There Goes “Night At The Museum”

Yesterday (updated today) The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article about the American Museum of Natural History’s decision to remove the statue of Teddy Roosevelt that stands in front of the museum.

The article reports:

The American Museum of Natural History will remove a prominent statue of Theodore Roosevelt from its entrance after years of objections that it symbolizes colonial expansion and racial discrimination, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Sunday.

The bronze statue that has stood at the museum’s Central Park West entrance since 1940 depicts Roosevelt on horseback with a Native American man and an African man standing next to the horse.

‘The American Museum of Natural History has asked to remove the Theodore Roosevelt statue because it explicitly depicts Black and Indigenous people as subjugated and racially inferior,’ de Blasio said in a written statement. 

The article also includes the following information:

Theodore Roosevelt was the 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909.

The Republican, whose face is depicted on Mount Rushmore alongside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, is credited with laying the groundwork for the modern Democratic party.

His progressive policies levelled the playing field between rich and poor, and this mantle would be carried forward in the modern liberalism of his cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency.

Teddy Roosevelt called himself a ‘new nationalist,’ and believed strongly in egalitarianism.

The equestrian statue of the 33rd governor of New York outside the American Museum of Natural History was erected in 1939.

Roosevelt had developed a ‘cowboy’ image and that of a brave, masculine warrior during his presidency.

He was a great conservationist, setting up America’s first National Parks, and also a foreign policy interventionist who proudly built up the US Navy with the Great White Fleet.

It is through this context that we can see Roosevelt depicted as the bold colonialist explorer, guided through the wilderness by one figure representing Native America and the other, Africa.

Museum president Ellen V. Futter calls this a ‘hierarchical composition.’

Theodore Roosevelt IV, a great-grandson of the president and museum trustee, claims: ‘The composition of the Equestrian Statue does not reflect Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy. It is time to move the statue and move forward.’

It is ironic that the thought police are removing someone who agrees with about 99 percent of their policies. I guess in order to remain standing as a statue, you have to agree 100 percent.

Things That Are Beginning To Add Up

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail reported that on January 21, 2020, China filed a patent for Remdesivir, one of the drugs being used to treat the coronavirus. January 21st was the day after China confirmed human transmission of the disease.

The article reports:

The revelation that it moved so fast fuels concerns about a cover-up of the pandemic when it erupted in Wuhan last year, and suggests that China’s understanding of the virus was far advanced from the impression given by its public stance.

Last night, Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, joined the growing global clamour for a full, independent inquiry into China’s role.

‘It is quite clear there is an awful lot that we don’t know about the emergence of this disease and the responses to it,’ he said. ‘We all need to learn the lessons of the outbreak so the international community can respond better in the future.’

China’s Communist Party leaders face accusations that they suppressed data, blocked public health teams from investigating, silenced doctors seeking to warn the world about the epidemic and delayed admitting there was human transmission.

We need to remember that in dealing with China, we are dealing with a closed society. The people of China either say and do what the government tells them to say or do or they wind up dead, missing, or in re-education camps. China is in no way a free society, and the information they put out cannot be trusted.

The article concludes:

Professor Martin Landray, a leader of the Oxford study, said doctors would probably end up with a range of drugs to fight the virus, adding: ‘It is unlikely we will get a wonder drug that will knock out the infection.’

Prof Landray said drugs might be used in combinations to help reduce death rates.

He added: ‘Even if you find a drug that reduces the death rate by one fifth, that would have meant we would have been able to save about 4,000 lives already in Britain.’

We need a reliable cure for the coronavirus more than we need a vaccination or a lockdown.

I Totally Agree

Yesterday the U.K Daily Mail posted an article about some recent comments by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Senator made it clear that the federal government was going to help the states with financial problems caused by the shutdown of the economy but not with financial problems caused by bad management.

The article reports:

Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that he is OK with states going bankrupt instead of increasing federal bailouts even further – as Democrats demand more money for state and local governments be included in the next coronavirus relief bill.

