Rolling Stone Owes U.S. Military an Apology and a Retraction

I called out Rolling Stone for this non-story last week.

Now that Michael Hastings' military-hatefest is being rapidly torn asunder, will Rolling Stone admit their incompetent editorial process and disdain for the military allowed a bogus story to be published?

New Outlet for Trig Trutherism

The Daily Beast is going all Palin gynecology, all the time. You know they don't edit Meggie Mac, and they won't likely edit the much bigger draw in Andrew Sullivan, so the deranged prattling should be epic.

I'm not sure what Tina Brown was thinking when she acquired Newsweek, and I'm less certain what she thinks her payoff will be in bringing aboard another has been more mocked than respected in recent years.

Oh well, it isn't my money being burned here, though if I was invested in this train-wreck, I'd be looking to cash out immediately.

Is Obama Harming America?

On February 14, Michael Medved wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal asserting that Mr. Obama is not, in fact, harming America. He asserted that Mr, Obama wants to be reelected, therefore he could not possibly be intentionally harming America as so doing would render him unelectable.

In my response to Mr. Medved's article, up today at Pajamas Media (here), I explain in some detail why his thesis is incorrect and why Mr. Obama is purposely causing harm to our nation.

Ties That Bind

My Dad has all his financial stuff tied up in a trust. His means are modest, but he didn't want the family to have to fuss with a lot of detail when the day comes that he is not here. We hate to think about it, but he's 90. I'm the "baby", a post retirement adoption in the family. The rest of the siblings are in their mid to late 50's and late 60's. We all sat as a family and went over details, but one thing Dad said was "decide on who wants what now, so there's no arguing later."

We all wrote down our wishes and Dad would decide. I only wanted my Mom's cookbooks and a couple of pieces of ceramic things she made in art class, a little skunk she made and put in the bathroom the menfolk used, a little black horse, the rest would go to my nieces. She's been gone a long time, but my Step-Mom took good care of that which she left. Everything else of theirs I prefer to just live in my memory.

But when Dad shared the list, simple and no conflicts, there was a note from brother R., which I know was written with a big smile. "I want my Rat Fink ring back".

I'm surprised he remembered; also surprised he knew I still had it, it being tucked away in my little jewelry box in my room at Dad's house.Rat Fink as one of the several hot rod characters created by one of the originators of Kustom Kulture, Ed "Big Daddy" Roth. Roth allegedly hated Mickey Mouse so much he drew the original Rat Fink, playing on an airbrushed monster shirt. The character soon came to symbolize the entire hot-rod/Kustom culture scene of the 50's and 60's. After he placed Rat Fink on an airbrushed monster shirt, the character soon came to symbolize the entire hot-rod/Kustom Kulture scene of the 1950s and 1960s. Ed didn't create the "Monster Hot Rod" art form, but he certainly made it popular.

If you're too young to remember, The Rat Fink is a green, depraved-looking mouse with bulging, bloodshot eyes, an over sized mouth with yellowed, narrow teeth, and a red T-shirt with yellow "R.F." on it.

I was little but I remember it well. My brother was a big fan. One of the neighborhoods original Rat Fink Pack, I'm sure he discovered early on the added benefit the Rat Fink T-shirt had in getting you sent home from school, giving you more time to play with your model car kits. I may have been lagging behind the whole thing by a few years but it didn't stop me from joining in the fun. I swiped his ring and built my own hot rod model, entering it in a grade school model building contest, and winning. But I was later disqualified because I was a girl. My brother stuck up for me, telling them he wouldn't enter any more if I couldn't enter, and didn't ask for his Rat Fink ring back. He was my hero.

Soon he was off to school and Navy Submarine service, while I made it through High School with a very loud un-girly car with Purple Horny Headers that made my Dad cringe. I didn't have a "steady', no ring around my neck from some teenage boy. But I did have a close group of chess club/rocket club/band nerd friends who would ride around in my decidedly "un-geeky" wheels. And I had my Rat Fink ring, still in my jewelry box.
I missed him. I remember walking in the woods with Dad's old Savage and seeing an elk crash into flight from a stand of small trees, the sound curving around the whole earth it seemed. I couldn't move, frozen by the sound. I simply stood, open mouthed, gun at my side, incredulous as to how big he really was close up and all the thoughts flowing through my head, turning to follow his now invisible running. For lack of any other response to his leaving, I picked up a rock and threw it hard and deep into the forest in which he ran, the stone, glinting like a knife, disappearing into the last copper ray of sun before it dipped behind the trees.

"Why did you have to go?" was all I could say, as I stood there in the fading light, sounding very small and alone.

Once we hit adulthood, we saw each other only once a year, my brother leaving the Navy to work some serious Secret Squirrel stuff, myself squirreling away in another part of the country. I went to his wedding near the Naval base in California, wearing a lime green bridesmaid thing that I would not have worn for the Pope, The Queen of England or Marshall Dillon (though given how Miss Kitty dressed, Marshall Dillon would have liked it). But I wore it for him.

We keep in touch by email and the occasional phone call but time together has always been limited. But he remembers. Not normally one to send gifts, on my first Christmas in Indiana, when I didn't know a soul, he sent me my childhood Christmas stocking, that I thought had been lost forever, filled with chocolate and shooting supplies.
He remembers my birthday, often late, with a funny card with a drawing of him being abducted by aliens, somehow explaining the delay.

I realize from talking with my friends that not all sibling relationships are this close. A lot of kids grow up almost strangers, with personalities and interests so divergent they wonder how they're related. They share no interests, they don't like the same anything. They get along as well as can be expected, playing politely at family gatherings, bound together only by being the children of the same people. I consider myself lucky to having siblings who I would have wanted to be pals with, even if we weren't related.
But it's hard for kids as they grow up, to keep the cohesion we had living in the same house. We are bound together by family, but often scattered by distance, dealing with our own tragedies, things much worse than a failed model contest, keeping it in and not saying much. Perhaps it's the Norwegian in us, perhaps it's the sense of protecting the clan.

The thought of the ring brought a lot of memories back, his laugh as we ran around the back yard playing cowboy and Indians. It is those small, almost forgotten mementos of family, that make us step back in time, before deadline and detail.

I remember him letting me tag along on his paper route, not being ashamed of his little sister as many of his friends would have been, but teaching me the perfect curve ball of paper onto a porch.

I remember road trips where we would playfully bicker and play with toy soldiers in the back of the car, mine in my chubby little hands, his, more grown and nimble, moving on to my side of the station wagon seat with his troops, setting camp until I yelled "MOM". And we'd be told to be quiet, for at least 15 minutes, and we'd sit, in perfect stoic silence, shooting looks back and forth to each other, as if dueling with foils, plotting, planning, waiting for the laughter to burst out because we just couldn't hold it in.

I remember him on leave from the military, teaching me how to do the perfect "cookie" in the snow in a deserted parking lot, Purple Horny headers and all. I remember junior high with "Health Class" and movies that instructed us in such sage things as "Don't let your parents down, they brought you up", and my favorite "Turn away from unclean thinking, at the first moment", which had such a tone of urgency we just couldn't WAIT to be grown up enough to have an unclean thought. And he'd call me from school and I'd tell him about the movies and my friends reactions to them and he'd just laugh. We both laughed, easily and well. We didn't worry about politics, or budgets, or deadlines or knowing that sometimes keeping your mouth shut had to be the better part of valor. We hadn't yet learned to look at everything in a critical eye of war or loss.

Thinking back on those things, I wondered to myself. If we told the stories of those times, would anyone recognize us?

We are completely different now, but we are the same, he and I. And gathering up my rifle to head out in the woods, I realize I still miss him.
I need to stop in at Dad's next month, when I visit. I need to get into that old jewelry box, the one with the little ballerina that danced around. The one that dances no more because I tried to see if ballerina twirling could counteract duct tape adhesion. I'll see if I can rent a little airplane and I'll give my brother a call and fly out to the island on which he lives when he's not saving the world. For I have something I wish to give him.

His letting me keep the ring all these years was a sign of trust, of his trusting me, of I, him, in the absence of words, to help me through the storms of adulthood. I think it's time I paid him a visit. Maybe we can get a six pack of beer (Health Class tip #2 Stop and Think before you Drink) and tear apart a carburetor.

The world is still full of promise and fun and a little bit of danger. A place even better when shared with a big brother.
- Brigid

The Las Vegas Media Wakes Up?

Since I began following the Erik Scott case, I've been surprised at how little the local Las Vegas media covered the shooting of Erik Scott, and on those few occasions when they did cover it, how shallow that coverage was.

But on 02-24, the local media, My News 3 (NBC Affiliate), "broke" a "new" story about the involvement of the Clark County Public Administrator's Office. Regular readers may recall that I first covered that story, and in much greater detail, on October 14, 2010 in Update 6 (available here--scroll down to reach it). While the local reporters did actually ask several questions of the right people, they failed to research the applicable Nevada statutes to discover that the PA's office has no authority to enter or secure a property where a "joint tenant" still exists. That tenant was, of course, Samantha Sterner who lived at Scott's condo with Scott, whose property was there, who had a key, and who refused the police and PA's office entry. With the help of a locksmith, they entered anyway.

At least one portion of the local media appears to have a small amount of interest. One step at a time...

Wisconsin Unionists Disrespect War Memorial

Because papering over a monument to those that fought for your freedom isn't as important as your whining about having to contribute a miniscule amount to you own pension.

The only thing good about these self-absorbed jerks is that they are not disguising how disgusting they are, and the are going a long way towards making the American people utterly disgusted with public sector unions.

I Hope The Fight Will Be As Good As The Trash-talking

UFC 127 is rolling around tonight, and the fight I'm most interested in watching is Jorge "El Conquistador" Rivera vs. Michael "The Count" Bisping.

Ranger Up (Rivera's sponsor) has been putting up videos on Youtube one after another mocking Bisping. Rivera's trash-talk leading up to this fight has been epic (and no those three videos aren't the only ones), and has made this fight both very personal for Bisping, who is making a second run at the middleweight title and considers the 38-year-old Rivera an over-the-hill loud-mouth standing in his way.

And you know what? Bisping has a point. Rivera is closing in the end of his career (only a handful of fighters can compete at the elite level past the page of 40), and no one thinks his string of recent victories will result in a late career surge to the top. Bisping is the more talented striker and is very elusive, even if he lacks knockout power. He should easily outpoint Rivera for a easy decision victory.

But old age and treachery are a dangerous thing. Rivera is trying to get inside Bispings head, and is trying to get Bisping to stand toe-to-toe with him and bang. Rivera may not be the more talented striker, but he is the harder hitter of the two, and if he can negate Bisping's movement advantage via head games, well, that's all part of the fight.

The main event of UFC 127 is still going to be BJ Penn vs Jon Fitch and it should easily be the better fight, but I suspect internet wagering is going to pick-up for the Bisping-Rivera fight purely on the strength of the smack being tossed around.

That's a good thing for Dana White's promotion. Quite frankly, the other fights on the card feature fighters with much less name recognition. Without the drama drummed up by Rivera and the Ranger Up crew, this event might not even be worth watching.

Blue Force Gear Tactical Rig Review

My latest gear review is up at Shooting Illustrated.

Left Outraged Congressman Didn't Strangle Senior Citizen for Absurd Question/Bad Joke

Georgia Rep. Paul Broun (R) held a townhall meeting Tuesday, and gave the person who drove the longest distance to be at the event the honor of asking the first question. Unfortunately, the questioner asked "Who's going to shoot Obama?," which apparently elicited laughter (nervous, or otherwise?) from other townhall attendees.

Broun responded:

The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The writer covering the event says Broun went on to discuss the Republican budget proposal.

The Secret Service interviewed the questioner and says the comment was a bad joke the person regrets making, and says that they consider the matter closed with no action.

Predictably, left wing blogs have attempted to turn Broun's response to such an unexpected question as a condemnation of him. Raw Story blamed Broun for not taking a more forceful approach, while the always-tedious Think Progress conjured up a reason to blame Broun for the question even being asked.

In retrospect, Broun should have reacted quickly and condemned the statement on the fly, but it is understandable that being surprised by the question, he instead chose to respond by deflecting a question even the Secret Service concluded was just a joke made in very poor taste.

A Runaway Reporter

I've dealt with many different kind of communications mediums over the years, and have been tasked at various times to engage in persuasive communications. One of the most most basic kinds of communications, it simply seeks to win the favor, approval, and/or consent of the target audience. It is practiced in nearly every level of human interaction, from a parent convincing a young child to perform a task to a salesperson or marketer attempting to convince a client that "Solution X" will provide an answer or solve a problem. It's used by public officials trying to convince voters to select them, and it is used by journalists and propagandists to shape public opinion.

An article the Rolling Stone attempts to make this behavior into a major political scandal. It sounds quite nefarious; a military psychological operations team is tasked with creating presentations to convince visiting congressional representatives.

But when you read past the hyperbole and insinuation endemic throughout the article, you come realize that there isn't any "there," there.

A military unit normally tasked with understanding, targeting and persuading the local population was pressed into service to more or less Google the records and positions of visiting dignitaries in order to tweak boilerplate presentations to match the VIPs preferences and learning style, so that military briefers could more effectively communicate with them and then achieve a favorable response. Objectively, that appears to be all there is to this story.

Subjectively, this is the story of a disgruntled employee attempting to cast his former employer in the worst possible light, pounced upon by a journalist that has previously found fame and fortune sensationalizing a similar story. Both of these men have obvious motives. What is far less clear is their case that anything remotely unethical—much less illegal—took place in what were essentially corporate marketing operations that in an of themselves were utterly ordinary in execution.

Michael Hastings make his career when he interviewed General Stanley McCrystal and ultimately ended his career. He's trying so hard here to repeats his past success. It's too bad the apparent facts refuse to back his desire for more attention and fame.

Quick Takes, February 24, 2011

ITEM: Jake Tapper of ABC News quizzed new Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney on the debt and Mr. Obama’s apparently lack of understanding of basic economics.
“The president seems to think that borrowing money to pay the interest on the debt is not adding to the debt. I don’t understand that kind of math,” noted Tapper. Carney responded with happy talk about credit cards, families and “investing in the future.” He also observed that “interest payments are a major portion of our long-term debt.” Hopefully, Mr. Carney, on behalf of Mr. Obama, will eventually come to the realization that the Pope is Catholic.

ITEM: Here we go again (still?)! Appearing before a Senate hearing on Feb 16, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper demonstrated, if this is humanly possible, even less knowledge about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Middle East than he displayed when he called the MB a “secular” organization that has “eschewed violence.” “It’s hard at this point to point to a specific agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood as a group,” he observed, according to ynet news.com. Regarding the MB’s position on smuggling weapons to Hamas in Gaza, Clapper noted that he didn’t know the groups declared stance and that a “wait and see” attitude was necessary to determine its position on Iran. Riiiiiiight.

I’m a high school teacher, which gives me a substantial advantage over Mr. Clapper and his analysts in that I, apparently unlike them, can read. And reading the MB’s charter, I have determined, without waiting and seeing, that they want to kill all Jews, all non-Muslims, establish Sharia and a world-wide caliphate, and they are willing to do whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals, particularly if it involves rape, mutilation, buckets of blood and all manner of other barbaric violence, which they have, Mr. Clapper’s notions to the contrary, not “eschewed.” Who uses words like that anyway? I’m an English teacher and I don’t, at least not in normal conversation. I can also make an educated guess that they’re pretty much OK with giving weapons to fellow Muslim fanatics and are equally happy to deal with and support Muslim fanatic nations. Can I be the Director of National Intelligence now? I’m as qualified as Mr. Clapper or Mr. Panetta, probably more.

ITEM: Is this revolting enough for you? Reports are coming in around the nation that Chevrolet dealers are charging over $65,000 for the Chevy Volt, which is available in very limited numbers in only a handful of states. The MSRP is $41,000. GM spokesmen have professed GM’s complete lack of ability to do anything about the price gouging. Well, that’s what happens when you build a people’s car. I mean after the $7500 government tax subsidy for which we are all paying, the Volt now costs only $57,500! Could the government subsidized electric vehicle story get any better? Any more egalitarian? Power to the people, right on!

ITEM: Just when you thought Democrats couldn’t be any more self-serving and corrupt, comes news from Madison, Wisconsin of doctors (here)--apparently actual physicians--standing on street corners and writing excuses for teacher/protesters to use in defrauding the public for their illegal and immoral abandonment of their students. Be honest now, would you want your child to be taught by a teacher so bereft of moral fiber that they would illegally skip school and commit fraud to try to avoid punishment for what they know to be illegal, immoral behavior? Better yet, would you seek treatment from a physician with such politically flexible medical ethics? Wouldn’t you eschew them? Sorry. Couldn’t resist.

ITEM: Now that “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” is a thing of the past, America’s self-imagined “elite” universities are anxious to show their good will to the military and to embrace recruiters and ROTC, right? Not so much, at least not at Columbia, home of the journalism school that produces many of the denizens of the Lamestream Media. At a recent open forum at Columbia, 10th Mountain Division veteran and current Columbia student Anthony Maschek dared to challenge his fellow students to welcome the ROTC. He was called a racist--of course he said nothing remotely racist--and was jeered and laughed at. Maschek, after being shot eleven times, spent two years in military hospitals recovering. Those mocking him should be forcibly introduced to the wonders of living in certain people’s republics that share their low opinion of heroes like Maschek. But waaaaiiit a minute? It wasn’t all about the military being mean to gay people after all? Say it ain’t so!

ITEM: This is a rejected “Twilight Zone” script, right? The McDonough 35 High School in New Orleans has been infested with--bats (here). You know, the fly-around-at-night things that make people go “AAAHHHH!” and run headlong into fixed objects? Those bats? Parents and students are not amused, and school system officials are stymied. Can you guess why! Ding! Ding! Ding! That’s right! You win the prize! They’re an endangered species, so they can’t be harmed in any way! Having to carefully capture, relocate and release the little beasties is, to put it mildly, driving school officials batty (I know, I know--I couldn’t resist). Just another example of how the nanny state oversees and enriches and our lives while simultaneously enriching our hair with bat guano. You don’t suppose some Wisconsin doctors would trundle on down to the Big Easy and write some bat excuses?

ITEM: Uh-oh. According to Rasmussen Reports, Mr. Obama’s disapproval ratings are, once again, after a brief upward bump, trending downward. Disapproving of his performance are 55% of likely voters, while 44% at least somewhat approve. Historically, any president below 50% is in trouble. Hope springs eternal, but change wounds all heels. Stop me before I mix metaphors again!

ITEM: “We Are Not Amused” Department: Gold-embossed invitations to Prince William and Kate Middleton’s April 29 wedding were recently mailed. The Queen alone invited 40 heads of state, but not Barack and Michelle Obama. Could it have something to do with Mr. Obama’s crude and ugly serial insults of Great Britain? My guess is that they’re afraid of getting gifts like the iPod full of his speeches Obama gave to the Queen, or the cheap, cheesy movies that wouldn’t play in British DVD players given to the past PM, who is, by the way, and I am not making this up, also legally blind. I wouldn’t be amused either.

ITEM: Following on the raggedy tail-feathers of Wisconsin Democrat legislators who fled to The People’s Republic of Illinois, are the equally raggedy tails of Indiana legislators, also “fleebagging” to Illinois to prevent their respective legislatures from enacting laws they don’t like, which, according to them, is virtually the Word of God or something, so moral, magnificent and un-Republican is their flight to avoid responsibility. Dems across the nation, as well as their union masters, are also gearing up to express “solidarity,” Dems such as Dennis Kuchinich (D-Ohio) who recently appeared in Olympia, WA to rally the faithful. From Rob at PACN Righty (here), Kuchnich said “You cannot have a democracy if you don’t have people in a position to be able to negotiate for their wages, and to have decent benefits.” As a public service, here is a brief primer on republican democracy:

(1) The people electing representatives based on their positions and promises: Good--republican (as in a republic) democracy.
(2) The people’s representatives debating and voting on important issues: Good--republican democracy.
(3) Entire parties fleeing the state to force their will on the state without debate and voting when they know they’ll lose: Bad--despotism (and really childish, stupid behavior. Didn’t any of these people have mothers who taught them anything about working and playing well with others? Were they raised by wolves?).
(4) Entire parties of legislators fleeing the state because they think they know better than the people and are going to prevent the people from making mistakes by means of the democratic process: Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad--raised in test tubes; not mannerly enough to have been raised by wolves.
(5) Doing everything they’re doing to make sure union thugs continue to roll in money, money which will end up in Democrat coffers: Business as usual, and criminal.

Reread and disseminate as necessary.

ITEM: And in related news, Wisconsin Republicans are taking a controversial, outrageous step to entice fleebagger Democrats back to Wisconsin to engage in, you know--voting and democracy and stuff. They’re going to pass a voter ID bill that will require voters to actually provide--gasp!--photo ID when voting. Yes, photo ID! In 2011! Identification with a photo of the voter on it! Do you have any idea how hard it is to obtain such rare documents? Why, minorities, the elderly, and “non-documented visitors” to America, to say nothing of the many, many “previously living,” would be disenfranchised! Why, that’s absurd! It’s unfair! That would almost be like, just to make a completely ridiculous comparison, an entire political party fleeing the state to prevent votes they know they’d lose. Preposterous! Anarchy! The Republicans hate the elderly, the poor, minorities, non-documented visitors, the previously living, cute puppies and kittens, and adorable union members with big, weepy eyes. Sniffle. Snort.

ITEM: And in related, related news, the Wisconsin legislature just passed a measure that suspends direct deposits for legislators playing hooky. They’ll have to collect their checks on the floor of the legislature during a normal business session from now on. Heard as a faint echo from over the Illinois border: “Uh-oh. Quick! Who’s got that union credit card?”

ITEM: And in related, related, related news, via Hot Air (here) AFL-CIO Union Boss Richard Trumka recently boasted that he visits the White House or speaks with someone within at least once each and every day. Hmmm. Does anyone find this...disturbing? You don’t suppose this has anything to do with Mr. Obama being the Union Organizer in Chief, do you? What could they be talking about? Recipes? Discuss.

ITEM: The Louis Renault Award of the Week: Rahm “Dead Fish” Emanuel has been elected Mayor of Chicago with 95% of the vote, no doubt for life. OK, OK, so maybe no one was actually, shocked, shocked! not even the previously living who almost certainly turned out in record numbers as they always do.

ITEM: The REAL Louis Renault Award of the Week: Americans were shocked, shocked! to learn that D.C. Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler, appointed by Bill Clinton, has ruled ObamaCare constitutional. Via Politico (here), here’s the soul of Kessler’s argument:

“First, this Court agrees with the two other district courts which have ruled that the individuals subject to § 1501’s mandate provision are either present or future participants in the national health care market. See Liberty Univ., 2010 WL 4860299, at *15 (“Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.”); Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at 894 (“The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. . . . The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings . . . they cannot opt out of this market.”). Thus, the vast majority of individuals, if not all individuals, will require some medical care in their lifetime.”
Let’s see if we understand this: Because I’ll probably be sick at some time in my life, I’ll require medical care, so the Federal Government can force me to buy any kind of insurance they prefer at any cost. So, essentially, because I’m human, the Federal government pretty much owns me. Not only that, merely thinking about not buying health insurance constitutes interstate commerce, so the government can force me to buy any consumer product it prefers. Of course! Why couldn’t I see that before? Perfectly reasonable.

ITEM: It’s a Louis Renault Explosion! Via Pajamas Media (here), the world was shocked, shocked! to learn that Venezuela, which recently signed an agreement to allow Iran to build joint ICBM missile bases on its soil, has been violating U.S. Sanctions signed by President Obama by selling high grade gasoline to Iran. Mr. Obama has been too busy with important business, such as ensuring that the nationally vital Union/Democrat money pipeline remains unobstructed, to comment. But when he does, I’m sure he’ll note that the U.S. will “bear witness” to any continuing and/or future violations. That oughta do it.

ITEM: Did You Know? Department: Did you know that Milwaukee teachers demanded benefits for Viagra and similarly “uplifting” drugs, claiming that if the public failed to provide them, it would be a violation of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Oh yes, that’s WFEA 12.2.39(c)2.d: “All male members of public employee unions shall be provided, at public cost, sufficient drugs to maintain a constant state of erection. They shall also be promptly provided matching bathtubs in scenic, rural locations upon request to keep said erection from breaking free and ravaging the countryside. What’s that?! EEEEEE! It sees us! It’s coming this way! Run for your lives!!!!!” Well, that sounds reasonable to me. I mean, if it’s the law and all. I always wondered what the deal with the bathtubs was anyway. I still don’t get the cheese hats.

ITEM: Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, former Libyan Justice Minister, has claimed that Muammar al-Quaddafi personally ordered the destruction of Pan Am 103 at Lockerbie, Scotland. Surely knowing this, it was only today that Mr. Obama finally spoke out about the Libyan violence calling it “outrageous” and “unacceptable.” To be fair, he also said it should stop (that’s encouraging!) and he threatened decisive action: He’s going to send Hillary Clinton to a conference in Geneva on Monday to talk about the violence.

But hey! At least he has priorities. At least he knows who America’s real enemies are, enemies like the governors of Arizona and Wisconsin. Absolutely pathetic. Surely Mr. Obama could at least offer to “bear witness”--as he did during the Iranian uprising-- to military aircraft gun runs on unarmed civilians? After all, if he doesn’t “bear witness,” we’ll have a destructive witness bearing gap.

