Job is My Favorite Book in the New Testament

The Compassion Farce the other night was really remarkable, not because it forced Obama and HRC to lay bare their “true” feelings about faith and religion and God and religious people. It was remarkable and unique in that we were given two solid hours of proof that Obama, HRC and leftist loony liberals in general have no convictions of faith that go further than their control of the world around them.

I’ll take it out of order and start with Obama first since HRC always complains about having to go first at these things. (“Ladies first” and other such chivalric codes are an anathema to a feminist, you know.)

Obama has made some pretty incendiary remarks lately concerning people of faith. Because I’d love to remind you, he said, "It's not surprising [people in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

When confronted with this the other night, he said, “What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is they've got family, they've got their faith, they've got the traditions that have been passed onto them from generation to generation. Those aren't bad things. That's what they have left.”

That’s all they’ve got left. But not because Jesus is our all in all.

“What people have become bitter about [is] they don't think that government is listening to them.”

What he was telling us here is that government is really god. The government is supposed to nurture us and sustain us, and when it fails to do that, we grab a gun and kill an immigrant in front of our church because we’re so disillusioned with our government. Make no mistake. He was identifying what he believes to be the true and false gods of life. Christianity or any other religion is the false religion for the bitter, the poor and the beleaguered. The government, when it is doing its job correctly, removes the need for that religion. Therefore, if we don’t really need faith, then it’s not true, is it?

Obama was then asked if life began at conception. He gave yet another vague, evasive answer.

“This is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins…So I don't presume to know the answer to that question.”

He won’t presume to answer the question because he’s afraid to. If he thinks life begins at conception, how can he morally be pro-choice? If it doesn’t, where does it begin? The fact is he either can’t answer honestly (bad sign) or he really hasn’t thought it through (worse sign). He’s a liberal. He’s pro-choice. I’m not saying he’s not a gushy guy who does seem to like his kids. But do not forget, this is the man who equates an unexpected pregnancy with AIDS. (Interestingly enough, he terms them both as “punishment.” It’s a wonder the gay community has not erupted over this pronouncement since their demographic has suffered more AIDS deaths than any other. Punishment? That’s a lot worse than anything Sally Kern said.)

Another thing that’s a point of interest is the reason he became involved in church. He became involved in church because he was involved in politics.

“Some of the pastors started saying, ‘You know, you've got great ideas, Obama, but, you know, if you're going to organize churches, it might help if you were going to church.’”

This feeds the image really churchy people have of politicians and those involved in the political spectrum. And this is why: because it does happen. But it’s not that way, typically. A Christian who is genuinely involved in their church, is involved in their church prior to running for office or vying for a promotion at their job or getting visibility before a wedding or birth or anything else that takes place outside the doors of their church. If they want to do God’s work through whatever so-called ‘secular’ realm they choose (and we’ll discuss that term at length some other time) it’s because of a conviction they receive as a result of their faith. Their public service facilitates their faith and relationship with Christ, not the other way around.

On a small side note, Obama proved his lack of familiarity with Scripture when he claimed that “I am my brother’s keeper” is a “core Christian value.” As far as I can remember, that phrase was only used once in the Bible, and the guy who invoked it wasn’t exactly the hero of the story. But you can take that however you want, it just made me laugh.

Someone once said that the best actors are never on the stage. Hillary Clinton is the perfect example of that. She showed such an aptitude for putting the right phrases in the right places, much better than Obama or most other Democrats do. Of course, while she was roughing it as First Lady of Arkansas, she did pretend to be a Southern Baptist. (Hence Mike Huckabee’s plea that you not confuse him with “the other Southern Baptist from Hope, Arkansas.”) Now she says she’s Methodist. That’s neither here nor there, really. Just mentioning it cause she did.

HRC describes a very mystical, Jane Fonda-type of Christianity. “I have always felt his presence, it’s always with me, it follows me.” But when the questioners tried to pin her down and say, “Give us a specific example of a time your God showed up personally in your life,” she couldn’t answer. Actually, she wouldn’t answer. It’s not like she didn’t have choices. How about when she was confronted with her husband’s adultery? The second time? The third time? The fourth time? She didn’t feel any meaningful presence then? Or during the impeachment hearings? Or running from sniper fire? Nothing jumps out at all? I do not know a Christian of any denomination who cannot pinpoint a time where God showed up in their lives in a personal way. More importantly, I don’t know a Christian of any denomination who will not do so, as HRC pointedly refused to do so.

