black male.
This will not be mentioned.]

3. The suspect was armed in violation of various laws, thereby endorsing even more stringent gun control laws.

[It's a boilerplate statement in New York and other Leftist controlled areas; part of the Leftist dogma. Ignored in this sentiment are the facts that this suspect obtained a firearm in violation of extant state and federal laws, and such laws prevented Miss Rebello and her friends from defending themselves.
This will not be mentioned.]

4. The inquiry will mention the need for more study of hostage events and considerations of how to handle those events.

[One has no idea of how much tax money will go into such 'study and consideration', save that it will far outstrip the money spent on actual training. One also has a suspicion the actual training will degenerated into a touchy-feely discussion of how to interact with 'less fortunate' and 'deprived' members of the community who feel disenfranchised, victimized and discounted. That they are 'disenfranchised, victimized and discounted' solely on the basis of their personal decision to commit felonious acts of a violent and predatory nature will be ignored. No additional training on shooting the malefactor while not shooting a hostage will be provided. Or even considered.
All of this will not be mentioned.]

To the family and friends of Miss Andrea Rebello, may I offer my deepest regrets and condolences. You are also victims of this hideous event. Not just of SMITH; not just of the lackadaisical firearms training of Nassau County (and most agencies), but also of the State of New York, who decided it was better to let SMITH run loose with an unregistered firearm while preventing any of you from defending yourselves or your loved ones. So much for a government driven by political correctness. I will be praying for you all.

I Lost a Hero

For a good long while, one of my personal heroes has been Dr. Stephen Hawking.

Not only has he outlived the hideous effects of motor neuron disease, but in doing so has established himself as a cosmologist and theoretical physicist of the highest order. He is the most important single scientist since Albert Einstein, and possibly since Sir Issac Newton. (Time will tell, of course. Such things require much evaluation to determine.)

However, as smart as Dr. Hawking shows himself, he shows a serious lack of intellectual ability in other matters. First, he is an atheist. The lack of intellectual ability demonstrates in that he recently published a theory – based largely on conjecture – which argues against the existence of God by ignoring some basic principles of physics (primarily the first and second laws of thermodynamics – conservation of matter/energy and entropy). The theory also postulates the existence of an eternal (which ignores entropy) ‘mega-universe’ which is uncreated and infinite. All this is to justify his denial of Almighty God. That’s a serious intellectual faux pas.

The second is more concrete: He has refused to travel to Israel under the willfully ignorant belief that the Islamic terrorists and hate-mongers firing explosives at Israeli schools, shopping malls and hospitals is on the same level as the Israeli government blowing up those Islamist terror bases from which the explosives are launched.

The formal excuse is the Israeli government ‘occupies’ land belonging to the Palestinians. This is silly on several grounds. Not the least reason is there are no such thing as ‘Palestinians’; no such country has ever existed. The modern area known as “Palestine” was created by the United Nations simultaneously with the nation of Israel in 1948. Since then, Israel has become a wealthy and productive state while ‘Palestine’ remains a pest hole who depend on Israel for all their electricity and clean water. The land ‘occupied’ by Israel is land ‘Palestine’ lost in warfare attempting to destroy Israel. Not to mention Israel has given much of that land back to ‘Palestine’

Back to Dr. Hawking. The inability to see the simple facts of what goes on in the middle east is a scary demonstration of willful ignorance. Much the same as the inability to recognize the existence of God.

I will probably continue to read Dr. Hawking’s books and articles. He is a reliable and well thinking scientist. But his monstrous inability to deal with reality cast doubt on his conclusions. He is no longer a hero.

Which actually makes me rather sad.

Another Shooting in New Orleans; Nothing Learned

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/14/new-orleans-police-id-suspect-in-mother-day-parade-shooting/

According to the article, the New Orleans Police Department has identified one suspect in the Mother’s Day Parade shooting.

The suspect, believed to be actively shooting at random people, is one Akein Scott, 19 years of age, of New Orleans. Mr. Scott is described in part as “no stranger to the criminal justice system”, having prior arrests for firearms and drug charges. What a shock! From the picture shown, Mr. Scott appears to be of a predominately negroid genetic background; this of course is politically incorrect to mention.