ITEM: February 24 marks the last flight of the space shuttle program. The shuttle Discovery will have the dubious honor of the final flight. America will no longer have the means to lift human beings into orbit and thanks to Mr. Obama, no plans to do so for the future. But at least NASA will be kept busy making Muslims feel good about Algebra and combatting the threat of Global Warming which really, pretty much--doesn’t exist...

ITEM: But Don’t They Owe The Taxpayers Billions? Department: Chevrolet is going to spend $40 million over the next five years. To pay back taxpayers? New car designs? Brilliant new technology? Nah. Carbon offsets. For those unaware of the scam--er, term--carbon offsets work like this: Let’s say you’re an environmentalist weenie, but you’re just barely rational enough to realize that you need a car to get to work. Still, you feel oh-so-guilty about each and every drive you’re so unfairly and brutally forced to make. What to do? You pay a private company--and this, ladies and gentlemen, is largely how Al Gore made his megabucks--to “offset” your carbon use to expiate your guilt! How do they do that? Why, by promising to plant some trees somewhere, sometime, or by promising to do some research into or encouragement of magical green technology or stuff, you know? And is there any way to be sure the people who took your money and gave you absolution actually do what they promised to do? Nope. Government oversight? Nope; like the Obama Administration would do that anyway! Hahahahaha! Don’t the taxpayers have a 61% share of GM, which, has not, in fact paid back it’s TARP bailout funds? Yup. But at least some execs at Chevy will receive green absolution. What’s more important than that?

ITEM: But He Was Moving To the Center! Department: Not so much. After giving lip service to opposing gay marriage for the last two years, Mr. Obama, in the best Emily Litella tradition, has said “never mind.” An Obama spokesman has noted that Mr. Obama now believes the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional and has directed the Justice Department to stop defending it. Wails of anguish and outrage were heard coming from Justice Department offices. OK, OK, so I made that last part up.

ITEM: Via Fox News, in Little Rock, AK, McClellan High School algebra teacher Solana Islam has resigned her position after being convicted of prostitution and operating a business without a license. Well. Prostitution is one thing, but operating a business without a license? That’s just over the line!

And on that happy note, thanks for dropping by and I’ll see you next Thursday!

Critic's Garret

Home Invasion by William W. Johnstone with J.A. Johnstone. Pinnacle Books, paperback, $6.99.

“People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.”
Book review by Abraham Lincoln

William W. Johnstone, the author of more than 200 books, has previously written series of books relating to the mountain man experience and about the West. Recently, Johnstone has turned to what might be called an “invasion” series focusing on the threats posed by our wide open southern border and feckless politicians. Home Invasion is the most recent of that series.

Set in the fictional west Texas community of Home, the plot revolves around the female chief of Home’s four-officer police force. Johnstone has a feel for the ebb and flow of small town life and his Home characters will feel, well, at home for anyone who has ever lived in a small town. Other characters include a CIA team betrayed by the government, a socialist, egomaniacal President of the United States who hates America (no, that couldn’t sound familiar, could it?), a rogue general appointed to head an internal paramilitary police force, a sort of Praetorian Guard loyal to the POTUS, a secret weapons lab, a slimy defense attorney, Mexican drug gangs, corruption, double crosses, mass disarmament of American citizens, plucky, decent teenagers rising to the occasion, sacrifice and plenty of plot twists.

The 411 page paperback is engaging. Johnstone writes compelling characters, though many of the characters are mere stereotypes, such as the immoral, mercenary lawyer, the dim-wittedly leftist blonde female reporter with the manners and ethics of a rattlesnake, various evil criminals, and of course, a POTUS who bears an uncanny resemblance to the current occupant of the White House.

In many ways, this novel would not have been possible even two years ago. Mark Twain said “fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn’t.” Prior to the Obama administration, a novel that took for granted a POTUS who hated Americans and America, who did nothing to protect the southern border, who ignored the Constitution would have been considered too far out to be possible. Now, most readers will find little remarkable about it, and even the evil plot at the heart of the action is barely a stretch. In that regard, some of the characters and some of the several plot twists may seem, particularly to the well informed, predictable, but Johnstone’s dialogue and characterization are obviously practiced, unforced and natural, encouraging the reader to easily and comfortably suspend disbelief.

While some of the characters in the book, particularly the female police chief and the CIA agent she seems destined to take as a love interest, could be spun into sequels, the book doesn’t have that feel. Based only on my reading of this book only--at the request of Mr. Johnstone’s publicist--it appears that contemporary, pertinent political issues are the driver of the series rather than an individual, engaging character such as Brad Thor’s Scot Harvath or Clive Cussler's Dirk Pitt, but again, that’s my take based only on this novel.

“Home Invasion” is an enjoyable political thriller, though liberal readers would be well advised to avoid it. They’ll likely suffer near-fatal increases in blood pressure and righteous social justice outrage at situations and possibilities that anyone else would find to be, at the very least, plausible. They may also find themselves astonished at how easy it is to accept plot elements that only a short time ago would have been virtually unimaginable. There’s a lesson in that indeed.

Koch Heads on the Left

A Left wing blogger managed to name-drop his way into a conversation with Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. It's amusing to watch other left wing blogs prattle on about what it meant, when what the call really revealed undermines their preferred narrative.

The call between the fake billionaire and the governor revealed:

• Gov. Walker's staff is not familiar with the Koch name
• Gov. Walker does not know Koch's phone number, nor the sound of his voice
• Gov. Walker's positions are the same in public and in private

Abdication of Leadership Demands Resignation of Office

"May you live in interesting times" is a curse ascribed to the Chinese, though it's exact origins have never been revealed. Regardless of where the phrase originated, we do live in "interesting times."

In the last few weeks alone we've seen regimes threatened or overthrown across North Africa and parts of the Middle East. We've seen Americans callously murdered by pirates off the coast of Somalia. We see unrest among nominal allies, and the strengthening of the resolve of our enemies.

Iranian warships have transited the Suez Canal for the first time in decades, and there is every reason to suspect they carry long-range missiles and other weaponry to offload in Syria and turn over to Hezbollah for use against U.S. interests and allies.

Domestically, the Department of Justice and White House seem to be orchestrating a cover-up into a Congressional investigation of why agents apparently allowed gun-runners to traffic weapons over the border in order to provide substance to debunked Administration talking point, in order to build a case for gun control efforts. One of these weapons was used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol Agent, and there is every reason to suspect other weapons the Administration allowed to be smuggled over the border have been used against Mexican law enforcement and civilians. There is no telling how many people stand to be killed and wounded by the guns Eric Holder's Department of Justice knowingly let fall into criminal hands. The Department and the Attorney will not answer questions, perhaps fearing indictment.

This same Justice Department apparently refuses to uphold the law, and instead intends to view all prosecutions through a tainted prism of "social justice."

Obama himself has nominated a politically-motivated anti-gun ideologue to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, that insiders claim simply isn't qualified to be an agency head, after running his own field office with suspect and marginal results.

Homeland Security, the Department of Interior, the Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies are now fronted by directors with a clear interest in collecting and consolidating the power of the federal government and abrogating rights reserved by the states. We have objectively lost freedom.

We've witnessed elected Democratic officials in Wisconsin and Indiana flee their duties in order to subvert democracy and stall legislation needed in order to prevent layoffs of state workers, in order to appease the interests of powerful unions. We've found that the White House and the President's own campaign organization instrumental in attempting to stir up civic unrest in a dozen states, attempting to undermine sitting governors in order to prop-up his base of support.

In each and every one of this instances, Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, has either failed to articulate a position, has issued forth orders directly against the interests of the safety and security of the Republic and the member states of our Union, or has chosen deferential treatment towards this nation's enemies and has weakened our relationships with this nation's allies.

We face a crisis in leadership. We are crippled by an actor who played a magnificent role to attain office, only to find that he lacks the fortitude or temperament for the position. He is a community organizer. He is lost and alone in an Oval Office too big for the small soul of the man that tentatively occupies it.

Barack Obama has shown himself incapable of leadership. Barack Obama has shown himself to be inflexible. He has shown himself to be non-responsive, out-of-touch, aloof, condescending, and ineffective.

Midway through his Presidency, he has proven incapable of being the man we need him to be. He simply is not up to the age, or the task. If he truly loves this nation, his greatest contribution to this nation should be to resign the Office of the Presidency of the United States.

Tea Party Rep Calls for Violence

Did I say Tea Party? I meant to say pro-union liberal Democrat:

"I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary," Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members.

I'm pretty sure he isn't calling for a Red Cross blood drive. Instead, he's more overtly calling for the kind of brutality that unions are known for, since their attempts to subvert democracy in Wisconsin seem to be failing.

Daily Show Tortures Camel for "Humor"

Jon Stewart's show decided that what the pro-union protesters in Madison, Wisconsin really needed was a camel (see, so that they could claim their protest was just like that of the Egyptians in Cairo).

The stress of forcing a desert creature to deal with Wisconsin's arctic weather was apparently worth it to Stewart (warning: language, animal cruelty).

Does it look funny to you? I find it about as funny as Wisconsin student test scores.

Time for Naval, Air Strikes Against Pirates in Somalia

Four Americans on a private yacht captured by Somali pirates have been killed by their captors. News is understandably sketchy at this point, but it appears that at least some of the pirates may have been engaged by U.S. naval forces that were shadowing the vessel after the murders.

The international community has allowed pirates to operate off Somalia for far too long, and has done nothing to eradicate the threat.

While pirates operate off the coast, the simple fact of the matter is that they cannot exist without a support structure onshore. These pirate havens are well known to the governments of the world, and poorly defended. Bombardment from the air or sea could easily reduce the pirate strongholds to rubble, sink the "motherships" that pirates use to extend their range offshore, and of course, eliminate the pirates themselves.

Among this nation's first foreign policy decisions were two small wars (the Barbary Wars) against African pirates. Piracy that had existed for centuries in the region came to a halt only when overwhelming force was brought to bear. Two hundred years later, the same motivations encourage the pirates of Somalia, and only the same forceful response can end the modern age of African piracy.

Such a campaign can easily be won with minimal or even non-existent U.S. casualties. It merely remains to be seen if the Obama Administration will decide to stand for American interests, or instead remain ever deferential to any thuggish entity that claims Islam for its inspiration.

Getting Off the Grid

Quiet.

It wasn't until I got home from being on the road that I realized how much I missed it. Yet I love walking in somewhere to the sound of laughter and dogs barking and little kids shouting Brigid's here! But on a daily basis I need just a little bit of that time, just to myself, no cell phones, no TV, no schedule. Just the secret, strong murmur of silence.

Some people have a real hard time with the quiet though, finding it illuminates those things within themselves best left hidden. Quiet brings that time in which you can ponder the extremities of loss and the destiny of flesh, something most people don't want to put the remote down long enough to consider.

I had a boyfriend when I was young whose family HAD to have noise around, TVs on in practically every room. Add that to the general shouting across rooms at one another and after a couple days over the holidays, I was near to digging a tunnel from the laundry to escape. On weekends it was auto racing, the sound cranked up to "Car No 8 is in my bathroom" loud. He'd watch all day, live and taped; I never got a kiss unless there was a caution. He started making sounds about getting married someday and I ended it, knowing that I could not be happy in that life, and to stay and pretend I could be was unfair to everyone.

But there are noises that bring only a smile. What is a the first sound that you can remember?. As a child, I remember the sounds of the kitchen, my Mom cooking something. I remember the sound of the front door, a heavy hardwood door that shut with the announcement "Dad's home!". Dad would walk in and kiss my Mom. Not a peck on the lips, but a long kiss and she'd giggle, there with flour on her face and that is the sound I first remember.

I remember the sound of bat meeting ball as we played with my oldest brother out in the back field. The CRACK as aerodynamics and physics joined, the ball just a spherical dream of speed heading out into the trees as our dog Pepper raced to recover it before we did.

I remember the sound of the piano, as I practiced hour after hour as a child. Beethoven, Bach, Debussy. The sounds of the music filled the house, filling me, the opening chords of Rhapsody in Blue awakening something in me I was too naive to articulate.

I remember the sound of taps played at a funeral of someone I loved, the wreckage of duty crashing on the ears of those who are left. But it was a sound that fell without lasting damage for we were raised to be fighters, stronger than wreckage, taller than fear. Honor the fallen and continue the fight.
And always and forever, I remember the outdoors, walking or fishing with Dad. A way to get away from the artillery sound of traffic, away from school, worries, bills and whatever it is we need to occasionally shed the load of, even if we always hold the responsibility. Dad could spend all day in hip boots,in a Western stream poised with the relaxation of that first cast of the line. No sound at all, but the gurgle of the water, the wisp of a line as it traveled through the air, with a sense of direction more than speed, carefully seeking those quiet pools where sustenance lay. When he came home we sensed something in him much bigger than the steelhead that he laid on the table. Something he had needed, and somehow found.

My escape has been the hunting camp where even with friends I could seek the inarticulate solitude of a cathedral of trees, where I could watch the moon grow round in the darkening sky as I waited for the flash of a white tail. In the woods even the the most profound acts seem simpler. The crack of a rifle, the crash of a large buck, that act of deliberately taking the life of the game of the forest to put meat on the table; so clear and closing in its sound that no words needed to be spoken. The echo of the shot, the strident fall of the deer remained insular, wrapped up quietly within the chronicle of outdoor life, only to be spoken of in reverent, hushed whispers around a campfire.

Just as there were days of plenty, there were the days of cold feet and a cold barrel but we wouldn't take them back for anything. Whatever we could gain that would set us free of obligation to the suburbs might have been beyond our reach that day, but not beyond our desire. We wouldn't throw down our weapon and stomp out of the forest stopping at the nearest mini mall for takeout. We would wait, there in the blind, there in the stain of dying brush, waiting for it when it came, and doing without if it didn't. Sometimes those meals after, of beans and fresh biscuits and bacon, were the best of all, as we looked forward to the next opportunity to head back out to forest and cornfields ripe with whitetail.
But too soon came time to return to neighborhood and work, hours of travel, the groan and rumble of an airplane, the vibration felt from the yoke to my bones, the cadence and sorrow of air rushing past, left behind in the wake of strained metal. There were hotels in the city, waking to the staccato bursts of sound from the street, cars, shouted curses, and horns. Even at home, with neighbor's far apart on acres of land, but the Starbucks three miles away, there was no such thing as real quiet, There's the neighbors lawnmower at 9 pm, dogs barking or a shouting match off in the distance between people caged too long.

You either adapt to it, or you get away. I vote for the getting away part. My neighbors are scattered, the city 25 miles away, but cars still drive past out front, and I'll realize that I'm close enough in that if there is trouble, I won't be able to defend the place too long even with back up. I want to be further out. Not so far out that when I go walk along the creek I hear the sound of a banjo but far enough to be away from the major roads and cities in the event of a disaster where the unprepared come to loot the prepared.I've read Thoreau, who chronicles his life off the grid in his writings. I found his words moving but found little in common with a middle aged virgin who probably couldn't field dress a deer if he had to. But there is one thing he wrote of that I have always identified with. He talked of judging the cost of something but how much life you had to expend to get it. I've left a relationship for that reason, because in terms of cost to my being for what I got from it, it violated my sense of thrift. It's the same reason I'm getting rid of a huge house of space I don't need any longer and unnecessary possessions. Things are precious when they are few and carefully selected. If you squander yourself on things that give you nothing back, someday, when you need that part of yourself to survive, you may find yourself bankrupt.

In the last year I've given away or sold half my possessions, all the useless decorative clutter, keeping only the art that I truly like, my books, the furniture that's hand crafted and the tools of my life that I really need. Some have said I'm foolish, as a woman alone, there's safety in a busy town, a steady finality in the noise of a large neighborhood. So there is, as well, in the sound of the scrape of metal against a pine box. These are the people who also tell me that I shouldn't have a gun, the police will take care of me; those that speak imperious and loudly, not hesitant of opposure or argument, simply impotent to conceive either.
Hopefully within the year, I'll have the funds saved to build the cabin with cash, a place where the world will only intrude if I wish it to. I'll likely have to keep a small house in town for work, but as soon as I clock out, it will be empty as I drive towards the quiet. There will be my time alone, walks out, firearm on my hip, lest I encounter a mob of chipmunks. There will be my times to just sit, out on a felled log. Time to stop, without schedule as I watch the sky turn from the subtle grey of an unpainted church to the deep purple darkness of a priest's robe, the stars impenetrable and invisible, as if waiting for us before they showed themselves.

Barkley will be sitting by my side, hoping we're under a dog biscuit tree, soon to shed its fruit. We'll wait, serene and still, the moon shining on nibbled shadow, content to just sit underneath the starry sigh of heaven. The only other lights are as far off and distant as memories of shame or pride or loss, barely remembered like the smell of decay, sensed only in the instant of its knowledge and then fading to dim memory as you move away from it. Dark and far away, as such things should remain for as long as possible.
From where we sit, an owl will call, the sound unintelligible amongst the vernal branches. As a satellite tracks the sky, the owl calls again, a call to go home. And within, there might be a a small TV, some games for the children of friends. There will be my little computer to write and communicate. In much of the daily breath I draw there will be noise, but it will be the sound of a blade striking wood, the sun shimmering off of the blade like silver. It will be the crack of a rifle shooting on my land, the tool I will use for provision and protection. It will be the hum of machinery as the shop takes shape, room for more tools, room for more freedom. There will be voices, but they will those of reasoned discourse among friends, as though many of us chose to live away from civilization, we are not so naive to think it doesn't deeply impact us, our safety and our liberty.

It will be a life of still, dense sound; the sound of freedom. A life of remote quiet, the world outside spinning slowly into green smoke. It will be life on my terms as best as is possible, walking the uncertain spaces that open before me in the deepening fields, walking out into the constant trees, alone but nor forlorn, intractable and accountable. Walking on forward, rhythmic steps into the hushed, secret shade of life off the grid.

Teaching and Sacrifice

Regular readers who have accessed the “About the Authors/Contact” tab know that my day job, so to speak, is teaching high school English. Accordingly, I’ve been watching the situation in Wisconsin not only with an eye toward keeping our readers informed, but with grave concern for my chosen profession.

I say “my chosen profession” because it is indeed a profession I chose after a police career, returning to college in early middle age to complete my undergraduate teaching degree. I was always a teacher during my years in law enforcement, but returned to teaching because it’s important and meaningful. It’s an opportunity, each and every day, to truly make a difference, to inspire real improvement and growth in students and to awaken their interest in the wonders of learning. I go to school smiling and happy every day, thankful for the opportunity entrusted to me by my community.

When I seek Wisconsin teachers abandoning their kids, lying about their absence, misusing their influence to trick their uncomprehending students into anti-democratic protests with them, and now, obtaining fraudulent excuses from doctors (here), I find myself very concerned for public education and very angry at those useful idiots in classrooms allowing themselves to be so skillfully, yet crudely played by their unions.

I’ll admit to being surprised when I learned that the average Milwaukee, Wisconsin teacher makes $100,000 per year (here). That’s $56,505 in direct salary and $43,505 in benefits. Let’s just say that I have about 15 years of experience and I’m making more than $10,000 a year less in salary alone--much more. I shudder to think how much less I’m making in benefits. But that doesn’t matter.

The American economy isn’t a zero-sum game, at least not yet. A dollar, or $10,000+, made by a teacher in Wisconsin is not a dollar or $10,000+ that I cannot make. When others make more than me, when others are actually, truly rich, I say good for them, for the mere fact of their good fortune means that similar good fortune is possible for me and for everyone else. Like my fellow teachers, I choose to sacrifice and continue teaching. Besides, envy and coveting the goods and lives of others reveals poor upbringing, bad manners, weak faith, and is always self defeating. If making a great deal more money than I currently make is really that important, I need to get busy and make the necessary changes, not whine about the fact that others make more than do I.

Then I discovered that Wisconsin teachers currently pay nothing--nothing!--toward their own pension plans, and pay only 6% of their salaries toward their health care plans. Yes, I pay more, substantially more, yet, I still don’t begrudge them their relative good fortune. However, when I discovered that Gov. Walker is expecting them to pay 5.8% (instead of 0%) toward their pensions, and 12% (instead of 6%) toward their health insurance, any sympathy I had for them instantly evaporated.

I’m fortunate to live and work in Texas for a fine school district that is fiscally solvent and likely--knock wood--to remain so. In fact, Texas is doing much better than most of the rest of the nation for reasons that are well documented elsewhere. Suffice it to say that a large part of that success is due to the fact that Texas is a right-to-work state where unions do not dictate public policy to their advantage and to the disadvantage of the people. Texas is, therefore, a job creator, a job magnet and is attracting people and businesses from failing states around the nation, including Wisconsin.

But Wisconsin, after decades of Democrat rule and “Progressive” ideology, is not doing well. It, like much of the rest of the nation, is bankrupt, and unless Gov. Walker gets the concessions and reforms he needs, he’ll be forced to lay off more than 5000 teachers and more than 10,000 public employees. Any competent Governor of any party would need to do the same. When I discovered that the entire crisis was caused by unions refusing to even discuss concessions, any tiny residual empathy I had for unions went out the window. Rational people would realize that if the state goes bankrupt, there will be no money to pay state employees, who will also go bankrupt, and no money for union dues. No union dues, no unions. The latter, I must admit, sounds like a very good idea these days.

And then I see the thuggish, stupid and crude behavior of the unions, their members, and even of Mr. Obama, who is encouraging nothing less than civil war against a state trying only to avoid default, trying desperately to be fiscally responsible, and I become determined to do all that I can to defeat those who are determined, because of their short-sighted greed and lust for power, to destroy democracy. So I write in the hope of informing and persuading. You’ll have to let me know how I’m doing.

Teachers are taught, from their earliest days in college, that kids learn best with an effective, dedicated and hard-working teacher in every classroom. Experience convinces us that it's true. No other single element is more important to student success--and please do not think for a moment that success is measured by standardized test scores--they have almost nothing to do with actual learning, but that’s a post for another time. And please don’t think that I’m a touchy-feely, self-esteemy “facilitator” type. In my classes, kids have no choice but to behave, produce and improve, and to have fun doing it. The bottom line is that when the teacher who has worked so hard to build rapport and establish a hard-working but enjoyable classroom environment is gone, learning slows--dramatically.

I hate to be out of my classroom--all good teachers hate to be out of their classrooms--for any reason. I cherish every minute I have with my kids, because I will never have enough, and when I lose precious minutes for any reason, my emotions range from mild frustration to moments of genuine anger. I can count on one hand the number of sick days I’ve taken in a decade. Yes, I should have taken many more, but as long as I’m functional, I choose to be functional in the classroom.

I don’t say this to pat myself on the back, but merely to point out something that many people may not realize: The public schools are full of teachers who think as I do, who absolutely hate to be out of their classrooms. I therefore find myself disgusted with those Wisconsin teachers. I’m disgusted that they’d even think of leaving the classroom--their unions hire lobbyists to deal with legislative issues, spending far more money than most union members will ever know--or approve of. They don’t need to leave school. I’m disgusted that they are lying about why they’re gone. I’m disgusted that they have not only cut off learning for their students, but for all of the students of competent, professional teachers who are not indulging in self-righteous displays of contempt for the public. I’m disgusted that they’d even think about involving students in their unethical, selfish, greedy, fraudulent behavior. I’m disgusted that they would attempt to lie about their actions by obtaining counterfeit doctor’s excuses.

Don’t get me started on the doctors who are handing those excuses out. We need more doctors, but we don’t need morally compromised doctors. If they want to be union organizers, “community organizers” or politicians, they should pursue those pseudo-occupations. I always thought that medicine was more or less a full time job. Apparently not in Wisconsin. One can only hope that Gov. Walker and the State AG will take the steps necessary to introduce them to new kinds of institutions with unique occupational clothing, or at the very least, give them the opportunity to pursue alternative employment in, say, the food service industry. As I understand it, "do you want fries with that?" is a very marketable phrase to know and tell.

Teachers rely on the goodwill of the public. Smart teachers never forget that they are public employees, and that every student, every parent, is justified in expecting that each and every teacher will provide the best educational opportunity possible, given the resources provided by the public. Yes, teachers can only provide the opportunity to learn, students--and parents--must take full advantage of it. We all must work together, yet some Wisconsin teachers are trying to tear society apart.

One of the things that is hard for young teachers to learn is that they cannot be their student’s homeys. They can’t be their friends. They have to be the responsible adult in the room, and every student must understand that and expect them, in everything, to behave as a responsible adult. Another thing that is hard to understand is that students really do look up to teachers. They watch for clues, gross and subtle, that tell them what kind of person a given teacher is, and they accordingly detest or admire those teachers. Teachers truly can never tell where their influence ends. And every day, most kids tell their parents of their impressions, impressions that mold parent’s impressions of those teachers and of their schools. Empty schools, kids losing precious class days, parent’s work disrupted--losing money, parents forced to pay unexpectedly for child care--money they may well not have, watching teachers on TV behaving like self-important fools and anarchists, all of this is terribly destructive and absolutely unnecessary.

A too-large number of Wisconsin teachers have not only thrown away all of the good will and public support earned by hard-working, dedicated teaching professionals working for many, many years, they’ve urinated on it in public and danced gleefully on its corpse for the cameras. Most people watching around the nation will be able, intellectually, to realize that these bad actors do not represent all of Wisconsin’s teachers, nor do they reflect on all American public school teachers, but the negative impression will remain, and it will have an effect, an effect no professional teacher would solicit or welcome.

