Justice League Leers at Wonder Woman

In the era of allegations of sexual harassment from entertainers like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey,  and even Ben Affleck,  we are exposed to more of the same in DC's latest, Justice League.  From skimpy Amazon bikinis  to plenty of salty language, the movie takes us into new, sexually charged territory for the series.  The very first glance we have of Wonder Woman has the camera staring up her skirt.  From there the director positively leers at Gal Gadot, with numerous shots down her blouse, more up her skirt and a very long closeup staring at her backside as she walks down the street.  Aquaman and Alfred (yes, Batman's geriatric butler) both make comments about how appealing she looks.  Alfred wants Batman to pursue her, and Aquaman, suddenly expressive and truthful because of a certain lasso, reveals how attracted he is to her.
What a change from Patti Jenkins' great movie, showing how a woman can be beautiful, romantic, strong and powerful at the same time without the movie objectifying her or the women around her.  Even NBC laments how Wonder Woman went from a leading lady to a sidekick.  Gal Gadot, on the other hand is being praised as a hero for having producer Brett Ratner, also accused of sexual harassment, removed from producing the second Wonder Woman movie.  Hopefully that movie will show both the actress and the character the respect they deserve.

Judge Me!

Is it ever OK to judge someone else?

In today's "tolerant" society, people are quick to quote "don't judge lest you be judged."  You're not allowed to say "what you are doing is wrong" or "what you believe is wrong."  That level of cruel intolerance is, um, not tolerated.

Well, if you believe that you're wrong!

The passage (mis)quoted is from Matthew 7:1-5, quoted here in context:

Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite... (NASB)

Well, there you have it.  Case closed.  We have to be tolerant...  But wait, they leave off the rest of verse 5:

...first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

What Jesus was warning against was hypocritical judgement - where you are doing the very thing you accuse your brother of and pretending that you're some holier-than-thou goodie-two-shoes. In contrast, we are commanded to judge rightly:

Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment. (John 7:24)

But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves. (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)

There are things clearly called out in Scripture as sin:  lying, cheating, stealing, murder, anger, idolatry, angry outbursts, homosexuality, adultery, lust, revenge, etc.  People outside the Church have not signed up to follow Christ's commandments, but those inside the Church have.  So what does this righteous judgement look like?

Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:1-2)

Judging another believer is not some mean-spirited, finger-pointing "gotcha" kind of activity.  It is supposed to be done in love and gentleness, with the sure knowledge that we are all struggle with sin.  The purpose is restoration and mutual support.  We need to work together, helping each other to live holy lives.  As it was once said, "Christianity is just one beggar telling another where to find bread."  "You who are spiritual" refers to those who are mature and growing in their faith.  Maturity is marked by the humility, gentleness and self-awareness that Christ was talking about.

Jesus taught that if someone sins against you, you first go to them privately, then if they don't respond, take a brother with you, and then if they still don't repent, take it to the church (Matthew 18:15-17)  He didn't intend for us to go through life with unresolved sin destroying people and relationships and poisoning the witness of the Church.  Sometimes people are honestly struggling and need help.  Sometimes they don't know that what they are doing is wrong and need to be taught. Sometimes they are stubborn and rebellious and need to be disciplined with the hope that they will repent and be restored.  Sin always kills (Rom 6:23) and has to be confronted and removed lest the poison spread.  Jesus died so that we could be free from it, and instituted righteous judgement in His Church to help us deal with it.

There is one other issue to consider.  In the context of Romans 14, Paul is talking about believers who have found freedom from the Old Testament Law, and telling the believers not to judge each other over the matter. Some things are clearly sin: adultery, lust, murder, lying, outbursts of anger, drunkenness, etc. Other things are a matter of conscience: Sabbath keeping, eating only kosher food or avoiding food offered to idols, drinking alcohol, playing cards, etc.  We are told that we are NOT to judge one another on these issues, which was the topic of a previous post (Don't Judge Me!).  This also applies to judging what people believe, differentiating between essential, required beliefs (the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the sinfulness of mankind, Jesus' death and resurrection, etc.) and those areas where believers can disagree (predestination vs. free will, sign gifts, drums in the sanctuary, etc.).