‘My guess is their first choice would be for the federal government to borrow money from future generations to send it down to them now so they don’t have to do that,’ McConnell lamented.

‘That’s not something I’m going to be in favor of,’ he continued in an interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt Wednesday.

‘I would certainly be in favor of allowing states to use the bankruptcy route,’ the Kentucky Republican senator said. ‘It saves some cities. And there’s no good reason for it not to be available.’

Many of the states looking for bailouts need bailouts because of unfunded liabilities such as pension funds and retiree medical expenses. The only way these problems are related to the coronavirus is that there is reduction of tax revenue coming in. However, these problems were eventually going to occur with or without the coronavirus.

The article notes:

He also insisted, however, that he didn’t want to send money to states just to have them used the money to bail themselves out of preexisting issues, like a pileup of pension debts.

‘You know, we’ll certainly insist that anything we’d borrow to send down to the states is not spent on solving problems that they created for themselves over the years with their pension programs,’ McConnell told Hewitt.

‘There’s not going to be any desire on the Republican side to bail out state pensions by borrowing money from future generations,’ he continued.

The Senate Majority Leader said he knows that states’ would rather have money given to them by the federal government in another large-scale coronavirus stimulus package.

I agree with Senator McConnell. Each state is responsible for its own financial situation. That’s part of what federalism is about. States who have managed spending better will come through this crisis in better shape. It is my guess that states that have consistently mismanaged money and raised taxes will have people moving out of their states in the coming months.

What Were They Thinking?

Right now, New York is a hot spot for the coronavirus. Samaritan’s Purse has erected a hospital in Central Park, and the USNS Comfort, a Navy hospital ship with 1,000 beds for patients, has arrived in New York harbor. New Yorkers have been asked to stay home to avoid further spread of the virus. So have they listened?

Yesterday The U.K. Daily Mail posted pictures of New Yorkers celebrating the arrival of the USNS Comfort.

Here are some pictures:

Obviously the arrival of the ship is a historic moment, and represents hope for the city. However, how many of the people in the crowd that came out to watch will be in New York City’s hospitals within the next two weeks? We need to learn to follow directions. At this point in time, that is a critical skill.

 

The Problem With Radical Islam

The U.K Daily Mail is reporting today that French police shot and wounded a knifeman who rushed at a group of officers shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ just one day after another attacker left one dead and two hurt.

The article reports:

Local officials said the incident in the city of Metz was being monitored closely and that a probe had been launched to determine the motivation of the attack which saw a 28-year-old man attack officers in the Borny district.

‘The man was known to be radicalised, and to have a personality disorder,’ said Christian Mercuri, the Metz public prosecutor.

Mr Mercuri said police had fired shots at the man so as to overpower him soon after midday, because he was threatening passers-by with a knife.

The article concludes:

The Metz local prosecutor’s office said the suspect suffered gunshot wounds to the thigh. He was then taken away.

It added that the suspect, whom it did not name, was on an official list of those monitored for links to militant groups.

Paris has suffered major attacks by Islamist militants in recent years.

Co-ordinated bombings and shootings in November 2015 at the Bataclan theatre and other sites around Paris killed 130 people – the deadliest attacks in France since World War Two.

The threat is not going away, we are all just going to have to learn to be very aware of our surroundings and always have a plan of escape from someone who means to do us harm.

How Much Privacy Is A President Entitled To?

Hot Air posted an article today about the ongoing court battle regarding the Congressional subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn. Counsel McGahn was summoned by the House Judiciary Committee to answer questions about the time he worked for President Trump.

The article reports:

Whether or not he would appear was a bone of contention for a while until a federal judge issued a dramatic proclamation on Monday, stating that “Presidents are not kings” and ordering McGahn to appear.