Of particular offensive nature, yet politically correct is the article citation of ‘angry residents’ citing ‘gun violence’. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no such thing as ‘gun violence’. I own – um – several firearms. None of them are violent. In fact, all of them are quite peaceful and passive. Not one of them, EVER, has committed an act of violence on its own.

VIOLENCE is a human behavior. VIOLENCE takes an act of human will to happen; not an inanimate object taking over. VIOLENCE is caused by a human acting on self-centered desires while ignoring the safety and well-being of others.

This is a lesson not learned. Human behavior is not dependent on objects.

The article also cites ‘angry residents’ mentioning ‘poverty and urban blight’ as problems along with ‘gun violence. This means what? If someone else cleaned up their neighborhoods and gave them money, the problems would cease? Here’s the second unlearned lesson: Being a victim. As long as one is a victim, one shirks all responsibility for one’s actions.

“Poverty”? Why are people in poverty? Despite all the excuses and Marxist rhetoric, the main reason people live in poverty is the inability or unwillingness to produce anything. In simple terms, they do not work; at anything. Yes, all kinds of excuses; lack of education – which they chose not to follow, dropping out of school because learning was too hard; not finding a suitable job – because all that is available to a non-reader is manual labor that is both hard and low-paying… the list goes on and on, but they are all excuses.

The real reason (in the U. S.) is those in ‘poverty’ don’t want to work and demand someone else give them money. Since 1964, when President Johnson began the “Great Society” programs, this approach has been shown to NOT work. The U. S. has spent billions (if not trillions) of dollars of tax money on ‘poverty’ programs. The net result is the U. S. has more people living in the poverty levels – and a higher rate of people living in the poverty levels – than existing in 1964.

Another unlearned lesson: Simply giving money to those who will not work does not help society or the populace. Or even the recipient of the money.

One last thing and I’ll give it a rest.

Mr. Scott – the suspect in the parade shooting – as you recall has been arrested before on firearms and drug charges. No mention if he has been convicted or plead guilty to any of these charges. If he has, he is barred from owning or possessing a firearm. At the age of 19, he may not purchase a handgun under federal law. Therefore, no further ‘gun control’ laws are needed for this problem. Further ‘gun control’ laws will target me – a retired federal lawman who is no threat to public peace and security – and raise taxes to pay for more ‘oversight’ while doing NOTHING to stop thugs from shooting up public places.

That is the last unlearned lesson for today: Human behavior (misbehavior – violence) cannot be deterred by vilifying an inanimate object. Pretty simple, but difficult for the Leftists to grasp.

Really Stupid Things Said by Attornies, Who Should Know Better

First, one might want to read the original article to get the background. It is short, maybe three minutes to read.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/09/former-fox-news-employee-pleads-guilty-in-mole-case/

May I direct the reader’s attention to paragraphs six and seven, which read thusly:

Muto’s attorney, Florian Miedel, said Muto should not have been treated like a criminal, despite admitting he stole material from his employer.

“Making him accept a criminal conviction is unfortunate for conduct that is fairly commonplace in the industry,” Miedel said.

Mr. Muto committed acts which are in violation of the criminal code, and are morally repugnant – treachery against an employer or other person who trusts the betrayer. Why should he not be “treated like a criminal”? Mr. Muto did ‘criminal actions’, isn’t that the definition of a criminal? To plead our society should not treat criminals like criminals is both idiotic and counter productive.

However, let’s address Mr. Meidel’s thinking for a moment. Mr. Meidel seems to think Mr. Muto’s conduct should be allowed, because such deeds of treachery are “… fairly commonplace in the industry”. In other words, ‘every one does it!”

Mr. Meidel; robbing banks by force and threatening people in the process is “… fairly commonplace in the [bank robbing] industry”. Should we as a society therefore not treat bank robbers like criminals? Does the same apply to rapists? After all, rapists do what is ‘commonplace’ in the rape industry.

Here’s another thought for Mr. Meidel; is that the best defense one can muster for an accused? Not even, “My client was under a great deal of stress and wasn’t thinking clearly at the time” or “My client is very ashamed and repentant of his despicable actions”; simply “Everybody does it”. That’s the defense? My mind boggles and my stomach lurches.

