Obama: Lost In Thoughtlessness

Among the most fundamental differences between Progressives and Conservatives is the tendency of Progressives to be distinctly uncomfortable with everyday reliable principles, values and obviously common-sense solutions. So “war” becomes a “kinetic military action.” The Second Amendment means precisely the opposite of what it says. Terrorists captured on the battlefield should be given show trials in New York City rather than far less expensive, secure justice at Gitmo. An out of control budget deficit can only be fixed by even more borrowing and spending, and economic hardship brought on by rapidly rising gas prices can best be healed by proper tire inflation, high speed rail, and buying Chevy Volts at $41,000+.

Before continuing, it’s important to understand that when I use the term “Conservative,” I’m referring to every day Americans, people who have to live and work in the real world, where honesty, industry, reliability and day to day performance matter. They tend to care a great deal less for paper credentials than for demonstrated ability. They know stupid and they know smart. They know what works and what doesn’t, and they don’t have much patience with people who don’t, particularly when such people are pretending to be smarter than they are. So in effect, I’m including conservatives, probably most independents, and even some Democrats under the “Conservative” umbrella.

Perhaps the most inexplicable manifestation of this tendency is the need of Progressives to call weakness and indecision a sort of calm strength and reflection, or to call a complete and obvious lack of accomplishment and practical intelligence signs of unimaginable ability and prodigious intellectual depth. A case in point is a recent April 26 Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, titled “Obama, Lost in Thought.”

Mr. Milbank begins, of course, with a gratuitous swipe at George W. Bush, bewailing his lot at now having to cover such a brilliant, enigmatic man as Barack Obama, compared to the ease of covering the simpleton Bush. It’s tempting to suspect that Milbank is engaging in parody. Surely he must be making fun of stereotypically befuddled Progressive thinking, but alas, too many of the common markers of that thinking are present. Milbank is serious:

“The political right is befuddled as it tries to explain him: First, Obama was a tyrant and a socialist; now he’s a weakling who refuses to lead. The political left is almost as confused, demanding to know why Obama gave away so much on health care and in budget negotiations. Nearly everybody puzzles over Obama’s ad hoc responses to Egypt, Libya and now Syria, grasping for a still-elusive Obama Doctrine.”

For the conservative, there is little head scratching. Socialism is a form of tyranny and it’s entirely possible for socialists to be weaklings and poor leaders. Communism has proved that over the bodies of untold millions. In truth, Mr. Obama has given away relatively little in health care and budget negotiations, but what he has given away is due to a complete lack of consistent principles and forethought. No Conservative is puzzling over his lack of leadership regarding Egypt, Libya and Syria, and no conservative is looking for a “still-elusive Obama Doctrine.” Conservatives know that Mr. Obama has no real principles, is not representing America’s interests, is an inexperienced weakling, and in fact has recently developed the brilliant mantra of “leading from behind” in foreign affairs. Mr Obama and his advisors apparently think that to be a brilliant strategy. Conservatives know it to be the very opposite of leadership.

To help the unenlightened (Conservatives) understand Mr. Obama, Mr. Milbank enlisted the aid of “three leading academics in the fields of psychology and behavior.” With their help, Mr. Milbank has explained it all for us: “There’s too much going on in the poor guy’s head.”

“What distinguishes Obama particularly is the depth and carefulness of his thinking, which renders him somewhat unfit for politics,” said Jonathan Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia. “He is a brilliant social and political analyst, which makes it harder for him to play hardball or to bluff.”

Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of “integrative complexity” — his ability to keep multiple variables and trade-offs in mind simultaneously. The integratively simple thinker — say, George W. Bush — has one universal organizing principle that dominates all others, while the integratively complex thinker — Obama — balances many competing goals.

“Philip Tetlock, a professor of psychology with the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, found that politicians on the center-left (where Obama dwells) tend to have the highest degree of integrative complexity...”