Well, that lasted for all of three days. By Wednesday evening, that same judge had backed down, allowing a request from the Justice Department to delay the implementation of the ruling until the appeals process has played out. Of course, this doesn’t mean McGahn (and the President) are totally off the hook, but they’ve at least bought a bit of breathing room. (Daily Mail)

The article concludes:

That doesn’t mean that the final decision on McGahn won’t cast a long shadow, however. How this plays out will have consequences for the ongoing impeachment circus. At issue here is the question of whether or not aides to the President are shielded from revealing details of private conversations they’ve had with the boss or the counsel they offered. Also, whether or not that shielding lasts indefinitely even after they’ve left their positions with the White House.

That sort of privacy has long been assumed to be part of the President’s executive privilege. But does that extend to investigations of potential criminal conduct? That’s the question that will be answered when the dust settles on McGahn’s subpoena. If he’s ordered to show up and testify, that could open the gate for numerous other Trump aides to be called in to talk about all of the Ukraine events. And that’s likely not something President Trump will want to see after we’re in the thick of the final push to next year’s election.

I guess my question is whether or not the President has the same civil rights as ordinary citizens, If you are an ordinary citizen, your conversations with your lawyer are protected by law. We saw this Constitutional principle violated when Michael Cohen’s offices were raided. Now the question is whether or not we are going to continue to violate President Trump’s Constitutional rights. All of us need to remember–if the President does not have Constitutional rights, then none of us have Constitutional rights.

Unequal Justice?

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article today about Jussie Smollett, who recently claimed to have been attacked in Chicago by Trump supporters. (Trump supporters in Chicago?) Smollett was facing 48 years behind bars on 16 felony charges for allegedly lying about the attack. The Bond Proffer is included in the article and makes for very interesting reading.

Evidence points to the fact that the attack was staged and that two of Smollett’s fellow actors were paid (by check) to help stage the attack.

The article states:

The charges against Jussie Smollett have been sensationally dropped and a judge has sealed the case after the actor agreed to pay $10,000 in bond forfeiture. 

The Empire actor appeared in Chicago on Tuesday for an emergency hearing after his lawyers announced the news in a statement.  

Smollett, 36, was facing up to 48 years behind bars on 16 felony counts of filing a false police report.   

On Tuesday, the charges were dropped after Smollett agreed to forfeit his $10,000 bond. 

It remains unclear what prompted the decision but the Cook County’s State’s Attorney’s office said it was due in part to Smollett’s ‘volunteer service in the community.’  

I don’t mean to be cynical here, but this does not increase my faith in justice in Chicago.

I am not sure any purpose would have been served by sending Smollett to jail for 48 years. However, I wonder if Joe Sixpack would have gotten the same treatment. It is interesting to me that the judge has sealed the case after the $10,000 payment.

The Lesson Of History

The Daily Signal posted an article today about the legislative battle currently waging regarding abortion.

The article reports:

A Democratic senator blocked on Monday night the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” which would have ensured children who survived abortions were given medical care.

Unfortunately, this shouldn’t be a complete shock. In the years since Roe v. Wade, our culture has continued its downward trend to supporting death, not life.

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was sponsored by Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., and came on the heels of comments last week from Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia insinuating that he supports infanticide in some instances.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., objected to the bill, arguing that the legislation is unnecessary, and thus preventing the bill from receiving unanimous consent.

The article cites an interesting contrast:

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., pointed out that the Senate unanimously confirmed legislation congratulating New England Patriots on winning the Super Bowl but, sadly, couldn’t unify on behalf of a resolution condemning infanticide.

Freshman Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., called upon American citizens to speak out against infanticide and added that he was surprised to encounter pro-infanticide sentiment so soon in his tenure.

Braun is right to be horrified by the situation and he is right to ask citizens to speak out.

That is a sad commentary on the relevancy of the Senate.

The article continues:

Roe v. Wade legalized abortion by implicitly categorizing an unborn baby as the “personalty” (a legal term referring to one’s private property). Thus, ironically, merely a few years after America’s affirmation of the Civil Rights movement, the Supreme Court majority in Roe declared that there was, after all, an entire class of human beings—unborn babies—for whom there would be no guarantee of justice and equality.