Hopefully, this event will be remembered when Mr. Muto attempts employment again. “Oh, yes; you’re the one who steals information and sells it to line his pockets. Interesting resume, sir.”

The same applies to Mr. Meidel. “I’m in serious trouble and looking for an attorney to get me off. Oh, yes; you’re the ‘everybody does it’ defense guy. Thanks anyway.”

This is a free market society. People are free to spend their money as they see fit. (Except for taxes, of course.) Perhaps if more people pay attention to whom they hire, and demand a certain level of both integrity and competence, we’d be better off as a society.

If we as a society start forgiving crime as ‘too popular to prosecute or convict’, we’re done as a society and a nation. We’re already much to close to that status as it is.

Things One Learns at a Bowling Pin Match

The first bowling pin match of the 2013 season – at the Four Rivers Sportsman’s Club – was held this morning, Saturday 27th April A. D. 2013. I was there. I shot four different handguns in three events. I learned a little something in all three attempts.

A pair of Military and Police .38 Special revolvers

The first handgun I fired was actually a pair of Smith & Wesson Military & Police .38 Special revolvers with two-inch barrels. They are both in the ‘D’ prefix serial number range which puts them between the end of the Second World War and about 1952 or so. I used target type ammunition (148 grain hollow base wadcutter bullets with 2.2 grains of Clays propellant) for this session. (I haven’t chronographed this load from the two inch revolvers yet, but from a four inch revolver, they move at 720 feet per second.

Here’s what I found out. Properly placed upper center hits with wadcutter ammo from a two inch gun will move a bowling pin right off the table. They don’t launch, as if kicked by the Jolly Green Giant, but they fall fast and skid right off the back of the table. I also found they have just enough penetration to bury themselves into a bowling pin to the base of the bullet. (Picture included.)

Two wadcutter bullets in bowling pin. Nicely centered, if I do say so myself.

I also found both these revolvers shoot very close to the same point of impact with this ammunition at the distance of eight to nine yards. If I held on the upper third of the wide, center portion of the pin, the pin would go off the table: With both revolvers. (I am really going to have to shoot them both on paper targets and make sure about this – it seems too good to be true.)
The down side is I found these revolvers do not work like I would wish with speedloaders of the HKS persuasion. I have some competition type speedloaders that may do a better job and I’ll have to try them as well. As is well known, the extractor rod on these short barreled revolvers is just shy of long enough to fully remove the spent cases from the cylinder. One adapts. (As may two or three.)
Once again, I was pleasantly surprised at the quickness and forgiving nature of the Smith & Wesson double action function. Much reminiscent of shifting gears in a well-designed sports car. Simple pleasures.

The second handgun I shot was my daily carry pistol, a Heckler and Koch USPc 40. I shot some practice type ammunition this time; a handload of just over five grains of W231 pushing a 180 grain lead bullet.
The bullets however, are a rounded shape with a flat meplat (the very front of the bullet). They feed through the mechanism well, but I found out when they hit a bowling pin, if they don’t hit right square at a more or less right angle to the pin, they tend to deflect to the side and send the pin the opposite direction instead of pushing it back off the table. Sort of like when a bowling ball hits a pin on one side. Sigh… I’m going to have to find some flat fronted, square sided bullets.

I also found something less than pleasant. But I’m not sure what happened fully – yet.

One of my .40 S&W rounds blew up. Not catastrophically, not even spectacularly; rather subtly, in fact. I fired a shot – my last of that pistol for the day, as it happens – I think the pin went down and I felt the pistol jam. The slide didn’t close. When I fired that round, I also noted something flew from the pistol and hit me in the face. (I just went and examined my manly countenance: I’m as homely as ever, without any new marks, scars, tattoos, gouges, bruises, burns or other indications of injury. I do need a shave, which I shall accomplish on the morrow, prior to church attendance.) After I realized the pistol had jammed, I exercised immediate action to keep knocking down pins… and found I could not. After the briefest of inspections, I noted the presence of the shell case, minus the base and rim, still in the chamber.