So, there are times when believers are to judge one another, not hypocritically, not self-righteously, but with humility and gentleness and the goal of repentance and restoration.  If you are doing it Biblically, please, judge me!

Don't Judge Me!

The Shadow of Things to Come

"Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." (Colossians 2:16-17, NASB)

 I have some good friends who believe that in order to follow Jesus / Yeshua, you must keep the Sabbath, the Jewish feasts and the Old Testament Law / Torah.  I saw someone post in reply to this verse that it does not refer to Jewish Sabbaths and Feasts, but to pagan feasts.  However, that would mean that:
1.  Paul would be teaching the Colossians not to let people judge them for keeping the pagan feasts, when he repeatedly tells Gentiles to abandon idolatry and come to Christ.
2.  Paul would be teaching that those pagan feasts are a foreshadowing of the Jewish Messiah, which also makes no sense.

 No, Paul was teaching the Colossian believers that the Jewish feasts, new moons and Sabbaths were the shadow of the Messiah.  The contrast is between the body of Christ and the shadow of the Feasts and Sabbaths.  They are only a insubstantial shadow compared to the substance, the reality, of Christ.  Believers who have trusted Christ for salvation follow Him by walking in the Spirit, obey His New Covenant commandments, and are under no obligation to observe the old shadows of food laws, Feasts and Sabbaths.   They were fulfilled in Christ and now we have the fullness of God in Him.

 "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter."  (Romans 7:6, NASB)

Is the Holy Spirit a Person?

Some friends of mine asked in a blog post about the Holy Spirit "how can a person live inside you?" They do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a person, or in the doctrine of the Trinity. The word "Trinity" does not appear in Scripture, but is a theological term describing a number of Biblical truths. The definition of the Trinity is that "there is one God who exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit."  My purpose in this post is to show where the Bible teaches the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

First, we have to understand what the term "person" means.  It does not refer to "a person walking down the street," or "the person who lives next door."  A person (this is not hard to understand) is someone who has a mind, will, emotions and can relate to others.  The Bible teaches that God is personal.  He is not like the "force" in Star Wars or some directionless cosmic energy, but He has a mind (Isaiah 55:8-9), the incredibly inventive mind that designed all of creation and knows the thoughts and intentions of every heart (Jeremiah 17:10).  He has a will (Mark 3:35), a will that chose to create mankind in His own image and that chose to send Jesus to the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Luke 22:42).  He has emotions, the emotions of anger (Numbers 32:13), joy (Zephaniah 3:17), jealousy (Exodus 20:5), grief (Genesis 6:6)) and compassion (2 Kings 13:23).  He is capable of relationships, evidenced by his relationships with the people of God in the Bible, like Abraham, Moses, David and now those who have put their trust in Christ alone for salvation.

Our own personhood is a large part of the "image of God" created in each of us and that which distinguishes us from the rest of creation.  Our own personhood and consciousness does not end when we die and are absent from our bodies (2 Peter 1:13-15), but our spirits go on to exist in heaven or hell (Luke 16:19-21) where we continue to think, feel and communicate with others.  We cannot equivocate on the term person to say that a person has to have a body when Jesus clearly taught otherwise.

Do these characteristics of personhood apply to the Holy Spirit?  Let's look at what Jesus taught in John 14:15-17, John 14:25-26 and John 16:8-15.

1.  The Holy Spirit has a mind.  Jesus said that the Holy Spirit " will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26).  Teaching requires a thinking mind.  In John 16:8 Jesus, speaking of the Holy Spirit, says, "and when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment."  Sin, righteousness and judgment are deep topics, and convincing someone of their sin takes knowledge and intellect, just like guiding people and speaking to them as we will see in a moment.  (1 Cor 2:10-13).