At one point, she said that winning or losing an election had nothing to do with the candidate’s faith. Her example: “We had two very good men and men of faith run for president in 2000 and 2004.”

These are her examples of good men of faith: Al Gore, who believes he invented the internet and that man controls the planet’s functions; and John Kerry, from whose own discussion of faith I gleaned the quote by which I titled this blog. These are who she sees as men of faith. Wow.

Lastly, because this is already longer than I wanted, I’ll deal with the one thing that was said at which I could not laugh. In fact, as I watched it on youtube the other day at work, I had to fight the urge to throw my laptop across the room. I’m having to fight it again right now.

HRC was asked about the concept of suicide as a means of relieving the suffering of someone who is terminally ill. Her response, her arrogant, presumptuous, callous, ignorant response:

“You know, the Terry Schiavo case in Florida posed that for many people. And it was one of those decisions…where there were people of good faith and people of strong feelings on both sides about what should happen to that woman's life.”

I’d call her what she is but it would unnecessarily insult a dog. This woman had the audacity to use Terri Schiavo as an argument for medically-induced suicide. Terri Schiavo, the woman the Supreme Court allowed to be killed by her greedy, adulterous husband so he could finally get his hands on her insurance money and marry his live-in girlfriend. Terri Schiavo, whose parents had to watch her starve to death after pleading to be allowed to financially provide for her for the remainder of their lives. Terri Schiavo, who was murdered.

But this woman has no concept of the value of life if she thinks that Terri Schiavo’s death was in any way merciful or humane or just.

The Bible says that by their fruits ye shall know them. Not have a general idea of them or be able to make a good guess about them. Ye shall know them. By their fruits. Do not let two hours out of a lifetime gloss over the rest of that lifetime. Remember the fruits.

In stark contrast to this attempt to fool America, we had the arrival of the Pope this week. There was a huge ceremony at the White House, and something special happened. Let’s hear from a different political figure on his radio program about the Pope’s welcoming ceremony and God and country.

“The Battle Hymn of the Republic was sung by the US Army Chorus, and you have to hear this, particularly if you haven't had a chance to have your TV on today or your radio, and you didn't hear this…You realize, this is at the White House, and a song written in tribute to God is being played at the White House. In this country there has been such an effort, and it has been way too successful, to remove God from anything public. Not only was God present, but the largest White House welcoming ceremony ever participated in a ceremony thanking God and respecting God and offering up a tribute to God, and you just have to hear this.

"People still say to me, "I don't understand, Rush, you say you can't hear music because of your hearing loss." Well, I can hear music I knew before I lost my hearing, but also, folks, I can always hear God's music. And this is God's music, written in 1861 in the middle of the Civil War. The story of this song is, to me, evidence of divine intervention in and of itself…It is a great tribute to God, and a great tribute to the United States of America.”

Here is the song. Press “play,” close your eyes and listen to the words.

If that doesn’t move you, you’re not human.

Love it

courtesy of www.michellemalkin.com

Race, Feminism and the Truth According to Hillary

An article I ran across that originally was printed during HRC’s senate campaign in 2000. Yes, it was a while ago, but sometimes we need to be reminded of things, especially when race and gender are playing such important factors in this year’s Presidential election, and since HRC can’t seem to remember the difference between a true story and a false one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

These Charges Are False – Reel No. 857

July 18, 2000

At least you could print what John Rocker said. The latest in a long list of “false” (subject to later revision) stories circulated about the Clintons comes from Jerry Oppenheimer’s page-turner State of a Union, in which he reports that Hillary called one of the people working for Bill Clinton a “f-ing Jew b-tard.” The Clinton era was once again charting new ground in television standards!

The World’s Smartest Woman did not respond to the charges by saying, “I might well have said that, but those obviously aren’t my feelings, people sometimes use ugly words when they’re angry, I’m sorry if I used those, but please judge me by my record and not by some childish tantrum I threw twenty-six years ago.”

No, what Hillary said was that it was a lie put out by her political opponents:

“You know, there’s a history of these kinds of charges coming from the people in question [author’s note: the other charges were all eventually proved true, even if it took a full federal investigation], and they’ve been false in the past [author’s note: only the denials, the excuses and the defamatory charges against the Clintons’ accusers have turned out to be “false”]. They’re false now [author’s note: that’s what she said last time]. And I don’t know what the reason behind it is, but it didn’t happen.”

