If an Atheist Kills Some Muslims over a Parking Space, Why is it Still My Fault?

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher's note:  Once again, Tim Dunkin has broken down a situation, which the left is trying to no avail to twist into something it isn't, into bite sized, understandable sections.  

In this excellent article Tim navigates us through some of the facts of the recent school shooting of three muslim students by an avowed atheist, proving it had nothing to do with the religion of the victims, and everything to do with a deranged man over a parking space.

Tim Dunkin:  By now, the reader has surely heard about the murder last week of three Muslim students at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill by Craig Stephen Hicks, a local resident.  Because the killer is a gun-owning white male with a rather unshaven appearance, the immediate assumption made before the facts of the case began to come out, even by many conservatives, was that Hicks must be a right-wing Christian Tea Partier who killed the students because they were Muslim.  The reason for this assumption is because this is the “narrative” that the news media have trained Americans to follow, even though this narrative has little actual history to substantiate it.

As it turns out, the assumption was completely wrong, in just about every way possible.

Rather than killing the students over their religion, Hicks appears to have killed them as the culmination of a long-standing dispute over a parking space at their apartment complex (not that this is any better a reason, of course).  Further, far from being either a right-winger or a Christian or a Tea Partier, Hicks is an atheist who hates all religion and who is a staunch supporter of feminism and gay rights.  Among the “likes” on his Facebook page were the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the Huffington Post, and a whole bevy of radical atheistic websites.  He hated all religion, and if Hicks had been the type to go on a shooting rampage against religious people, it’s just as likely that he’d have tried to shoot up a church as shoot his Muslim neighbors.  

So the left-wing narrative went right out the window.

In a reasonable society, we’d have all simply accepted the facts on the ground, condemned Hicks as the vile murderer that he is, and gone on with our lives.  Unfortunately, our society – of at least the left-leaning half of it – is not reasonable.

Despite the well-established facts that Hicks is an anti-theist and that he killed them over a parking space, the rabid, wacko Left and their allies in the radical Islamic movement continue desperately…Desperately…DESPERATELY to try to find some way to spin this story back in a “right-wing Islamophobia” direction.  For example, CAIR included a statement in its response to the murders,

“Based on the brutal nature of this crime, the past anti-religion statements of the alleged perpetrator, the religious attire of two of the victims, and the rising anti-Muslim rhetoric in American society, we urge state and federal law enforcement authorities to quickly address speculation of a possible bias motive in this case…”

Because killing someone over a parking space is all about murdering them for their religion, rather than because you’re such a sorry excuse for a human being that you think killing someone over a parking space is a reasonable alternative in your dispute.  

Chapel Hill’s reliably nutty representative in the House, David Price (D-NC), issued a reliably nutty statement about the “serious barriers to mutual acceptance” caused by “intolerance and hatred that divide our society.”  Dr. Mohammed Abu-Salba, the father of one of the slain students (who, incidentally, leads a mosque that was raided by the FBI for a plot to kill US Marines), continues to shamelessly exploit his daughter’s death by blathering on about how the US media are “bombarding every American every day with news about what they call Islamic terrorism, none of which is Islamic at all…they are really preparing people [sic] such tragedies and triggering them and provoking them.” Yet, these same media, when they touch this story at all, continue to downplay the actual facts about the story, and try to cast it as a case of “Islamophobia” gone wild.  Run-of-the-mill left-wing twits all over social media opined that even though there’s not any evidence for it, we just “know” that Hicks acted out of “toxic hatred” and “intolerance.”   Click below to continue...

Add a comment

Nation of terror protests killing in US?!

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s note:  Once again my friend Dawn Ellen has merged some very well considered thoughts with her keyboard and arrived at the following commentary.  I will let the truth of what she has to say speak for itself.

Dawn Ellen:  In Doha, Qatar, several thousand people marched to express their anger over the killing of three Moslem students in the US last week who as they put it were ‘murdered by white neighbor’. They were appealing for ‘protection against hate crimes’ for the tens of thousands of fellow Moslems studying in the U.S.

You just have to sit back and laugh….Qatar is the international sponsor of terrorism which funds ISIS, Taliban, and Hamas! Where is their ‘anger and ‘marches’ over the victims of 9/11, the Boston bombing, those slaughtered at Fort Hood? There has been nothing but dead silence. Protection? No one here in the U.S. is hunting down Moslems. Moslems have the personal ‘Islamic appeasing protection’ of the Obama administration.