From this, Mr. Milbank extrapolates that Mr. Obama “would seem to be the very model of the complex thinker.” Mr. Milbank allows that simple thinkers, like Winston Churchill, have their occasional uses. His summation continues the theme:

“In an ideal world, complex and rational thought would be virtues. But in politics, these attributes can make Obama seem ambiguous, without toughness or principles. ‘It isn’t because he lacks a moral compass — it’s because he understands there are a lot of moral forces at play,’ U-Va.’s Haidt says. ‘This is why people get frustrated with him. The more of a partisan you are, the more simple-minded you are.’

What’s a complex guy to do? Simple. ‘It is important,’ Haidt says, “’for the president not to be rational and fully honest.’”

Ah! So that’s the problem! Mr. Obama has been too rational and “fully honest!” If only he would be more irrational and dishonest to the simple thinkers out there in flyover country, he wouldn’t so confuse them. Perhaps if we apply a bit of every day, Conservative analysis to the “problem” of Mr. Obama’s abilities and intellect, a better understanding can emerge.

Conservatives tend to judge people’s character, ability and intelligence on tangible, rather than supposed or assumed, accomplishments, past and present. Let’s begin with Mr. Obama’s term as President of the Harvard Law Review. This is a prestigious post indeed. Many Presidents of the Law Review have gone on to distinguished legal careers, but all have had one thing in common: A real record of legal scholarship and writing. There is substantial evidence that Mr. Obama was chosen for his status as a minority under an alternate procedure for filling the post, the more usual procedure considering only candidates of the highest academic rank and ability. But there is no doubt about one thing: Barack Obama produced not a single scholarly legal article for the the Harvard Law Review. This is most unusual--every other known Law Review President has contributed significant publications--and certainly does not indicate any degree of intelligence or ability as a writer, scholar or thinker.

Mr. Obama’s tenure teaching law at the University of Chicago is equally unrevealing of intellect and ability. Mr. Obama and his supporters have been less than precise in describing his time there, alluding to various formulations that would lead people to believe that he was a “constitutional law professor.” However, respected scholar Richard Epstein says otherwise:

“Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.”

In academia, teaching rank is important and is taken seriously indeed. Unless one is a full professor, one does not, for a moment, claim that they are or allow anyone to believe that they are. Adjunct faculty are teachers who are hired, on a contractual per-class basis, to teach a limited number of classes. They may be fine teachers, but they have no benefits, little pay, no tenure and no tenure track. They commonly aren’t afforded so much as an office. So it appears clear that the “constitutional law professor, wasn’t actually a fully-fledged adjunct. Again, intellect, responsibility and ability are not present.

But what about Mr. Obama’s years as a “community organizer,” a vocation--if it can be called that--that has no apparent job description or qualifications. Legend has it that Mr. Obama selflessly labored for the good of the people of Chicago who were apparently in need of “organization.” There is no known record of actual accomplishment during those years, but there is one very interesting, and carefully concealed, matter: Mr. Obama’s only executive experience, his tenure as the Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Stanley Kurtz has been instrumental in exposing this issue. Hired by unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, with whom he worked closely despite his statements to the contrary, Mr. Obama led the CAC from 1995 to 1999 and remained on the board until 2001, shortly before it became defunct. Funded by the Annenberg Foundation, Mr. Obama was responsible for the finances of the CAC, whose declared purpose was to improve education in Chicago. During his tenure, Mr. Obama burned through $100 million dollars, handing it out in grants to other community organizers and radical education activists, and accomplished exactly nothing. Annenberg Foundation internal audits revealed not the slightest evidence of improvement in Chicago education for all of Mr. Obama’s efforts.

All of this has been studiously ignored by the mainstream media, and by Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign--and his administration since--despite persistent questions about his lack of executive experience and accomplishment. Considering the amount of money wasted and the utter lack of accomplishment, that’s hardly surprising. No conservative would consider such utter failure to be anything other than utter failure, and surely would not consider it to be revealing of “integratively complex thinking.”

