Saturday, January 30, 2010

Defending against a Knife Attack, 2 (The Other Side of the Coin)

Continued from "Defending against a Knife Attack"

In my first post on this subject, I disagreed with Stephen that concealed firearm carry may be the best answer to a knife attack. Now, I will post as to why I am in [qualified] agreement with him.

IF you train as conscientiously as the family in the video below, I think you may have a good chance of defending yourself from a knife attack with a firearm:



The ability to draw & place two shots on target comes neither automatically nor easily. I must say this family's dedication puts me to shame. If, however, you expect to protect yourself and/or others with your firearm, you should plan to TRAIN, TRAIN TRAIN.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Defending against a Knife Attack

In a comment on Keith Pascal's "Knife Defense Tips" article, Stephen writes:

Very interesting, and it confirms my earlier ideas. For some time I have been of the opinion that knives are rarely practical for self defense. If I were in a self defense situation, I would much rather have a cane or some object longer than a knife to battle an assailant with.


Of course, a CCW would be the best choice in a knife fight.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of the comment, but I have reservations about the second part, so I'll address that first. I want to speak to the assumption that a firearm is the best choice in a knife fight.

The Tueller Drill demonstrates that, in an edged-weapon attack, a trained officer needs 21 feet of distance to draw his/her weapon and fire two shots before the assailant reaches him with the knife. Here is a discussion of the 21-foot rule from the Force Science Institute.

One brief quote from the article:


For many officers and situations, a 21-foot reactionary gap is not sufficient.

The average police officer has an open-carry holster which is somewhat more accessible than  a concealed-carry weapon. Clearing your clothing out of the way can eat up precious tenths of a second.

I do agree that a firearm is best in a knife fight ONLY IF your weapon is in your hand before the attack begins. Other than that, you would need either empty-hand skills against a knife wielder, or an improvised weapon already in your hand.

To be continued

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

"Call Me Madam"

After a trip to the chiropractor, I am able -- with difficulty -- to ascend the mist-shrouded mountain that the master of ancient combat skills calls his home. As usual, I find him sitting on a large rock -- doesn't he have a house or shelter or something around here?

I see he is clad in his warrior people's traditional, flowing garb  -- a great kilt. As his eyes meet mine, I realize that he knew I was coming long before I came into sight.

His voice reminds me of Sean Connery as he speaks. "Your stalking skills are improving. Today you sounded like only two or three elephants crashing through the brush."

"Thank you, Master. I have come to seek wisdom about love and marriage in a warrior's life."

"Good topic. A warrior must choose a wife wisely, for if he should lay down his life in her protection, he must not waste his sacrifice. What brought this to mind, Clodhopper?"

"Master, we watched Call Me Madam last night, and it brought back memories of decades past."

"Can you tell me about it without putting me to sleep?"

"Yes sir, I believe I can."

To be continued

Friday, January 22, 2010

Knife Defense Tips from Keith Pascal

Since Valiant for Truth asked for advice about a carry knife for defense, I've been mulling over the issue of defending against a knife. I want to answer Valiant's question, but there are some other knife-defense issues that have also been on my mind.

I noticed a discussion of some principles that I thought might apply to knife defese in Keith Pascal's last issue of Martial Arts Mastery (#479). So, I wrote him the following email:

Keith,

You brought up fighting with a knife in your last e-letter, which prompts me to ask a question I've been mulling over:

How would you defend empty-handed against a knife?

On the street, if someone really wants to stab/slash you, he won't produce the knife until the last second, which means you won't have time to draw yours. Even someone who is trying to intimidate you with a knife will have an opportunity to stab you as you reach for your weapon.

This leads me to conclude that, even if I carry a knife for defensive purposes, I will more likely need to defend against a knife with my bare hands.

My inclination is to carry the hit-first-rather-than-block policy into the realm of defense against the knife. It seems a couple of fingers to the eyes or a half-fist to the throat would seriously impede his ability to continue the attack (with a simultaneous check to the knife-wielding arm, just to be safe). What do you think?

Also, I'd like to know if you think the suggestion of turning your block into a strike would be a viable defense against a knife.

Thanks for reading this, and -- as always -- I appreciate the expertise you make available to your newsletter readers. Thanks.



Keith graciously and promptly answered my email, and I asked him if I could publish his response here, on WARSKYL. He, in turn, offered to write a short article. I jumped at the chance to post an article written specially for us by someone who is not only a master in the practice of self defense, but also a great teacher.