Regrettably, left-leaning jurists such as Justice John Paul Stevens supported the perverse logic of Roe by arguing that an unborn baby does not become a human being until the moment of birth.

But such an argument is deeply incoherent; a being’s nature is not determined by its location.

Furthermore, as Valparaiso University law professor Richard Stith argued 20 years ago, the incoherence of this progressive argument—that the moment of birth is a “bright line” at which an infant becomes a human being—may very well lead to the embrace of infanticide.

In other words, since medical science makes clear that there is very little difference between a baby the day before birth and the day after birth, Stith speculated that progressive thought leaders would increasingly argue for the legalization of post-birth abortion.

And that is exactly what has happened in ensuing years.

The article concludes:

Since the Netherlands legalized euthanasia nearly 20 years ago, doctors have taken the lives of thousands of elderly citizens annually. In the Netherlands’ culture of death, it is therefore not surprising that thousands of citizens carry cards prohibiting doctors from euthanizing them, and some elderly citizens express fear about going in for basic medical care because of the possibility of euthanasia.

Recently, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail reported that a Dutch family had to hold down their mother, as she fought against being euthanized by her doctor. The patient, who was not named in the reports, suffered from dementia and had reportedly told medical officials that she wished to be euthanized when “the time was right.”

And yet, even though she reportedly said “I don’t want to die” several times in the days leading up to the killing, the doctor, who was also not named, determined that the time was right, slipped a sedative into her coffee to relax her, and then tried to administer the lethal injection. The patient awoke and resisted the doctor, causing the physician to ask the family for help in holding down the patient down while he finished her off, per the reports.

Northam’s support for infanticide and Murray’s objection to anti-infanticide legislation should not be viewed as insignificant. However, they should likewise not be seen as entirely surprising.

Anti-life legislation is arguably the most consistent consequence of the culture of death enshrined in our legal code since Roe v. Wade. Northam and Murray represent a powerful movement to stay true to the ethic undergirding pro-abortion activism, and they are gaining support day by day.

This unashamed movement to undermine the sanctity of human life must be resisted, not only by Congress but by the citizens of our great nation. If the United States Congress can unify to support a football team, then surely they can unify to defeat any movement that threatens the sanctity of human life.

The generation that first made it legal to kill their children will be the first generation to be killed by their children.

The Real Numbers On Illegal Aliens

The U.K. Daily Mail posted an article today about the number of illegal immigrants currently living in America.

The article reports:

A new study has found that the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States is more than double what was previously estimated. 

Two Yale professors and an instructor at MIT Sloan School of Management conducted the extensive research and found that there are 22.1million illegal immigrants in the country. 

The widely estimated number is thought to be around 11.3million, but researchers Edward Kaplan, Jonathan Feinstein and Mohammad Fazel‐Zarandi claim that is way off.

‘Our original idea was just to do a sanity check on the existing number,’ said Kaplan, a professor of operations research at Yale School of Management. 

The article includes the following graph:

The article further states:

According to Yale Insights, the researchers also found the greatest growth of undocumented immigrants occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s. They also said the population size has been relatively stable since 2008. 

‘The trajectory is the same. We see the same patterns happening, but they’re just understating the actual number of people who have made it here,’ said Fazel‐Zarandi, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management and formerly a postdoctoral associate and lecturer in operations at the Yale School of Management.

‘They are capturing part of this population, but not the whole population,’ he added. 

All three researchers said they did not conduct the study with a political agenda, but know their findings will get ‘pulled and tugged in many ways’. 

There are a number of ways to deal with this problem. Part of the reason it has not been dealt with is the fact that both Republicans and Democrats see a benefit to those illegal aliens remaining here. The Democrats see them as a potential future voting bloc, and the Republicans see them as cheap labor for their major corporate donors. Because of that, there is no incentive to close the border and figure out who is here. A porous border is a security risk, and the border needs to be tightly controlled.