The “Institute of Islamic Learning” Al-Azhar based in Cairo called the student murders a ‘cowardly terrorist act’ and said they are ‘deeply concerned’ that ‘racism and Islamophobia’ are responsible for the murders. 

Three Moslem students are murdered over a parking space and suddenly the Islamic communities cry ‘terrorism’? When have these Moslem organizations used the word ‘terrorism’ for any of the 25,120 attacks worldwide since 9/11 in the name of allah? Where is their outrage or tears when Kuffar are slaughtered by Moslems? Here we go again with the racism word. Moslems are not a race they follow a ‘religion’. I am tired of the ‘Islamophobia fairytale’. It’s Kuffarphobia.

The 57-nation ‘Organization of Islamic Cooperation’ said they are ‘deeply concerned’ about “rising anti-Moslem sentiments and Islamophobic acts” in America.

Anti- Moslem sentiment? That never happened after 9/11 when 3,000 Americans were slaughtered by Moslems, so why would it start now? Moslems get a ‘free pass’ here in America. They are protected, appeased and coddled. In fact, they are given ‘special treatments’ not allowed for other ‘religions’. Look, there are no beatings, hangings, stonings, burnings, rapes or murders of Moslems in the U.S., (except of course for the ‘Honor Killings’ by Moslems). Let’s stop the nonsense. Moslems have been living in complete safety here. Kuffar on the other hand are living with the knowledge that they are targets of Islamic terrorism here in America and across the globe!

If we don’t get a handle on the Islamic propaganda and quash it, we will suffer the consequences. I refuse to lose my country to Islamification. Moslems do not need to take over America all they need to do is convince the majority of citizens that Islam is peaceful, moderate, that Jesus was a ‘mere prophet’ and ‘allah’ is the same as Jehovah. This dangerous propaganda is being accepted by countless Americans. Please keep speaking out and sharing the facts. Silence is submission. I refuse to submit.

I am free and will remain free.

Add a comment

Under-achievement...the new normal

Written by Sybele Capezzutti on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s note:  I have been blessed to meet a number of really brilliant people via social media.  Sybele Capezzutti is one of those.  She is a hard working single mother who is at once very down to earth, intelligent, talented, and drop dead gorgeous.

In this very brief and to the point commentary, she lays out in no uncertain terms how we have become a society that applauds mediocrity and ignores the extraordinary.  

I couldn’t have said it better myself. 

Sybele Capezzutti:  As someone that tries to always be informed about what is going on in the World in and in our Country I find myself constantly wondering how some things got to the point they are now…

We currently have 46 million people collecting government assistance, lack of skilled labor, college graduates without any critical thinking skills, an astonishing lack of work ethics, we’re fighting a war using minimal effort to win, corruption and misconduct in government agencies go unpunished, bogus unemployment numbers, the lowest workforce participation rate since 1978, and the list goes on.

It was not until something happened in my personal work environment that I realized that every one of these problems were somehow related to one basic flaw in our society, amazingly this is a flaw that was created on purpose, calculated, planned, promoted and exercised, until it became the new normal.

So here we are we’ve successfully embraced a culture of underachievement!

We’ve started with our education system by eliminating competition, everyone deserves a medal just for participating and the “no child left behind” program incentivizes teachers to pass a student that has not performed as needed. Then we’ve lowered the standards for everything else, military enlistment, background checks to work for government agencies, what kind of immigrants to welcome into our society, and let’s not forget what in my humble opinion has done the most damage… the victimization of certain groups of people, therefore removing personal responsibility and giving them an unfair advantage over the ones who actually want to succeed by their own merit. Overall our government has created an overgenerous reinsurance policy for underachieving people. What I find baffling is how most people fail to see that achievement is directly related to dignity or lack thereof. 

As a woman, an immigrant and single mother, I’ve never felt the need to claim the victim status which would have been promptly handed to me if I wanted it, but I was not raised to be an underachiever, nor do I understand why anyone would embrace that mentality or even impose it on our future generations!