Pay a bit more for health insurance and pension? Lose some--not all--collective bargaining privileges (There is no such thing as a “right” to form a union or to engage in anything unions do. It’s a privilege extended, and rescinded, by the voters of any state)? Yes and gladly, particularly when the alternative is not only to lose my job, but to bankrupt the entire state! This is not a matter of greedy, venal politicians trying to steal money from teachers to build something entirely stupid, unnecessary and unwanted like high-speed rail. Wisconsin is, without any concealment or doubt, in deep financial trouble, and there is very little sympathy left for those unwilling to realize that, or those more than willing to try to continue to drain the public coffers for their benefit. If the public didn’t know that this is not about ensuring that Mrs. Smith, the kindly teacher, is treated fairly, but is all about Democrat and union power, after watching the week in Wisconsin, they surely do.

If I was one of those Wisconsin teachers, I would be ashamed to return to school. I would be ashamed to face my students. I would be ashamed to face my peers, my supervisors, my student’s parents and my neighbors. But of course, I’m not one of those teachers, and I suspect most of them will feel no shame whatever. That being the case, Wisconsin voters might wish to consider whether people of such low moral character, people who care so little about their sacred public trust, should continue to have the privilege--not the right--to teach in Wisconsin. I know what my answer would be. You?

UPDATE: From NPR, Via National Review Online:

“‘But before the sun set, most Walker supporters went home. And union forces again owned the streets, marching around the Capitol building. On the curb, teacher Leah Gustafson held a sign saying, “Scott, your son is in my class. I teach him, I protect him, I inspire him.’

Gustafson said she teaches Walker’s son in a school outside Milwaukee. Like much of organized labor, she also said she accepts the need for union workers to pay more for their pensions and health care.
‘Absolutely, I get that,’ she said. ‘I understand that, and I am more than willing to do that. But it’s the bargaining rights that really scare me. We have to obtain and retain teachers for the future, or our educational system is going to crumble.’”

No, Ms. Gustafson, you don’t get it; you don’t get it at all. Not only do you not protect and inspire the Governor’s son, you’ve just unwittingly used him as a political weapon, a weapon aimed at the heart of his father. You’ve publicly exposed him, even endangered his life. The Governor’s enemies, the same enemies who have been communicating death threats, death threats considered more than credible by the police, now know where to find at least one of his children any day of the week. And in so doing, you’ve endangered yourself, your students, and every student in your school. After engaging in the lowest form of politics and dragging a child into the pit with you, do you imagine his father will see you as an honest, dedicated teacher who is “protecting” his son? Would any parent feel that way? Do you imagine that Gov. Walker’s son will find you “inspiring,” should you eventually decide to return to the classroom which you have dishonorably abandoned? Have you obtained your fraudulent “doctor’s excuse?” Tell me Ms. Gustafson, what would you do with a student who skipped a week of school and showed up with a forged doctor’s note? If he said he did it for a worthy political purpose, would you excuse him?

To be absolutely fair, I have little doubt that Ms. Gustafson, like so many of her potentially well-meaning colleagues, does not realize the harm she has done. She doesn’t realize the depth and breadth of the public respect and support she has been instrumental in squandering. She doesn’t understand that there are people on her side who have always resorted to intimidation and violence to seize and hold power and who think nothing of manipulating “useful idiots,” kind people like her who can be so easily tricked and sent into the line of fire, never suspecting that those who pretend to support them care nothing for them, only for wealth and power. They hope that people like Ms. Gustafson will be caught up in violence, even bloodied, which looks so good on camera and which can be so easily spun against the public. So convincing are her union masters, that Ms. Gustafson probably actually believes that without union thugs controlling her and the schools and looting the public treasury, teachers will not be retained for the future and the education system will crumble.

Ms. Gustafson, there are many states where unions have no say in pay and benefits, yet the free market ensures that teachers are paid fair wages and given fair benefits. I certainly am, as are all my colleagues, colleagues like me who are careful to earn and keep the respect and good will of the public, not because we expect to benefit financially, but because we owe it, and our best efforts, to them. Our education system is not crumbling. We have little turnover, and we turn away far, far more teachers than we hire. And we do it all without unions.

Pray, Ms. Gustafson, that no harm comes to Gov. Walker’s children or any of your students. Perhaps you’ll even find it in your heart to pray for those you’ve been conned into believing are your enemies. And please reflect on the fact that there are those in your union and leading your union who would be delighted to see you or your students come to harm to further their ambitions and to satisfy their lust for power. Then consider whether these are the kind of people with whom you truly want to associate. Perhaps then you’ll return to doing what professional teachers do: Teaching. Oh yes, and please leave the fake note behind, if, that is, you truly are an honorable person, as I’m hoping you are. It’s rather hard to convince students to own up to their mistakes when you’re unwilling to do it yourself.

Obama's Allies Calling for Unionists to "Bloody" Tea Party Protesters?

It's a screen shot of a Craigslist listing and could have been posted by anyone for a number of reasons, so I'd advise taking it with a huge degree of skepticism for now.

That allowed, there is a considerable degree of consistency between the rhetoric in this ad and the rhetoric and actions we've seen issued from the Obama Administration. Organizing for America, Obama's campaign organization, is said to be deeply involved in organizing and bussing in union protestors to cause unrest in roughly a dozen states that seek to crack down on the power of public sector unions in attempts to balance state budgets. The nation's most powerful unions, the SEIU and AFL-CIO, are also very active in attempting to block reforms and co-ordinating with the Democratic Party and OFA.

Obama himself triumphantly declared that "elections have consequences" after he was elected. Now that the 2010 midterms saw many of his tax-and-spend leftist allies unceremoniously tossed out of office at the federal, state, and local level, Obama seems intent on using a combination of blatant fraud, old-fashioned union strong-arm tactics and his political muscle to thwart democratic reforms.

Leftists seem intent on turning the protests in Madison into a physical brawl, with the President himself and high-ranking Democrats escalating the rhetoric to the point violence seems not just possible, but sanctioned by the President himself and the Democratic Party.

Barack Obama seems perilously close to violating the trust of the American people. Let us hope he has the good sense to deescalate the tensions he is now heightening, before citizens are hurt as a result of his dangerous rhetoric.

Wisconsin Observations

Did you know that the Wisconsin Constitution requires a balanced budget? Did you know that the alternative to public sector unions giving concessions is firing more than 5000 of them? Did you know that it was the refusal of the unions even to discuss potential concessions that lead to the current impasse? The recent hi-spirited hi-jinks in Wisconsin have revealed that there is more to Wisconsin than lunatic liberalism, dairy products, cheese hats and football. A number of interesting lessons are already evident and more are becoming ever more clear. Consider:

DEMOCRACY: Used to tyrannical, one party rule, Wisconsin Democrats suddenly find themselves in the minority. It was Barack Obama who observed that “elections have consequences.” Swept out of the majority in November, local Dems find themselves unable to cope with genuine democracy where their whims no longer rule, where they might actually--gasp!--lose. So they flee to the People’s Republic of Illinois to bask in the glow of a Scottish Hooter’s to avoid votes they know they will lose. No doubt they believe that their cause is so important that it cannot be submitted to the people’s representatives for a vote because they would vote the wrong way! The Dems know better than the people--the bastards--who recently ran them out, and they’re not going to let a little thing like the complete repudiation of their persons and policies get in the way of doing what they know is best for the people--the bastards. Democrats obviously believe in democracy only when they can dictate terms and force their inferiors to do their will. Discussion question: Should legislators who refuse to do their sworn duties be immediately impeached?

UNIONS: Unions exist only so long as they can reasonably claim that they are necessary to prevent abuses in the workplace, and only so long as they can reasonably claim a sort of moral high ground that in some way represents the American way and common American people and values. That said, there is no such thing as a right to form a union. There is no such thing as a right to collectively bargain. Unions exist in every state only as long as the people--through their representatives--extend the privilege of existence, which they have the full power and duty to shape and regulate as suits them.

In Wisconsin, and elsewhere, the public is quickly realizing that public unions are a very, very bad idea, and that if they are not brought under control, they will happily bankrupt not only the states, but the nation. By behaving as witless thugs, union members throw away what little claim to ethical purity they have left. More and more people are beginning to realize that giving public sector unions the power to strike against the public peace, to shut down government, to throw children out of school, to harm and inconvenience the public for their own selfish purposes, is an idiotic idea--it always was--that we cannot afford, morally or financially.

More and more people understand that unions are not, in fact, for the common man, but only for themselves, for the accumulation and wielding of power. When Jesse Jackson shows up to agitate--as he already has in Wisconsin--rational people know that the game is up, for the public decided long ago that people like Jackson are only for themselves. The economic largess that allowed America to abide the greed, corruption and sloth of unions for so many years is no more. Except for a few blue states, unions will lose more and more of their power--which is what this is really about--and membership. Wisconsin is the first test case. They will not go gracefully or peacefully, unless we give them no choice.

BARACK OBAMA: Mr. Obama is becoming increasingly irrelevant, not only in international affairs, but within America’s borders. Like a two-bit local rabble rouser, he continues to involve himself in local issues about which he knows nothing. He has diminished the office of the President so much that it’s hard to imagine there’s anything left to diminish, but Mr. Obama continues to plumb new depths of stupidity and irrelevance. One would think that Mr. Obama would actually have issues of some concern that need his attention in DC. Obviously, they would be wrong. Perhaps the less he actually does, the better off the nation is. Discuss. Golf anyone?

THE RULE OF LAW: It must be enforced, fairly and uniformly. If hundreds of union thugs refuse to leave legislative chambers, they must be told they are trespassing, given a reasonable time to leave, and arrested, each and every man, woman and child, if they refuse. To do less allows anarchy to reign. If the National Guard is required to provide sufficient numbers to assist the police in processing, so be it. If union thugs trespass at the homes of legislators, arrest them, each and every time they violate the law. If teachers call in sick, if they lie about absences, they must be disciplined, up to and including being fired if appropriate in a given case. There is no right to strike against the public. There is no right to deprive children of their education. But they’re our neighbors, our friends, our teachers, our relatives. They’re our neighbors, friends, teachers and relatives who are breaking the law and squandering the money our tax dollars pay them. They’re being paid tax dollars not to do their jobs and to break the law in the process. They lie to our children, bringing them to protests with the goal of continuing the bankrupting of their state, and their teachers don’t have the common decency to admit to them that their goal is nothing less than saddling them with debt that they will never pay off should they live to 150. We are not like them; those who would bankrupt us and our children are not our friends.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: By behaving as they are behaving, the Democrat legislators are ensuring that even more of them will be run out of office at the next election. There is no justification and no explanation for what they are doing. They are not protecting democracy, but subverting it. This is, of course, what good socialists do. This is, of course, why Mr. Obama not only supports them, but has sent his minions to organize and assist in the breaking of the law and the destruction of the democratic process in Wisconsin.

By threatening Republican legislators and their families, by coming to their homes by the busload and behaving like subhuman thugs, these dimwitted socialists are changing minds and hearts for far greater support of the Second Amendment than they can possibly imagine. There is little doubt that concealed carry will be instituted in Wisconsin, but I would venture to guess that a strong castle doctrine law is now a certainty, and soon. There’s nothing like violent mobs and death threats to focus one’s attention on essentials, essentials like being able to shoot those who break into your home with blessed immunity from lawsuits if you are forced to shoot someone under those conditions. Imagine the plight of a poor Democrat who sees how the political wind is blowing and who dares to vote for fiscal responsibility with Republicans. As is virtually always the case, they’ll be amazed and stunned at how quickly and vehemently their former “friends” and “colleagues” turn on them, and they too will see the wisdom of the Second Amendment as if the scales fell from their eyes.

After spending substantial ink, bandwidth and air time, decrying incivility, particularly comparing people with Hitler, superimposing crosshairs over their faces and making a variety of threats, Democrats find themselves in the interesting position of doing all of that and more. While the lamestream media won’t cover it, the Web will. Combining stupidity, greed, selfishness, irrationality, and law-breaking with blatant hypocrisy tends to be noticed by the public, who tend not to be amused. And actually trashing the scenes of protests is not winning friends for the unions.

Because of our universal, intimate relationships with teachers, their unions have for many years enjoyed, if not public good wishes and support, a grudging willingness to put up with their excesses. By themselves, Wisconsin teachers are squandering what little public forbearance remains. They are manifestly not “doing it for the children.” While no one wants to give up any portion of their current salary, when the money that pays that salary is running out--and fast--when millions can’t find any work, when the economy is failing and state and federal governments want to continue spending and consequences be damned, rational people adopt rational priorities, which include giving up some benefits and salary if it means keeping their job. This is not a matter of “union-busting”--though under current circumstances, that term holds substantial appeal--but a matter of financial rationality and survival. Even if the unions can’t seem to understand that if the state that pays them goes bankrupt, there will be no pay and no union dues and they go bankrupt, the rest of the public understands it very well and they’re going to see that unions get the message.

THE BOTTOM LINE: One would expect a Democrat president to reflexively support unions at the expense of the public, and in this, Mr. Obama does not disappoint. However, he goes far beyond mere political affiliation. He accuses the Governor and people of Wisconsin of “assaulting” unions. He tells us of the “sacrifice” of union employees. He understands and cares about only power, and in Wisconsin, he and his sycophants see the beginning of the end of Democrat power, and it frightens them.

If teachers really do sacrifice to serve something greater than themselves, surely it is greater than wages and benefits. Surely it is more than class warfare and hatred. Surely it is more than a President who sees half or more of America as his enemy. Is it this for which Wisconsin teachers stand?

Wisconsin’s Governor and its responsible, democracy and rule-of-law supporting legislators deserve our encouragement, thanks and support. As goes Wisconsin, so may go the rest of America. At the moment, it appears that Democracy and sanity have a fighting chance.

Havana, Wisconsin

Leftists have decided to try to intimidate the families of lawmakers:

In Wisconsin, the schoolteachers and other "public employee" beauties are going to the homes of Republican lawmakers, screaming, denouncing, etc. The situation has gotten very bad. We know where you live. Yesterday, I had a talk with Sen. Randy Hopper, recorded here. Republican lawmakers have received threats, and credible ones: threats to their physical well-being. They are not disclosing their movements, whether they are sleeping in their own homes. They are working with law enforcement on how best to protect themselves and their families.

If we allow acts of intimidation and threats of violence to influence public policy, we cease to be a Republic of laws, and are far closer to civil unrest than I would have had any reason to believe.

Lefty Rhetoric, Violence Heats Up

President Obama has once again acted stupidly, escalating the rhetoric and the stakes of the duel between Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker and spoiled public sector unions in that state.

Walker and the Republican-controlled state senate are looking to end collective bargaining rights for public sectors unions and increase the amount that public sector employees must contribute to their health care and pensions (which would still be below equivalent private sector contributions). Wisconsin teachers Average more than $52,000 in salary and more than $40,000 in benefits every year, a compensation package approaching $100K/year.

Yesterday outnumbered Senate Democrats fled the state rather than do their duty, and were found hiding out at the Clock Tower Resort in Illinois.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin teachers abandoned their students to march on Madison (a dereliction of duty continuing today) and engage in bomb-throwing that has thus far only been rhetorical.

I made a prediction on Twitter yesterday that the continuing escalation of rhetoric, combined with tactics of vandalism, intimidation, and violence encouraged by the Obama Administration will lead to a leftist (or leftists) committing political-motivated murder of a Republican or Tea Party figure by August 1. It is a prediction that I hope doesn't come true, but one that I suspect will prove to be sadly correct.

Obama and his thuggish union allies have bet everything on the escalating growth of government and the power of union labor. The Justice Department will look the other way, Obama himself will offer up words of encouragement for the unions (as he did yesterday) showing his support, and the thugs will continue their dirty work.

It's going to be a tumultuous spring and a bloody hot summer. The Democrats will not surrender without a fight, and there is every reason to believe they are willing to make that fight literal.

Rhetorical Idiocy

The good folks at Pajamas Media have been kind enough to publish my essay on Mr. Obama's exclusive reliance on rhetoric. It may be read here.

Quick Takes, February 17, 2011

ITEM: “Favorite Bedtime Stories From the Religion of Peace” department: The High Court of Bangladesh recently ordered district officials (here) to explain why they allowed a 14 year old rape victim to be whipped to death. Hena was raped by Mahbub, her 40-year-old relative. A day later, at a village arbitration, a fatwa (religious decree) for 100 lashes was issued. She lapsed into unconsciousness at 80 lashes and was rushed to a hospital where she died. Lord, grant Hena the mercy and peace she never found here and visit your justice on those who killed her.

ITEM: Peace In Our Time! During a meeting of the House Intelligence Committee on February 10, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the Muslim Brotherhood is “...a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence...” For those not up to date on the players of the Global Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt are the intellectual and spiritual heirs of Sayyid Qutb, arguably the father of the modern Islamist movement. Suggesting that the MB is largely secular and non-violent is akin to suggesting that Fidel Castro is one of the foremost proponents of democracy and free market capitalism in the world. Have I mentioned that Mr. Clapper is Mr. Obama’s primary source of intelligence?

UPDATE! A few hours after his dog and pony show, Mr. Clapper’s underlings more or less, sort of attempted to walk back his comments, a little, saying that he is “well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization.” Have I mentioned that Mr. Clapper is the Director of National Intelligence of the United States of America? Our country? Feeling safer?

ITEM: CIA director Leon Panetta announced that he obtained the information on Egypt he provided at the February 10 House Intelligence Committee hearing from media accounts. Media accounts? Like the NYT? CNN? The Daily Kos? Yup. Have I mentioned that Mr. Panetta is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency? Of the United States of America? Our country? Only the best and brightest are in charge.

ITEM: From Claudia Rosett writing at Pajamas Media (here). United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice was, at the same time things were exploding in Egypt, touring the West Coast to deliver a February 11th speech to the World Affairs Council (the what?!) in Portland. OR on “Why America Needs the United Nations.” Uh, isn’t Ms. Rice supposed to be representing America at the UN rather than representing the UN to America? And shouldn’t she be at the UN, doing, you know, like, diplomacy or something when the entire Middle East is in danger of more or less blowing up in our faces? Have I mentioned that Ms. Rice is the American Ambassador to the United Nations? The Ambassador of the United States of America? Our country? Ever feel like running into the nearest woods screaming “AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!”?

NOTE: To see how an American Ambassador to the UN who actually represents, you know, America, behaves, go here.

ITEM: During his State of The State Address, Texas Governor Rick Perry advocated that Texas Universities establish a $10,000, texts included, four-year college degree program (here). Cruelly taunting educrats, Perry said “It’s time for a bold, Texas-style solution to their challenge that I’m sure the brightest minds in their universities can devise.” Perry suggested that it might be done by means of online courses and “innovative teaching techniques.” That Perry! Academics offering an affordable, useful college education! What a jokester!

ITEM: Many years ago there was a commercial that urged people to lock their cars with a tag line something like “don’t help a good boy to go bad.” The public demanded that it be pulled, and it was. Why? Old fashioned as they were, the public back in the 1400’s realized that the issue was personal responsibility, the personal responsibility to resist temptation. Stealing cars wasn’t the fault of the car owner, but of the criminal who, you know, stole the car. Comes now Brenda Speaks, a Washington DC Ward 4 “Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner” (just what the heck is that?!), who opposes the construction of four WalMart stores in the area. Why does she oppose them? She feels that young people will be unable to resist shoplifting and will get criminal records that they otherwise would be able to avoid--due to the evil, impossible-to-resist tempting influence of WalMart, which will provide jobs, low cost goods and food, job training and insurance. Should anyone in DC be allowed to wear clothing? After all, young people might steal it and get criminal records! And we wonder why so many Democrat-controlled urban areas are third world snake pits. Actually, we really don’t, but if you’re reading this site, you know what I mean.

ITEM: President Obama submitted his 2013 budget on Monday, saying that it contains “tough choices and sacrifices.” Among its features are a claimed $1.1 trillion dollar savings over ten years. Unfortunately, over the same period, it would add at least $9 trillion to the debt while adding $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year. It would also spend at least $3.73 trillion in the 2012 budget year. I would observe that spending far more than you save isn’t really saving at all, but when you’re in the land of fiscal unicorns and fairy dust, reality is--flexible. But wait! as they say on late night TV; there’s more! The bill also “saves” money and “cuts spending” by massively raising taxes! And more good news: absolutely vital programs such as high speed rail are fully funded! Act now and you’ll get not only a stratospherically higher deficit but obscenely higher taxes! Call 1-800-screwu! Bankruptcies limited to one per customer per day! Even some normally shameless Democrats are beginning to look a little red in the face over this one.

ITEM: Despite still owing the American people megabucks, General Motors is planning to pay some $189 million in profit-sharing to 48,000 hourly workers. This amounts to about $4000 each, which is far more than the then-record 1999 payout of $1,775 each at the height of the pickup and SUV boom, and this was paid out of GM’s profits, not the taxpayer’s pockets. Add some $200 million for salaried workers, most of which make more than $100,000 per year, for a total of nearly $400 million dollars--of taxpayer money. We still own 61% of GM, folks. So the new American mantra should be, work very little, drive your company into the ground, suck up to Marxist politicians, and you’ll be able to screw the public and benefit. It’s the new American way! Hope ! Change! Winning the future through screwing the present! Buy a Chevy Volt! We’ll even give you $7500 to do it! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

ITEM: IN NYC, a 23 year old man--he would like his name to be mentioned here--was arrested in a subway after a rampage during which he allegedly murdered four people and wounded several others--with a knife. The accused killer is said to have been enraged by his stepfather’s refusal to allow him to drive a Lexus. His response was to stab his stepfather to death, which apparently began the rampage. I’m confused. No gun? No “large capacity magazine?” No “assault weapon?” How was this possible? Was it an “assault knife?”

ITEM: A multitude of talking heads and politicians have expressed confusion over Mr. Obama’s foreign affairs behavior, most recently his utterly feckless and contradictory statements regarding Egypt, pronouncements that have not only been universally wrong, but damaging in every possible way. “But he’s the smartest man in any room! How can this be?” If he really is the smartest man in any room, if he really is the most magnificent POTUS in history, it can’t. If however, he is a small time, grossly overrated, thuggish, race-hustling, class-warfare provoking, narcissistic, socialist, wealth-redistributing, America-loathing community organizer then all manner of things make perfect sense. Discuss.

ITEM: As the story goes, on the eve of WWII a German General, conversing with a Swiss General, asked the Swiss what his 500,000 man militia would do if invaded by a 1,000,000 man German army. The Swiss General is reported to have calmly replied: “Shoot twice.” History records that Germany wisely chose to respect Swiss neutrality. No doubt Swiss terrain also played a role, but the Swiss General wasn’t kidding. Now comes the result of an emotional national debate over gun control in Switzerland, where fully automatic military weapons and ammunition are kept in most homes, and entire families frequently trot off for local weekend marksmanship competitions. Exit polls indicate the measure, which would have removed military weapons from homes, was rejected by at least 57% of the populace. And what about America? Shoot once? Discuss.

ITEM: According to Debra J. Saunders (here), on February 8th, the “Peace and Justice Commission” of Berkeley, CA recommended a resolution to the Berkeley City Council to invite “one or two cleared” Guantanamo Bay detainees to resettle in Berkeley. P & J Commissioner Rita Maran expressed the Commission’s intention was to invite “the kind of people you’d like to have living next door to you or dating your cousin.” Indeed. Particularly if you’d like the people next door beheaded or your cousin blown up. They don’t call it “Berzerkeley” for nothing, folks. Can you imagine a “Peace and Justice Commission” in your community, perhaps instead of a department of wastewater treatment or a street department? Discuss.

UPDATE: With four of its members voting an Obamian “present,” the Berzerkley Council declined to approve the resolution. Apparently the fact that federal law expressly prohibits any Gitmo inmates from ever entering the US was something of a sobering factor...

ITEM: From the Wall Street Journal, Via Doug Powers (here), who is reportedly not nearly as delightful, lovely or charming as Michelle Malkin, on whose site he posts, Al Gore’s recent pronouncements blaming recent fierce winter storms on global warming amount to so many moose droppings in the wilderness. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project, which is apparently staffed by competent, honest scientists, has been reexamining climate data from 1871 to the present to find out if more extreme weather patterns are--as climate alarmists and their computer models have repeatedly warned--increasing. Results thus far? No evidence of more-extreme weather patterns, in direct contradiction of alarmist computer models. Reportedly, some of the scientists involved are surprised by the results. Reportedly, the public is primarily surprised that a climate scientist would honestly report any result not approved for public consumption by the Goracle.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award! CBO Director Doug Elmendorf, during a hearing of the House Budget Committee, admitted to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) that ObamaCare will wipe out 800,000 jobs by 2021. The CBO is also now admitting that ObamaCare will not only not reduce the deficit, but worsen it. I’m shocked, shocked! to learn this. Mr. Obama promised that ObamaCare would not only dramatically reduce the deficit and create or save a multitude of (green) jobs, but would cure cancer, remove pimples, serve as a one-pill-per-lifetime form of Viagra, produce warp drive, time travel, a Star Trek transporter, and establish world peace. What gives?