2.  The Holy Spirit has a will.  "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (John 16:13).  The Holy Spirit chooses not to exercise His own authority in speaking to the believers, but to speak on behalf of the Father  (another distinction between Father and Spirit).  Even Jesus said, "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority" (John 14:10).  Does that mean Jesus does not have authority?  No, it means that He was not speaking using the authority that He clearly has.  In the same way, the Holy Spirit chooses not to speak on His own authority, but on the Father's authority.  He has a will (Acts 7:51; 1 Corinthians 12:11).

3.  The Holy Spirit has emotions.  This passage in John does not teach that the Holy Spirit has emotions, but others do, including Isaiah 63:10 (the rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit), Ephesians 4:30 (do not grieve the Holy Spirit) and Hebrews 10:29 (insulting/outraging the Spirit).

4.  The Holy Spirit is capable of relationships.  In John 16:13, Jesus uses the verbs hearing, speaking, guiding and declaring which are all relational.  John 14:17 says "you know him."  The Holy Spirit can be known, not just intellectually, but personnally and relationally.  Interestingly, Jesus does not call the Holy Spirit "it" but "he," a personal pronoun, and describes Him as "another Helper."  In Greek, the word means "another of the same kind."  In Acts, Ananias and Sapphira lie to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4).  You cannot lie to an impersonal force, but only to a person.

On a final note, some might say that the Spirit of the Lord is just an extension of Yahweh or another way to refer to His action in the world, like "the arm of the Lord" or "the voice of the Lord."  Is the Holy Spirit distinct from the Father?  Jesus said that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit to the disciples (John 14:16; 14:25, 16:7).  Can God send Himself?  In Hebrews 3:7, the author writes "as the Holy Spirit says, 'Oh, that today you would listen as he speaks!'"  In context, the "he" is God the Father.  If the Spirit was the Father, how could the Spirit say "listen as he speaks?"  In Romans 8:26-27, Paul teaches that the Holy Spirit intercedes for believers to the Father.  An intercessor is one who comes between two others and pleads the case of one to the other.  Biblically, the Holy Spirit is not an extension or operating mode of God the Father.

So, does the Holy Spirit dwell in believers?  Clearly, as Jesus taught about the Spirit, "you know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you" (John 14:17).  I have demonstrated above that the Holy Spirit is personal, or in theological terms, "a person."  Therefore, the Person of the Holy Spirit can dwell in someone.

I will deal with the Deity of the Holy Spirit, the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity in other posts.  Please keep comments on the topic of the personhood of the Holy Spirit or the arguments I made above.  God bless you as you seek to grow in the knowledge of His Glory and Grace!

Tim Hawkins - Atheist Summer Camp

This one is just too funny. I had to share it.

The Hickenlooper Blues

Because Chuck Said So...

Chuck Norris' top ten (or so) reasons to register to vote. Just do it.

Obama Walks Into a Bank...

This was so funny, sad and true at the same time, I couldn't help but post it.

President Obama walks into a local bank in Chicago to cash a check. He is surrounded by Secret Service agents. As he approaches the cashier he says, "Good morning Ma'am, could you please cash this check for me?"

Cashier:
"It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID?"

Obama:
"Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn't think there was any need to. I am President Barack Obama, the President of the United States of AMERICA !!!!"

Cashier:
"Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations and monitoring of the banks because of 9/11, impostors, forgers, money laundering, and bad mortgage underwriting not to mention requirements of the Dodd/Frank legislation, etc., I must insist on seeing ID."

Obama:
“Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am."

Cashier:
"I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I must follow them."

Obama:
"I am urging you, please, to cash this check. I need to buy a gift for Michelle for Valentine’s Day"

Cashier:
"Look Mr. President, here is an example of what we can do. One day, Tiger Woods came into one of our bank branches without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putter and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a coffee cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check.”
“Another time, Andre Agassi came into the same place without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot where as the tennis ball landed in a coffee cup. With that shot we cashed his check.
So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the President of the United States?"