For the record, I personally did not go ballistic over some baseball player’s (printable) remarks to Sports Illustrated. I personally thought that O.J. cutting off Nicole Brown Simpson’s head was worse than Mark Fuhrman using the N-word. But even stipulating that the charges aren’t career-ending – Hillary is the one who has now put the veracity of the charge at issue. Did she say it or didn’t she?

The most persuasive evidence that Hillary said it, of course, is that she denies having said it. And if that’s not enough for you, America’s most famous perjurer, President William Jefferson Clinton, denies it too.

The New York Times ran a lead editorial on Hillary’s “current complication” – as the paper called her anti-Semitic slur – titling it “Mrs. Clinton’s Credible Response.” The Times evidence that Hillary was telling the truth is that she opposed the Vietnam War and tried to get President Nixon impeached. This is normal New York Times logic. But even weirder, the editorial sportingly stressed that Ms. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy gave “a passionate, almost teary response to the allegation of anti-Semitic language.” Huh? A Clinton denial is supposed to mean something now?

When did we make the transition from treating a Clinton denial – subsequently discredited or retracted – as just so much necessary political filler because “anyone would have lied in those circumstances” to suddenly treating it as truth because the Clintons said it? Wouldn’t anyone have lied about using the phrase “f-ing Jew b-tard,” too – particularly if that anyone was running for a Senate seat from New York? Why do we keep considering each successive denial by the Clintons as if it occurred in a vacuum? It’s as if we’re living in an eerie Twilight Zone episode in which no one can remember what happened yesterday.

It’s not as if Tipper Gore stands accused of saying “f-ing Jew b-tard.” We’re talking about Hillary. Hillary the lamp-throwing harpie whose warm Southern charm was widely credited with costing her husband his second race for Arkansas governorship and whose concern for the little guy resulted in the Travel Office bloodbath. Curiously, neither Hillary nor her husband disputed that she had used the phrase “f-ing b-tard.” But they insist Hillary would not have alluded to the religion of the f-ing b-tard. Even when cursing like a sailor, she’s ethnically sensitive.

And just by the way, there are three witnesses to the particular charming utterance of Hillary’s: Paul Fray, the campaign manager of Clinton’s failed 1974 congressional bid and target of the slur; Fray’s wife, Mary lee, who was in the room at the time; and a third campaign worker, Neil McDonald, who was standing outside the room. Fray’s wife said Hillary shouted so loud “it rattled the walls.”

Other witnesses, from Dick Morris to the Arkansas state troopers, corroborate similar statements from the Dragon Lady. Their track-records on truth-telling are somewhat more impressive than those of American’s Most Famous Perjurer and his wife. By now, the troopers have been completely vindicated on even their most bizarre charges against the Clintons. Trooper Larry Patterson has said he heard Hillary use the phrases “Jew b-tard” or “Jew boy” or “Jew MF” on numerous occasions – “four, five, six times.” Instead of a War Room to put out “bimbo eruptions,” Hillary may need a War Room to put out Hebraic-slur eruptions.

Conforming to pattern, Hillary’s accusers came under a swift attack. Clinton flacks Lanny Davis and Gail Collins showed up for work with long research packets on Hillary’s accusers. This was especially striking in Collins’s case, since, generally, she avoids including facts in her columns. But even Collins was bursting with information about the little-known Frays. As with the Clintonian denials themselves, we’re supposed to pretend this is the first time we’ve seen a rapid-response team smear witnesses against the Clintons. The rapid-response team’s denunciation of the Frays are starting to blend with earlier denunciations of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, the Travel Office employees, and Elian’s “Miami relatives.” All witnesses against the Clintons are: trashy people looking for publicity, have a minor criminal offense in their past (such as drunk driving or shoplifting), once sent nice letters to the Clintons, have a bitter relative somewhere who doesn’t much care for them and will say so on the record, and are part of a right-wing conspiracy to bring false charges against the long-suffering, completely innocent Clintons.