Here it is:


Knife Attack Surprise

by Keith Pascal


For years, I have given demonstrations showing how it's almost
impossible to get a weapon out and into play, after you are attacked.
For example, if someone were to surprise you with a knife, you would
NOT be able to pull your blade out of your pocket, get it open, and
use it for defense, before you were stabbed. (Let's call it
"unlikely," and "unlucky.")

So, what do you do?

I have several quick suggestions:


  * Get your knife out early, if you are in an area where you don't
feel safe and secure.

  * If your knife "Is" out in anticipation of potential problems,
keep the knife hidden. Learn to "palm" your knife (10 Days to Better Knife Fighting)

  * Have a first response that doesn't require a weapon. In other
words, learn to defend empty handed against a knife attack.

  * Practice beginning with your feet or hands, and getting your
knife out while in the middle of the fight. And find a way to practice
this while you have adrenalin coursing through your body.

   * Don't rely on, but learn to utilize techniques where you take
the knife away from your opponent. Sometimes, it's easier to disarm
your opponent than bring your own knife into play. Sometimes.


I hope these quick tips help,



   Keith



Many thanks to Keith for taking the time to give us those tips. (He may use the contents of this in another venue, but remember you saw it here first)

Can you put his advice together with some of the ideas in my letter to come up with your own drills for knife defense? I hope to have more on the subject, soon. (Be patient, Valiant)

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Stay Tuned . . .

Today I wrote an e-mail to a self-defense & martial arts master (I do not use the term lightly). He offered to write a short article on the topic of our correspondence for WARSKYL.

He said he'd need a day to write it, so I'm looking forward to being able to post it for you tomorrow. Stay tuned . . . .

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Entertained by Violence?, 2

James Jordan has commented on this aspect of manhood in one of his Biblical Horizons newsletters:


Biblical manhood is not connected with hunting or with sports. The great men of the Bible were not hunters but accountants; contrast Jacob and Esau. There is nothing wrong with hunting, but it has nothing to do with manhood one way or another. There is nothing wrong with many sports either, but we should note that while sports were an important part of Greek education, they play no part in Biblical training at all.
Biblical manhood is connected, however, with martial skills. At the age of 20, every man was enlisted in the militia (Numbers 1). When the trumpet was blown, every man was expected to show up to fight.
What does this mean for us today? Well, it has to be admitted that modern super-weapons are not the kinds of things ordinary citizens can be expected to possess or know how to use. But there are two kinds of martial arts that can and should be part of Christian education for men, and also for women to a lesser degree. The one is self-defense tactics, and here we can use the Jubal-techniques developed in oriental lands to good advantage: karate, tae-kwan-do, jui-jutsu, etc. The other is weapons training, which should include bow & arrow, spear, pistol, and rifle.
If these ideas shock you, you’ve spent too much time as a couch potato watching sports on television. Wouldn’t you like for your children to know these things? Don’t you wish you did????

(Also, see my blog series, "Designed for Work, Destined for War")

Given that Christian young men have inner questions & conflicts based on one God-ordained facet of manhood, war movies, martial arts movies, and other "action" movies serve a very real purpose. Every staged violent confrontation addresses his personal concerns -- What would I do in that situation? Could I do that? Would I have the courage to . . . ? (etc.)

I would recommend that Christian parents use such movies to evoke discussion aimed at evaluating the movie from a Biblical perspective. Ask the right questions: Did the main character act out of revenge, or was he protecting himself (or someone else)? Did the main character use wrongs committed against him as an excuse or an occasion for sin? Were the movie's situations true-to-life or too contrived to be of practical use? Are there Biblical characters who faced analogous situations? (etc.)

This sends the right message to the young Christian -- that the Bible speaks to every situation of life, including the use of force in defense of self or others.

On my blog, I recently reviewed a couple of war films. I would recommend to you the comments by two or three young men who responded in the comments section. It shows how Christian youths can approach such movies with a discernment that issues from Biblical ethics:

Valkyrie

Defiance

Finally, I want to make it clear that I recognize that the young Christian does not always act from pure motives. His legitimate interests may be mixed with an addiction to adrenaline or an unhealthy interest in some of the seamier aspects of modern "action" movies. Here, I believe the discerning parent must direct his child's attention to those movies which best serve the legitimate purposes I've discussed above.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Entertained by Violence?