Obama:
Obama stands there thinking, and thinking, and finally says, "Honestly, my mind is a total blank...there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can't think of a single thing. I have absolutely no idea what to do and I don’t have a clue.”
Cashier:
"Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?

The Founders' "Assault Rifle"

The 1780 Girandoni Air Gun was the Founders' version of the so-called "assault rifle."  Gun-grabbers always want to argue that the Founders could never have envisioned 30 round magazines, repeating rifles, or anything other than a muzzleloading, single shot rifle or flint-lock pistol.  Well, from the pages of history, invented in 1789, and used by the Austrian army from 1780 to 1815, here is the Founder's assault rifle.  The tubular magazine held 20 rounds of .46 caliber ball ammunition, quickly reloaded from 20 round tubes carried in a satchel.  The stock used compressed air (800 psi or so) to fire the round, which had an effective range of 150 yards.  Being air powered, the rifles were also suppressed by the standards of the day.


The rifle predated the Bill of Rights by 10 years, and Thomas Jefferson gave two rifles to the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804, who used the repeating nature of the rifle in demonstrations to the Native Americans, who naturally assumed that the whole party was outfitted with them and wisely chose to be neighborly.





It could also be argued that the Founders could not have known about radio, television, the Internet, blogs, communications satellites and fiber optics, so the First Amendment must not mean what it says either.  Why, someone might prove to everyone that progressive arguments against the Second Amendment are historically inaccurate and without merit, and then publish it for the world to see instantly and without censorship.

My Picks for the Colorado Republican Primary

Bentley Rayburn for Colorado's 5th Congressional District. I sent General Rayburn an email asking him some very pointed questions, and several designed to lead him to progressive answers, but his answers were solid Tea Party, Constitutional ideas with sound rationale. I expected a few short responses, but he took the time to elaborate on several points, including individual liberties, the proper role of the Federal Government, and the over-reach of several Federal Agencies, to name a few. I know some people in the area like sour grapes talk show host Jeff Crank are on a witch hunt, but General Rayburn is not only clearly more conservative than Lamborn, he's a lot more motivated and focused, with the ethics and leadership to get the job done.

Mike Kopp for Colorado Governor. After listening to a lot of speeches and reading a number of websites and articles, I've decided that Mike Kopp is the best choice to replace Hickenlooper. He is a solid conservative and understands the role of limited government and the importance of our civil rights, including the Second Amendment. The Democrats are wrong: Tancredo isn't too conservative, he's too libertarian. Beauprez is too establishment (really, Mitt Romney's endorsement didn't clue you in?) and doesn't even address any issues on his website, and Gessler has too many ethical skeletons in his closet. 

Mark Lowderman for El Paso County Treasurer. This is a tough race to call, mostly because the subject matter is dry as dust, but I believe Lowderman has an action plan to reduce the size and bureaucracy of the Treasurer's office and is business, veteran and retiree friendly. Duncan Bremer's campaign seems to consist of "I'll make paying your taxes less painful, heh heh heh," and some fictional idiot named "Phil" on the radio repeating his name over and over again in hopes of generating name recognition.











Get those ballots filled out and sent in ASAP! Do your homework and make educated decisions.  It's our responsibility as citizens of this great country.

Remembering the Heroes of Normandy

70 years ago today, heroes from the United States and other Allied nations made the first push to take back Europe from a socialist tyrant determined to take over the world. We remember their courage, and commit ourselves to their belief that freedom is never free, that liberty is worth any sacrifice, and that tyrants only fear men and women who understand those truths.

This was a great story, about a 93 year old paratrooper, Jim Martin, who made another parachute jump over Normandy today.

2014 UT Commencement Speech - Navy Seal

A Navy Seal, Admiral William H. McRaven, the Commander of the US Special Operations Command, gave this year's University of Texas commencement speech, and it's very worth 20 minutes of your life:

Now, go change the world.