I must say, I’ve been looking forward to this moment for years. You may have forgotten this, but back in the pre-Clinton era, sexual harassment was bad. It was bad even if it was just smutty remarks and there was only a single spurned woman who claimed it happened. But then Clinton was caught doing it, and it turned out sexual harassment really isn’t such a big deal. Women lie about these things all the time, everybody does it, and a real woman would have slapped the lovable rogue and walked away. Groping your female employees also used to be bad. But then Clinton did it, and Gloria Steinem announced on the New York Times op-ed page that the new standard is: The boss gets one free grope. Rape also used to be bad. But then Clinton was accused of rape by a credible woman with four corroborating witnesses. Clinton didn’t deny it, and only 18 percent of Americans polled said they thought the accusation was probably not true. But no one cared, the country wanted to “move on,” so I guess rape isn’t such a bad thing now either.

The single accusation that remained a career-killer was to be accused of using an ethnic slur. Even cutting off a white woman’s head wasn’t so bad if the cop who found the evidence against you was accused of having used the N-word almost ten years earlier. That’s why I’ve been waiting and waiting for one of the Clintons to be caught using an ethnic slur. Now there’s nothing you can’t do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, written by You Know Who. Isn’t she amazing?

Fitna

If you haven't seen it yet, please take 15 minutes to watch the video below. Geert Wilders, a politician in the Netherlands, created this video as a warning to his country about the dangers of Islam. He is a secular humanist; his aversion to Islam has nothing to do with an opposing religion. Even still, he seems able to hit the nail on the head, except for one thing: he only recognizes Islam as a problem; he has no answer with which to replace it. The Netherlands are fertile ground for the gospel. I know some over there even now spreading the good news. Be in prayer for them as they live in contact with two distinct cultures both needing Christ. WARNING: This video is extremely graphic and disturbing. Every time I see it, it bothers me. But we need to be bothered. Until we are provoked, we are complacent.

A Call to Arms

To the citizens of Oklahoma:

Currently in the Oklahoma State Senate, legislation is being considered to allow citizens with previous military experience who have concealed carry licenses to carry their concealed weapons on college campuses. Politicians need to hear from their constituents. We can’t waste any time. As opponents of this bill have correctly surmised, this is legislation that can be used to establish precedent. From this step, we can later push to allow all those with concealed carry licenses to carry on campus, as is their constitutional right.

First, find your State Senator and email them, telling them to SUPPORT current legislation allowing those licensed to concealed carry with previous military experience to be able to legally carry their weapons on college campuses for the protection of themselves and others by lifting the unconstitutional infringement of concealed carry weapons on college campuses.

Sample form:

To Sen. “Jones,”

As I’m sure you are aware, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I am writing to encourage you to support lifting the unconstitutional infringement of the rights of licensed concealed carry citizens on college campuses. The safety of students and faculty at our state colleges and universities is important to me, and as your constituent I appreciate your efforts to ensure both the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Oklahoma and the welfare of those attending and working at state colleges and universities.

Thank you in advance for your support on this issue.

Signed,

Your name

Then, find your State Representative and email them, thanking them for their part in passing the bill. Even if they voted no, it will get the point across.

Sample form:

To Rep. “Smith,”

As I’m sure you are aware, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I am writing to thank you for your part in lifting the unconstitutional infringement of the rights of licensed concealed carry citizens on college campuses. The safety of students and faculty at our state colleges and universities is important to me, and as your constituent I appreciate your efforts to ensure both the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Oklahoma and the welfare of those attending and working at state colleges and universities.

Signed,

Your name

It doesn’t take much, even just a quick form email. That’s not a whole lot of effort, but any amount of pressure we can put on our respective elected officials is important.

For more information, go to:

http://www.concealedcampus.org

http://www.choosewisely.info/concealedcarry/eligibility.html

http://www.hhgunrange.com/learning_center/Conceal_Carry.htm

Power to the people!!!

*images collected – but not created – by me

Not Against Flesh and Blood

The political landscape of the State of Oklahoma is currently a front line in spiritual warfare.

In an unprecedented move, an openly gay man, Jim Roth, is running for a statewide office. He was previously appointed Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner by Governor Brad Henry when the position was vacated last year by the previous Commissioner. Now, that seat is up for election, as well as one other, and he could very well be the first open homosexual to be elected to office by an entire state. The fact that this is happening in Oklahoma and not, say, California is even more significant. Because of this, gay activist organizations from across the nation are pouring money into his campaign.