In a recent exchange of emails with some Christian parents, they posed the following question:

Just a side thought-One question that has arisen in our house several times is whether it is OK to be entertained by violence, such as is in R rated movies.

My answer follows:

First, I think it would be wise to discern what you mean when you say "entertained by violence."

If by that, you mean watching blood-and-splatter movies (e.g., Texas Chain Saw Massacre & movies of that ilk) and deriving pleasure from  bloody death & dismemberment, then I would have to say that such entertainment goes against the teaching of Scripture. There is no warrant for taking delight in the violent suffering and death of other people.

On the other hand, I believe a lot of Christian young men (and some older ones) watch "action" movies that include a lot of fighting and death for reasons other than to glory in bloody suffering.

God has implanted men with an instinct to protect home & family. Sadly, however, many churches and homes do not know what to do with these drives.

Often, the only message a Christian boy receives is: "Fighting is always bad; don't do it." This causes a radical disconnect between the young man's religious perception and his God-created manhood.

Within him, certain questions nag. If I had to, could I defend myself? Could I protect my family? Could I take a human life, if necessary?

These questions are not limited to Christian young men, but it is they who, in particular, need Biblical answers -- answers that are not always forthcoming. I'm afraid that in many of our young men, the questions just take the form of impressions and feelings that they cannot even articulate.


(To be continued)

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Christian Manliness & Beauty

RPC sent me this:

Ugly corners made beautiful

(J. R. Miller, "Christian Manliness" 1909)

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely . . ." Philippians 4:8

Beauty is another quality of true manliness. It is not enough for a man to be true, to live honorably, to be just, to be pure and clean--he must also have in his life, whatever is lovely.

All God's works are beautiful. He never made anything that was not beautiful. It is sin which spoils everything!

There are many lives that are not lovely in every feature. You see things in others which you cannot admire--things which are not beautiful.

Fretting is not beautiful.

Bad temper is unlovely.

Discontent, jealousy, irritability, unkindness, selfishness are unattractive.

It is the work of God's grace--to make lives beautiful. All that grace does in us--is toward the fashioning of beautiful Christian character in us.

On a florist's signboard are the words, "Ugly corners made beautiful". The florist had reference to what he could do to beautify an ugly spot or a piece of landscape. He would trim out the weeds, plant flowers and shrubs, and transform a wilderness into a garden.

That is what grace can do in our lives. Some men seem to think that the fine and graceful things are only for women, not for men. But Christ was a man--a perfect, complete man--and there was not a single unlovely thing in His life.
  He was strong--but also gentle.
  He was just--but kindly.
  He was firm--but patient.
  He was righteous, and his indignation burned like fire against all hypocrisy and injustice--but his tenderness never failed.

Fine manliness is beautiful, like Christ. "Yes, He is altogether lovely! This is my Beloved, and this is my Friend!" Song of Songs 5:16

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

What is Honor?, 8

Continued from "What is Honor?, 7"

Warrior has asked the question,

So, if a guy walked by and slapped a man's wife on the butt, what would you advise the man to do?


I have to say that I would advise him to react according to the context of the act. I have not discussed social context much here, but it actually should factor into how you react to any and every kind of challenge.

For example, if you grab the chair your best friend normally uses just for fun, you don't expect anyone to wind up in the E.R. over a joke between you. If you're in a strange roadside diner, however, and a rough-looking biker says, "You're in my seat," you have a completely different set of concerns to deal with.

In the same way, if you're at a party with your wife or lady friend and your Uncle Max (who has been hitting the punch bowl pretty hard) pats her bottom, you will likely take Uncle Max firmly by the arm and steer him in another direction.

Randall Gerard related (comment on "What is Honor?, 2) another kind of situation -- one that actually involved his son's wife, whose co-worker sexually harassed her. In this situation, a calm yet pointed verbal warning resolved the problem.

This is an example of that kind of man who thinks that any unaccompanied female is a potential target for his seductive charm. Usually, a woman willing to speak frankly can put a jerk like this in his place, but sometimes he needs to see that she is not as alone and unprotected as he thought. That's where a conversation with a husband, father or brother can work wonders.

A third kind of situation involves the violent predator. His physical contact with your lady friend expresses his contempt for you and for her. It is a statement that he has total power over you, that he can do whatever he wants, and you're powerless to stop him.