Socialized Medicine in the Veterans Administration

I have been following the Veterans Administration scandal with disgust and anger, but not with surprise.  I served in the Air Force and have friends who are retired or disabled vets.  I have experienced, witnessed and heard about the socialized medicine that the military provides our active duty, retired and disabled veterans.  I have also known active duty doctors and nurses who have shared firsthand what goes on in hospitals and clinics.  They were all wonderful professionals who did their best to take care of our people in spite of a fundamentally broken system.  When I separated from the Air Force, I had issues for which I could have pursued disability, but chose instead to entrust my health to the open market.  It has undoubtedly cost me more, but I am more than satisfied with my choice.

If I or my family members need an appointment, I call my doctor's office (that I like) and never have to wait more than a day or two to be seen.  Most of the time it is no later than noon the first day.  If I want to see a specialist, it takes a little longer - maybe a week or two, and with my plan (that I like) I don't have to ask my "primary physician's" permission.  If I have a minor emergency, I go to Urgent Care which is literally 3 minutes from my house.  If I have a major emergency, I go to the ER or call an ambulance.  I pay attention to what doctors and facilities are in my network, but I still have plenty of choices.  It's not quite a free market (since I am limited to my insurance provider's contracts), but it's not bad, and I am very free to go to an out of network doctor if I want to.

In the overwhelmed and understaffed VA system, patients have to wait days, weeks and sometimes months for care.  We have heard horrific stories from Arizona where veterans died waiting for treatment.  Doctors, nurses and receptionists have been blowing whistles all over the place that wait times are being falsified, that patients are given an appointment date, but not given a choice, and that records are falsified that the patient chose the date.  We are hearing that care is substandard, patients have little say in how they are treated, and the whole thing is a mess.

I was disgusted to hear the news, but not at all surprised.  Back when Obamacare was being pushed, I read that some Democrats were holding up the VA as a successful example of what they wanted to accomplish with the Affordable Care Act.  I couldn't help but laugh.  I, like so many other veterans, knew exactly where they were heading - and it is a disaster.  Remember, Obamacare isn't the end goal - the progressives' real goal is a single payer, government run system just like the VA. 

The VA is the perfect example of government run, single payer, socialized health care, and it's a complete disaster that needs to be replaced with a subsidized free market system, with veterans given vouchers for private insurance and private doctors.  Privatize the VA hospitals and clinics and reduce the VA to an organization that simply administers the voucher program.

Furthermore, Obamacare needs to be scrapped.  Medicare and Medicaid need to be drastically overhauled and replaced with a similar voucher program, and the rest of us should be allowed to purchase insurance on the open market and across state lines.  A properly functioning Medicare program could provide a safety net for people with chronic or terminal illnesses, and employer and groups purchasing insurance together than ensure further protections for the consumer.

The VA is a disaster that has been festering for a very long time - before Obama, before Bush, before Clinton, in fact, all the way back to World War I.  Its has been fundamentally flawed from the beginning, just like Obamacare.  The only viable solution is replacement, not finger pointing, firing people and pretending to be surprised.

Good Riddance

I must've been living in a hole somewhere, because I just learned about Grumpy Cat.  How a sour-faced puss can make you smile so much is beyond me, but his Garfield like attitude is wonderful.  It sounds like in real life he's actually just a lovable kitty with a form of dwarfism, and his family is pretty protective of him, making sure he has a normal private life.  It's pretty heartwarming to read about him.

Oh, and Piers Morgan is off the air.  Maybe he'll move back to Great Britain where he can argue for banning knives and claw hammers.  I'm sure he'll be just as irrelevant there.

How many rounds are enough?

How many rounds do you need to defend yourself, your family, or other innocents?  The bottom line is, you don't know.  You can't predict whether you will be assaulted by one bad guy who runs when you draw your weapon or a gang amped up on who knows what drugs who need 3 or 4 rounds each to stop the threat.  You don't know if it will be at home, at work, at church, on the street or anywhere else.  You don't know if you'll have enough warning to arm yourself and barricade yourself and your loved ones in a room, or if it comes out of nowhere within bad-breath distance with no time to draw a gun requiring hand-to-hand, hand-to-knife or hand-to-gun skills.