We have a serious problem in our Nation, one that needs to be dealt with before we become a third World Country, and trust me, that is exactly the direction we are going if we continue to have low expectations from our Citizens. Being raised in a third World Country myself I can tell you that the victim status and low expectation in terms of performance is exactly what generates a people that will vote their way into servitude in exchange for what they believe are free “offerings” from their handlers.

It’s time we start rewarding exceptional performance instead of punishing it, it’s time we stop seeing some people as victims and allow them to excel on their own merit, it’s time we stop incentivizing laziness and lack of ambition, it’s time we stop rewarding underachievement, it’s time we remember what built this Country and made it exceptional, it’s time we welcome success back into our society!

Add a comment

Liberty Taken For Granted Is Liberty Lost

Written by David DiCrescenzo on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher’s note:  I had the privilege of meeting John C. Nix last weekend during the Tea Party Convention in SC.  In the brief article that follows, John discusses several of the ways that our government is systematically tearing away at the fabric of our culture by implementing programs that circumvent the Constitution.  

John C. Nix is one of a growing number of grassroots activists in America, and is not one to sit still and watch things happen.  

Among his many accomplishments John has been a guest contributor to the Kinston Free Press since 2008.  He posts daily YouTube videos at "John Nix & The Daily News Fix" in which he expresses a constitutionally conservative view on current political events.  He currently serves as Chairman, Kinston Utilities Advisory Committee; Vice-Chair, Kinston Planning Board; member, NCGOP Executive Committee; member, Republican Liberty Caucus of  North Carolina; President, CSS Neuse Foundation.

He may be reached by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

We at The Patriots Press thank him for allowing us to share this with our readers.  

John C. Nix:  Liberty Taken For Granted Is Liberty Lost

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong".  This quote by Voltaire, a Frenchman whose real name was François-Marie Arouet, speaks to the dangers of challenging an entrenched overreaching government while her citizens gradually lose liberty.  An example comes in the form of an unconstitutional mandated tax called the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare which infringes on every citizen's liberty.  This is government forcing you to live the way it thinks you should.  The federal government can fine or tax citizens for not complying with the mandate.  

Even if you agree that everyone should have the right to medical insurance, the Affordable Care Act is a socialist model, an obtrusive assault on individual liberty and a fiscal disaster.  Living off the backs of others is a sure way to bring America to her knees.

Another intrusion to individual liberty is the Common Core curriculum for public schools.  As many parents are finding out, these federal curriculum standards impose revisionist history on students and puts a kibosh on critical thinking while focusing on the collective.  It promotes blind acceptance of an unchallenged curriculum with many parents now questioning its effectiveness.  Common Core is another attempt at government control over the minions.  Many states have challenged the idea but will lose federal dollars by rejecting Common Core in part or in whole.  Do your own research and be sure to watch how the lure of federal dollars entraps the minds of our elected officials and their moral integrity in their decision-making.  

The Constitution affords us many rights but special interest groups are constantly attacking those rights.  Designed to protect against a rogue government, our constitution affords us the second amendment, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  But each state sets their own provisions as to who can own a gun, where it may be used, how it must be transported and so on.  Reciprocity for concealed carry is still an issue when traveling through or to different states.  The right to protect my family from imminent danger is one granted by God, not man and my liberty to do so shall not be infringed upon or limited.

What about religion?  The second amendment protects the first amendment which, in part, guarantees our right to worship freely.  We are founded on Judeo-Christian principles.  What does that have to do with liberty you ask?  Our Constitution is the supreme law of the land.  Unless it is further amended, an outside group, ideology or entity has no authority to engage in a separate form of government or judicial system.  Islamic law has no place in this country, though Muslims are instructed in their Quran or holy book to spread Islam throughout the land and push out all other religions.  Islam is an ideology, not a religion.  Islamic Sharia law, which the French have allowed to infiltrate, will put the western free world in further danger if allowed.  The French have left themselves open to "creeping Sharia" by caving in to Islamic demands.  French citizens allowed the government to determine what God-given rights they could keep.  In Paris this past week we saw unarmed police being brutally murdered along with innocent citizens.  Only the terrorists had weapons.  As Americans, we must covet our liberty by protecting our constitutional rights or they will be no more.  We cannot "COEXIST" with an ideology that kills for no good reason.