This Is Not The Path To Peace

The Daily Wire is reporting today that the South African Parliament has voted to seize all land owned by white farmers.

The article reports:

On Tuesday in South Africa, a shocking vote in the National Assembly ruled that white South African farmers will be removed from their land. The vote, prompted by a motion brought by radical Marxist opposition leader Julius Malema, was not even close; 241 legislators voted for it with only 83 voting against it. Malema told his supporters in 2016 he was “not calling for the slaughter of white people — at least for now.”

…As The Daily Mail noted, “A 2017 South African government audit found white people owned 72 percent of farmland.”

The vote will be considered by the Constitutional Review Committee which must report back to Parliament by August 30.

South Africa has had a history of racial problems. It also has a Marxist history and possible tendencies toward repressive government. Taking the land from white farmers without compensating them is only going to increase the racial divide. It is a revenge move rather than an effort to solve the problem. I really don’t know much about the geography of South Africa, but might there be a way to equitably divide the land between black and white farmers while compensating people if you take part of their land?

This Is Not A Culture Western Civilization Wants To Import

As the refugees stream into western countries, we need to think about the implications of this influx of Muslims. Most of the refugees are Muslim, for whatever reason America and Europe do not seem to be reaching out to the Christians. Accepting refugees is the humanitarian thing to do, but there are some things we need to consider. One of these things is the willingness (or unwillingness) of the refugees to adapt to western culture. There is no problem with their keeping their religion if they choose, but the refugees need to know what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail posted an article that shows what happens when Muslims bring their culture into the west and continue with those practices that are not acceptable in western culture.

The article reports:

A Muslim man has confessed to strangling his 19-year-old daughter to death with his bare hands after learning from police she had been caught shoplifting condoms to have sex with her forbidden boyfriend.

Asadullah Khan and his wife Shazia then dressed dead daughter Lareeb, a dental technician, in her clothes.

They then wheeled her in a wheelchair from their high-rise apartment to the family car, drove to a secluded embankment in their home city of Darmstadt in Germany, and tipped the corpse down it.

Under Sharia Law this conduct is acceptable. In western countries this is not acceptable behavior. This is one example of why Sharia Law should never be accepted in America.

No Parent Who Reads This Will Be Surprised By It!

Yesterday’s U.K. Daily Mail reported that since Michelle Obama has overhauled the school lunch program, more than 1 million students have stopped buying school lunches. This has happened despite the fact that the number of students who receive free, taxpayer-subsidized lunches has risen sharply.

The article reports:

The Government Accountability Office, a watchdog agency inside the federal government, told members of Congress in a little-noticed January 28 report that participation in the school lunch program declined by 1,086,000 in that one year, the biggest drop on record.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 directed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to revise its school lunch standards to bring them in line with a new set of nutrition requirements.

The first lady rolled out the law’s final regulations in January 2012 with a presentation linked to her ‘Let’s Move!‘ children’s health initiative. Changes took effect that fall. In the ensuing nine months, 33 states cited ‘challenges with palatability – food that tasted good to students’ as one reason sales tumbled.

It is not news to any parent that an unsupervised child is not going to eat food he does not like. If Mrs. Obama truly wanted to end childhood obesity, she might begin with food processors who infuse everything we eat with additives and high fructose corn syrup. Going back to more natural food with less additives and bringing recess, tag, and dodge ball back to our schools might be a more successful approach.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Confuse Optics With Facts

Often, the best reporting on events in America comes from the British papers. Today’s U.K. Daily Mail is an example of that fact.

An article in the U.K. Daily Mail today reports that only three of the thirteen people standing behind President Obama during his speech yesterday had actually enrolled in ObamaCare. That’s interesting since they were standing there to show their support of ObamaCare.

The article explains who the people in the photo-op were:

They include the state of Delaware‘s first Obamacare insurance participant – and, so far, its only one – along with a Tennessee woman who enrolled less than a day before the press event, and a Washington, D.C. man that the Obama White House has used on two previous occasions to symbolize the administration’s policy positions.