ITEM: At the 2004 Democrat National Convention. Barack Obama delivered the speech that, in the language of Chicago, “made his (political) bones.” But, via Real Clear Politics (here), even then, Mr. Obama was a serious, sober, international statesman, focusing like a laser on matters of the greatest gravity. From Mr. Obama: “The most challenging problem was what tie to wear. And this went up to the very last minute. I mean, 10 minutes before we were about to go onstage, we were still having an argument about ties. I had brought five, six ties, and Michelle didn’t like any of them...And then somebody..turned and said, ‘you know what? What about Gibbs’ tie? That might look good.’ And frankly, Robert didn’t want to give it up because he thought he looked really good in the ties. But eventually he was willing to take one for the Gipper, and so he took off his tie, and I put it on, and that’s the tie I wore at the national convention.”

In fairness, this was apparently intended to be humorous, but let me just say, “Mr. Obama, I knew the Gipper. The Gipper was a friend of America. You’re no Gipper. And you’re still an empty suit no matter which tie you wear.”

ITEM: According to Gallup, unemployment now stands at 10.3%. “Official” government numbers put it at 9.7%. The recession seems to be pretty spry, particularly considering that its corner has been rounded, it had its back broken and it spent the entire summer of 2010 being “recovered.”

ITEM: Via The Telegraph (here)--and this is not a parody--the British police are warning citizens in an area stricken by burglaries of tool and garden sheds not to reinforce shed windows with wire mesh lest burglars hurt themselves and get compensation against homeowners from the British courts. In fact, this sort of thing has been happening in England for many years. No doubt, some politicians any of us could name would find this state of affairs to be desirable here. Britain was once one of the bright lights of civilization. Mr. Obama finds much to emulate in Britain, even as the British are finally realizing and admitting what a mess they’ve made of things.

iTEM: Subsidizing the Chevy Volt to the tune of $7,500 each, the Obama Administration is now going to subsidize the installation of charging stations (about $3000 each) in nine cities, including Austin, TX. Remember, please dear readers, that taxpayers own 61% of GM, so not only are we paying for other people’s cars, we’re going to pay for the hardware necessary to charge them! For my take on the Volt in particular and electric vehicles in general, go here and here. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute noted “If they [the auto and power industries] could easily make money from it [electric vehicles] without a federal subsidy, they would be there. Obviously they don’t think there’s a big demand.” Considering electric vehicles cost much more than conventional vehicles, have a ridiculously short range and take as many as 12 hours to recharge, I simply can’t imagine why the demand isn’t stratospheric, but Obama knows best!

ITEM: Who says the Dems aren’t paying strict attention to the budget deficit? Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) are delivering substantial pressure to a pivotal figure to manifest an earth-shaking public good. That’s right, they’re pressuring Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, to ban smokeless tobacco in the game. No doubt this will not only create green jobs, but save the environment, reduce the deficit, and increase overall neatness and tidiness. I’m still not quite sure how high-speed rail fits in, but I’m Senator Durbin will get around to that eventually. Maybe the trains can burn chew?

ITEM: It occurred to me the other day, while reading about the Obama budget, that my mother taught me everything I ever needed to know about economics. Her wisdom, final and terrible in its application, is encapsulated in four words: “We can’t afford it.” Could it be as simple as merely applying these words to our economic issues? High-speed rail? We can’t afford it. ObamaCare? We can’t afford it; next item on the agenda? No oil drilling permits? We can’t afford it; start issuing them immediately. See? It works, just as it always did when Mom said it. Discuss.

ITEM: Thank God None Of Them Are Really Criminal Masterminds! Department: According to Metro.co.uk, a 16 year old burglar in Arlington Heights, Chicago killed all of the goldfish in the home of his victims because he didn’t want to leave any witnesses. Prosecutor: “Do you see the man who burglarized your home in the courtroom today?” Goldfish: “Glurg.” Prosecutor: “May the record reflect that the witness has identified the defendant, your honor?” Judge: “So ordered.” Defendant, leaping to his feet: “You dirty squealer! You’re gonna sleep with the fishes!” Judge: “You’re out of order!” Prosecutor: “Your Honor, he’s threatening the witness!” Defense Attorney: “Your honor, may the record reflect that the witness already sleeps with the fishes?” Goldfish: “Glurg.”

And on that encouraging note on the intellectual capacity of criminals, thanks for stopping by and I’ll see you next Thursday!

CMMG stainless steel .22LR conversion kit review for LuckyGunner.com

I started talking with the folks at LuckyGunner.com a few weeks before SHOT Show, and they gave me a chance to run the CMMG .22 conversion kit that they stock and write up a review on it. Considering the cost of centerfire ammo and the strained economy these days, shooting .22LR at the range instead of .223 Remington or 5.56 NATO makes a lot of sense for most training applications.

I used my BCM Mid 16 as the test platform, outfitted with a UTG carry handle to replace the BUIS (backup-iron sight). I'm trying to get back into shooting with iron sights, in hopes of running an Appleseed course later this year shooting iron-sights only.

To make a long story short, I burned through 325 rounds through the CMMG kit in about an hour. This in a gun that already had 200 rounds of .223 through it from my last range session.

I hope that you'll read the detailed review of the CMMG stainless steel .22LR conversion kit on LuckyGunner.com, and let me know what you think. It was a fun conversion kit to shoot, and relatively easy to clean.

Che-Loving Leftists Sending Death Threats to Republicans

Something called the United Front for Immigration Reform has sent death threats to a pair of Utah legislators. They seem to be an offshoot of the Reconquista movement.

I suspect they're all talk, but you can never be too careful.

Alternet Doubles Down on Bigoted Accusation that Black Conservatives are Race Traitors

The entire concept of a group owing fealty to a specific political party due to their genetic makeup is entirely offensive to any thinking person, but that is precisely the argument Chauncey DeVega made earlier this week, and one that leftist web site AlterNet and its writer continue to support.

In my original post, I referred to Herman Cain and other black conservatives as "race minstrels" and "mascots" for the White conservative imagination. I stand by this observation.

DeVega's vivid bigotry is his own cross to bear. what is less clear is why Alternet is tolerant of such myopic rhetoric.

Clearly, "diversity" in the liberal lexicon means a superficial diversity of image, while demanding a lock-step ideological conformity. DeVega is a racist, and Alternet enables racism by standing behind him.

Lefty Bloggers Freak Over Deceptive Mother Jones Claim

It has been a tough 2011 for infanticide supporters. Serial killer Kermit Gosnell and his accomplices were indicted for a fraction of the hundreds of murders of infants they committed, and separately, Planned Parenthood has been caught in multiple locations supporting underage prostitution of foreign nationals... child sex slavery.

Battered and bruised, these advocates of minority genocide have been looking for a way to counter-punch, and have made a desperate bid to right their sinking ship by claiming that a South Dakota law would justify murdering abortion providers.

The only problem with their argument is that like most wild claims, it is entirely made up.

"This has nothing to do with abortion because abortion is a legal act," Jensen told the TownHall reporter. "This only deals with protecting against illegal acts. We're trying to bring some continuity to South Dakota code. Making unborn children a protected class under the law is consistent with the rest of our state code."

Instead, the bill could allow those who stop violence against pregnant women to have a defense.

"If someone walks up to a pregnant woman and starts punching her abdomen to abort her pregnancy, that woman, or her husband, could use justifiable force to save that child's life," the legislator said

The law is hardly controversial, and merely provides parents with the legal coverage to protect their unborn children and wives against assailants.

Of course, that claim comes from the state legislator that is sponsoring the legislation, not a Mother Jones activist, so you'll have to decide on your own which claim is more credible.

A Monument for the Ages

Congressmen and Senators come and go, and most leave no lasting impression upon the nation. Certainly they manage to affix their names to an edifice here or there within their districts, or find it adorned on a sign marking a section of highway we barrel past at 70 MPH, but few actually have the chance to see their individual efforts change the nation.

This Congress has that opportunity. This Congress has that responsibility. You could even argue that they have that fate. That opportunity, that responsibility, that fate, is to determine whether they have the fortitude to make a stand against the tyranny of excess and save a nation, or see their names cast to history as the Congress that lost the Republic.

Barack Obama's budget is one of abject cowardice; an abdication of a Presidency.

The opportunity now falls to John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and a Republican-controlled House of Representatives to make the painful but Republic-saving cuts in the federal budget. "Austerity" and "hardship" does not begin to convey the hardship they must visit upon their fellow Americans, but it is a sentence they must carry out because of the incompetence of generations of Democrats and Republicans before them.

This Congress has the opportunity to be remembered as the Congress That Saved America. It will not be easy. Gratitude will not come immediately, and perhaps not even of this generation. But if this nation survives, it will be because a group of citizen-legislators had the fortitude to do what what right for the country, and made the unpopular cuts that needed to be made in a time of hardship.

Courage and commitment to First Principles could be their proud legacy in an nation that last another 200 years. It remains to be seen whether they are up to the challenge. If they are not, we will soon become a fleeting memory.

Enjoying Slapping the Blacks Around, Chauncey?

Scratch a liberal, reveal a Klansman underneath. Of course, this is nothing new.

As long as blacks do exactly what liberals want them to do—abort their children, give up hope of finding success based upon their own merits, and vote Democrat—then liberals like those that read Alternet are all about diversity.

Of course, we're talking diversity of pigmentation. Diversity of thought, however, is a hate crime.

Herman Cain is guilty of the misdemeanor crime of being an independently successful black businessman (which is forgivable if you donate money and time to the "right" political causes... look at Oprah), and the capitol offense of being a black conservative.

Liberals like Chauncey DeVega are terrified of black conservatives, because they know that when they are chosen as role models and blacks discover how much better they would do relying on their own wits and hard work, then the black family culture can reconstruct and heal, and the Democratic Party and the leftist agenda is dead.

What Federal Agencies Must We Keep?

Our republic must begin discussing the budget with the question, "What federal agencies must we keep?" Until Congress and the President begin framing the problem in this manner, they should be considered part of the problem, and utterly incapable of helping determine a viable solution.

Is Travelers Insurance Dropping Gun Owners?

Travelers Insurance is apparently dropping coverage for customers that own certain firearms they find objectionable, including some of the most common rifles in America (AR-15s).

It is certainly their prerogative to decide with whom they want to do business. I also suspect other carriers will be more than happy to provide former Travelers' clients with new policies.

WMDs? What WMDs?

So either this San Diego Customs and Border Patrol agent is a full-on loony, or WMDs have been intercepted entering our nations ports.

I rather suspect that Al Hallor, the assistant port director/CBP officer that made these comments is simply being shockingly candid. We know that terrorist groups would love to use WMDs inside America, and that plots have been uncovered around the world where terrorist groups have attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, radiological material, and both chemical and biological weapons. Sooner or later an attempt would be made to bring it into our nation, and I'm not surprised at all that some were intercepted.

Quite frankly, I would be shocked if attempts to use WMDs within the US have already made it past our borders and have been tried, but failed. As easy as it is to smuggle in millions of illegal aliens and thousands of tons of drugs each year over our virtually undefended borders with Mexico and Canada, it is only logical to suspect WMDs have already made it into this nation.

Getting them here is only part of the battle. Deploying them effectively is another matter entirely.

They Enjoy Being A Girl

Recently, one of my female students asked if any of her classmates had a calculator. Another female student averred that she did and lifting to her desktop a purse in which all of the missing or misspent stimulus funds might easily fit, began to prod, readjust, rearrange and delve into its unfathomable depths, producing a calculator--pink of course--in relatively short order. This otherwise unremarkable bit of classroom business reminded me of a question that goes to the very nature of mankind: Women routinely carry, in their purses, loads that no man would think of carrying, so why do we call them the “weaker sex?”

Answer: They’re not.

Happy Valentine’s Day to my wife, and to all of the women in our lives. May we live up to our responsibility to be the good, honorable men they deserve, and more.

Story of O

Via email.

Egypt Inflamed, Obama Unmasked

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak made fools of the U.S. pundit and political classes yesterday, who had predicted the aging strongman was going to announce he was stepping down in a scheduled speech.

Instead, Mubarak refused to quit, and the world now waits to see if today's protests will escalate into something more akin to civil war.

Mubarak has left the protest-filled capitol and is now thought to be in his home in the resort town of Sharem a-Sheikh, a resort town on the Red Sea.

Throughout the crisis, the world has looked to America to see how the world's only remaining superpower would react. A trio of news stories yesterday showed how incompetent our Administration really is, showing they are incapable of leadership.

• Our President seems to be taking orders from foreign leaders, setting up a situation where he was played as a patsy.
• The Director of the CIA was made to look ill-informed, where he provided information not form his agency, but from the media.
• And of course, our Director of National Intelligence showed his incompetence.

The whole situation is hysterical... for our nation's enemies. The Obama Administration has been unmasked as being simply inept, across the board. They are weak, vacillating, uninformed and incapable of command.

Good marketing slogans and charisma don't equate to leadership.

It is going to be a long two years until January 2013.

Update: Mubarak has resigned, and handed power to the military.

Let us all hope that there is an orderly and peaceful transition.

MIKE NOTES: Dr. George Friedman, head of Stratfor, the premier private intelligence source, believes that Mubarak did not voluntarily step down but was deposed in a "bloodless military coup." According to Dr. Friedman, the Egyptian military was involved in a "weeks long tussle with Mubarak who refused to leave." After the speech where Mubarak announced his intention to stay in power, the military took matters into their own hands and removed him the next morning. Dr. Friedman believes Mubarak will end up in Saudi Arabia where he has many friends. Dr. Friedman sees the beneficiaries of the Egyptian unrest being Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, who have been working for just this opportunity for the last 60 years, and who, he believes, will not waste it. If Dr. Friedman is correct--and Stratfor has an excellent record--Mr. Obama had virtually no influence on the situation, other than to diminish America's stature in the region even further. The word around the region--even with our allies--is that America under Barack Obama is a harmless enemy and a fickle and treacherous friend. If this is an example of "winning the future," it's a future in which we will likely want no part.

For information on the effectiveness of our intelligence officials and diplomats, be sure to check out Quick Takes this Thursday, Feb. 17.

Police Down Bank Robber on Camera in Cary, NC

Not a whole lot to say about this. The video says it all:

The officer closest to the shooter near the sidewalk was armed with a carbine and appears to have fired a 3-round burst to the back left side of the robber's head at a distance of maybe 10 yards. His death appears to have been instantaneous.

My prayers go out to the hostages, the officer (or officers) that will have to deal with the psychological trauma of taking a life, and to family of the shooter, Devon Mitchell, a 19-year-old who made a horrible decision, and paid for it with his life.

Murder in the Service of the Obama Agenda

It is no secret to anyone that Barack Obama is an advocate of harsh gun control, and that he would use any means, ethical or unethical, to further his agenda. While a director on the board of the Joyce Foundation he approved a plot to undermine the judiciary by corrupting Second Amendment scholarship. Had that plot succeeded, Heller could very well have had a very different outcome.

Obama Administration officials should now be held responsible for a plot within the Justice Department to manufacture evidence of cross-border weapons smuggling. This policy has been directly connected to the murder of a Border Patrol Agent, and likely contributed to the deaths of an unknown number of Mexican citizens as well.

Since the earliest days of his Presidency, Barack Obama has tried to use Mexican drug cartel violence as an excuse to restrict the rights of American citizens. Common sense—actually, any sense at all—would dictate that the way to clamp down on Mexican violence spilling into this country would be to develop a robust physical barrier system to stop illicit border crossings. Instead, the administration has used the porous border as an excuse to float easily debunked lies in the service of his domestic gun control dreams.

We just never grasped how far this cynical Administration was willing to go to further that agenda.

Manufacturing evidence as an academic and activist was bad enough, but it appears that the Administration's desire for domestic gun control was directly responsible for a plot where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) allowed straw buyers to purchase fully-functioning firearms in the United States and smuggle them over the border into Mexico.

The goal of the plot was to let enough guns cross the border in large enough quantities so that Mexican authorities could then capture the weapons after battles between government forces and cartel members. The guns would then be turned over to the BATF for tracking, "proving" that American guns were going to Mexico, justifying restrictions on American gun owners.

It is an entirely Machiavellian plot, revolving around planted evidence. An American government agency specifically allowed firearms to be smuggled into another country, knowing that those weapons would be used to murder members of the military, law enforcement, and civilians alike. In fact, their plot relied upon those weapons being used. If they weren't used in gun battles with authorities and captured, they couldn't be tracked. If these guns weren't killing Mexicans, the Obama Justice Department would have very little political capital to expend towards domestic gun control legislation.

Killing to make a point
Sadly, the Administration's plot has worked. Mexican cops, federal agents, soldiers, and civilians have almost certainly died as a result of this scheme. On our side of the border, the bodies are likely piling up as well. Evidence clearly shows Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed as a result of this plot. The rifle that killed him on December 14, 2010, was one that BATF agents allowed to go south.

It will come as a shock to none that the immediate reaction to the exposure of this plot has been an attempt to cover up the scheme and punish those who have leaked the knowledge of it's existence.

If agencies of Iran or Syria directed weapons to be smuggled into our country to be used against our citizens, we would rightly view that as an act of aggression, and quite arguably an act of war. The BATF, the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration have committed this same unlawful act, and an independent investigation into criminal charges must be launched. Any and all federal agents and officeholders that instigated, knew of, or approved this action are accomplices to the murder of a federal agent, as guilty as if they'd pulled the trigger themselves.

An independent investigation cross-referencing the weapon serial numbers of the guns our Administration's plot let slip across the border to the firefights the weapons were used in will provide us with chilling figures, and more importantly, the names and faces of those killed by these weapons so that Barack Obama would have the political capital he needs to push for gun control.

In it's war against our Constitutional rights, the Obama Administration has all but declared war upon an ally and neighbor. If this doesn't approach the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors, nothing does.

Big Time?

When Keith Olbermann moved to Al Gore's current TV, he joined a network that has just 18,000 primetime viewers. (h/t Drudge)

That's 841,372 viewers less than this almost four-year-old video of a Peter Gabriel song from 1986.

Rock it, Keith.

They think so small, they use small words
But not me, I'm smarter than that,
I worked it out
I'll be stretching my mouth to let those big words come right out
I've had enough, I'm getting out
To the city, the big big city
I'll be a big noise with all the big boys, so much stuff I will own...

Quick Takes, February 10, 2011

ITEM: In the "Lunatic Obsession and Total Lack of Responsibility" department comes NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is, once again, running straw man gun buying schemes in jurisdictions somewhat outside NYC, this time: Arizona! Arizona?! Yes, Arizona. Is Bloomberg breaking local and federal laws in doing this? Yes. Does he have any authority to do this? No. Is he neglecting his duties as Mayor of NYC? Yes. Should New Yorkers (if they’re ever able to dig out) and the Feds be--figuratively speaking (we’re all about the “new civility” here at CY)--rapping him upside the head and bidding him do his actual, you know, job? As Sarah Palin would say, you betcha! And I always thought that being the Mayor of NYC was pretty much a full time gig. Just one more thing I was wrong about, apparently.

ITEM: In this week’s “Is That Cool Or What?” department, we have: The skin gun! Via Hot Air (video here) comes news of a medical breakthrough that really is a breakthrough. To prevent infection, and to hasten healing, burn patients need to have their open wounds, excruciatingly painful wounds that often cover large portions of their bodies, covered with skin as quickly as possible, but skin grafts are frail, difficult to handle and take weeks or months to work. The inventor of the skin gun--essentially a high tech medical spray gun--Jorg Gerlach demonstrates it in the National Geographic video at the link. Taking skin stem cells from the patient, a serum is made using their own cells and sprayed on the wound. The results are miraculous, healing enormous burns in a matter of days and without scarring. Remember this the next time anyone tells you we ought to be praising the ancient scientific accomplishments of peoples currently unable to manufacture toasters.

ITEM: In the “Just Desserts” department, Wikileaker Julian Assange recently experienced the joys of mutual exposure when the contents of his Swedish sexual assault files were mysteriously released on the Internet. The misuse of the net so blithely celebrated by self-righteous web vermin like Assange is deplorable, yet one can’t help but take a bit of vicarious pleasure in this kind of Old Testament justice. But don’t take too much pleasure. Wikileaks has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which, considering the dimwitted miscreants who have received it of late, is merely par for the course. My favorite commentary on the NPP was an eatery sign making the rounds of the Net after Mr Obama’s NPP, awarded for being so “him,” advertising (here) “Free Nobel Peace Prize With An Order Of Shrimp Tacos.” Indeed. At least one can still be worthy of a shrimp taco. The NPP? I’m not so sure...

ITEM: Yes, its another school shooting, but instead of the perpetrator mowing down scores of innocents and committing suicide, this evil malefactor was arrested by alert, efficient police officers and is facing criminal charges. At the age of seven. On January 17 in Hammonton, NJ, a boy described by school authorities as “a nice kid” and “a good student” was arrested at the urging of school authorities for...wait for it...allegedly shooting a $5.00 Nerf-like toy gun at school. Dr. Dan Blachford, school superintendent, said “We are just very vigilant and we feel that if we draw a very strict line then we have much less worry about someone bringing in something dangerous.” Police charged the boy with “possessing an imitation firearm in or on an education institution.” No. I won’t comment. It’s just too easy...it’s just...WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS STATE?! Their legislators have actually made possessing toy guns at school a crime?! A crime for which 7-year old children may be charged?! And what does Dr. Blachford fear--a $10.00 Nerf gun? Dr. Blachford should be required to write on the blackboard 100 times: “I will not overreact like a witless twit,” and “I will not be surprised when children behave like children.” What’s his doctorate in anyway? Hysteria?

ITEM: And in the “We’re Saving The Planet, Really!” department, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency--and I swear that I am not making this up--is now going to regulate the apocalyptically toxic, environment obliterating menace of--spilled milk. SPILLED MILK?! Spilled milk. From the Wall Street Journal Via Hot Air (here), two weeks ago the EPA finalized a rule that places milk in the same category as spilled oil. According to what passes for logic at the EPA, “...milk contains ‘a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil,’ as the agency put it in the Federal Register.” So is my hair much of the time. Hmm. Now who would benefit from less spilled milk? I’ve got it! Mr. Obama has turned the EPA over to a sinister cabal of Marxist dairy cattle!

How would you enforce something like this? Armed federal raids on dairy farms with crack EPA mop-up teams in cow camo slapping on the udder-cuffs? I find the image of little cow horns jutting from their Kevlar helmets irresistible. In all seriousness--since there is apparently none to be found in the Federal Government--I can’t imagine a better candidate for abolishment, or failing that, down-to-the-last-penny defunding than the EPA. Do they really need electric lights, what with all the mercury in the florescent light bulbs and all? Better abolishment or defunding than horny government operatives installing oil booms around the breasts of lactating mothers and denying their husbands drilling permits to prevent future leaks.

ITEM: And speaking of drilling, the Israelis, recognizing the dangers inherent in relying on others for their energy supplies, have discovered several massive natural gas fields and are hastening to exploit them. Being surrounded by hostiles sworn to its destruction tends to focus the attention of a nation on the basics, such as economic and national survival. But wait a minute! Isn’t America increasingly surrounded, if not in fact, then at least figuratively, by hostile nations bent on its destruction? Isn’t America reliant on other nations, including many hostile nations, for its energy needs? And doesn’t America have some of the largest energy deposits in the world, deposits that we’re doing little or nothing to exploit? I wonder if I’m too old to learn Hebrew?

ITEM: The horses are gone; shut the barn door! Sen, Joe Liberman (I-Conn.) said of the report on the Fort Hood massacre, that its “painful conclusion is that the Fort Hood massacre could have and should have been prevented.” Why wasn’t it prevented? Political correctness. The FBI didn’t talk to the Army. Army officers ignored--for years--Maj. Hasan’s blatantly Jihadist tendencies and rants out of fear that they’d be persecuted and their careers destroyed. So serious was his behavior over several years that the military would have been justified--at any instant--in discharging him and instituting an FBI anti-terrorism investigation. You don’t suppose any of this had to do with the mindlessly pro-Muslim views of our Commander in Chief, do you? Naaaah. He's too busy directing NASA's ancient Muslim outreach and developing anti-cattle counter-spillage tactics.

ITEM: During his Superbowl interview with Bill O’Reilly, President Obama denied that he wants to redistribute income. Hahahahahahaha! No, no! Stop it, please! O’Reilly asserted that ObamaCare was an example of redistributing income, and Mr. Obama explained that ObamaCare was merely a matter of people “taking responsibility.” Ah! So initially, forcing people to buy insurance against their will was a “fee.” Then it became a “tax.” Now it’s “taking responsibility.” But isn’t “taking responsibility” a voluntary matter? After all, if you’re forced to do it, no decision making is required. Doesn’t taking responsibility more or less require making a decision to, you know, take responsibility? And didn’t Mr. Obama tell Joe the Plumber that he believed in “spreading the wealth around?” No doubt he meant “spreading the responsibility around.” Hahahahahaha! I can’t take it anymore...

ITEM: Iran has taken yet another repressive measure aimed at its own increasingly restive population: The mullahs have banned, from Iranian TV, cooking shows featuring foreign recipes. It’s one thing to be the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world and to develop nuclear weapons that will surely be used against Israel and America, but to ban pizza, hot dogs and hamburgers?! Can we bomb them now, Mr. Obama, pretty please?

ITEM: The winners of this week’s Louis Renault Award are: Anyone who believed President Obama’s assertion, during his O’Reilly Superbowl interview, that he has not raised taxes. According to Politifact (here), shortly after taking office, Mr. Obama raised taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products, and ObamaCare already has one of a great many tax increases in effect: A tax on indoor tanning. But to be scrupulously fair, since most of the other non-tax increase tax increases won’t go into effect until ObamaCare is fully implemented in 2014, Mr. Obama was arguably lying to only, say, the 99.9945% level. Where are unruly Congressmen ready and willing to yell “you lie!” when you need them? But again, to be fair, who you gonna believe? The President or your own lyin' eyes?

