Charleston Shooting: ‘We Don’t Have All The Facts, But We Do Know That, One Again…’

Joel B. Pollak continues:

Obama is wrong on both counts. Innocent people were killed because a murderer–likely motivated by racial hatred–had a gun–but guns in the right hands have stopped, or interrupted similar attacks before. In South Africa, for example–whose racist past seems to have provided gruesome inspiration for the Charleston killer–a parishoner stopped a mass shooting by a black nationalist group against a multi-racial congregation by firing his .38 revolver at the assailants, who ran away.

The parishoner, Charl van Wyk, later wrote a book about his experience, called “Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-defense.shooting back

[Check out Charl van Wyk’s book “Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-defense at Amazon.com]

Charl Van Wyk was just an ordinary Christian man until July 25, 1993 – the day that would become known as the St. James Massacre. It was on this date that Van Wyk shot back at the terrorists who were attacking an innocent congregation gathered in prayer, and saved many lives in the process. More than just a remarkable story of courage under fire, Shooting Back deals forthrightly with the consequences of his actions, while addressing the concerns that plague so many God-fearing people in these lawless times, such as: Should we carry arms? When is it appropriate to defend ourselves and our families? What can we do when our God-given right to self-defense is legislated away from us? In Shooting Back, Van Wyk tackles these difficult questions using the light of Scripture and insights from his own experience to make the case for self-defense. Read the rest of this entry »


[VIDEO] Kenneth Meshoe: Is Israel an ‘Apartheid State,’ as its Enemies Claim?

“We all need to recognize that those who say that what is happening in Israel is like apartheid South Africa are minimizing the suffering that black South Africans endured. They are taking the sting out of the pain that we suffered in South Africa. If South African apartheid was what people are seeing in Israel, there would never have been any need for an armed struggle. There would never have been any need for a Nelson Mandela to go to prison because he would have all the rights Arabs in Israel have.”

Who better to answer that charge than a Black South African who lived through apartheid? Kenneth Meshoe, a member of the South African parliament, fits that bill. He examines the evidence against Israel and draws a compelling conclusion.

Transcript

There is widespread allegation — really a slander — that Israel is an apartheid state. 

That notion is simply wrong. 

It is inaccurate and it is malicious.

And it will not help to promote peace and harmony in the Middle East. Its only purpose is to demonize Israel, and to isolate her in an attempt to de-legitimize Israel’s existence. 

And because it is so inaccurate, it betrays the memory of those who suffered through a real apartheid.  

As a black South African, who was born under apartheid, in the administrative capital of South Africa, Pretoria, I know what apartheid is. I’ve experienced it. My parents experienced it. 

But having been to Israel on a number of occasions, I know that nothing is happening in that country — that I have either seen or read — that can be compared to apartheid in South Africa. 

Let’s remember the major reason Nelson Mandela went to prison — why he was involved with the armed struggle. He was fighting for the right to vote, for the right to choose the leaders who one believes in, for the right to move and travel freely, to live wherever one wants, to be educated, and to be admitted to the hospital or medical facility of your choice.  Read the rest of this entry »


Pistorius Ruling: Negligent but Not Guilty

oscar-pistorius-murder-trial-verdict

South Africa has no jury system. Masipa weighed the evidence and reached her verdict with the help of two assistants, called assessors. The judge had the last say on questions of law, while the decision of the majority held sway on questions of fact

SOUTH AFRICA – Robyn Dixon reports: Oscar Pistorius, the South African Olympian who shot and killed his girlfriend on Valentine’s Day last year, was found “negligent” in the killing Thursday, but was acquitted of murder charges before the court recessed for the day without a final verdict.

Judge Thokozile Masipa halted the proceedings before delivering a ruling on a lesser charge of culpable homicide and said she would resume the proceedings on Friday.

“It’s clear that his conduct was negligent,”

Masipa said. But the judge said she did not find sufficient evidence to prove the prosecution’s contention that Pistorius intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp after the couple had an argument, though she did conclude that the athlete was negligent in firing his weapon four times through the door of the bathroom in his residence, in which Steenkamp had locked herself.

Pistorius admitted to firing four expanding bullets into the toilet cubicle off his bathroom. But he had insisted that he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder, fired unintentionally and not meaning to kill anyone.

“During the trial, Pistorius at times retched and vomited as the court heard testimony on Steenkamp’s horrific injuries, including a massive head wound, a shattered hip, a broken arm and a hand injury.”

In a nearly daylong hearing, Masipa found that Pistorius was negligent in firing his weapon and must have foreseen his actions would result in the death of the person inside. She also concluded that he failed to take reasonable steps to avoid that person’s death.

“At other times, he wept loudly, slumped with his head in his hands, or covered his ears.”

However, the judge stopped short of declaring Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide before concluding proceedings for the day.

After the initial finding clearing him of murder charges, Pistorius bent over and sobbed. Relatives and supporters crowded around him, and his uncle, Arnold Pistorius, one of his closest mentors, hugged him fervently. Read the rest of this entry »