In this situation, you must remember that unwanted physical contact constitutes simple assault. In other words, the physical attack has already begun.

In any physical assault, your first and best strategy is to escape. Your fallback position is to neutralize the threat to a point that allows you to escape.

The three situations I've mentioned pretty well cover the gamut of situations in which your wife/sister/daughter may find herself harassed. You will need to exercise discernment as to how to react.

You may verbally "defend the honor" of your lady companion in the first two situations. Here, some familiarity with the techniques of Verbal Judo (see "The Best Self Defense System, 4" for my review) will help you. You must be very careful about verbal exchanges with the violent predator, however.

In every case, you should not resort to violence unless you absolutely cannot avoid it.

Disclaimer: This post reflects my personal opinion and does not constitute legal advice. For counsel concerning lawful responses to harassment and assault in your locale, consult a licensed attorney.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Banning Islam

We, as Christian Martialists, must never forget that -- contrary to modern Islamic-influenced scholarship -- the knights of medieval Christendom fought a defensive war against a virulent Islamic tide that sought to dominate the world by the terror of naked force.

Last week, RPC sent me a link to an article in the Canada Free Press that talked about how the U.S. could ban Islam, using the Constitution as a pretext. I wrote the following as an answer to that article:

Ron,

The premise of this article rests upon the presupposition that religion consists merely of internal opinion rather than the idea that one's religion constitutes the foundation of all one's external actions.

This error also leads the author to ignore the fact that every law passed and enforced upon the citizenry is an outworking of someone's inner beliefs and standards of morality. The idea that the realm of law & government can be neutral toward religion is a myth.

The myth of neutrality has served as a smokescreen for the religion of Secular Humanism as it has consolidated its control over the institutions of our society. As Secular Humanists have succeeded, they have enforced their beliefs upon the nation.

Murder of the unborn is one practical outworking of their religious beliefs. Treating public protest of that murder as terrorism is another such outward expression of someone's religion.

The fact that Islam is bent on world conquest is used as an argument for banning it. Well, Secular Humanism is likewise bent on conquest (see Humanist Manifesto I & II). Why is it not likewise banned from the public square?

Of course only a tiny minority of Christians recognize that the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) is also a call to world conquest. Pietists are actually more comfortable with this author's assertion that religion be confined to one's inner opinions.

While I agree that the practice of Islam should be outlawed, my reasons for doing so would be the antithesis of the author's. Every idolatrous religion that raises itself in rebellion to the Kingship of Christ is treasonous to Him.

It is the duty of civil government to submit to God's Anointed (Psalm 2). If this goes contrary to the Constitution, then so much the worse for the Constitution.
(end of email)
To his credit, RPC wholeheartedly agreed with my evaluation of the article.

Today, an interesting article came to me from American Vision. It's by Bojidar Marinov, who has undertaken as his life mission the reform of the nation of Bulgaria.

In the article, he draws a parallel between the House of Elrond in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and the present-day nation of Switzerland. Here is how the article begins:

‘Ash nazg durbatul√Ľk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatul√Ľk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.’
The change in the wizard’s voice was astounding. Suddenly it became menacing, powerful, harsh as stone. A shadow seemed to pass over the high sun, and the porch for a moment grew dark. All trembled, and the Elves stopped their ears.
‘Never before has any voice dared to utter words of that tongue in Imladris, Gandalf the Grey,’ said Elrond, as the shadow passed and the company breathed once more.
‘And let us hope that none will ever speak it here again,’ answered Gandalf...
The small nation of Switzerland taught the civilized world a lesson once again. In a time when Europe is disarming itself through political correctness and delivering its future in the hands of Islam, the small mountain nation told the most aggressive and savage of the world religions: “No to the minarets.” In a referendum, 57 percent of the voters and 22 out of 26 cantons voted in favor of a ban on building minarets to the mosques in the nation. As of the moment, Switzerland has only 4 minarets for its 350,000 Muslims, and the building of more minarets is declared unconstitutional and against the law. The Swiss people made that declaration in a remarkable display of peaceful exercise of popular democracy vote, against the will of their own government, against the disapproval of the other European nations, and against the wrath of the Muslim world.


Read the rest of the article here:

Switzerland, the House of Elrond

Friday, January 8, 2010

More Improvised Weapons: A Video

My barber sent me the link to this video. It contains some worthwhile tips about improvised self-defense weapons.