ITEM: According to the most recent Gallup Poll conducted from Feb. 2-5, 68% of Americans disapprove of Mr. Obama’s handling of the deficit while only 27% approve of it. His disapproval/approval rating on other politically important issues are equally grim. To wit: Taxes: 42/54; healthcare: 40/56; economy: 37/60. What remains inexplicable is the fact that 27% of the public apparently thinks that the man who spent more in two years than all other presidents in the history of the republic combined, and who is absolutely determined to spend the nation into oblivion, is doing a good job--apparently at spending the nation into oblivion. And I thought that was a bad thing. Apparently they think that “investing” is somehow different than “spending money we don’t have and can’t pay back.”

ITEM: Time Magazine recently published an online article titled “Why Obama’s Silence on Gun Control Pleases No One.” Hmm. I suspect that American’s gun owners, to say nothing of those who actually support the Constitution--all of it--are reasonably pleased about this. Discuss.

ITEM: Via the indispensable Michelle Malkin we learn that MIT economist Johathan Gruber has devised a brilliant plan to repair faulty ObamaCare “messaging.” Gruber, who was instrumental in putting together the original, 2000+ page monstrosity, has announced that he has the perfect way to explain its wonders--in a way that such benighted souls can comprehend--to those Americans unable to properly appreciate it: A comic book. That’s right, he’s going to write an equally massive comic book that will explain ObamaCare. As they used to say about Grey Poupon: “But of course!” No one who truly understands ObamaCare could possibly object to it, so a comic book must be the answer for those who couldn’t read or understand the actual bill--like the entire Congress. Gruber promises that it will have “lots of pictures.” “Unhand those uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions you evil insurance company!” “Arrghh! It’s Captain Deficit! Curses! Bankrupted again!”

ITEM: Also via the diminutive but formidable Michelle Malkin, the Mansfield Independent School District (between Ft. Worth and Dallas, TX) has recently announced that it secured a five year, $1.3 million grant from the federal Foreign Language Assistance Program. We actually have one of those?! Since when? So which language will be taught in a state that is 1/3 Hispanic? Why, Arabic, of course! The federal Department of Education has designated Arabic a “language of the future.” Of course they have. The classes, which will include indoctrination in Arabic “culture,” will be mandatory at one elementary school and one middle school and optional at another middle school and a high school.

Parents, who were not consulted or notified until a meeting February 7th (the grant was secured during the summer of 2010), were not amused. The Mansfield Superintendent apparently made a fundamental geographic mistake: Mansfield is actually located in Texas, not the Levant. I have it on good authority that local Texans are taking affirmative steps--many in cowboy boots--to “educate” the Superintendent about the “realities” of Texas geography and “culture.” Hey! Shouldn’t we be taking affirmative steps to ensure that Arabic isn’t one of the “languages of the future?”

ITEM: It’s Deja Vu All Over Again! In an apparent attempt to create the illusion that he is actually pro-business, Mr. Obama recently read from his teleprompter to a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce. He began, in his usual, humble style, by praising himself for showing up, and it was unicorns and fairy dust from there. Some of the highlights included an announcement that he has ordered all governmental bureaucracies to do away with “unnecessary regulations,” after which he observed that “regulations are good” while waving a gold pocket watch before the mesmerized businessmen who were soon rhythmically chanting “regulations are good; regulations are good...”

At last count, two years into his first term, Mr. Obama has imposed 40% more regulations than either the Clinton or Bush administrations, and if ObamaCare is implemented, that number will, as Mr. Obama is fond of saying “necessarily skyrocket.” Thank goodness Mr. Obama is pro-business. Were he not, he might take over, say, General Motors and force it to build electric cars (Electric cars! Ha-ha!) so expensive the government will have to subsidize them just to get them off the showroom floor! Ha-ha! Whew! I just slay myself sometimes!

ITEM: And the hits just keep on coming! The Navy (here) is developing protective glasses that more or less instantly change tints, going from sunglasses dark to clear in 1.4 second. For operators like the SEALS, the benefits should be obvious, but as a matter of convenience for the average man, the benefits are also great. Apparently the civilian availability of the technology is not far off. Anchors aweigh!

ITEM: That Internet Is Fast! On Feb. 9, it was revealed that Rep. Chris Lee (R-State of Witlessness/NY) had posted a shirtless photo of himself on a dating website indicating that he was 39 and divorced. Lee is mid fortyish and married. Within a few hours, Lee announced his immediate resignation from the Congress. Ironic: Lee held the seat held by Eric Massa, who also resigned due to sexual impropriety involving tickling male aides. I wonder if any “non-petroleum oil” was involved? This sounds like a job for the EPA! Interesting: Instead of dissembling, hanging on and being protected by Nancy Pelosi ala Charles Rangel, a morally compromised Republican is out so fast his hat has yet to settle to the ground. That’s change we can believe in.

ITEM: "Hell Freezes Over As Pigs Fly!" department. During a Capital Hill hearing on Feb. 9, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) asked Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke if he agreed that cutting spending is the best way to stimulate growth. Mr. Bernanke replied: “That’s correct.” Knock the nation over with a feather. Was the Bernanke we’ve seen prior to this report the evil Bernanke brother? Does he have a sinister mustache and goatee?

ITEM: Pig Not Only Fly, But Dive-Bomb! In a New York Times(!) article about bias among psychologists printed on Feb. 7 (here), Jonathan Haidt polled those present at the annual conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology to determine their political affiliation. Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia, asked for a show of hands to indicate how many were politically liberal, producing a thicket of hands that he estimated as 80% of the 1000 psychologists in attendance. Asking for centrists and libertarians, he observed less than three dozen. Conservatives? Three. “This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Haidt observed, and noted that approximately 40% of the population self-identifies as conservative and only 20%, liberal. This couldn’t be supportive of the proposition that overwhelming liberal bias exists in academia and psychology, could it? Naaaah. Haidt also asked the conference how many liberal psychologists it takes to change a lightbulb. Answer: Only one, but the lightbulb has to really want to change and produce jobs via high-speed rail.

ITEM: First Lady Michelle Obama recently addressed two of the most vexing problems facing America. Obesity? Nutrition? Hardly. Barack Obama does not dye his hair and has stopped smoking. It’s lighting, you see, that makes his hair gray one day and black the next. And as for smoking, Mrs. Obama knows he has stopped because she hasn’t see him light up. But of course.

And on that definitive, unassailable note, thanks for dropping by, and I’ll see you next Thursday! Hey, who you gonna believe? Mrs. Obama or your own lyin' eyes?

Tettering on the Edge

The White House has spent the last few days devoting itself to the really big issues, of whether or not the President has quit smoking, and whether or not he dyes his hair.

That the Administration and their media enablers want to engage in misdirection, to have us focus on inconsequential issues, should be viewed as an indicator of how close our economy is collapse.

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Watched Before

The buzz this morning is that ousted MSNBC host Keith Olbermann will be joining Al Gore's Current TV, a channel so obscure most of us had to look it up because most Americans don't even know it exists.

You know, kind of like the network Olbermann left.

I joked last night on twitter that it was kind of like a merger between a chain link fence company and a ship builder. You know their product is going down, the only question is how long it will take.

The Public Faith of Barack Obama

“Judge not, that ye be not judged,” wrote St. Matthew (7:1). It is with that admonition in mind that President Obama’s comments (available here) at the annual National Prayer Breakfast might be best considered. Unlike many occasions of the past, Mr. Obama was apparently much more comfortable speaking about faith, or at least, much more fluid in reading a reasonable facsimile of an honest expression of faith from his teleprompter. This is remarkable because Progressives tend to view public pronouncements of faith much as vampires do sunlight. For Socialists, faith is even less palatable, and there is little doubt that Mr. Obama is a Socialist. One need only turn to Stanley Kurtz’s fine book "Radical-In-Chief" for meticulously researched, documented and convincing proof.

Mr. Obama’s comments, taken superficially, indicate that he is a man of deep Christian faith who daily practices that faith, in ways great and small. A more careful reading indicates a dedicated man of the left, a community organizer, who sees Christianity as merely another useful political tool to be woven into the language of the left and made to serve its purposes.

Keep in mind that there is a significant difference between private and public faith. St. Matthew also speaks to this issue (6:5): “And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.” Analyzing the motives of politicians is common American sport, not only when they are professing faith, but particularly when they use that profession of faith to justify and support their policies. Such is the case with Mr. Obama.

St. Matthew’s advice is about seeing the world accurately, overcoming our own shortcomings, and about not judging the relationships of others with God. The depth or sincerity of Mr. Obama’s relationship with God cannot be known, but St. Matthew’s advice in 7:16 “By their fruits shall ye know them,” can be heeded. The Bible makes clear that others must be judged not only by their words, but by their actions. Talk is cheap. Failing to understand this and to judge the motivations and actions of others is physically and spiritually foolish, even dangerous. The Bible often warns about false prophets and those who deceive. Informed judgment is not only pragmatic, but imperative for mere survival.

Americans are most comfortable with a President who does not try to be our minister-in-chief. On one hand, they’re comforted--to a limited degree--to know that any President of the United States has an abiding faith in God. Sincerely held, it serves to humble and temper any man. On the other, Constitutionally and practically, it’s not his place to appear to be a spiritual guide or enforcer in a nation where tolerance of all faiths is an article of secular faith.

When Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush spoke of their faith, progressives rolled their eyes and clucked their pseudo-intellectual tongues in derision at the provincial boobiness of it all. The media often worked itself to faux-righteous outrage at the simpletons trying to force fundamentalist Christianity on everyone from the Oval Office, despite the fact that it had not been a significant force in American politics since the dissolution of the Moral Majority, circa 1987. Still, few doubted the sincerity of their belief, and their expressions of fait--which did not occur only on special occasions--were unforced, natural and comfortable. Most importantly, they tended not to invoke faith as a tool of political persuasion.

Mr. Obama’s NPB speech reflects less a genuine daily walk with God than a growing facile ease with certain politically useful words, phrases and references. In fact, Mr. Obama’s comments at the NPB may not reflect the words of the Gospel so much as the words of William Shakespeare when he said in Hamlet 1:3: “This above all: To thine ownself be true.” Above all, Mr. Obama is certainly true to himself--whoever that may be.

There are compelling political reasons not to take Mr. Obama's religious pronouncements at face value. A Pew Poll taken in August--the most recent on this topic--revealed that Americans are less than convinced about Mr. Obama’s faith and its sincerity. Only 34% of Americans believe Mr. Obama to be a Christian, while 18% think him a Muslim. Amazingly, 43% have no idea of his faith. This is remarkable for several reasons. In 2009, 48% believed Mr. Obama to be Christian; in only one year 14% of the public abandoned that belief. They have good reason to be skeptical.

Americans tend to take individual professions of faith without undue suspicion, but they also tend to pay attention to what politicians do in addition to what they say, and by that measure, Mr. Obama’s Christian credentials were obviously found wanting. It is also remarkable in that Mr. Obama is arguably the most over-exposed POTUS in history, a day rarely passing without at least one pronouncement, speech or other message from Mr. Obama, and often, more than one, yet it strains the memory to recall any--let alone serial--affirmations of faith unattached to political persuasion escaping Mr. Obama’s eternally-moving lips.

It might also be useful to consider a small bit of truth: Despite his denials, Mr. Obama was a Muslim. There is no doubt that Mr. Obama is the child of a Muslim father. He has admitted it in writing, and even in his Prayer Breakfast speech. He was raised in a Muslim nation where he attended an Islamic school, his parents identifying him as a Muslim in school records. Mr. Obama's consistent, unabashed championing of Muslim causes and Muslim “outreach” is unusual--to say the least--for an American president.

There is no question that, in Islam, the children of a Muslim father are themselves Muslim for life. Islam is not like Christianity, particularly as it is practiced in America, where one may change faiths at will and suffer no more than the possible disapproval of parents or other relations. Muslims may not leave the faith except under pain of being declared an apostate. In Islam, there is but one punishment for apostasy: Death. It should go without saying that most Muslims, particularly American Muslims, do not practice the dictates of their faith in this matter. However, there are surely millions of Muslims who do take such things seriously--deadly seriously.

Mr. Obama has publicly declared himself to be a Christian, for 20 some years a Christian forged in the crucible of the Trinity United Church of Christ of Chicago under the mentorship of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (more about this later). In the best spirit of American religious tolerance, I’ll take Mr. Obama at his word, but Mr. Obama had better hope that those Muslims who take apostasy seriously do not. This single fact--as well as the fact that he is the President of the "Great Satan"--makes it far more likely that a significant number of those Muslims to whom he has repeatedly declared “outreach” not only will not listen to him, but will actively wish to kill him, just as they would any apostate who might come to their attention and be within their reach.

Mr. Obama’s NPB speech was praised by an organization whose praise Christians would likely consider to be anything but: The American Humanist Association. AHA Executive Director Roy Speckhardt said, “President Obama’s remarks acknowledge that children can be raised with a strong moral and ethical foundation, free from the presence of dogmatic religion.” This is but one example that might cause a reasonable person to question Mr. Obama’s motives and sincerity. There are many:

(1) Much has been written about the Rev. Wright and his church. Many Americans were shocked, not just by his serial anti-American, racist pronouncements from the pulpit, but by the raucous affirmation of those rants by his congregation. Mr. Obama’s claim that despite frequent attendance over two decades, he had no idea of the true nature of the doctrine of the church or of the beliefs of Rev. Wright strains credulity. Membership in that church would surely have been a wise political move for a young, black, up-and-coming Chicago community organizer, state senator and US Senator. But it is Mr. Obama’s association with Rev. Wright that is telling, and which provides a template for understanding what seems a new-found comfort with faith.

The Rev. Wright is one of America's foremost proponents of Black Liberation Theology (BLT), an offshoot of the Liberation Theology of certain Catholic priests throughout South and Central America. Both strains are stridently Marxist and anti-American, but BLT adds blatant elements of black racism, including the demonization of whites, crackpot, paranoid conspiracy theories, virulent hatred of white America, and a variety of other attitudes that have no grounding in the Word or practice of legitimate Christianity. Marxism rejects faith as a distraction from the glorious path of revolution.

Recall that during the 2008 campaign, when his association with Rev. Wright came to light in a way that could not be ignored, Mr. Obama’s first ploy was defiance. He could no more abandon the Reverend who was the man who led him to Christ, the man who married him, baptized his daughters, and who was his spiritual mentor than he could abandon his own white grandmother. But as the uproar quickly grew, political ambition quickly overrode Christian charity and loyalty, and Rev. Wright and his grandmother were equally quickly thrown under the campaign bus. This was merely the first, and most obvious, instance when politics would take precedence over faith in Mr. Obama’s public life.

(2) During the campaign Mr. Obama, believing himself to be speaking in private to Progressives--true believers--revealed his fundamental beliefs, beliefs reflected in his past, his subsequent actions, and never repudiated. He explained that those who opposed him--and them--were pathetic racists who hated those not like them and who would cling to God and guns. Faithful Christians are not in the habit of speaking of God, and of those who place their faith in Him so disparagingly, publically or privately.

(3) More recently, Mr. Obama, in speaking to Hispanics, made it clear that he considers at least half of America to be racists and enemies, and encouraged Hispanics to adopt his views. Class warfare and racial hatred are hardly hallmarks of Christianity, but they are the foundational political tools of Marxism and Community Organizing.

(4) In his speech, Mr. Obama used “I,” “me” or “my” no less than 70 times. Christians tend, particularly when speaking about faith, not to be narcissistic. True humility, particularly before God, is a fundamental Christian virtue. Mr. Obama is the virtual definition of narcissism. In fact, narcissism is virtually the antithesis of Christianity which absolutely requires the willing acceptance of and belief in One greater than oneself.

(5) The speech is also filled with Progressive/Socialist touchstones and articles of faith. Only a few years out of college, Mr. Obama was inspired by civil rights leaders, including Muslims, not to accept Christ, but to become a Chicago community organizer! It was only this truly holy calling that eventually led Mr. Obama to Christ. Particularly where Muslims are concerned, Mr. Obama has an unfortunate tendency to rewrite history. Most Americans were doubtless unaware of the important, pivotal contributions of Muslims to the Civil Rights Movement. So, most likely, are historians.

(6) According to Mr. Obama, people pray for Mr. Obama because of the evil directed at him by his political opponents. Most Christians tend to separate the sacred and secular, and would tend not to conflate opposition to Mr. Obama's policies with faith. But not Mr. Obama who quipped that God will one day show his political opponents how to vote. In fairness, this was delivered with a bit of humor, but was still an odd thing for a Christian to say.

(7) In the NPB speech, Mr. Obama said: “My Christian faith then has been a sustaining force for me over these last few years. All the more so, when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time, we are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us but whether we're being true to our conscience and true to our God. ‘Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well.’” To the secular, this might seem innocuous. To Christians, it is self serving and backward. Christians are, first and above all, true to God who is the “still, small voice” of their conscience, the presence of God within them. A reliance on conscience before God is a slip, a telling slip for one who is presenting a carefully crafted, technologically supported narrative rather than expressing genuine faith.

(8) Mr. Obama invoked many Progressive touchstones and talking points such as: Health care, stopping home foreclosures (of those who couldn’t afford homes in the first place), improving the economy (by spending it into oblivion and regulating private business and industry to death), “justice,” “partnership,” and of course, promoting the absolute necessity of massive government involvement as the epitome of Christian caring and action.

(9) He also asked God to imbue him with humility, a task that might even give the Almighty pause. Mr. Obama asks God to “...open our ears and our hearts to our brothers and sisters with different points of view...” yet, he will be “...firm in our [his] core principles.” To date, being open to different points of view has, for Mr. Obama, universally meant being open to his point of view, and embracing that point of view the only indicator of true humility on the part of his political opponents.

(10) A skilled politician anticipates the arguments of his opponents, and so did Mr. Obama’s speech writers when they had him read: “It’s a reminder that our time on Earth is not just about us...” This from a man whose followers call him “The One,” a title any observant Christian would consider, at best, anything but a show of Christian humility, and at worst, outright blasphemy. Mr. Obama’s boundless self-regard is legendary, but this title, never repudiated by Mr. Obama, is its most ugly, shallow and un-Christian manifestation.

(11) Google “Obama halos,” but only if you have a strong stomach. The first article alone features no less then 20 separate images of the deification of Mr. Obama. These photographs appear in a multitude of publications in a multitude of media. They were not taken by a single photographer or published by a single media source, or even ten. There are hundreds of them, taken from 2008 to the present. Perhaps the most egregious was produced last year, on the New York Times website, in time for Easter. It featured Mr. Obama superimposed on a cross with the White House at its base.

One might argue that Mr. Obama is not behind them, that he has nothing to do with them. Not quite. It takes no specific knowledge of photography to understand that for many of these images, it was necessary for Mr. Obama to pose, to specifically allow himself to be positioned to produce a given halo image. Surely a man with Mr. Obama’s reputed intellect knew what was going on? Mr. Obama has never, to my knowledge, repudiated this practice and has never encouraged his followers to stop it. Few Christians would be at all comfortable with depicting themselves with a halo, or with allowing others to so depict them.

This is significant in that the cult of personality--”great leader” worship--is a defining characteristic of Marxism/Socialism/Progressivism. Mr. Obama, from the 2008 campaign to the present, has encouraged and contributed to this anti-democratic fealty with such artifices as his pseudo-presidential seal, the non-existent, extra-Constitutional “Office of the President-Elect,” his ubiquitous "O" symbol, and the many posters and other images of Mr. Obama rendered in Cold War Marxist propaganda style. Much of this has surely been done with Mr. Obama’s knowledge and approval. None of it is the mark of the humble Christian servant.

Ultimately, the Pew Poll results indicate that Americans are, thankfully, less gullible than Mr. Obama believes. They are skeptical of his public professions of faith, particularly because of their timing. The dedicated Christian lives his faith, in good times and bad. Mr. Obama tends to speak of it only upon specific occasions that manifestly call for it, and for two primary reasons: As a means of justifying and supporting his policy preferences, and to ingratiate himself with potentially useful voter blocks. Considering his sound thwacking at the polls in November, this is surely one of those times. While caring for the poor and infirm is a Christian virtue, the Gospel stops somewhat short of mandating ObamaCare (as does Judge Vinson). Americans can take whatever scant pride may be found in Mr. Obama’s teleprompter skills, but regarding his faith—and much else--they have much about which to be skeptical, and much about which to pray.

Congratulations Arianna

Arianna Huffington has sold the Huffington Post to AOL in a $315 million dollar deal:

The Huffington Post, which began in 2005 with a meager $1 million investment and has grown into one of the most heavily visited news Web sites in the country, is being acquired by AOL in a deal that creates an unlikely pairing of two online media giants.

The two companies completed the sale Sunday evening and announced the deal just after midnight on Monday. AOL will pay $315 million, $300 million of it in cash and the rest in stock. It will be the company's largest acquisition since it was separated from Time Warner in 2009.

Huffington will stay on as director of all of AOL's editorial content and become of president and editor in chief of what they are calling the Huffington Post Media Group.

I love to see free-market thrive, and its edifying to see that beneath her liberal veneer, Arianna is still a capitalist at heart.

Smart Diplomacy and Finger Bowls

For those who have experienced the sinking feeling that Barack Obama is causing irreparable damage to America’s foreign policy interests, but just couldn’t put their finger on it, comes a story from “The London Telegraph” (here). According to “The Telegraph,” Mr. Obama secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on the size of Britain’s nuclear deterrent in exchange for finalizing his START arms control deal. This information was apparently discovered in diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. Due to the size of their relatively small nuclear arsenal, the British have been careful to keep its exact size secret. This revelation apparently refers to Mr. Obama giving the Russians definitive information on American Trident missiles provided to the British, including certain unique identifiers that would allow Russia to accurately count British weapons.

State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley has, according to Jake Tapper of ABC News, vehemently denied the story, claiming that the Obama Administration was only following part of the 1991 START agreement. In other words, Crowley is not denying the facts of the revelation of new, specific information on British weapons, but is claiming that what Mr. Obama did is nothing new and was required by the 1991 treaty.

A British spokesman, speaking anonymously, has quietly and weakly said--again according to Tapper--that “his understanding of the policy conforms with that asserted by the State Department.” This despite the fact that since that 1991 treaty, the British have never agreed to the release of the information Mr. Obama released to the Russians.

Via Hot Air, here is a portion of the memo exposed by Wikileaks:

“10. (S) Orlov asked about the U.S. practice of transferring Trident II missiles to the United Kingdom (UK) in reference to the Russian-proposed agreed statement on the subject. Trout pointed out that most of the provisions contained in the proposed agreed statement were already covered by other sections of the treaty. 

He noted that notifications existed for the transfer and return of missiles to and from a third party. Additionally, he pointed out, the Russian Federation will receive unique identifiers for each of the missiles transferred to the UK, which was more information than was disclosed under START.

Trout acknowledged that the proposal to send a notification of a UK flight test was not covered under START nor had it been included as part of this treaty but argued that this was the flight test of a missile owned by a third country. He said the United States had no legal responsibility for such a notification. Trout said he assumed the UK would send a notice to mariners and airmen prior to any flight test.”

What is apparently undisputed is that the British have never agreed to the release of the information provided by Mr. Obama, which is a matter--for the British--of national security. Why then would an anonymous British source apparently, if weakly, support the State Department version of the story? Simple: Good manners and class.

Some have probably heard the tale of Queen Elizabeth, who, at a formal state dinner, saw a foreign dignitary treating the contents of his finger bowl like soup, spooning it up. Rather than cause him any embarrassment, she did the same, as did all of the other guests, following her cue. Good manners and class are still valued by the British and are a plausible reason for their seeming support of Mr. Obama, despite his crude, oafish and serial insults of our most steadfast ally, and despite his juvenile denial of a special relationship between Britain and America. Unlike Mr. Obama, the British obviously do not consider it wise that their relationship with America be casually discounted or discarded.

So where does this leave us? The credibility of the State Department under Mr. Obama is so small that it may not be detectable by an electron microscope. In fact, American diplomats seem most adept at insulting and denigrating America in foreign capitals and convincing our enemies that they have nothing to fear from America. Mr. Obama’s antipathy toward the British is so well known and documented as to be the stuff of jokes. Russia, while our putative ally, has done virtually nothing that might convince a reasonable person that they are, in fact, an ally, while invading Georgia, which is an ally, and intimidating all of the former members of the Soviet Union. In addition, Russia trades in arms and technology with nations, such as Iran, that are clearly our declared enemies and ignores our requests for help in reigning them in. Mr. Obama has responded to Russian threats and intransigence by pulling the defense rug out from under Poland and the Czech Republic by refusing to deploy a promised anti-missile shield. And while Britain clearly realizes that Russia remains a strategic threat, Mr. Obama is so caught up in the lunatic siren song of a nuclear free world that he would apparently do anything to obtain it--on paper. No one in their right mind should imagine it to be possible in reality. Giving up the nuclear secrets of our closest ally is a small price to pay to secure--on paper--Mr. Obama’s self-imagined legacy as an influential, accomplished statesman on the world stage.