NRA news just produced this great video on the topic.


If you don't know, neither do the politicians in Denver. It's time to repeal the idiotic gun laws our overlord Democrat legislature and governor rammed down our throats last year.  While were at it, it's time for Udall, Hickenlooper, and a pile of Democrat legislators to be fired as well.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!  One of my favorite Christmas hymns by one of my favorite bands. I love the blues/rock arrangement on this one.



Here is my favorite Christmas hymn!



Jesus is our hope, our peace, our joy, our love and the long awaited Messiah. Celebrate Him this Christmas!

Victory!

Colorado State Senator John Morse has conceded the recall election!  This is a victory for Representative Government.

While the media kept saying this recall was about the gun laws he pushed, it was more about the way he went about it.  He quashed dissent, refusing to allow pro 2nd Amendment citizens to testify against the laws during Senate debate.  He refused testimony from Colorado Sheriffs who opposed the bills.  He described phone calls and emails from citizens opposing the bills as "toxic."  He chose to represent New York Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama in the Colorado Senate instead of the people of Colorado. 

Not only that, but throughout the recall process, he used (or allowed others to use) every trick in the book, from lying robocalls to lawsuits to avoid facing the voters in a recall election.  An honest representative of the people would have welcomed a chance to take his case directly to the voters, but not a tyrant like John Morse.

John Morse was derelict in his duty to represent the voters in his own district, and now he has paid the price. 

The people of Colorado have spoken and on behalf of the citizens in your senate district, Mr. Morse, YOU'RE FIRED!

Mayor Bloomberg, let this be a lesson to you.  Keep your New York nose out of Colorado politics.  We don't want your liberal nanny state policies here in the West where we value liberty, self sufficiency and a government that keeps its nose out of our business and its hands off our God-given rights.

He's Alive!

Happy Resurrection Day!  Jesus' Resurrection changed everything.  Because He lives, death has been conquered, those who trust in Him will have eternal life, and everything He taught and did has been validated.  I hope you enjoy this classic from Don Francisco.

He is risen indeed!

BSA Leadership Standards Letter

Mr. Downing,

I was in attendance at the leadership standards meeting tonight.  I think it was obvious from the crowd where our Council constituency stands on the issue, and that any policy change allowing open homosexuals in Scouting would result in a large number of Packs and Troops to be dissolved by their sponsoring organizations.  If Councils are already feeling a financial pinch when BSA is only *considering* a policy change, what will happen when half their sponsoring organizations end their relationship with BSA?  How many people will have to lose their jobs then?  How different will it be if only 5% (one PTO) dissolve their Pack?  As you said, either way there will be painful realities to deal with, but which one will be the most devastating?  While BSA is non-sectarian, I believe one gentleman pointed out that 70% of sponsoring organizations are religious in nature, and of those, 70% are conservative.  I believe that number will be much higher here in the Pikes Peak Council.

I am the Wolf Den Leader for Pack 55, sponsored by the Evangelical Christian Academy (ECA), and represent 7 of the 8 families in my den, who have all come to me individually and as a group saying that if the BSA changes their policies regarding homosexuals, we will have no choice but to leave Scouting.  I am glad that ECA's superintendent was there tonight to explain that they are officially waiting to see what policy changes come, but I think he was also clear that a move in the wrong direction would make it very hard for ECA to continue to sponsor the Pack.  I was very serious when I told him, publicly, that there are viable alternatives to the BSA if the BSA abandons its core principles.  (I don't care if there are 3.2 million Girl Scouts being indoctrinated by Planned Parenthood and the liberal Media Matters news organization, my daughter is one of 16,000 American Heritage Girls learning to be a God-honoring, patriotic young woman.)