Next month, several major high school districts across our state are participating in the Day of Silence, an event created to recognize the oppression of homosexuals as inhumane. Students are encouraged by faculty to participate by wearing special t-shirts, taking a day-long vow of silence and handing out literature promoting the event. Obviously, the students who refuse to participate will be easy to identify.

Now, of course, this is America. As Americans, citizens have the right to live the way they want to live, promote what they want to promote and donate to whom they want to donate. They can say what they want and do what they want, and are protected by our Constitution, as they should be.

However, this is one of those times when being a Christian can conflict with being an American.

As a Christian, I take civic duty very seriously, as you know from previous blogs. The welfare of our country has been placed in our hands. And when America says something is okay but God says it’s not, the choice should be obvious. Christians, American Christians, should tremble in fear when their fellow citizens openly and publicly refute the Word of God as unnecessary, irrelevant, and untrue. And when we have the power to stop or at least resist the deliberate, militant march of organized sin, we should run to the forefront of the fight.

Are we to fight homosexuals and their sympathizers? Not really. We must realize who it is we are really fighting against. Make no mistake, sin is sin, and anyone who encourages the social acceptance of sinful living, Christian or not, will have to face the consequences.

But we are not struggling against the sinful and the hateful. We are struggling against the powers of evil, “against spiritual wickedness in high places.” That phrase has never been so plain to me before. Recognize the Enemy for what he is, the Great Deceiver, and recognize the sinner for who they are, the Deceived.

But, with that, recognize the need for truth. God is loving and merciful, or else he would not provide us an escape from our sin. But God is also just and holy. He cannot tolerate sin, and pronounces harsh penalties against those who not only practice it but promote it.

It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to stumble. (Luke 17:1)

I know your works--your love, faithfulness, service, and endurance. Your last works are greater than the first. But I have this against you: you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and teaches and deceives My slaves to commit sexual immorality and to eat meat sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she does not want to repent of her sexual immorality. Look! I will throw her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her practices. I will kill her children with the plague. (Rev. 2:18-23)

We have an obligation to proclaim the truth. To publicly recognize sin as sin is certainly offensive, but also loving. After all, if we are Christians, and we believe Hell is a real, physical place, why on earth would we be ashamed of warning those we care about away from it?

Therefore, since we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we do not give up. Instead, we have renounced shameful, secret things, not walking in deceit or distorting God’s message, but in God’s sight we commend ourselves to every person’s conscience by an open display of the truth. (2 Cor. 4:1-3)

We need to understand that the world is meant to be offended by the truth of the Gospel, because it is offensive to it. It is not unloving, but it is at odds with the world and those who cling to it. And while it may hurt and be difficult, Paul talks about the result of such offense, or “grief”:

“For although I grieved you with my letter, I do not regret it…Now I am rejoicing, not because you were grieved, but because your grief led to repentance. For you were grieved as God willed…for godly grief produces a repentance not to be regretted and leading to salvation, but worldy grief produces death.” (2 Cor. 7:8-10)

So, Christians, you must decide why you are so embittered against, embarrassed by, ashamed of, or in any way opposed to a fellow believer who stands in the public arena proclaiming the Word of God as truth. Why do so many to try and distance themselves from someone who does that, by saying things like, “she makes Christians look bad” or “I don’t really think that should have been said there/to them/that way.” Are we taking a stand for Christ when we join the world in denouncing those who proclaim his Word? Why do we make excuses for protecting those who need to be broken?

Do you remember how you came to Christ? Do you remember what it took to make you realize you needed a Savior? It took brokenness, guilt, shame, conviction, and an honest look at yourself as a sinner in need of forgiveness. And if that’s what it takes to be cleansed and made new by God, why do we try and shield others from going through that? Why do we try and let our loved ones take the “long way” to Jesus by trying to give them a feel-good version of Christianity without honestly telling them what the Word says? Why do we assume that being nice is enough to bring people to Jesus?

We All Know Where Good Intentions Lead

I recently heard a state legislator, apparently one of many on our side, who opposed the hearing of a bill in our state legislature allowing Oklahoma university students to carry concealed weapons on campus. His reasoning for this was founded in the entirely fictional premise of a mentally unstable person having a concealed weapon in class and using it to shoot up his classmates.