As Egypt descends rapidly into Islamic domination, Mrs. Clinton (like Mr. Obama before her) releases statements welcoming one of the most brutal and virulent Jihadist organizations on the planet, the Muslim Brotherhood, to “negotiations” for a new Egyptian government. Israel, according to reliable reports, is in a state of shock at America’s abandonment of Mr. Mubarak, a strong ally of America and an important force for peace and stability in the region. Even the Israeli left shares this shock and has come to understand, finally, that under Barack Obama, America is anything but an ally and cannot be counted on in a crisis. And every regime and terrorist that wishes America harm also knows this, and rejoices.

We are seeing, first hand, the results of “smart diplomacy,” of a foreign policy run by Socialists who reflexively sympathize with Marxist and Islamist thugs and killers, and who see America not as the solution to problems, not as the one indispensable nation, not as a force for good on the world stage, but as the primary problem in the world. The “fundamental change” Mr. Obama promised is underway, not only within our borders, but around the world. Its effectiveness is likely to be measured by body count. And we, God help us, elected him.

The Security of a Free State

Our young nation had just burst forth thanks to the grit of a disheveled army of citizen-soldiers — one which overcame what was then the greatest military power in the world. From firsthand experience, those citizen-soldiers knew that the civilian ownership of arms suitable for military use was vital, both to their new nation’s existence and to the continued existence of their liberty itself.

Hunting and target practice were not cited as justification for the amendment.

Thoughts on what the Second Amendment really protects in my latest article at Pajamas Media

The Erik Scott Case: Update 10: The First Cracks Appear?

You don’t want to commit a crime in Las Vegas--at least not on TV. On the tube, you’ll be relentlessly pursued by a group of young, beautiful, highly educated and competent crime scene investigators who work in gleaming glass and steel labs surrounded by state of the art equipment that would make MIT green with envy. So ethical and competent are they--and the police force they serve--that if a molecule of evidence exists in the known universe, they’ll find it and brilliantly use it against a suspect to talk them into a tearful confession. Readers who have been following the Scott case updates (this update is linked to all of our other posts relating to the case), know that the reality of Las Vegas is very different, even greater than the usual disparity between TV and reality.

Before we get into the most recent developments in the case, here are links to articles that readers will find interesting:
(1) An article on Metro Police Training, available here.
(2) An article on the arrest of Officer Thomas Mendiola, available here.
(3) An article on the arrest of Mendiola with a PDF link to the criminal complaint, available here.
(4) An article on another Metro shooting, available here.
(5) An article on Metro officers stopped for speeding while on duty--in Arizona--is available here.

DISCLAIMER: As with all of the updates in this series, I am hampered by a substantial lack of confirmed information. I base my analysis and theories on my police experience, knowledge of human nature--particularly of the psychology of police officers, and professional police procedure--and on logic and common sense. In so doing, I may be wrong in ways small and large, and as faithful readers have discovered, am more than willing to prominently correct any inadvertent errors of fact. I continue to invite contact and comment from members of Metro or others who might have information bearing on this case that the public may be informed as accurately and fairly as possible. I’ll keep your confidence. Over many months, I have become more and more convinced that Metro is indeed engaging in a cover-up and is, in many ways, acting contrary to law, common sense, professional police practice and morality. I remain open to being persuaded, by valid evidence, otherwise.

WHAT’S NEW:

(1) On December 23, 2010, local Las Vegas media, in an article about police basic training, noted in passing that Officer Mendiola had washed out of his first basic training academy, but apparently passed on the second attempt.

(2) On January 10, 2011, Scott family attorney Ross Goodman of Las Vegas announced that Costco and its employees, most notably security officer Shai Lierley, were being dropped from the federal lawsuit filed by the family. Goodman noted that the suit against Costco could be reinstated at any time within the two year statute of limitations.

(3) On January 31, 2011, local media reported that Mendiola had been suspended without pay after being arrested and charged with a felony for allegedly giving a firearm to a convicted felon.

ANALYSIS OF LEGAL TACTICS: One might be initially alarmed by the fact that Goodman dropped Costco from the case, but this is only mildly remarkable. While I have no direct pipeline into the decision making processes of the Goodman Law Firm, there are a variety of rational tactical reasons for this. Goodman may have concluded, considering the federal venue, that it would streamline the overall case, making it easier to deal with discovery issues and reducing side issues that might only serve to confuse a jury. The case is apparently still in the early motions phase, so depositions of witnesses have yet to be done.

There are a variety of other potential reasons, but it will serve no useful purpose to speculate further. Keep in mind that this does not prevent Goodman from refiling the case against Costco and its employees so long as it is done within the two year statute of limitations. It also does not prevent Goodman from compelling Lierley or any other Costco witness to testify, at a deposition or at trial. Therefore, while Goodman obviously believes that there are advantages in what he has done, there are no immediately obvious downsides.

For those not familiar with the civil process, depositions can be very important. In essence, a deposition is an opportunity for attorneys representing both sides in a civil suit to question witnesses, under oath and with a transcript, prior to putting them on the witness stand. This provides the opportunity to ask the kind of questions and to obtain the kind of in-depth information that Metro and those testifying on its behalf so carefully avoided at the Inquest. It also provides the opportunity to question witnesses such as Steve Grodin of the Public Administrator’s Office who assisted Metro in an illegal search of Scott’s condominium after his death. It also gives attorneys the opportunity to assess the believability and attractiveness of witnesses and to plan effectively. There is little doubt that Metro would prefer to avoid having any of its officers provide depositions in this case.

ANALYSIS OF MENDIOLA TRAINING REVELATION: The revelation that Officer Mendiola failed to pass his first basic academy class is interesting for that fact alone. What would be more potentially interesting is knowing why. It would also be interesting to know how long Mendiola was out of the academy after his second try and how long he was out of field training prior to July 10 2010. It’s possible that he had been on his own on the street only a short time before shooting Scott.

If Mendiola failed due to a lack of judgement in shoot/don’t shoot training, it is a far more serious matter than if he could not keep straight specific elements of statutes. Officers can always look up statutes as necessary, but they cannot look up common sense or tactical awareness. As regards the Scott case, it would be far more telling if Mendiola is on record as lacking essential judgement in tactics, situational awareness, or the use of force than for any lack of scholastic aptitude. Generally speaking, recruits who fail a basic academy are fired and not given a second chance, though some agencies do offer a second chance. As the facts are eventually known, the wisdom--or lack thereof--of Metro’s decision to allow Mendiola a second chance will be easier to evaluate. Negligent hiring and/or retention is always a factor in civil cases.

ANALYSIS OF THE MENDIOLA ARREST: However, Mendiola’s arrest certainly tips the scales against the wisdom of a second chance in his case. The facts are relatively simple. Mendiola apparently had a relationship with one Robert Justice (there’s irony), 45, a convicted felon. Mendiola apparently knew that Justice was a convicted felon, yet engaged him to work on his car. Mendiola allegedly gave Justice a .22 caliber Ruger handgun for his work on the vehicle and admitted that he knew that Justice shouldn’t have firearms, even apparently admitting having had a conversation with Justice about it.

Interestingly, Justice is also involved in a case involving an alleged attempt by his co-defendant Ronald Webb to kill Webb’s live-in girlfriend, Las Vegas attorney Nancy Quon. Quon is also reportedly the target of an FBI investigation into allegations of massive fraud involving Las Vegas Valley homeowner’s associations.

Mendiola’s association with Justice is troubling on many levels. It is one thing if Justice was merely an employee of a car dealership where Mendiola had his vehicle repaired, but it seem that Mendiola’s relationship, and his intimate knowledge of Justice’s background, went beyond that. While any officer has professional relationships with criminals, professionals know that they must absolutely keep criminals out of their personal lives. The idea of owing money or favors to criminals is something every officer should, from mere common sense, avoid like the plague. Criminals are often adept at manipulating others. They drag everyone with whom they are involved into their chaotic lives and crimes and disappoint and betray those who are close to them. Police officers should understand this and act accordingly. Mendiola’s mere association with Justice may be indicative of a significant and dangerous lack of judgement, which, considering what is know of his involvement in the Scott case and his failure in his first academy class, may be something of an understatement. His allegedly knowingly giving a convicted felon a firearm might be reasonably thought to remove all doubt.

The mere fact that Mendiola has been charged with a crime--any crime--is surprising. If, as all the known evidence suggests, the Scott shooting was unjustifiable and was followed by a massive and remarkably clumsy cover-up, it would certainly be in the best interests of Metro to immunize Mendiola from wrongdoing, to ensure that he maintains a low profile, keep him within the fold, particularly as the Scott family’s civil suit proceeds. As long as Mendiola keeps his mouth shut, doesn’t do anything stupid, and is willing to hold to the party line on the Scott case, he should be absolutely protected. If he is not, others with potentially damaging knowledge have to wonder if they’ll be abandoned too. This starts a desperate chain of doubt and suspicion that corrupt organizations, organizations with many secrets to hide, fear and usually avoid.

If the theory of the case I’ve developed is correct, the civil suit poses great danger to Metro, not only to the three officers involved, but to other agencies complicit in the cover-up, and to high ranking metro officers, up to and possibly including Sheriff Doug Gillespie. As I’ve suggested, all it will take is one crack in the wall, one person to experience a crisis of conscience, to tell the truth, and the Tower may come crashing down. Metro is, of course, more than aware of this.

Did Metro come to believe that Mendiola was having such a crisis of conscience? Did they think he might crack, and if so, was his arrest a way of gaining absolute control over Mendiola? Mendiola’s alleged crime came to Metro’s attention during an unrelated undercover operation. If Metro chose, it need never have come to light. There is credible evidence to indicate that this kind of wrongdoing by officers and friends of Metro, and worse, is routinely ignored. Why charge this particular officer at this particularly sensitive time unless the gains outweigh the potential risks, unless it furthers Metro’s greater interests?

Thomas Mendiola, at only 24 years of age, is in a very bad place of his own making. If Metro proceeds with the charge, he would--in any professional agency--certainly be dismissed from law enforcement, be unemployable in his chosen career, and would likely end up with a felony record. One might be tempted to believe that since Metro has charged and suspended Mendiola and gone public, it could not possibly fail to press the charge through a trial, but Metro seems to care nothing for public opinion or relations, and the entire Law Vegas area seems to be an enormous memory hole. What’s one more memory?

Another possibility that Officer Mendiola may wish to carefully consider is the time honored and often practiced matter of people simply disappearing, never to be seen again. There is a great deal of desert around Las Vegas and periodically, human bones turn up here and there. Considering the stakes, this is a possibility that Mendiola would be most unwise to discount. This is particularly true if any federal agencies are actively investigating the Scott case--not because Mendiola need fear them, but because Metro may. Following their usual policy, the Feds do not comment on whether they are or are not investigating any criminal matter and the public is notified only when arrests have been made. That said, police officers often have sources of information about such things denied the general public. If Metro does not have such sources, it would be foolish for them to assume that the Feds were not, at least, looking into the case and that their interests would coincide with those of Metro. Mendiola’s best option might well be immediately developing close and personal relationships with various federal agencies that have the power to offer him certain guarantees and protections. Failing that, he could become difficult to locate when the time comes for depositions in the Scott case--and thereafter.

RELATED CASES: Since the Scott shooting eight months ago, there have been a variety of cases of Metro misbehavior known to the public, and doubtless, more that remain unknown. All reflect poorly on the quality of training, supervision and leadership of Metro. All reflect a culture of corruption and absolute disdain for the public and the law so evident in the Scott case. Two of the most recent, and disturbing, cases follow.

THE COP WHO DIDN’T (THANK GOD) SHOOT STRAIGHT: On January 12, 2011, Metro Sgt. Darrin Densley, a 22-year veteran of the force, fired a single shot at 22 year old Leonard Greer. Fortunately, he missed Greer--by no more than two inches--and his bullet struck and penetrated the car door behind which Greer sat, coming to rest in the lower portion of the door.

According to Greer, he was walking from his apartment to his car with his girlfriend and her two cousins. On the way, he passed four uniformed officers standing in a nearby courtyard. Greer was talking on his cellphone and did not hear one of the officers yell “hey” at him as he was entering his car, though his girlfriend did.

Before he could insert his key in the ignition, Sgt. Densley--there is no indication that Greer and Densley had ever met--appeared near his windshield and pointed his handgun at Greer. This is where the story becomes very interesting. Densley ordered Greer and the others out of the car, but Greer--in a remarkable display or either courage or stupidity--refused, telling Densley that he had done nothing wrong and that he lived there.

Densley demanded proof. Greer told Densely that he had a rent receipt in his pocket and would produce it. He kept his left hand on the steering wheel, and retrieving the receipt with his right, replaced his right hand, holding the receipt, on the steering wheel. That was when Densley fired.

Witnesses saw Greer and his girlfriend not only making no threatening moves, but holding their hands up in plain sight. The officers searched Greer’s car and apartment, apparently finding nothing. Greer believes that officers thought that his girlfriend or he had a gun, though they never told him why they believed that. They issued him a misdemeanor summons for obstructing a police officer. Metro later took the door apart and removed the expended bullet and has offered to pay for repairs. Greer plans to hire a lawyer. Good idea.

ANALYSIS: There are many parallels between this case and the Scott case. It’s not known why the officers were there. The sheer number present, and their apparent determination to find a gun would suggest that it was either a bad neighborhood, they were given some reason to believe that something involving a gun happened, or both. But standing around in a group in the open courtyard of an apartment complex where a gun that might present a clear and present danger might be nearby is not exactly a brilliant tactic.

That Densley approached Greer with his gun drawn would seem to indicate, if Densely was a competent, rational officer, that he had good reason to believe that Greer represented an imminent danger to him or others such that it would have been foolish to approach him in any other way. Yet everything that Densley reportedly did from that moment on would seem to indicate exactly the opposite.

There is nothing in the known facts to indicate that Greer or those with him were doing anything other than walking, in an unremarkable fashion, from Greer’s apartment to his parked car. If Greer’s account is accurate, Densely did not follow the kind of procedure any competent officer would follow if they truly believed the occupants of the vehicle were a deadly threat. In such cases, officers would take covered positions that would allow a clear view of all occupants and would, slowly and clearly, step by step, order the occupants to put their hands where they could be seen at all times. To avoid potentially deadly confusion, a single officer would do all the talking. They would order the driver to throw the keys from the vehicle, and would then order, step by step and very specifically, each occupant in turn to get out of vehicle and to walk, backwards, into the arms of waiting officers--and there were sufficient officers present to do this properly--who would handcuff, search and secure them until everyone had been removed from the vehicle. Only then would officers approach with the greatest care in case anyone was hiding in the vehicle ready to ambush them, and only then would they search the vehicle--if a search was justifiable.

Instead of following proper, safe procedure, when Densely was told that Greer lived there, he asked for proof, which Greer, before being met with gunfire, tried to provide. This alone suggests that Densley did not think himself in imminent danger. The sole photo available indicates that Densely fired from close range, to the side and slightly forward of the center of the driver’s door behind which Greer was sitting. The round struck only two inches below the top sill of the door where the glass begins. Greer is a very fortunate man.

The available information does not indicate whether the officers asked for or received permission to search Greer’s car and apartment, but it seems certain that they did search and that they found no contraband. It should always be kept in mind that citizens do not have the information officers have. There could have been good reasons for Densley to be suspicious of Greer, perhaps even reasons sufficient to allow a search of his vehicle, but I can think of no reason suggested by the known facts that would render reasonable a search of his apartment, an apartment which had no apparent relationship in space or time to the incident.

However, I can certainly think of a reason why the officers would want to conduct both searches: As with the Scott case, the officers knew they screwed up in a big way and were desperate to conduct a fishing expedition in the desperate hope of finding something that they could pin on Greer to lessen the impact of their error. Charging him with obstructing a police officer, but letting him go with only a paper summons likewise indicates the chaotic nature of their thoughts. How could Greer have been obstructing an officer who approached him at gunpoint as he was taking a seat in his parked vehicle in anticipation of immediately leaving? They simply weren’t thinking straight. The fact that the shooter was a supervisor, a 22 year veteran of the force, suggests that the supposedly coolest and most experienced police mind present was incapacitated. Because he was involved in a shooting, Densley should have immediately called a superior officer and had no further involvement in the incident. This fundamental mistake was also made at the scene of the Scott shooting.

There are two kinds of shooters: Those who have had an accidental discharge and those who will admit to having had an accidental discharge. It’s an interesting experience. One second, you’re standing there, happy as a clam with a nice gun in your hand, and the next, your ears are ringing, there seems to be a lot of smoke about, and the only thing going through your mind is “wha? wha? wha?”

There are, however, simple safety steps one can take to minimize the risk of an AD, and to mitigate its effects if one does occur. One should never point a weapon at something they are not willing to shoot. However, even police officers can hold their weapons at ready, pointing downward, which will tend to lessen the damage in case of an AD. Even better, they can keep their trigger fingers “in register,” pointed straight and in contact with the frame of their handgun, absolutely off the trigger until a millisecond before it becomes necessary to fire.

There are two primary possibilities: Densley actually intended to shoot Greer. He believed--apparently without the slightest justification--that he had sufficient cause to fire and did, but either jerked the trigger causing the round to strike low, or was at a sort of ready position when he hastily fired, just missing Greer. The second alternative is that he had his finger actually on the trigger when he didn’t intend to fire, and for some reason--muscle spasm, he tripped, he was nervous, or a variety of other causes--he fired. In either case, it was Greer’s, and Densley’s, lucky day. In either case, in a professional police agency, a fork would be immediately stuck in Densley because he would be done. In professional agencies, officers who make that kind of mistake, who come within two inches of killing an innocent, don't get a second chance to repeat the mistake.

Imagine Densley’s frame of mind. Rather than doing the right thing, the officers may have tried to frame Greer, or at least, tried to muddy the water as much as possible. That they settled for a misdemeanor citation on a charge that the known facts clearly indicate they could not possibly sustain, indicates that everything they did had no foundation and they were desperate to charge Greer with something, anything, foolishly hoping that it would somehow diminish their culpability. In effect, they came within two inches of killing a citizen for no reason and made amends by searching his car and apartment and charging him with a crime he didn't commit. That's not exactly serving or protecting.

What could they have done differently? Simply approached Greer’s car safely, and explaining why they were there, asked enough questions to satisfy their curiosity. But they might have thought Greer had a gun! So what? Any police officer who doesn’t think that anyone with whom they come into contact might be armed should not be on the street. Officers deal with people everyday who are, in fact, armed, and no one is in the least harmed because professional officers approach people politely--when possible--and intelligently, always. In other words, the officers here, and in the Scott case, did not deal with the situation intelligently, screwed up, and then sought to cover their mistakes. That seems to be SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) in Metro. Oh yes, and Metro did not publicly identify Densley until January 28, sixteen days after the shooting. An “oversight,” according to Metro.

BRAD AND JAKE'S EXCELLENT ROAD TRIP: In early January, 2011, two metro officers, Brad Gallup (on the force since 2005) and Jake Grunwald (on the force since 2006), were stopped in Mojave County, Arizona for speeding approximately 20 miles over the posted speed limit. This might be unremarkable except for several interesting factors: They were driving a marked Metro patrol car, were in uniform and were supposed to be on duty in Las Vegas, approximately 80 miles away, at the time. Odd? Apparently where Metro is concerned, not all that much, though they have been suspended with pay pending the outcome of an investigation.

The Mojave County Deputy who stopped them without incident was not only concerned with speeding, but with the possibility that the car might have been stolen. It seems that marked Metro cars are relatively rare in those parts. Gallup and Grunwald apparently told the deputy that they were scouting locations for a K-9 photo shoot. The deputy had his dispatcher check with Metro, and learning the officers actually worked there, let them go without a citation. Metro has said only that the officers checked out for court prior to leaving the state.

Here’s how it works in non-corrupt, professional police agencies: Because police agencies are always, always understaffed, officers are assigned to specific patrol districts within their communities. All agencies have maps of these districts, drawn based on geographic size and anticipated call volume. Districts smaller in area tend to have higher call volume than larger districts. Officers are expected to remain within the boundaries of those districts so that they can respond promptly to calls. They are normally allowed to travel into adjoining districts for good, duty related reasons such as backing other officers on potentially dangerous calls, or taking calls when other officers are too busy, but are generally expected to keep to their own districts and direct their attention there. This is one of the fundamental facts and understandings of patrol officers everywhere.

No rational officer would even think of leaving their district without a good reason, and then, only for as long as reasonably necessary. To do otherwise is to abandon their post, to neglect their duty, a matter taken very seriously in the military and in police work. Professional officers don’t relish the idea of explaining why they couldn’t promptly answer a call for help where a citizen was harmed because they wanted to drop in on their girlfriend across town. The idea of leaving their actual city, their jurisdiction, wouldn’t occur to most officers and would be done only with the prior knowledge and permission of their supervisor. To leave the state?! Again, only with the prior knowledge and permission of their supervisor, who would give such permission to patrol officers only for such things as traveling to another jurisdiction to participate in training or something similar. Generally speaking, patrol officers patrol their districts and little else. There are good reasons for this.

There are three primary possibilities: The officers were doing this entirely on their own. They simply decided to call out for court and take a joy ride of some three or more hours into Arizona. With this possibility, there are two primary related possibilities: These officers were either so incredibly dumb that no one should allow them to handle sharp objects, let alone firearms, or they had reason to believe that their road trip would be acceptable. Perhaps they knew of others who had done the same thing, and perhaps such excursions were so common as to be essentially unremarkable, or to draw no more than a mild rebuke in Metro. Perhaps they had personal business in Arizona, business that could not wait until they were off duty, business worth the risk to their careers. But there is yet another possibility, the third of the primary possibilities with which I began this paragraph.

The officers may have been on a mission authorized by either their superiors, or by someone with sufficient influence or power to ensure that they’d take no heat if caught. Perhaps their immediate superiors knew nothing about it. Perhaps they were acting with the authorization of a higher ranking officer, doing someone a “favor” of some kind, a favor unexpectedly exposed by a competent, alert Arizona deputy. Maggie McLetchie of the Nevada ACLU opined that Metro patrol officers might need tighter supervision. No kidding.

It is, of course, impossible to know with certainly which of the primary possibilities is in play in this situation. As with the Scott case, it suggests a lack of discipline and supervision and invokes an appearance of corruption that should horrify the civilian overseers of Metro, but which apparently, to any meaningful degree, does not. Those citizens of Las Vegas who fear for their lives at the hands of their own police force would appear to have good and sufficient cause.

We’ll continue to update the case as more information becomes available.

Conservative, My Ass

In the past week or so I've noticed that several of the blogs I regularly read are featuring a blogAd for "Discrete Partners Only." The ad further clarifies its intent by noting that their services are for cheaters that are "Married and Looking" or "Separated and Looking."

I understand wanting to make a profit from your blogging—I certainly have ads here, and have gone as far as posting links to gambling sites—but you cross a line when you advocate the dissolution of marriage and inevitable fragmentation of families.

Conservative values, obviously, have a price.

Choose Wisely

I picked up the phone and it was an election campaigner, someone who probably was calling all the female voters in the area. "You'd vote for Ms. so and so?" I was asked. "Actually NO" I said.

What?" was the response, "I'd expect a successful women to support a feminist candidate who supports women's issues".

Actually I'm not, a feminist that is. Not in the sense of the word usually associated with it. I'm not going to burn my bra (except for that one that looks like a flak vest) and I'm not going to walk dutifully 10 feet behind my husband with my head covered. I'm a contradiction in stereotypes, a modern woman who can shoot, hunt, manage a team of a dozen or so ex special forces types, fix most things and survive on my own. But I'm also someone who still wants a strong rugged man to kill that spider, and understand that sometimes I can't do it all and am going to come home after slaying the dragon, go to my room and cry like a girl. I want someone who will read that 130 page technical report of mine, understand it and praise it, and then bend me like Gumby and make me forget my name.

I'm not the inaccurate stereotype that liberals would like to make of a woman voter of the right, some hillbilly woman with 8th grade reading skills and a baby on each hip. I'm successful, educated, pro life, pro Constitution and pro gun. I call older folks and all veterans Sir and Ma'am and I will bring my man a cold beer while he watches historical TV shows with tanks blowing up things on TV (and likely join him on the couch to watch with him).

The feminists probably wouldn't like me, and some of the more more traditionally brought up women I've met probably think I'm a different species. I'm not a woman that thinks my man should act like a women and treat me like a man. I may fix the damn door but I like it when you open it for me. That's courtesy not sexism. Like my parents, I believe that in a household, decisions should be joint, discussed, like battle strategy, what is best for us, for the family, not dictated by the man simply because he is the man OR the woman simply to keep the peace.

So I find the idea that I should vote for a woman, simply because she is a woman to be as sexist and idiotic as having a politician elected simply because he looked good in an expensive suit and talked pretty.

Perhaps it's something with me, passed on from a strong mother, who was a Deputy Sheriiff and still greeted my Dad in a dress with a with a martini on Friday nights. Perhaps it's the examples that have been laid before me.

My husband was from the deep south, a southerner of rigid and controlling values, not the gentlemanly, strong men of the south I've come to know since. I was brought home as some prize to show his parents, after they near disowned him for taking up with some bimbo. "Look what I own now", was how I was paraded around, like some prize cow, valued for anything other than love. I tried my best to fit in, cooking with the women, something I always loved to do for family, tending to chores. But I soon realized that the older women in the family all had a haunted look about about their eyes, a quiet desperation there amongst all the noise and bustle of large meal gatherings. Women were bearers of babies, burden and contempt, working all day in the heat and the noise on Sundays and holidays while the men got drunk and watched football.