Happily, this was a friendly match and no one was attempting to change my life status. Having a case stuck in the chamber is bad juju in a gun fight.

Out of temporal sequence, I did get the case out of the chamber. That bit that hit me in the face earlier? It was the base of the shell case which ripped off the case during the event. (It was on the deck, I found it quite easily.) I have included a photo of the remains of said case.

.40 S&W caliber case with separated head

Case separation showing clean break and no ragged tearing.

The rupture is so clean and tidy I suspect a defect in the structure of the shell case. That case was fired at least once prior, I reloaded it myself and saw no obvious flaw in the handling of the case.

Observing the main body of the case, the brass flowed into the unsupported section of the chamber at the top of the feed ramp. Normally, I would suspect an over pressure charge, except for a couple of observations. One, when the round fired, it seemed normal. I’ve been shooting next to bullseye competitors who have had rounds ‘explode’ (a rather excessive term at times). In both instances, the magazine blew out of the pistol, in one instance the grips came off. Both instances were marked by stout recoil, a greater than usual amount of smoke and a shocked look on the face of the shooter. In neither case was the pistol actually damaged (the grips went back on and the shooter finished the match in both instances.) (In fact, after blowing up his gun, the ratfink outshot me in the match!) Also, the blow up cases looked much more ‘ragged’ around the tear in the case than this instant matter.

None of that happened in my instant case. There are no grips to blow off, but the magazine was not ejected, and no visible damage accrued to the pistol. The case seems to have given way just prior to the pressure level being high enough for a serious detonation. I suppose this could be a case of Divine Providence, but the Lord typically works through the laws of nature (physics) in my experience.

I do not think this was a matter of a double charge in the case. That could be my ego refusing to admit such a mistake, but it just didn’t rattle my cage like the competitor next to me did. The event was not as ‘violent’ as other blow ups I have witnessed. Yes, I’ll admit that is subjective.

Again out of temporal sequence, when I returned home and cleaned the H&K pistol, I noted something ‘odd’ with the extractor. It was broken. The rear section of the extractor – the part which is pushed by the spring underneath to put inward pressure on the extractor hook – was simply gone, along with the spring and rubber pad. While it seems logical the broken extractor was simultaneous with the rupture of the case, I cannot be sure. Another photo shows the damage.

Broken extractor on USPc 40.

I do know the extractor was functioning earlier, as I cleared the pistol after the prior three strings of fire. I’m presuming the extractor broke during the case rupture, but that is a presumption. (I went back to the range and did not find either the broken portion of the ejector or the spring.) To fix the problem, I must replace the extractor, spring and rubber pad that sets under the spring. Simple enough, but will cost me just over $70.00 (U. S. Yankee money) in parts. And I have to order them from H&K.

The last gun I fired is one of my long time favorites. It is a retired U. S. Property 1911 (not A1) made in 1918. The “AA” stamp on the frame leads me to believe it was rebuilt at the Atlanta Arsenal at some point. The slide was made by Remington Arms UMC Co Inc. When I bought it in the middle 1990s, it had been surplused out of the government and built into a ‘hardball’ competition pistol. I changed the sights back to a less obtrusive style of fixed sight, more visible than the original sights, but lower and easier to holster than adjustable target sights. It still has a flat mainspring housing, long trigger and full beavertail hammer. As I tend to shoot heavy bullets at full velocity, it sports a 22 pound recoil spring (normal being 16 pound.) I consider it a proper fighting handgun.

Today I shot it with some old bullseye target loads; a 185 grain lead SWC bullet over 2.2 grains of Clays gunpowder. It is a fairly low velocity load, but the fast burn of the powder gives a quick impulse and operates the pistol briskly. Even with the heavy mainspring.

What I learned about this arrangement is the target level loads will positively work the old warhorse, even when dirty. I should have cleaned this old dear last year some time, but it ran perfectly. (He said with respect, stood and tipped his hat to John Moses Browning.)

I also learned that hits on a bowling pin with this rather weak load will clear them off the table; provided such impact is in the upper third of the main section of the pin and fairly centered. In contrast to the skidding results of the round shouldered .40 bullets, the combination of flat front and square shoulders of the 185 SWC bullet seems to ‘grip’ the pins on impact.