It also made me realize that I need to bump "good tactical flashlight" a few notches higher on my wish list.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Defiance: A Review

I finally watched Defiance yesterday with wife & #4 daughter. It's not a movie to enjoy, but one to appreciate and learn from.

It's based upon the true story of a Belarusian Jewish resistance group during WWII. The group formed around four brothers who hid in the forest from the Nazis.

Some of the movie's themes include the problem of maintaining an ethical approach when fighting a depraved enemy, the contrast between fighting for family & community vs. fighting for ideology, the problems of discipline and leadership in a community dedicated to freedom.


As you watch the movie, if you're like me, you will consider the possibility that American Christians may some day have to head to the hills for their families' survival. Defiance provides a glimpse at some of the trials that await us at such a turn -- not a happy or glorious prospect in any sense.

The movie is rated "R" for violence and language (may upset the very young & the very sensitive). It also contains some sexual innuendo & one sexual situation, but no nudity.

My recommendation is that every Christian Martialist who is also a head of household should watch, think and plan.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Motel Security

Over 30 years ago in Florida, I worked for a contract security firm, and I had the distinct displeasure of filling in for the regular guard at a local motel. It seems the night clerk had been held up at gunpoint more than once, so management's solution was to have an unarmed guard on the premises from sundown to sunup.

(I became really familiar with this mindset through many years of security work. If you hire an armed guard & he shoots someone, you could lose money in a lawsuit. On the other hand, if someone shoots your unarmed guard, all you lose is the cost of a help-wanted ad in tomorrow's paper.)

I was reminded of this a couple of months ago, when my family and I stayed in a sleazy motel in New York State. The motel was recommended by the church we were visiting, so we made our reservations, sight-unseen. Then we arrived, and knew we were in a quality establishment by the "No Refunds" sign prominently posted in the lobby.

But if you travel, you face certain risks, even in more upscale hostelry. Last month, my barber sent me the link to this discussion thread on Ruger Forum in which various contributors recount their close calls in motels.

It will serve as an exercise in mindset and tactical thinking to review and evaluate these experiences.

My barber is one of the contributors. Can you guess which one?

Here's the link:

Shooting Outside My Hotel Room

Monday, January 4, 2010

Analysis of Thanksgiving Week-End Ambush

The SeattleHeadlines Examiner has an article that includes an account of a coffee-shop shooting of four police officers. My barber sent me an analysis of the incident, and I thought you might benefit from the tactical analysis:

A retired Tacoma PD officer the owned coffee shop.  It was considered a "safe" hangout (whatever that means, as it was open to the public) for cops waiting to go on duty, or to stop by for a break. 

The four slain officers had been hired by newly established Lakewood PD.  Almost all of the officers were hired from Pierce County Sheriff's Office.  Most were sworn deputies, but had primarily worked the jail.  Sounds like they had little time on the road. 

The four deputies were drinking coffee before shift and working on laptops with heads down.   Table was approximately 15 feet from counter/check out register.

Shooter came in and smiles and acknowledges the two deputies facing the doorway/entrance.  They return greeting. Shooter goes up to counter like he is going to order.   After stepping up to counter, he pulls semi-automatic pistol from under his coat.  Shooter takes a couple of steps toward table where the deputies are seated.   Distance is now approximately 12 feet.  

Shooter shoots first officer, who is facing him across table.  He is shot in head.  He is killed instantly.  Shooter then shoots nearest officer that is seated away from him, in the back of the head.  He is killed instantly.  Shooter then shoots across table at third officer, who is facing him, and misses.  Fourth shot is fired and strikes third officer in face, killing him instantly.  

Last deputy is a sergeant, who stands, while drawing weapon, and charges shooter.  Table knocked over in attempt to stand.  Sergeant grabs shooter by coat and engages shooter.  First round strikes shooter in mid-section and goes through and through.  Second round is fired and strikes shooter in his front pocket.  Round hits keys, but penetrates about 1.5 inches into shooter's thigh.  Officers carry 180 grain Gold Dot ammunition (unknown at this time what kind of pistol).

Shooter raises gun and shoots sergeant in face.  Sergeant falls to ground. Shooter kneels/bends over sergeant and does a CONTACT shot to the right eye.  Shooter then shoots sergeant in the other eye, once again a CONTACT shot.  