My husband had moved away, living a different type of life than this, when I married him against my family's wishes. But his father's death brought us back to that place and soon he was treating me the only way he knew, the way his father had treated his mother, with idle disrespect and the occasional fist. The first Thanksgiving was an eye opener. After cooking all day I went to set down at the table and was informed by a senior member of the house that the women should "eat in the kitchen", not with the men. We were there to wait on them and clean up after them, and if we had time for a bite somewhere in there so be it.

I came into that relationship with two college degrees and pilot wings on my uniform and soon found that although I loved rural life, I hated the way I was treated, simply because of my gender. If I went into a feed store I'd be asked if what I ordered was what my husband wanted. I could be up all night wrestling with a tractor, pack my bag and go spend my weekend flying a large transport, only to come home and be patted on the head, and called the "little woman" while the salesman talked to my husband as the money I earned was spent, as if I was not in the room.
I was not alone, I'd see women at the church socials, wearing plain clothing, with downcast eyes bearing trays of food which were made with the passion they weren't allowed to show in any other public way. I worked, as the money was needed, but few others did, other than selling cosmetics or kitchenware or other "at-home business". I was asked to attend one of their meetings, watching the team leader whipping the group into a lather of frenzy that reminded me of a church revival. "Who's going to book 10 parties!" and the group response with liturgical precision. "We Are!". The products were usually good, and some women actually made a fraction of the money they dreamed of. I'd see in those meetings their eyes, that would blaze up like a lantern just before the oil runs out. There in that small moment a brief blaze of freedom that for many will be snuffed out once they got home. So I understood that small stand for independence, that recognition of hard work they didn't get anywhere else, a place where they could speak freely, cloaked in the conspiratorial whisper of pink perfume.
But these were strong women underneath, and like myself we went into such marriages with the naive vision of youth, picking someone because everyone expects you to get married. Someone likable, nice looking someone strong, able to change your lives for the better, without a strong look at family, character or integrity. And we stuck it out because of. . . I can only explain it with a phrase that came from the Bible that I had not understand before. "A peace that passeth all understanding". Passeth all understanding. Yes, for in looking back I see it now, that decision to stay that bears no understanding on the surface. That pride, that furious wish to hide the abject folly of your youthful decision, bearing that load around like a large platter, too large for a small girl to handle. Not speaking up, not crying out but carrying that decision, for some, all the way into burning ground.

I will never forget that but I have forgiven it, as 15 years have passed, people and places change, and fate steers us to where we need to be. Society too has changed since those days when I was a young bride. I can now go into most gun stores with my concealed permit and a credit card and say "do you have the new XDM in .45?" and no one bats an eye. I drive a large truck and don't get funny looks in traffic. And if the seat of the truck is covered with cakes and pies it's because I wanted to bake them for the men in my life, those I work with, those I love, NOT because I'm expected to.
I let one my friends to read this post and asked if it was too personal, too somber to make public. He said I should. He said I needed to. I look at things in great detail now. I see things not as a whole taken at face value, but as the individual components which comprise the whole. Just as in a crime scene you sift through those seemingly unrelated disbursements of strong and and fragile, the sniffles and sighs that echo in the air even as flesh cools and hair scents the air with ammonia perfume, those wholes of pieces of life and strong bones, detached yet familiar, so secret yet familiar. I look hard at things, including people, having learned the hard way the years of long sentence that are the result of foolish choice.

Choices without prejudice. Freedoms with responsibility. On the day that I vote, like most days off, I will likely go to the range first and shoot, watching the bullet fly free of the firearm, like the stream from a fire hose. I will watch it fly with freedom and power, and I will stand in awe as to the damage that can be done when such power is misused.
Then, when the day has come, I will go home, clean my weapon, throw my apron in the wash and go to the voting booth where I am NOT automatically going to vote for a woman with a pro choice button and the nice suit. I would not vote for her any more than I would vote for a woman with a firearm and a nice suit only because she is a women. I will vote for the best candidate, one who can articulate in the face of adversity, stick with a commitment and put the interests of the people of this country ahead of the social schedule, book signing or Hollywood coverage. I want a candidate who, when confronted with a threat to our life and liberty will not stare at the ground or a teleprompter. I want a candidate who will fight for us, just as I am drawn to a man who is willing to fight for me .

So Mr. Pollster, there you have it. Present to me a candidate that can do those things and I'll vote for him OR her, but only on those terms. There are some mistakes we don't wish to make twice.

Quick Takes, February 3, 2011

ITEM: In the “I had no idea this was coming (snicker, snicker)” department, the White House has announced to Newsweek that President Obama will soon speechify for greater gun control. According to Obama advisor, David Plouffe, speaking to NBC News after the SOTU, Mr. Obama will push Congress to pass changes in the law that would prevent an Arizona-like attack. Three guesses: Another federal “assault weapon” ban, but this time it will include any firearm gun banners remotely consider scary looking, which is essentially all of them; a magazine capacity limitation of ten rounds--again; and federalizing mental health statutes in such a way that conservatives could be involuntarily committed for little more than possessing a firearm or using “threatening language.” You really didn’t think Mr. Obama would let his first term pass without trying to impose new gun control laws, did you?

ITEM: Department of Homeland Tzarina Janet Napolitano recently announced the obliteration of the “virtual fence” on our southern border, ostensibly because it didn’t work, and promised to, to, to... well OK, she really didn’t promise to replace it with anything, which is the kind of can-do, forward-looking, fondle-your-genitals-in-airports action we have come to expect from her. But now comes Janice Kephart of the Center for Immigration Studies who tells us that after the kind of problems that most prototype systems have, the ‘virtual fence” actually worked quite well. Well no wonder we have to do away with it! It might actually stop illegal immigration and intercept Jihadists.

ITEM: In a recent White House staged interview, Mr. Obama said that he wants a “debate” (hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge) on legalizing drugs, though he was careful to say that he opposed legalizing drugs (hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge). So let’s see: Obviously Mr. Obama thinks we need a debate on this issue because we haven’t had any discussion of it in simply years, sort of like how AG Holder thinks we’re cowards who haven’t had a thing to say about race for simply ages. And even though he has actually told people who disagree with him to shut up--repeatedly--and to come along for the ride--as long as they ride in the back (no racial connotations there!)--and even though at the SOTU he told perhaps the dumbest drug joke ever imagined by the most dope-addled pothead about smoking--get it, smoking? Hee-hee-hee! I need some munchies...-- migratory fish, and even though he is against legalizing drugs (has the statute of limitations on his admitted drug use run out?), now he thinks we ought to debate the issue. Uh, sure. I get it, sort of...maybe...How about we just fire up some salmon and forget the whole thing?

ITEM: Who said the Federal Government was inefficient! When it comes to handing out favors to political cronies, the Obamites are world beaters. In November, that Obamites approved 222 ObamaCare waivers, but by the end of December, that number rose to 729 and continues to “skyrocket!” We’re number one! We’re number one! Among the early recipients? SEIU affiliated unions! Just another example of the kind of efficiently corrupt perfection available every day with our Federal Government.

ITEM: TSA Administrator John Pistole has canceled the program that allowed airports to replace Union TSA screeners with private security. Private companies currently operate successfully at 16 airports. Pistole said he won’t expand the program “...as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time.” Well of course not! Replacing less efficient and more expensive government employees with their more efficient, less expensive private sector counterparts is never an advantage--for federal bureaucrats.

ITEM: In the “Oh Goodie!” Department, Pakistan has doubled the size of its nuclear arsenal and now has more then 100, apparently deliverable, nuclear weapons. This is, of course, the same Paaaahk-eee-staaaahn (in Obama speak) that is a majority Muslim nation on the verge of being taken over by Jihadists, but not to worry! Islam is the religion of peace (George W. Bush) and Muslims are part of the American family (Barack Obama)! What could go wrong?

ITEM: Also in the “Oh Goodie!” Department comes news from the Obama EPA, dropped on an unsuspecting public in a Friday news dump. According to the superior intellects of the EPA, gasoline containing a 15% mixture of ethanol is now “deemed” safe for cars manufactured since 2001. To this point, 10% has been the maximum ethanol blend. The auto industry has been trying to avoid this hotter blend over safety concerns. Ethanol burns much hotter than gasoline (it wears out expensive catalytic converters much more quickly) and with substantially less energy content. It is also corrosive to engines and delivery systems. Testing has been delayed because the new mixture melts seals in pumps and storage tanks(?!). Add the costs of installing new tanks, pumps and reengineering the entire delivery system to prevent putting the fuel in the wrong vehicles, and one might be tempted to think this was part of a continuing Obamite plan to make the cost of fuel “skyrocket” to force people to drive less and to destroy the economy. But our President and the Dems wouldn’t even think of doing that---would they? Nah...

ITEM: According to New York Magazine, Mr. Obama has never actually met, one-on-one with about six of the members of his Cabinet. Well of course not! What with all those Czars and Cabinet members and advisors and underczars, and lobbyists he was never going to hire, and vacations, and golfing, and insulting our allies and sucking up to our enemies...well, a man’s got to have his priorities. After all, when you’re the smartest man in the known universe, you don’t need to meet with such inferior intellects. But this raises the question of who is actually giving him advice? Perhaps his senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett? What could go wrong?

ITEM: The Obama Administration Loves Our Troops. Episode #203: The General. Senior Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, known as much for her Chicago slum lord past as for her obsequious, drooling praise of Mr. Obama’s matchless intellect (he’s a legend in his--and her--own mind), recently demonstrated her appreciation for our troops. Via Allahpundit and Hot Air:

”According to our tipster, Jarrett was seated at the head table along with several other big-name politicians and a handful of high-ranking military officials. As an officer sporting several stars walked past Jarrett, she signaled for his attention and said, “I’d like another glass of wine."

White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, who was seated next to Jarret, began “cracking up nervously,” our tipster said, but no one pointed out to Jarrett that the man sporting a chestful of medals was not her waiter.

“The guy dutifully went up and got her a glass of wine, and then came back and gave it to her and took a seat at the table,” our tipster said. “Everyone is in tuxedos and gowns at this thing, but the military people are in full dress uniform.”

Our military really do know that they’re public servants. The Obama Administration, not so much. At least she didn’t bother a corpse-man. And if you don't visit today's Day By Day strip (here), you're missing the best laugh you've had in awhile.

ITEM: Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. The New York Time’s executive editor Bill Keller, recently interviewed by Marvin Kalb, had this to say about Fox News: “I think the effect of Fox News on American public life has been to create a level of cynicism about the news in general. It has contributed to the sense that they are all just out there with a political agenda, but Fox is just more overt about it. And I think that’s unhealthy.” Oh well. Newsweek sold for $1.00. I’ll bet the NYT brings at least $2.00. It really is all about location.

ITEM: But Global Warming is Real! Really! The British press continues to provide most of the revealing information on the rapidly disintegrating (melting?) Man-Caused Global Warming hysteria. The British Met Office’s recent press release claiming that 2010 was the hottest year in the last decade has blown up in its face. Doctors Benny Peiser and David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation reviewed the data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (yes, the very same poster children for scientific mendacity and corruption) which revealed that 2010 was actually cooler than 2005 and 1998 and no warmer than 2003. In response the Met Office replied: “Sputter, sputter, choke! I’m melting! I’m melting!” OK, so I made that last part up. Complain to Al Gore.

ITEM: And speaking of the Goracle...Mr. Gore, inventor of the internet and savior of the planet by means of selling carbon credits by which he has purchased a home that uses more electricity in a single month than some third world countries (OK, so I’m exaggerating a bit, but not by much) and a 100 foot (ONE HUNDRED FOOT?!) houseboat (HOUSEBOAT?! The trailer must be truly epic. What do you pull that with? A D-9 Caterpillar?), sayeth: “As it turns out, the scientific community...say that increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-mad global warming.” And Dr. David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit--those merry pranksters who have done so much to shoot global warming--and themselves--in the foot, recently predicted that within a few years, winter snows would be “a very rare and exciting event,” and “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” As England, and now America have been blanketed with record snows, one might be tempted to ask Mr. Gore and Dr. Viner “how’s that AGW workin’ out for you?” At last report, British children are still able to correctly identify snow with a single guess.

ITEM: And the winners of the Louis Renault Award for this edition of Quick Takes are: Anyone who is shocked, shocked! that a San Francisco Supervisor would behave like an America-loathing Marxist. I speak, of course, of newly elected Supervisor Jane Kim who refuses to recite the pledge of Allegiance. “I don’t think our flag represents a nation where there’s liberty and justice for all,” spake Kim, who announced her intention to let her actions--actually her inaction--speak louder than “those 31 words.” And this has happened in San Francisco, the home of Nancy Pelosi? Who’da thunk it?

ITEM: Good on ‘em! Five South Dakota legislators--it’s unknown if they were taking the advice of the brilliant and delicious Ann Coulter--have introduced a bill that would require all South Dakotans to buy a firearm upon reaching 21. The bill is, of course, tongue-in-cheek, and a commentary on the ObamaCare insurance mandate. Their point is apt: If the Federal Government can force you to buy insurance, there is no limit to its power to force you to buy other consumer goods, such as GM cars or GE products. Mr. Obama would never even think of doing something like that--would he?

ITEM: On January 31, President Obama announced his support for jihadist terror organizations--such as the Muslim Brotherhood--to have “a role” in a new Egyptian government. Oh dear. OK Mr. Obama, for the last time: Democracy and peace--GOOD. Murderous, medieval, Islamist sub-human, raping, bombing, head-removing thugs--BAD. BAD means not inviting them to the White House. Now write that on the board 100 times.

ITEM: I’m Not A Narcissist! From Mr. Obama’s repetitious, bland, mercifully brief, Kumbaya statement on Egypt: “My administration...,” “...I know that...,” “So I want...,” “I also call...,”  ‘I just spoke...,” “...I told him...,” “When I was in Cairo, shortly after I was elected President, I said...” It’s not all about Obama. Repeat as needed.

ITEM: And in the Indispensable Lessons In Civics Department, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Chuck Schumer), this week enumerated the three branches of American government: The House, the Senate, and the presidency. As Dr. Evil would say, “riiiiight.” The three branches, are actually, of course: Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and the SEIU.

ITEM: Oh yes! The Gurkhas serving in the British military have long held a reputation for courage and ferocity seldom equalled in the annals of warfare, and with good reason. Recently in Nepal, Bishnu Shrestha, a 35 year-old Gurkha soldier was riding on a train when it was attacked by forty bandits armed with knives, swords and guns. They had him outnumbered and surrounded--poor bastards. Shrestha watched and waited until the bandits began to rape an 18 year old girl, and then he demonstrated why the enemies of the Gurkhas have always feared their Kukris (long, curved combat knives). Drawing his Kukri, Shrestha killed three, injured eight and sent the rest (29!) fleeing for their lives despite sustaining a serious knife wound to his left hand. Goodness and honor live--just not in Washington DC. Shrestha is an example of humanity’s best.

And on that happy note, thanks for dropping by, and I’ll see you next Thursday!

Cop in Scott Case Gave Felon a Gun

Thomas Mendiola was one of the cops that gunned down Erik Scott and avoided jail time thanks to what appears to be a cover-up by Las Vegas Police.

It doesn't look like he's getting out of this one.

A Reply To A Reader

INTRODUCTION: At Confederate Yankee, we hope that our musings will be entertaining, educational, and that they will encourage thoughtful, civil debate. To those ends, we remove only those reader comments that are advertising, or are simply rude and abusive. All others are read, appreciated and thoughtfully considered.

In response to my recent post on the consequences of magazine capacity restrictions, reader “Doug,” wrote an interesting comment that seems to encompass the thinking of the anti-gun side of the issue. I thought it worthwhile to reprint that comment here, and to add my responses, all in the furtherance of thoughtful, civil debate. Doug’s comments will be in quotation marks and mine in brackets.

“I'm often very disheartened by the tenor of these arguments simply because they seem to only engage in peripheral details rather than dealing with very basic questions. It's presented here as if there are people out here with the sole intention of addressing gun violence as a means of restricting your freedom, or liberty, or your idea of both of these. This seems to be the only real argument on offer. Guns are exemplars of freedom.”

[Doug, may I suggest that for a much more in-depth treatment of these and related issues, you see my recent series of articles relating to gun ownership? In those articles, I explore not only history, human nature, philosophy and theology, but practical, legal and moral issues relating to gun ownership and use. The first two articles are available here and here, and the third will be up on the CY site no later than 02-02-11. I hope you’ll find them to be less peripheral.

Please also know that as a veteran of nearly two decades of police service, I am among the first to oppose violence, however, I’ve never found a gun control measure that had the slightest effect on criminals or the violence they commit, except to occasionally enhance their sentences after the fact. Also, may I suggest that a fair reading of the historical record will reveal that every oppressive, murderous government has deprived its citizens of arms. Understanding that fact, it’s quite clear that gun ownership is emblematic of a free people, and is so important that unlike any other nation, America has a Second Amendment that secures--not establishes--the effective exercise of what has always been a natural right of men, the right to self-defense.]

“I think it really is far more simple than that...be angry at what you think are false arguments or at best "restrictive" arguments (as I'm not sure you think the arguments are false regarding killing capacities--you just seem to want to employ ways to negate their import), but it would be best to acknowledge the basics here.”

[There is no anger here, Doug. In analyzing these issues, either I am historically and factually correct, or I am not. My arguments are either logical and well reasoned, or they are not. My opinions are fact based and logical and reasonable, or they are not. You are free to address my arguments on the merits, as I have tried to do here. Anger avails nothing.]

“1. Guns are a weapon with a single purpose: to kill or at least incapacitate another creature.”

[Doug, I’m afraid you’re factually inaccurate here. Firearms do not have a single purpose. Indeed, almost any firearm can be employed to kill or incapacitate, and some are specifically designed to be particularly effective in military applications. Those weapons might be accurately described as designed to kill, though they may certainly be used--and many are used--in target shooting practice and competitions. In fact, a great many firearms are designed specifically for sporting purposes and as such, are particularly unsuitable for killing or incapacitating other creatures. A small, but important point, I hope you’ll agree.]

“2. You want to be able to be a potential "killer" using this weapon.”

[Doug, you’re imputing a great deal of ill will to people who do not have it. No rational person--and the facts indicate that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding, rational people, particularly those with concealed weapons licenses--wants to harm or kill anyone, quite the opposite. Your comment implies that you are also speaking of hunters, so please excuse me if I have read into it that which is not there. Hunters do indeed kill animals, but they do so humanely and for food. Human beings have always been predators. That part of human nature has always existed. That we have advanced to our current state of firearm technology does not brand us evil or demonize our tools. Those who hunt do not do so for the thrill of killing, but to experience a closer connection with their inherent, fundamental nature, to experience and develop unique skills, and to feed their families.]

“3. Others do not want to kill and do not want to be killed.”

[I must refer you again to my articles on these issues. The problem is that evil exists. I have fought it virtually all of my life. Evil can confront each of us at any time and any place. There is no question that some people--thankfully a small portion of the population--do want to kill and are more than willing to kill any one of us if we happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Others want to rob, burn and rape and take great delight in so doing. Again, no rational person wants to kill another, but no rational person should harbor the delusion that it may never be necessary, and should be prepared should that awful day arrive. Particularly for women, those of small stature, and the elderly, the sole tool that may preserve their lives and the lives of those they love is the firearm.]

“4. They do not want a gun in order to kill or incapacitate.”

[Doug, I know it may sound trite, but criminals don’t obey any law. They want firearms and they’ll always get them regardless of how illegal it may be. Some people do indeed want guns and other weapons to harm others. I must assume that you do not want to disarm reasonable, rational, kind people who are actually concerned for the safety and feelings of others, that you don’t want them to become the helpless victims of evil. I suspect that you mean that you don’t want to harm others. I certainly do not, but I’m prepared to do so if it is absolutely necessary. With whom would you make common cause? Those who would harm others, or those responsible gun owners who would not, but are prepared if there is no other choice?]

“I would make no arguments for even the existence of guns. I don't fear the "criminal". I fear the gun in anyone's hands. A gun fired creates culpability that I find unjustifiable.”

[Doug, you’ve hit on an important issue and one that all responsible gun owners take very seriously. It is, in fact, an integral part of basic gun safety and is constantly reinforced: Bullets fired cannot be recalled and we are responsible--culpable--for each round fired. Therefore do we train carefully, and therefore do we do our best to avoid confrontation. Carrying a firearm makes responsible people more, rather than less, likely to be involved in a confrontation. Believe me, you should fear the criminal, because given the chance, he will harm or kill you. Every day you are surrounded by gun owners who would, if presented the opportunity, protect your life against criminal assault. I can’t say it enough: Evil exists. It takes on human form and is all around us. If you have yet to meet it face to face, thank your lucky stars and pray that your luck holds, particularly if you have no means of defeating it.]

“I don't care to be called names for this stance. I do want to talk about some of your positions and their basic motivations. To talk about these things might open up some understanding. Talking instead about how "they" want to "regulate" your "capacities" is only a template for the argument that simply calls "up" "down" and "down" "up"--an argument designed for argument's sake.”

[Doug, I hope you’ll agree that there has been no name calling. My motivations for owning firearms are relatively simple. I have an appreciation for fine mechanisms and craftsmanship, whether firearms, musical instruments, timepieces or electronics. I enjoy the discipline and concentration required to attain accuracy with firearms in much the same way that I enjoy the discipline and concentration necessary to function as a classically trained professional musician. I have been fortunate never to have had to shoot a fellow human being, but I have perforated reams of paper. I appreciate the historical foundation of the right to self defense and the role of firearms in securing it, and in defending liberty. Shooting is also simply great fun (done responsibly and safely, of course), and as a shooting instructor, teaching others the necessary skills is likewise fun and rewarding.

There is no question that some want to gain any and every possible restriction on the way to eventual bans and confiscation of firearms, and I have named some of them and their intentions specifically in the article to which you responded. It would take little additional research to discover that what I’ve said is true: Many anti-gun people do want to ban all guns, incrementally or all at once, whatever they can get, and this is their primary motivation. Surely, some who are proposing magazine capacity limitations and other measures are well-intentioned, if mis-informed, but there is sufficient data and experience to understand that their measures will have no effect on crime and will not prevent what they hope to prevent. This is not argument for argument’s sake, but recitation of fact.]

“My basic position is that people without guns...people with no inculcated zealous drive to engage in "oppositional" aggression...will not maim and murder readily.”

[Doug, I agree that most people are not criminals and most are not violent. Competent research, and my experience as a human being and a police officer bears out that most people will obey the law most of the time and wish no ill will to others. But there is no linkage here with gun ownership. A very significant portion of the American public owns firearms, yet our shared conviction holds true: it is their nature, not the tools they do or don’t own, that determines their actions. Firearms have no power to compel their criminal misuse, nor are firearm owners more likely to use them violently than non-owners. Valid social science research is more than clear on that point. The Arizona and Virginia Tech shooters are good examples. They were not, in fact, gun owners, and purchased their guns only after formulating their murderous plans as tools necessary to carry them out.]

“I would not argue that there are no bad actors out there who would no doubt kill without compunction; rather I can only state that I am not one of these and it is always my hope that you too are not one.”

[Doug, if you carefully consider some of what you’ve written, you might concede that you are arguing just that, as when you wrote “Others do not want to kill and do not want to be killed.” Surely you can see how one might reasonably believe that you are are at least reluctant to acknowledge the existence of evil?

I’m pleased that you aren’t a criminal, nor am I, nor are the overwhelming majority of gun owners (again, it would take little research to confirm this), particularly those who hold concealed carry permits. But Doug, your comments seem to place you in the company of some on the anti-gun side who cannot admit that firearms have served good purposes throughout history and continue to do so today, that those who own them are equally thoughtful and well-intentioned, and like you, wish no harm to others. Do you truly believe that the mere ownership of a firearm reflects negatively on the intellect, education and/or intentions of its owner? I certainly make no such assumptions about those who choose not to own firearms, or any other mechanism. You can rest assured that those who own firearms are no more threat to you--and indeed, almost certainly less threat--than anyone else.

Thanks for the opportunity to address these issues, and thanks for reading and commenting!]

Yours,

Mike

Me? Own A gun? Article 3: Life-Changing Realities

If you’ve already read the first two portions of this series (available here and here), you’re reasonably well versed in the philosophical and theological implications of weapon ownership and use. This essay concerns practical, moral and legal issues, as well as exploring some of the primary ways that carrying a concealed weapon must necessarily change your life. Keep in mind that I am not an attorney, and that you are responsible for becoming familiar with the law where you live. But before we begin, for a humorous and accurate take on her rationale for carrying a concealed weapon, see my wise and delightful co-blogger, Brigid’s post, here.

AWARENESS: Walk down any street and take the time to assess the situational awareness of those you meet. What’s situational awareness? It’s a very familiar term to police officers, soldiers, and others who engage in risky, dangerous endeavors. Think of it as a heightened alertness combined with the ability to predict what might happen in any given situation. Most people walk around in a fog, almost completely unaware of what is happening outside of their “personal space,” that bubble extending to arm’s length or less. It is this lack of situational awareness that helps killers fire many shots into crowds or classrooms before anyone is aware of what is happening. In the aftermath of such attacks, people often say: “I didn’t see it coming,” or “it all happened so fast.” That’s because most people lack situational awareness.