Also, I remember how pleasant shooting a Government Model can be. After 102 years, they are still dandy pistols.

Post and orders remain the same. Nothing unusual to report, except as noted above.

God Bless the Child Killers?

There I was, minding my own business…

President Obama attends the national convention of Planned Parenthood. (He was the first U. S. President to do so, signalling his dismissal of notions of common decency.) Then he made a speech, saying in part, “… [Conservatives have] been involved in an orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women’s health.”

There is a full article about this at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/obama-tells-planned-parenthood-abortion-foes-want-return-to-150s/#ixzz2RhUuSBWB

I find his wording odd. “Women’s health” seems to begin and end with killing a baby. If anyone reading this has missed this bit of reality – Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill. Nothing more – well, okay, they counsel women to have abortions too and burn up federal tax money – and nothing less than killing babies at every turn is their goal.

But the President has this rather naive idea Planned Parenthood deals in ‘women’s health’? Nothing to do with colds and flues. Nothing to do with broken arms or ingrown toenails. Nothing to do with cancer of the breast, uterus, lymph nodes or bones. Nothing to do with ‘self-image’ or psychosis (perhaps contributing to some) or mental stability. Just killing babies.

At taxpayer expense, I might add.

I’ve known several women who have had abortions. None of the women who ever mentioned having an abortion were happy about it. (None of the children involved were mine, I’m relieved to say.) I can’t recall any of the decisions to abort were done lightly; at least not as was told me. The women all felt they had little or no other choice at the time. All the women involved were sad at some level about the event. All expressed some sign of regret in the decision.

I say all this somewhat in defense of women who are unhappily pregnant. I have a great sympathy for women (and men for that matter) who are trapped and cannot see a way out. There are a couple of ways out, actually, but it doesn’t seem like it at the time.

However, modern society does two things simultaneously in the matter of pregnancies and abortion. One is to actually encourage women (and men, but men don’t get pregnant) to engage in casual sexual activity. Even with ‘protection’ – typically condoms, pills or other contraceptive means – pregnancy follows casual sexual activity. Women and the men they have get caught in pregnancy all the time.

So the second thing modern society does is to make it simpler to kill the result. After all, we’re all ‘free’, right? Free from consequence, free from responsibility, free from moral boundaries, free from – ourselves? Have all the sex desired and one can kill the resulting baby. After all, no one wanted a baby in all this sex, right? How dare that baby intrude on someone’s ‘fun’?

So Planned Parenthood runs a national organization dedicated to the murder of babies.

And President Obama wants not only to keep funding Planned Parenthood with tax money to insure “women’s health”, but he wants God to Bless them as well.

Just a bit of history: God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites. In doing so, God displaced or destroyed a number of indigenous peoples. One of the main reasons given for that displacement or destruction was those peoples sacrificed their children to pagan gods. The distinction between sacrificing a child to Molech to earn favor with ‘those powers’ and sacrificing a child to abortion to allow sexual promiscuity is rather subtle. God destroyed those cultures who did so ‘back in the day’. Why would God consider blessing them now?

Really Dopey Things Secularists Have Said or Written and Shouldn’t Have

A good friend of mine, perhaps in an effort to stimulate my blood pressure, sent me a link to an essay in the Huffington Post. (As if anything appearing there is worthy of reading.) The article is written by Steve McSwain, a self-proclaimed (one phrase in one line) Christian. The title is “Six Things Christians Should Just Stop Saying”.

I never fail to be amazed by the people who hold forth on matters of which they have no clue. The essay in question is one such amazement.

He says Christians should stop saying:
1. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God.

Think about that for a moment. That suggestion is like saying the U. S. Government should stop paying attention to the U. S. Constitution (the document, not the ship.) If the Bible is NOT the inerrant, infallible Word of God, then Christianity has no basis. His rather groundless claim the Bible is not inerrant or infallible is the same old tired nonsense as always – Why doesn’t everyone agree? The Bible has been attacked for a couple millennia now and still stands unbroken; I see no need to defend it further here.

He says Christians should stop saying:
2. We just believe the Bible.