Shooter takes sergeant's wallet and steals credit cards and sergeant’s duty weapon.  Shooter does not rob the store or hurt or threaten anyone else.
The shooting lasted approximately 3-5 seconds for the first three officers.  The sergeant’s encounter lasted another 5-7 seconds.

Accomplice waiting outside and the shooter gets into car.  They leave the area. Accomplice is a former cellmate he did time with in Arkansas prison.
Federal agents track shooter by cellphone "pinging" to locate phone/area.  Five more additional accomplices help shooter with medical issues, food, money, etc.  Feds find driver and get the name of shooter. All accomplices are arrested and general area where shooter is headed is ascertained.  

Tuesday, approximately 3:00 AM, shooter turns off phone and takes battery out, so that Feds can no longer track phone. 

Short time later, Pierce County deputy checks an abandoned car, its engine running with lights on and driver's door open.  

As deputy was walking back to his squad car, he sees movement from behind squad car. Once he clears his headlights, which were blinding him, he sees shooter and recognizes him.  Shooter is crouching behind squad now.  Deputy orders him to ground and other commands.  Shooter attempts to draw weapon and starts to run.  Deputy fires five rounds.  Three strike the shooter, who falls to ground.  Deputy covers shooter until backup arrives.  Unknown how long this took. Once backup on scene, shooter is cuffed.  He is dead at this point.  

Deputies find slain sergeant’s duty weapon on shooter.  The round recovered from the shooter's body is traced to the sergeant’s weapon, confirming the sergeant shot the shooter.  

And some admonishments by the writer:
 
1. Just because you are "off duty" or in a "safe" restaurant, keep your head up and your eyes and ears open.  
 

2. Do not sit close to the register or other focal point (entrance doors, bathrooms, hallways, etc).  Try to sit where     you can scan the area.  
 

3. Leave devices that distract you, like laptops, etc. in the car.
 

4. Do your reports and other things that take your mind off your safety, at post or far away from the public. 
 

5. Even at lunch or break, don't let your guard down.  You should always be in condition "yellow."
 

6. Keep your distance.  Take those lateral steps or diagonal steps and move.  It is a lot harder for the bad guy to shoot a moving target, let alone a lot of distance.
 

7. Each time you train, train as if your life depends on it. When the time comes, you will not arise to the occasion and be a hero, you will fall to the level of your training effort and perform at that level.  While I do not think they could have done anything different after the contact, do your best at whatever training you attend.  Lose the mentality of "It will never happen to me" and train as you wish to fight, fight like you train.

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Grassroots Anti-Terrorism

The world's Islamic terrorists still probe, watch and wait for the opportunity to inflict a significant blow against America's people.

(Yes, I know that they are actually reacting against America's tiny-but-powerful-and-wealthy Establishment along with its elected lackeys, bureaucratic hacks a duped majority of the sheeple. But an IED exploding in a public place does not select its victims according to ideology.)

Therefore, you can react to the terrorist threat in one of three ways:
  1. Denial -- close your eyes and trust to the law of averages that it's someone else (or someone else's spouse/child) who will fall victim to terrorism;
  2. Faith in your idolatrous uncle-god-in-washington -- trust the bureaucrats & jackboots of Homeland Security to go after the real culprits, in spite of their declared intent;
  3. Individual responsibility in obedience to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ -- recognize that part of your calling to take dominion involves active opposition to wickedness in society.
The video below features American Vision's Gary Demar as he discusses how individual citizens are the first (and primary) line of defense against air-travel terrorism. He also shows that all the hoopla about airport security is an illusion to calm the credulous public.

Although you may not do much flying, I advise you watch the video, to apply it to the potential terrorist targets in you own life -- (subways, buses, shopping malls, schools, etc.)

(I am not a big fan of the frenetic musical beat used to introduce so many news shows. Too bad that Christian news shows have aped the general culture in this regard.)

Friday, January 1, 2010

A Word for Conservatives

As a warrior in training, the Christian Martialist must purpose in his heart to always think & act on that set of ethical principles derived from the written Word of God. When you begin to think and act on selfish motives or the principle of expediency, you destroy the very foundations of your calling as a Christian Martialist.

RPC reminded me of this recently, when he sent me this quote, attributed to Presbyterian theologian R.L. Dabney (1820 –  1898):

[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.