Mr. Obama’s eight years in the Illinois State Senate where he repeatedly voted “present” in an apparent attempt to leave no political fingerprints, and his very brief term in the US Senate (which time he nearly entirely spent running for president), are commonly known for their utter lack of real legislative accomplishment. His 20 years as a parishioner in the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church, a church steeped in black liberation theology and all of its trappings of Marxism, racism, paranoid conspiracy theories and outright hatred do not speak to intelligence or integrity, particularly when Mr. Obama admitted to attending hundreds of services, yet claimed to know nothing of Rev. Wright’s true beliefs.

Mr. Obama’s teleprompter readings have become the stuff of legend among the media and progressives, yet without his teleprompter, without a script to read, Mr. Obama is commonly halting and tongue-tied, and particularly mistake prone, as when he claimed to have visited 57 states, or more recently claimed that Texas has always been Republican controlled. Mr. Obama’s liberties with history are the stuff of legend, and again, tend not to convince Conservatives that he is, as he has been breathlessly billed, the most intelligent man ever to occupy the Oval Office.

As the inevitable burdens of the office have manifested themselves, Mr. Obama has proved unequal to the task. In foreign affairs, he insults America’s friends and embraces her enemies. He cannot bring himself to name our enemy in a war over the future of civilization, and while claiming to be Christian--a claim that Conservatives--and most Americans--tend to take at face value--his actions show a highly unusual and unconcealed support for all things Islamic. Take, for example, his complete snubbing of Easter in 2011. Take also his meddling in the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and Israel where even Mr. Abbas has admitted that Mr. Obama’s intervention has been destructive to, rather than supportive of, peace. His statements and actions in the most recent Middle Eastern/African upheavals have been not only directly contradictory, but fundamentally incoherent.

It is on the domestic front that the fundamental difference in the Progressive and Conservative approaches to problem solving and significant issues are most clearly seen and most keenly felt. Gasoline prices--and everything related to them--are skyrocketing, as candidate Obama hoped, and Mr. Obama’s response has been to blame George W. Bush, Republicans, to wage class warfare, and to relentlessly push “green” technologies that don’t exist and/or cannot possibly replace oil. Despite sitting on the largest energy reserves in the world, Mr. Obama chooses to repeat the lie that we have only a fraction of the reserves, and his bureaucrats are constantly frustrating exploration and development of those reserves while helping Brazil produce oil--so American can buy it from them--and loaning billions to Columbia to upgrade a petroleum refinery while no American refinery has been built since the 1980s.

While America faces an unprecedented budget crisis, a crisis in large part brought on by Mr. Obama’s incredibly profligate spending, he implements a health care entitlement that was unsustainable before he signed it, and wants only to implement even greater taxes, more borrowing and more spending.

So we are left with a fundamental conflict. Progressives see all that I have outlined here--and far more--and see a man possessed of great intellect, a careful, deliberative thinker whose intellectual processes are so advanced, so unfathomably complex that he cannot be adequately understood and appreciated by lesser beings. His entire lack of conventional accomplishments, the fact that the common, routine records of so much of his past, records that can be easily found for anyone else, are essentially invisible and impossible to find or access is, for the Progressive, compelling evidence of Mr. Obama’s unique, extra-human status.

Conservatives, as Progressives commonly assert, are much more simple, less nuanced beings. They look at Mr. Obama’s lack of accomplishment, his almost non-existent grasp of the facts and lessons of history, his dithering, his pouring of gasoline on our national financial fire, and his utter failure in foreign affairs as clear evidence of inability, a lack of experience, an inability--indeed an unwillingness--to learn from experience, and simplistically foolish rather than complex thinking.

“It is important,” Haidt says, “for the president not to be rational and fully honest.” Few conservatives would argue with the proposition that Mr. Obama has taken Professor Haidt’s advice. Even so, Progressives will still tend to be uncomfortable with reality and rational solutions to problems. If they win in 2012, and one of the visions I’ve presented will win, Americans will almost certainly be introduced to discomfort few can truly imagine. One need not be an “integratively complex thinker” to understand that simple truth.