What can we do? We can support and elect those representatives whom will closely adhere to Constitutional principles.  We can begin in own communities by serving on a local board or commission.  If not for complacency, the many vacant volunteer seats would be filled.  Government won't run on autopilot and your elected officials need oversight, like it or not.  If you have blind faith in your elected representatives to spend your tax dollars wisely and stand watch over your liberties then you shouldn't complain when your taxes increase, your land is taken by eminent domain, and paramilitary police are knocking on your door for a random search of your home.  It's just that simple. 

"We are not to expect to be translated from despotism to liberty in a featherbed." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Add a comment

Principles of Constitutionalism: The Moral Basis for the Constitution in Natural Law

Written by Tim Dunkin on . Posted in Guest Articles

Publisher's note:  This is the second in a series of discussions on the State of America and the mis-application of the U.S. Constitution.  Tim Dunkin has very meticulously laid out this subject in easy to understand terms.

Tim Dunkin:  In the previous installment of this series, we saw that the Constitution, as the foundational law of the land, is to enjoy a position of primacy over and above any and all other laws, offices, and authorities in our nation.  Yet, the question may be asked, why is this so?  The question may be answered by looking to founding ideas about natural law, from which then flows the idea of natural rights which our Constitution enshrines and affirms (but does not “give”).  

From Cicero to Blackstone, natural law theory was perhaps THE key concept in the thinking of the generation which fought the Revolution against Britain and then established our constitutional republican form of government. But what is natural law?  Essentially, natural law theory embodies a set of related ideas about the fundamental origination of “law” as an ordering principle in the universe.  This law is universal – it applies everywhere and at all times, explicitly rejecting the concept of “moral relativism” – because it originated from the God who created the universe.  For Cicero and other pre-Christian pagan thinkers, this god was pantheistic or panentheistic in nature, but the concept easily transferred over into Christian thinking from earliest times due to the compatibility with the Christian conception of a monotheistic, all-powerful, all-knowing, and over-archingly sovereign God who created the universe and continues to overrule and superintend it.   

For the colonists, natural law was considered to be completely compatible, and in many cases coeval, with God’s law as given by revelation.  In his Commentaries on the Laws of England (which were extremely popular and influential in American intellectual circles both before and after the Revolution), the jurist William Blackstone identified God as the Author of both natural law and special revelation, essentially arguing that they came from the same Source,

“..This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine Providence, which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of the ages."

What Blackstone is arguing is that there is an essential unity between natural law and special revelation – they come from the same God, and therefore cannot contradict each other.  Natural law was believed by these later theorists to be the unspoken, yet immutably true, outflowing of God’s purposes and benevolence toward man. Further, however, natural law was understood to be applicable to all men, in all nations, at all times.  Blackstone again wrote,

"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over the entire globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this;... upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these."

Elsewhere, Rufus King, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, said,

"The...law established by the Creator...extends over the whole globe, is everywhere and at all times binding upon mankind...This is the law of God by which he makes his way known to man and is paramount to all human control." 

Because natural law was understood to be universal, it was therefore understood to exist outside of and before any human governments.  From the time of Hobbes onward, a commonly used picture (treated more as a logical hypothesis than as an actual chronological fact) to describe man in his primal position was that of the “state of nature,” in which mankind exists apart from government. In this state of nature, man was in full possession of all of his natural rights - those rights such as property, self-assertion, self-defense, etc. which were the common property of all, as a result of their creation at the hand of God.  However, in the state of nature, there was no limit to what a man might do or take, apart from his inability to force himself onto someone else through raw power.  As the Rev. John Hurt stated in 1777,

“The miseries of the state of nature are so evident, that there is no occasion to display them; every man is sensible that violence, rapine, and slaughter must be continually practiced where no restraints are provided to curb the inordinancy of self-affection.”

In other words, in the state of nature apart from some sort of regulation of his behavior, mankind will always tend towards the assertion of his own rights, even to the harm and death of other men. This commonly understood proposition rested on the fact that even though man is created in the image of God, and enjoys from his Creator the inalienable rights that God granted through His own natural law, man nevertheless has a sin nature that leads him to abuse this power and to seek to tyrannize over other men.  The denial of the rights of others were those things especially that were forbidden by Scripture – murdering, rape, theft, extortion, etc.  A “tyrant” in both the thinking of the ancients as well as modern liberty philosophers, was a man who stepped outside the boundaries of his own rights and infringed on those of another.

Add a comment