As was stated tonight, Scouting begins and ends with God.  Scouting's core principles are why we joined, and why I want to see my sons, a 7 year old Wolf and a 3 year old Tiger (don't try to tell him he has to wait until first grade!), go on to earn their Eagles.  I am in Scouting to raise my boys to be God-fearing, patriotic, honest, courageous, upstanding men, but if Scouting abandons the core of those principles and the Source of all that is righteous, holy, and good, how can we stay?  If BSA gives in, it will eventually go the way of the rest of the world.  Instead of being a light in a dark place, raising up the next generation of leaders, the BSA will be just another service organization.  All of the wonderful, proven benefits of Scouting will slowly but surely erode and eventually fade away. 

From a purely practical standpoint, I was glad the Doctor who spoke near the end brought up the statistic that just 3% of the population produces 30-40% of pedophiles.  Homosexuals have significantly higher rates of domestic violence (gay on gay), depression, suicide, drug abuse, alcoholism, venereal diseases, premature death, and the list goes on.  Children raised by homosexual parents have significantly higher rates of depression, suicide, violence and earlier sexual experimentation than children raised by heterosexual parents.  It is not a healthy lifestyle.  Read the studies produced by the homosexual community.  The numbers tell a dire story, but they falsely conclude that their problems are due to discrimination and societal pressure.  We can't deliberately expose our children to a destructive, unhealthy lifestyle, and greatly increased risk of coming into contact with pedophiles.  It is completely irresponsible to do so.

This is all part of an open war by militant homosexuals against traditional morality.  They make no secret that making organizations like the BSA conform to their values, to force the rest of us to accept their immoral, unhealthy and dangerous behaviors as the new normal, is their ultimate goal.  They do not want simple acceptance - to live and let live;  they are working hard to indoctrinate everyone they can and to force us, through argument, legislation, litigation and intimidation, to agree with them.  Please do not give in.  Do not give up.  Stand up for what is right, and for what the BSA has stood for since its founding.  Let them come.  We will take our lumps and fight the good fight, but at least we will be doing what is right.  Don't let Scouting cease to be Scouting.  If it does, we'll have no choice but to look for alternatives.

Respectfully,

Jeff Odegard
Wolf Den Leader

Open Letter to Colorado State Senators

Senator _________,

Please do not cave in to pressure from outside the state to pass gun control legislation that has been historically proven to do absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence!  Colorado is a Western state with a long history of firearms used for self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, teaching youth responsibility and confidence and respect for the outdoors, and many other worthwhile uses.  Please do not throw away our God-give rights, expressed in the 2nd Amendment and the Colorado State Constitution.

There are many emotional arguments used to support these gun bills, but the cold, hard facts tell us that these measures will be completely ineffective in reducing gun violence.  The Clinton-era 1994 Assault Weapon Ban did nothing to reduce gun violence.

HB 1224: bans magazines with a capacity of more than 15 bullets. Magazines owned prior to the ban can be kept but cannot be transferred, sold, etc.

• Limiting magazine capacities do very little to impact the speed that someone can shoot a semi-automatic weapon.  Sheriff Ken Campbell of Boone County, Indiana performed a test with both an experienced and inexperienced shooters, and proved that limiting magazine capacity had almost no impact on their ability to shoot 30 aimed rounds.
• Changing a magazine, even for an inexperienced shooter only takes 1-3 seconds.  (Experienced shooters can change a magazine in less than a second.)  This does not give a victim enough time to see that the gun is out of ammunition, make a decision (under extreme pressure) to act, and attack the shooter before he inserts the magazine and the weapon is working again. 

HB 1226: prohibits concealed carry on public college campuses.

•  According to firearms researcher John Lott, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”  That means 23 of 24 mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, or more accurately, "Victim Disarmament Zones."
• Attempted mass shootings in areas where guns are allowed almost never make it to the point of becoming a mass shooting. Santee, CA (2001), Appalachian School of Law, 2002,  Pearl High School, MS (1997), Edinboro, PA. (1998), New Life Church (Dec 2007), Winnemucca, NV, 2008, Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio (Dec 2012) 
• None of the anti concealed carry predictions of "OK Corral" shootouts have happened.  Those who pursue concealed carry permits are far more law-abiding than the average citizen.
• This issue has already been decided by the Colorado Supreme Court, and students want concealed carry.