The other ten included small business owners, twenty-somethings enrolled in their parents’ health insurance plans, a pharmacist, and both self-employed and part-time workers.

The article further reports:

The federal government’s most optimistic numbers, released unceremoniously over the weekend, suggest that fewer than 500,000 Americans have created online Obamacare accounts, the first step toward obtaining coverage in a healthcare exchange.

Published numbers of actual enrollees, including figures MailOnline obtained from employees who crunch those numbers for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, indicate a far lower total.

The Department of Health and Human Services has said it will only make the actual enrollment totals public once each month, beginning in mid-November.

I don’t mean to be cynical here, but I wonder if a glitch in the system will prevent the enrollment totals from being made public for a while.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Assume That Scientists Always Get Things Right

The U.K. Daily Mail posted a story yesterday with two amazing pictures:

global cooling

As much as I love the idea of global warming, the pictures seem to indicate that it is just not happening. I would like to point out that in the past we have had cycles of both global warming and global cooling. These cycles occurred long before the industrial revolution and were not related to anyone’s carbon footprint.

The article reports:

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter  climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

The article concludes:

‘The IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.’

 Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.

Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.

Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.

Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.

The bottom line here is that we simply don’t understand the earth’s climate cycles. We know they exist, but we don’t know how they work or if human activity impacts them. I am in favor of clean water and clean air, but I am not in favor of crippling economic growth for faulty science. We need to learn balance, and we need to realize that much of the panic we have heard regarding global warming has to do with the desire on the part of some world leaders to transfer wealth from successful free countries into the hands of third-world tyrants. The route to economic success for any third-world country has to include freedom for its people. If there is no incentive, there will be no economic growth.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Disturbing News From London

CNN reported today on an attack on a man whose attackers assumed was a British soldier in London. The attackers first ran over the victim with their car and then hacked him to death.

The U. K. Daily Mail reports:

Throughout the frenzied attack they shouted ‘Allah Akbar’ – Arabic for ‘God is great’ – then demanded horrified witnesses film them as they ranted over the  crumpled body.

The two black men in their 20s, waited calmly for armed police to arrive before charging at officers brandishing a rusty revolver, knives and meat cleavers.

I am purposely not including a link to the U. K. Daily Mail article because of the graphic nature of the article. This blog is rated G. A bystander with a gun might have been able to save the life of the victim, but Britain does not allow civilians to own guns.

People with little regard for the lives of others come in all sizes, shapes, and religious beliefs, but the fact that they were shouting “Allah Akbar” gives us a clue as to their motive. There is, unfortunately, a percentage of the Muslim population that takes the Koran seriously when it says “kill the infidel wherever you may find him.” Until Muslims who do not believe that are willing to denounce those who do, we can expect to see more of what happened in London today.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Smart Gun Laws And Dumb Criminals

On Thursday, the U. K. Daily Mail posted a story about an armed house invasion in Texas that did not go the way the robbers had planned. Three armed men broke into a home and attacked the man who lived there, pushing him into a closet. What they didn’t know is that they pushed him into the closet where he stores his gun. The man they locked in the closet shares the home with his parents. After waiting a while, he took his gun and went downstairs, assuming the robbers had gone. Unfortunately (for the robber), one of the criminals was still in the house. The robber was shot in the shoulder and the leg. There have been other recent robberies in the neighborhood. This incident might cause the robbers to think twice.

The article reports:

Craig Gaddis, who told the paper that he owns several handguns, said he and his neighbors are certain that the home invasions are related.

‘What happened today is exactly what guns are supposed to do – to protect your home and defend your life and your family,’ Gaddis said.

Police say the homeowner who shot the burglary suspect will not be face charges.

Texas has a self-defense law based on the ‘castle doctrine.’ The legislation has a ‘stand your ground’ clause, meaning the person using physical or deadly force against an attacker does not have a duty to retreat.

This story illustrates one of many reasons law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns.

Enhanced by Zemanta