That’s a straw man argument. Without context, it is fraudulent. I’ve never claimed I just believe the Bible. I believe in many other things; gravity, friction, the superiority of old Smith & Wesson revolvers, the general reliability of the U. S. Postal Service, weather fronts, warm feet and good friends. I also believe in planning ahead, saving for the future and the efficacy of modern medicine.

In terms of who God is, what He has done and what He expects of humanity, the Bible covers it all. Without the Bible, what would anyone know of such matters?

He says Christians should stop saying:
3. Jesus is the only way to heaven.

Once one has discarded the Bible, that’s easy enough to do. Then again, having discarded the Bible, neither Heaven nor Hell exists and the matter is moot.

Since I ‘cling’ to the Bible, Jesus claimed to be the sole manner of eternity in Heaven. So he’s saying I should consider Jesus a liar, a fraud or a madman. Huh? I’m a ‘Christian’; that is, a follower, a devotee of the Christ – Jesus. What sort of self-contradictory logic is that?

He says Christians should stop saying:
4. The rapture of Jesus is imminent.

He could have a point with this. I am a bit weary of ‘predictions’ – like the one predicted by Harold Camping in 2011. There have been numerous other such predictions, none of which seems to have impressed Almighty God in the matter. Nor do I think God is ‘bound’ by our understanding of the matter.

However, it is rather stupid to pretend the world – universe – will not end. Most any physicist can explain ‘heat death’. For that matter, for me, the ‘end of the world’ will occur in not more than forty years, considering my current age. The ‘end’ may or may not be ‘soon’, but it is certain. That’s the important thing to keep in mind.

Further, there is no one standing over God’s shoulder with a stopwatch saying, “You’re running out of time…”

He says Christians should stop saying:
5. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle and it is a sin against God.

I knew he would get to this. Just like a TV preacher getting around to asking for donations.

I’ve talked with geneticists; there is no ‘sexual orientation’ gene. After years of study and picking at the subject, there is no reasonable explanation of the ’cause’ of homosexuality. Where does that leave us? One must conclude – at least until further evidence and a solid answer – homosexuality is a choice. Perhaps not a conscious choice, but it is a behavioral act based upon one’s mindset.

Be that as it may, the Biblical injunction against homosexuality is not that of ‘option’, but of action.

Of course, none of that is currently politically correct. This whole argument is simply a secular view of life rather than a God honoring view of life. And of course, if homosexuality is not sinful, then extra-marital sex is okay between heterosexuals as well. That’s a big prize for some folks.

He says Christians should stop saying:
6. The earth is less than 10,000 years old.

This has value as well. Primarily because the creation date of 4004 B. C. is not Biblical, but derived from calculations of the Bishop (James Ussher) of Armagh in the 17th Century. His calculations were based on information from the Bible, but ignored the actual content. The good Bishop also predicted the end of the world (universe in modern terms) to take place in 1997 or so. (See above about predictions.)

I’ve written an essay explaining why I am not a “Young Earth Creationist”, so I won’t again.

However, I will repeat this statement in that essay: In terms of eternity, I’d rather have a relationship with Jesus Christ and be ignorant of physics than be really, really educated and go to Hell anyway.

Mr. McSwain caps his essay with the high-sounding, but trite and misguided sentiment,

Jesus said, “They will know you are my disciples by your love” (John 13:35).

When we love, what more needs to be said?

In other words, Christians should really be concentrating not on doctrine or following God’s directions or orders, but simply in ‘loving’ all those poor people out there. He doesn’t specify how this ‘love’ should be manifest, but considering his posting on HuffPo and his championing of homosexuality, I’ll guess he’s talking about some form of social justice program.

Wrong.

John 13:35 reads (in full) “Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another.” Christians are to love (the Greek word agape) other Christians. Since Mr. McSwain essentially spits on all Christians who do not follow his secularized, politically correct view of watered down Christianity, he fails that test instantly.

This isn’t to say Christians are not to love non-Christians. We are directed to love in the same way God loves – unstinting and fully – concerned about the eternal souls of all people. Love does not ignore the serious consequences of human sin. That would be secular humanism.