HB 1228: charges fees for background checks.

• A US Department of Justice report "Firearm Use by Offenders,"  reports that criminals only directly purchase 13.9% of the weapons used in crime.  The rest come from friends and family (39.6%) or illegal street purchases (39.2%).  It is already a federal crime (with a 10 year sentence) for straw purchases.
• Increasing fees is just a tax on law-abiding gun owners.  It serves no purpose for reducing gun violence.

HB 1229: requires a background check to be conducted by a licensed firearms dealer before any sale or transfer of a firearm. “Transfer” includes lending a firearm to a friend or family member on a temporary basis.

•  Criminals, already intent on committing a crime, will not bother to find an FFL to transfer a weapon from a family member, friend, or their illegal street seller.  This law will have no effect on gun violence.
• The law is poorly written, excluding extended family members like uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, etc.  It places an undue burden on people who want to loan a gun to a friend for hunting season or to take to the range to try out before buying one him or herself.  This will cause innocent people to be charged with "illegal transfer of a firearm."

SB 195: requires concealed carry permit applicants to complete training in-person.

• Training for concealed carry permit holders is important, but modern teaching methods have shown that online education is completely effective.  As long as the online training meets the educational content and testing standards, there is no reason to disallow it.  Online training is currently acceptable for driver's safety courses, K-12, college and graduate work and a number of other topics.  Why should the classroom portion of any firearms training be any different?
• This law would have no impact on gun violence, but would only make it more difficult for some people to receive a carry permit and so be able to defend themselves.
• A more sensible requirement would be to add a live-fire requirement for permit applicants to demonstrate basic competency with their firearm of choice.

 SB 196: “Assault Weapons Responsibility Act” makes users, owners, sellers, distributors, and manufacturers of firearms liable for harm caused by any firearm that was under their control at one point in time and is later misused by someone else.

• First, lawsuits of this type have historically a very poor chance of success.  Manufacturers cannot control their products once they leave their facilities. 
• If this is a sensible law, then automobile manufacturers should be held liable for all traffic fatalities (which kill far more people annually than guns), swimming pool and bicycle manufacturers should be liable for drownings and accidents involving their products too, since their products are more likely to accidentally kill someone than a gun.

Please vote "NO" on these ineffective, freedom-robbing bills and stand up for your constituents' rights.  The people who elected you and gave you this responsibility are watching.

Respectfully,

Jeff Odegard
Colorado Springs

------------------

Friends of Freedom,

Here is the contact information for the State Senators currently involved in the discussions in Denver:
These Senators need to hear from you today via phone AND e-mail.  Please be respectful and factual.  Additionally, please read this post from the Colorado Senate News and sign the online petition here.

Senate President John Morse (SD11)
    (303) 866-6364; john.morse.senate@state.co.us
Senate Majority Leader Morgan Carroll (SD29)
    (303) 866-4879; morgan.carroll.senate@state.co.us
Senator Angela Giron (SD03)
    (303) 866-4878; angela.giron.senate@state.co.us
Senator Jeanne Nicholson (SD16)
    (303) 866-4873; jeanne.nicholson.senate@state.co.us
Senator Lois Tochtrop (SD24)
    (303) 866-4871; lotochtrop@aol.com
Senator Cheri Jahn (SD20)
    (303) 866-4856; cheri.jahn.senate@state.co.us
Senator Andy Kerr (SD22)
    (303) 866-4859; andy.kerr.senate@state.co.us
Senator Gail Schwartz (SD05)
    (303)866-4871; gail.schwartz.senate@gmail.com
Senator Mary Hodge (SD25)
    (303) 866-4855; mary.hodge.senate@state.co.us