Okay, I know you’re going to skip the rest of this and flame me regarding Virginia Tech and such. I truly believe that this legislator only has the best intentions for protecting students’ safety. But there are some fundamental problems with the example he gave, mostly regarding the person with a concealed carry permit.

First of all, such a bill would not allow Joe Blow to carry an AK47 slung over his shoulder to Comp I. It merely extends the already existing right of Oklahoma citizens to have a concealed carry permit and operate in accordance with it to include a college campus. There is a major difference there. In case any of you haven’t applied for a concealed carry permit in Oklahoma, which is probably most of you, let me give a brief outline.

Getting a Concealed Carry permit isn’t as easy as getting a driver’s license. You have to pass a background check. You have to be fingerprinted. You have to shell out a couple hundred dollars to cover the class and fees and whatnot. You take the class after signing up for it up to three months in advance. Then you take the test, both a paper test and a shooting test. If you last through all that (and a lot don’t) then after several weeks of waiting, you get your concealed carry permit, which allows you to discreetly carry a weapon any place where it is not explicitly prohibited. The emphasis is on “discreetly,” as a person with a concealed carry permit cannot make it obvious in any way, by word or deed, that they are carrying a concealed weapon. They are only allowed to draw it in public for the express purpose of self-defense or the defense of others.

The process takes several months, and a person in an unstable or emotionally charged condition would probably not go through such a process in order to “sneak” a weapon onto campus. And let’s face it, if someone is deranged or disturbed and determined to hurt people, will the simple legal prohibition of a handgun keep them from using a gun? As we saw with Virginia Tech, it certainly does not.

While this legislator is well-meaning, he is obviously uninformed about the nature of concealed carry. The situation at Virginia Tech would not be replicated merely because of a single piece of legislation allowing students with concealed carry permits to bring their weapons to school, because the gunman at Virginia Tech did not have a concealed carry permit. Yes, he legally owned a gun, but he did not have a concealed carry permit. They are not the necessarily synonymous.

One of the other points this legislator made was, if “everybody” had a gun in class (hyperbole his) and the police showed up to an emergency situation, how would they know the difference between the “good guys” and the “bad guys”? The policemen will be “nervous and jumpy” and “will shoot whoever has a gun because they won’t be able to tell who’s who.” (Sounds like he has less faith in our law enforcement than in John Q. Citizen.)

It’ll be pretty easy to figure out who the “good guys” are. They will be the ones the other students are thanking for taking down the gunman before he had a chance to kill them.

I can’t deny I have an emotional stake in this. It may have been natural for this representative to have such a fearful reaction because he is unaware of the process involved in getting a concealed carry permit. But it is also likely that he was never in a personal situation that makes such legislation seem necessary.

A year ago, I was the female college student who had to walk across campus to the library after dark, knowing that the only thing standing between me and harm’s way, at best, is an overweight security guard, his golf cart and his walkie-talkie. In my junior year, a female student at my school was attacked in her dorm room in the middle of the afternoon. She was raped and brutally beaten. And she, simply for being a college student in her dorm room, was denied the choice of having the most effective instrument for self-defense at her disposal. I didn’t know the girl personally, and I can’t say that, given the opportunity, she would or would not have chosen to have a firearm in her room to protect herself. The point is, the chance to make that decision for herself was denied her.

This is one boat the feminists have missed. Right to Carry is one of the most fundamental woman’s rights issue there is, especially for female college students. It offends me deeply that a person claiming conservatism has the gaul to stand up and say that I should be denied my second amendment right to protect myself by having a concealed weapon, should I so choose, simply because of geography. I am resentful that a university administrator or a legislator or anyone seems to think that it’s okay to deliberately put me and my fellow female college students in the position of a victim because of nonsensical “what ifs.” This is a deliberate, intentional action on their part with little regard for the safety and welfare of students, both male and female.

Maybe if we allow qualified, trained citizens to exercise their right to concealed carry, we’ll have fewer professors throwing themselves in front of flying bullets to protect their students. Maybe female students will be able to act in their own defense, rather than being forced to rely on others. Maybe the next time a Virginia Tech happens, only one person will die – the gunman.

Yes, I just substituted his “what ifs” with my own “maybes.” But given the choice, I’d rather have legislation that lends more weight toward mine than his.

However, given legislators such as this, the chance for the voices of the people to be heard about this issue will have to limited to blogs and talk radio. How sad.