See that man approaching you on the sidewalk? Notice that if he looks at you at all, it will only be, at best, a quick glance at your face. His mouth may turn up at the corners in a semi-smile, or it may not. Notice that no one looks up; virtually no one looks higher than the level of people’s faces. The next time you walk down a familiar downtown block in your community, concentrate on looking up. You’ll be amazed at the details you’ve missed. In the same vein, no one looks behind them. Consider how vulnerable this lack of situational awareness makes you to two legged predators. This is one of the primary reasons that they can be successful. In true, survival of the fittest style, criminals tend to prey on those who appear to be weak and/or distracted, hence, vulnerable.

The late Col. Jeff Cooper, firearms guru and founder of the Gunsite training facility, developed a color code that is helpful in understanding this issue.

Code White: This is the level of situational awareness of most people, which is to say, none at all. In this state, you are essentially unaware of what is happening outside your personal space. You cannot anticipate and identify potential danger and have no chance of dealing with it effectively if it appears. Predators see you as a walking piece of meat wearing an “eat me” sign.

Code Yellow: This is the level anyone who does not want to be prey should adopt. It is the level you must adopt if you carry a concealed weapon. In this state, you have an enhanced level of awareness. While remaining relaxed, you are constantly on the lookout for potential danger. You have expanded your personal space far beyond arm’s length and are alert and prepared to avoid or confront danger. This level of awareness is not stressful and can be maintained day in and day out without danger of physical or psychological damage.

Code Orange: In this state, you have recognized an imminent potential threat. Say a man walking toward you suddenly thrusts his hand into his coat in the manner of someone reaching for a handgun in a shoulder holster. You immediately escalate from yellow to orange--until he pulls out and begins to read a pamphlet--allowing you to return to yellow. This state may or may not result in an adrenaline dump, but remaining in this state for long periods of time may be physically or psychologically harmful.

Code Red: In this state you have recognized a definitive, imminent threat, but still have time to choose options. You approach your car in a parking garage to find several gang bangers lounging on the trunk lid. As they see you approach, they nudge each other, stand up, spread out, and one pulls a knife from his pocket while you see the others reaching into their pockets. They are grinning in anticipation. They think they’ve seen an easy mark approaching. You feel the heat of an adrenaline dump and have to make a decision: Flight or fight? Can you safely change direction and walk away without provoking a pursuit, or is a confrontation unavoidable? If it’s unavoidable, what must you do to gain and retain a tactical advantage? Remaining in code red for more than a few minutes is impossible for most people and will almost certainly be physically and/or psychologically harmful.

Code Black: You are actually fighting and must assume, in any confrontation outside the sparring practice of a martial arts school, that you are fighting for your life, particularly if you are attacked by a stranger on the street (more on this shortly). Adrenaline is pumping and you may experience time dilation (seconds seem like hours) and a narrowing of your field of vision known as “tunneling.” Your hearing may become very dim. All fine muscle control is lost. This is a debilitating physical and psychological condition and those who experience it are often physically and emotionally exhausted after a confrontation that lasts only seconds. If you have not adopted the habit of maintaining situational awareness, you will almost certainly be at a serious tactical disadvantage and may be hurt or killed.

With only fiction and movies as a guide, most people do not understand that it is entirely possible--indeed, it may be absolutely necessary--to be capable of two modes of behavior which, to the uninformed, seem contradictory. Police officers, special forces soldiers, martial artists and others understand what I mean. It is entirely possible to live a quiet, unassuming life, a life that, observed by others, would appear to be not only non-violent, but incapable of violence. Yet, when confronted by a deadly threat, such people are instantly capable of acting with overwhelming speed, violence of action and focus which results in the elimination of the threat.

In all of my police years, my wife would often say that she could not imagine me doing violence. Many of those who knew me would often comment that I didn’t look or act like a police officer. It was because I existed in code yellow--as I do to this day--that I was able to recognize potentially dangerous situations and avoid them, thus avoiding the necessity of violence, yet I constantly trained, mentally and physically, to deliver it if necessary. No rational person wants to harm or kill others, yet no rational person should be without the ability should it become necessary.

It must be understood that most people are utterly unprepared to meet violence. While most Americans believe, at least in the abstract, that evil exists, they don’t tend to think of it in concrete, daily terms. Most people think of themselves as kind, considerate, polite people, people who obey the law and consider the feelings of others. This is admirable, but it is hard, perhaps almost impossible, for such people to realize that they live near people who are not at all like them, people who, if not truly sociopathic--people with absolutely no feelings for others, essentially those without a conscience--care very little for others and have no problem with hurting or killing them for fun, to get what they want, or both. The realization that we might live next to such people, or walk or drive past them at any time of any day is sobering, but may lead to taking the necessary steps to be prepared. That is what this series of articles is all about.

THE OBLIGATIONS OF CONCEALED CARRY: Those who choose to carry a concealed weapon are, whether they realize it or not, taking on obligations that others simply do not have, and they will be held responsible, legally and morally, for upholding those obligations. Among them are:

(1) Situational Awareness: You are now obligated to live in code yellow. You can no longer afford to be oblivious to your surroundings. You must, to at least some degree, think like a criminal and ask yourself how they would behave and what they would do if they were intending to break into your home, steal your car, or assault you. You’ll be amazed at how much you’ve missed and at how much more vibrant and interesting the world is now that you’re actually much more aware of it in your daily life. You’ll also be entitled to a degree of pride in your ability to better protect yourself and those you love.

(2) Safeguarding Your Weapon: You are solely responsible for safeguarding your weapon. This includes keeping it concealed and ensuring that no one is able to take it from you. It also includes keeping it from those who should not have it, such as children. To fulfill this obligation, you’ll have to consider many things, including how you’ll carry your weapon, how to store it when you’re not carrying it, your wardrobe and how you’ll change your habits--and adopt new habits--to ensure that you don’t accidentally expose your weapon or accidentally leave it behind in a public restroom. You’ll have to alter your wardrobe and behaviors to accommodate the weapon, not the other way around. The premise behind concealed carry, and its value, is that since criminals cannot know who is carrying a concealed weapon, they must assume that anyone could be and act accordingly. You must develop consistent daily routines--do things the same way all of the time--to ensure that you don’t forget to do what you must. If you carry your weapon in your purse, for example, you can never allow that purse to be out of your immediate grasp, and certainly never out of your sight. At a restaurant, it should be on your lap, not on the floor near your chair. If this doesn’t work for you, you must find another means of carrying your weapon. In future editions of this series, I’ll go into the variety of available carry options.

(3) Maintenance Training: Shooting quickly and accurately is a matter of muscle memory and practice. It is a perishable skill. You must be willing to commit to a minimum amount of practice. How much? That depends on you, but generally speaking, once a month in live--on the range--fire, and once a week in dry fire--in the home--practice. The point is that your weapon should feel as familiar to you as your watch. Its mechanisms and use should be as easy and familiar as walking and should require no more conscious effort. New shooters should stick with a single weapon rather than carrying a variety of weapons. There is a venerable saying to the effect that the most dangerous man is the one with only a single gun. The point is that he probably practices with it enough to be truly proficient. If the point is being so familiar with your weapon that you need no conscious thought to employ it efficiently and quickly, that kind of familiarity will be hard to come by if you carry multiple weapons. Firearms aren’t fashion accessories.

(4) Avoidance of Danger: Firearms aren’t license to become a righteous avenger. In fact, if you’re carrying a firearm, you have a more compelling duty to avoid trouble. Firearms are to be used only as a last resort to protect your life, or the lives of others and to prevent imminent serious bodily injury or death. You must avoid places where danger is more likely such as bars and certain neighborhoods or areas where criminals are known to be. You must ignore insults, walk across a street to avoid people who might be trouble, even walk or drive blocks out of your way. If you are in code yellow, if you have enhanced your situational awareness, such things will be second nature because you’ll constantly be asking “what if?” You’ll be far more likely to recognize potential danger and avoid it. Predators will notice your awareness and will be far more likely to leave you alone.

On the other hand, if they’re too stupid to notice, or so bold or drug-addled that they don’t care, you’ll also be more prepared to avoid them or to gain a tactical advantage if it’s not possible to avoid a confrontation. Remember that if you do have to shoot someone, prosecutors will be asking themselves if you were looking for trouble because you were armed. Be sure that there is not only no evidence to support that theory, but plenty of evidence to the contrary. Most police officers will spend an entire career without ever having to shoot anyone, and they’re exposed to more danger in a month than most citizens will experience in a lifetime. Unlike you, they don’t have a choice; they have to knowingly enter dangerous situations. Prosecutors know this; so must you.

LEGAL ISSUES: There are two bodies of law with which anyone carrying a concealed weapon must be intimately familiar: The specific laws of their state that regulate concealed carry and the laws regarding the use of deadly force, in general, and those specific to their state. Of particularly concern are the places where concealed carry is prohibited as most people have their permits suspended for accidentally carrying their handguns into such places. These restricted zones vary from state to state, so it’s always wise to carefully research this issue and avoid violating those laws. Keep in mind, however, that Col. Cooper said that it’s much better to be judged by 12 than carried by six. In other words, it’s better to be alive and in violation of a given law than dead and faultlessly law abiding. I do not advocate violating the law, merely being aware of all of the issues relating to these topics.

State Laws: These regulate who is allowed to carry, the related fees, forms and tests (usually written and shooting), terms of license validity and the means of renewal, specify manner of carry (open, concealed or both) and specific zones and places wherein firearms may not be carried by licensees. They also commonly list states with whom reciprocity is shared. In other words, states that have entered into a compact of mutual respect for the concealed carry licenses of their respective citizens. Most states--at last count, 38--are “shall issue” states. In other words, if you meet the criteria for concealed carry under the law, no public official may deny you a license. In the other states, concealed carry is either completely prohibited (Wisconsin and Illinois), or a “may issue” system is in place where local sheriffs or state officials have absolute authority to decide who will be allowed a license. In such states, licenses are normally granted only for the wealthy, well connected, politicians, or similar worthies. The National Rifle Association website maintains an up to date database of state laws under its Institute For Legislative Action tab.

Municipal laws may also have some bearing, but only in those states that lack a state pre-emption statute, a law that prohibits municipalities within the state from regulating firearms. Ultimately, the point is to become very familiar with any state or local laws that might apply, not only where you live, but where you plan to travel. Even those states with reciprocity agreements with your state are sure to have some significant differences in law, and you are required to follow the law wherever you are, even if it differs from the law in your home state.

The Doctrine of Deadly Force: This is another area where you should carefully follow state law. The laws of some states are more lenient than the general principles of the use of deadly force, while some are more restrictive. The question is: When is the use of deadly force justified? Answer: When necessary to halt the imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to you or another.
What this basically means is that in any situation in which a reasonable person would believe that they--or another--was faced with the imminent--as opposed to possible or future--threat of serious bodily injury or death, deadly force is a reasonable response. Of course, running away might also be a wise and reasonable response, but only if it is reasonably possible. In states that have enacted the Castle Doctrine--more about that later--it is not required.

It’s important to understand what “serious bodily injury” means. While the legal definition will vary a bit from state to state, it essentially refers to injury that, while not deadly, is crippling, seriously disfiguring, that will have a continuing, negative impact on your life from the moment it is inflicted. Getting shot in the leg or shoulder--as in the movies--is not something to be easily treated and shrugged off. Gunshot wounds are ugly, nasty and can be permanently debilitating. Equally, cuts inflicted by edged weapons like swords or knives can be as debilitating and in many ways, far more horrific and ugly. Many police officers who survive a gunshot wound may be physically healed, but never fully psychologically recover.

The means for determining--on the spot--if deadly force is necessary and justified is to apply the “means, opportunity, and jeopardy” test. There are a variety of similar terms/acronyms, but they all boil down to the same thing.

Means: Does your opponent have the means necessary to cause serious bodily injury or death? If you are a 100 pound woman, any man of average size and strength would almost certainly have the means necessary employing only his bare hands. Someone with a gun certainly would. Someone with a knife, almost certainly, and someone holding a variety of other instruments would also pose such a threat. Someone known to be highly skilled in a martial art, even if smaller than you, might also have the means.

Opportunity: Does your opponent have the opportunity to cause serious bodily injury or death? An attacker armed with a handgun certainly does, out to normal handgun ranges, perhaps as much as 50 yards away, although there is always such a thing as a lucky shot even at greater ranges. An attacker armed with a rifle has a much greater dangerous range. Someone armed with a knife is dangerous to at least 21 feet, perhaps even more, as practical experience demonstrates that even an average person with a knife can close 21 feet before they can be shot and/or stopped by a handgun-wielding victim. And if a knife- wielding opponent further away moves as though to throw the knife, a reasonable person must assume that they know what they are doing and can cause serious injury or death at a distance with that knife. Other tools such as hammers, bats, screwdrivers, etc. are also dangerous if the person wielding them is close enough.

Jeopardy: Is an opponent acting in such a way, here and now, as to indicate to a reasonable person that they, or another, is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death? An opponent you know to be carrying a handgun which remains holstered is not putting you in jeopardy, but when he, after uttering threats, perhaps even glaring at you menacingly, quickly reaches for his handgun, jeopardy attaches. Someone standing across the street with a knife yelling threats is not putting you in jeopardy, but when they begin to run toward you, jeopardy increases with each foot gained.

Notice that I keep referring to what a “reasonable person,” might think or do. This is the general standard applied by the courts in analyzing the use of deadly force. Shooting a slight 12 year old girl who yells “I’ll kill you,” while making ready to throw a baseball at you from 50 feet away would almost certainly be found to be inherently unreasonable. Shooting an adult male who has threatened to kill you and is bringing a shotgun to his shoulder from the same distance would almost certainly be considered to be inherently reasonable. Fortunately, the courts, even the Supreme Court, understand that one cannot be expected to be absolutely cool and calm and able to engage in extended intellectual reflection and debate when faced with imminent deadly danger. That necessary understanding does not, however, relieve anyone of the necessity of acting reasonably and properly in deadly force situations.

Shooting to Kill: You must never say, or even think, that you shoot to kill. You never shoot unless the requirements of the three part means, opportunity, and jeopardy test have been satisfied. If so, you shoot only to STOP the attacker, to immediately stop them from doing what they were doing that put you or another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. To that end, you shoot as quickly and effectively as possible to immediately end the threat. So how do you stop an attacker?

The Mechanisms of Stopping: There are three primary means of stopping a human being: (1) Neural damage; (2) Breaking the skeleton; (3) Exsanguination (reducing blood pressure through bleeding). There are, however, many other considerations.

(1) Neural Damage: Causing trauma to the brain usually causes immediate cessation of hostile action. In fact, SWAT marksmen, when possible, try for a brain stem shot. They try to hit a hostage taker exactly where the brain and brain stem meet, at the base of the rear of the skull. If properly placed, a bullet to this spot will cause the potential killer to drop as though a light switch had been switched off, and even if they have their finger on the trigger of a gun, they will not be able to pull it. The problem is that this area is a very small target. In fact, relatively speaking, the human head is also a small target, particularly if it is moving at all. Notice too that I am talking about a highly trained marksman making the shot with a scoped, highly accurate rifle, almost always with the benefit of a spotter and from a supported position. Accurately shooting a handgun at the same target, even at close range, is much more demanding.

(2) Breaking the skeleton. While breaking a femur, or the pelvis, for example, will cause most people to drop to the ground, they may still be capable of pulling a trigger, and if so, have merely been rendered less mobile, not stopped. And again,
making such shots with any degree of reliability with a handgun is exceedingly difficult, particularly because, compared with rifle ammunition, much handgun ammunition lacks the power to reliably break large bones.

(3) Exsanguination. Someone shot in an artery, or even the heart, may have up to three minutes of useful consciousness if they are truly determined to kill you regardless of the damage they suffer in the attempt. However, if sufficient blood is lost, the resulting drop in blood pressure will inevitably lead to unconsciousness.

If by now you’re wondering how people are stopped at all, good for you. You’re paying attention and really thinking. Again, you’ve likely been infected by Hollywood.

Fortunately, such matters are not only physical, but psychological. Many people, upon receiving even a survivable gunshot wound, immediately drop and cease hostile action because of what I’ll call the “OMG! I’ve been shot!” response. Others--thankfully relatively few--may absorb ridiculous numbers of bullets which might slow, but not stop them, as they try to continue their deadly attacks. Such people eventually succumb to one or more of the effects I’ve mentioned, but “eventually” is not helpful or comforting if they are attacking you.

The best course of action is to aim for “center mass,” or the part of the torso at or around the sternum, and fire enough rounds to force the attacker to stop. If a single round of .22 LR ammunition will accomplish this, great. If it requires ten rounds of .45 ACP ammunition, that’s fine too. It is the cumulative effect of blood vessel damage, neural shock, and psychological shock that will have the greatest effect, therefore more than one round may almost always be necessary. Do not expect anyone, even if shot with a shotgun, to fly ten feet backward. If any weapon possessed the power, solely through the energy imparted by the impact of its projective, to fling a 200 man ten feet backward, similar energy would be imparted to the person shooting the weapon.

Keep in mind that it is always a good idea, even if you cannot avoid or escape a deadly force situation, to try to avoid shooting. If there is time, you should clearly display your weapon in the “ready” position--pointing it at your attacker, but roughly at the belt line--and loudly and clearly say “don’t move.” Fortunately, many criminals, confronted with an armed and obviously prepared victim, will choose the better part of valor and promptly show you the rear of their sagging pants and the soles of their flying shoes. And if they do not, you’re in the proper stance to fire and have established your desire not to fire unless absolutely necessary to any bystanders and potential witnesses. “Yeah Officer, that guy told him not to move and wasn’t pointing his gun right at him at first.”

The general rule is that if you have legitimate cause to shoot, you may shoot as many rounds as necessary, with as large a firearm as necessary, to stop the imminent threat. However, once any part of the three part test is no longer operative, you immediately stop shooting. If the attacker is writhing on the ground and has dropped his gun, which is out of his reach, he no longer has the means or opportunity, and is no longer placing you in jeopardy. However, if he is down, but is still holding his gun, the moment he begins to move it toward you, jeopardy is again present, and you shoot until he is stopped, whether that takes an additional round or ten rounds. When the justification to shoot ends, the shooting ends. Even though some states allow it, never shoot a fleeing criminal in the back. If they’re fleeing, there is no jeopardy. If they should suddenly stop and turn toward you with their gun, jeopardy is again present. While there are a few, very rare, circumstances in which shooting a fleeing attacker might be reasonable, they are so rare as to be nothing about which you should worry.

You must never think about “shooting to wound,” let alone try to do it. The law does not require it, and it will be highly likely to backfire for several significant reasons. Obtaining the desired stopping effect with a shot that inflicts only a non-mortal wound is highly unlikely and could conceivably enrage an attacker who will press an attack he might have otherwise abandoned. The necessary physical damage and psychological effect is simply not there, and making such a shot accurately is highly unlikely.

In fight or flight situations, among the first abilities human beings lose--which accompanies time distortion, tunneling and hearing loss--is fine muscle control. This makes it very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the intention to shoot someone effectively in a small portion of the body so as to immediately disable them, to say nothing of actually carrying out that intention. For most people, it is simply physically impossible. Hitting center mass will be more than hard enough, but with proper training and practice, absolutely attainable.

In addition, substantial legal liability may attach. If you were so cool and detached that you could shoot someone in the knee, did you really have sufficient reason to shoot them in the first place? If you really thought that you were in deadly danger, why did you take the time to shoot them someplace that any reasonable person should know wouldn’t reliable stop them? Yes, stopping them will likely result in their death, but you did not intend to cause their death. You intended only to stop them from causing yours That they subsequently died is regrettable, but they made that choice, not you. You are not the attacker.

In all cases, if you shoot at all, you shoot to stop, and you accomplish this by delivering a sufficient volume of accurate fire to that part of the body most likely to cause them to stop. When the threat has stopped, you stop.

At this point, you may find yourself experiencing some degree of revulsion. If so, good for you. You have a conscience. I cannot say often enough that no moral, rational human being wants to harm or kill another. Violence is cruel, nasty, hateful and bloody, but the choice is simple and stark: Do you prefer to be alive and unharmed, or bleeding, perhaps dying on the ground, at the mercy of those cruel and inhuman enough to attack you? Which alternative would you prefer for those you love?

The Castle Doctrine. One of the most salutatory developments of recent years has been the passage of a growing number of state “Castle Doctrine” laws. Based on the common law principle that “a man’s home is his castle,” these laws create the legal presumption that if you are in your home, or any other place you are legally allowed to be, such as your car, on your property, in a store, etc., you have no duty to run away or otherwise retreat if placed in a deadly force situation. You may stand your ground and defend yourself and it is up to the state to affirmatively prove that you acted in bad faith. This is important in that some states and jurisdictions have historically badly treated law abiding citizens who legitimately used deadly force. Some states had and have laws that require you to try to run away or retreat, even within your own home, if attacked by a burglar in the middle of the night, before using deadly force. Some essentially make you prove that you did try to run away or retreat before using force.

Castle Doctrine laws are, of course, only common sense. If someone breaks into your home or car and tries to attack you, it makes no sense at all to run away, surrendering your vehicle or home to them, if such retreat was even possible. Because such idiotic laws actually put families in danger rather than deterring criminals, castle doctrine laws are welcome and rational. Who would retreat from their home, leaving their wife or children at the mercy of criminals deranged enough to break into an occupied home?

A related issue is the old--and completely wrong--advice that if you are forced to shoot a criminal in your back yard, you should drag his body inside. If you have the legal cause to shoot, it does not matter where the criminal is standing. When the criminal is stopped, you stop, and do nothing--absolutely nothing--to alter the scene in any way. Anything you do, no matter how innocuous, may be taken by the police and prosecutors as evidence of evil intent on your part.

THE AFTERMATH: Let’s say that you have been forced to defend your life. Walking back to your car with your wife after a movie, you were approached by a criminal who told you he had a gun and demanded your money. He threatened your life and began to pull his hand out of his baggy coat pocket. You were faster. You went to ready and ordered him, loudly and repeatedly not to move, but he kept trying to pull his gun out of his pocket, and he is face down on the ground and not moving.

The entire confrontation has taken only five seconds, but it felt like an eternity. At this point, your head may be swimming. Your breath is coming in shallow gasps, and your muscles ache. Suddenly, you’re aware of the world around you. You’re in shock and your wife is shaking and crying. You suddenly realize that you’re shaking too. What should you do?

First be sure that the criminal is truly stopped and not faking. If it’s not obvious, keep him covered, but avoid approaching or touching him. The last thing you want is to become involved in a wrestling match with a wounded, crazed criminal desperate to get his hands on your handgun. If his weapon is near him on the ground and you can safely move it out of his reach, do so, but again, do not place yourself within lunging reach of the person who just tried to kill you.

Immediately call your attorney. The attorney you’ve already spoken with; the attorney whose number is on your cell phone. Explain what has happened and get his advice.

Part of that advice will almost certainly be to call the police, which you will do next, and at the same time, tell them that they need to send an ambulance. Everything I’ve suggested thus far should take place within the first few minutes after the shooting stops. Tell the police as little as possible. Know that they are recording what you say and will use it against you. Ideally, you will tell them only that there has been a shooting and that you were forced to defend your life against an armed robber. Be sure to specifically describe what you are wearing and make the dispatcher repeat it, along with the understanding that you have described the good guy, not the bad guy. Remember, say only the minimum possible necessary to inform the officers who will shortly be arriving and no more. You will feel like blurting out your feelings--don’t.

Before the officers arrive, if possible, move behind cover while still keeping the robber covered. As they arrive, holster your weapon, putting it out of sight, and position yourself so the arriving officers can clearly see you. Keep your hands in the open so the officers can see them. Tell the officers, repeatedly and clearly that you’re the victim and obey their commands, moving slowly, deliberately, and only when they tell you to move. Remember that they are unsure what has happened and who is the bad guy. Don’t give them any reason to see you as a threat.

The officers will try to question you as much as possible. Follow your attorney’s advice and say as little as possible. If you were unable to contact your attorney by phone, tell them that you were forced to defend your life against a robbery attempt. In either case, assure them that you will cooperate fully as soon as you have had the opportunity to speak with your attorney, who should be on the way to speak with you. Expect to be arrested and do not resist if they do arrest you. Expect to be taken to a police station where other officers will try to question you. If they do not arrest you but ask you to come to the police department to make a statement, agree to go, but again, tell them only that you will cooperate fully as soon as you’ve had the chance to speak with your attorney.

As long as you have obviously acted within the law, it is likely that no charges will be filed against you, though you may end up spending some time in jail until bond is set. This is not unusual.

Thereafter, expect that the robber’s relatives will suddenly discover that the robber, regardless of a rap sheet a mile long, was spending his life waiting for a letter from the Vatican announcing his sainthood. Expect to be sued. Yes, it’s insane, but expect that it will happen. The good news is that you’ll probably eventually win--and that you and your wife are alive to be sued. That’s the point.

The next installment of this series will deal with the more practical aspects of concealed carry, including weapon choice, methods of carry, tactics, and other related concerns.

The Mentally Ill and Unintended Consequences

The good folks at Pajamas Media have posted my most recent article on the unintended consequences of involuntary commitment laws and their history. It can be found here.

I've included a bit of history about how we came to be in a relatively sorry state in terms of public safety and the treatment of the truly mentally ill. It may be worth your time.