Think Progress: Those Hicks Deserved to Die

Despite the "COEXIST" bumper stickers on their cars, Obama's water-carriers at Think Progress are awfully eliminationist when it comes to their fellow man.

Storms Kill Over 250 Americans In States Represented By Climate Pollution Deniers

Today, news agencies are still tallying reports of deaths from the most devastating storm system in the United States in decades:

Dozens of massive tornadoes tore a town-flattening streak across the South, killing at least 250 people in six states and forcing rescuers to carry some survivors out on makeshift stretchers of splintered debris. Two of Alabama's major cities were among the places devastated by the deadliest twister outbreak in nearly 40 years.

"Given that global warming is unequivocal," climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, "the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of 'of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.'"

The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.

An interesting perspective, isn't it? According to Think Progress, hundreds of Americans deserved to die because the majority of voters in their congressional districts elected what Think Progress supposes are the wrong representatives.

The thousands of quake fatalities in Japan and the hundreds of thousands of dead from the Boxing Day tsunami of several years ago are also obviously the fault of these rubes from Tuscaloosa according to Think Progress' logic.

They still haven't come up with an explanation for Detroit, but they're working on it.

Finally...

A crisis worthy of our President.

Quick Takes, April 28, 2011

ITEM: Is This Cool Or What? Department: Go here for an article about a successful test of quantum teleportation. Remember the transporter of the Star Trek series, or the Asgaard “beaming” device of the later episodes of the Stargate SG1 series? That’s essentially what’s happening. Quantum information, in the form of light, has been essentially in two places at once, destroyed in the first, and rematerialized—intact—in the second. Unbelievably cool. The immediate potential application is for unimaginably fast and powerful computers, possibly powerful enough to be capable of finding Barack Obama’s college grades.

ITEM: Is This Cool Or What II? Department: Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN have announced (here) the possibility of finding “The God Particle,” the Higgs Boson. If so, this will be one of those truly revolutionary moments in science with profound effects for mankind. We live in interesting times indeed.

ITEM: We recently received a cookbook from Dinner With Warriors, an organization selling the cookbook to benefit members of our military who have been wounded in action, and the survivors of those who have fallen. The cookbook, of the same name, contains 96 recipes of all kinds, each accompanied by a photograph and story of our servicemen and women. The cookbook is well made and the recipes varied and interesting indeed. Go here for more information.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Union Edition: In last week’s QTs, we reported on the certified victory of incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser over the union-backed candidate JoAnne Kloppenberg by a 7000+ vote margin. Unfortunately, that total was barely within the margin that requires Wisconsin voters to pay for a recount. I’m shocked, shocked! to learn that Kloppenberg has indeed demanded a recount. The chance of finding sufficient votes to overturn the result is virtually nil. Kloppenberg and her union backers must know this, so their goal must surely be political rather than electoral. But stay tuned. Who knows how many of the voting dead may cross the border from Illinois? Go here for the story. For a legal take on the issue, go here.

ITEM: Mr. Obama’s mean, petulant streak is never far from the surface, and surface it did (here) in a brief interview with a local Texas newsman. Not only did he demonstrate his continuing, debilitating lack of knowledge about history by claiming that Texas has always been Republican(?!)--That certainly would have been news to LBJ and Texas Dems until the election of George W. Bush--but he chastised the reporter for not being appropriately obsequious. Mr. President, it’s never smart to mess with Texas and while “petulant” and “presidential” are alliterative, they don’t go well together.

ITEM: The title of Ann Coulter’s new book, due out in early June, is “Demonic: How The Liberal Mob is Endangering America.” You gotta love her, but I wish she’d be more forthright in telling us how she really feels. By the way, she publishes a new article every Thursday. It might be a good idea to visit there at anncoulter.com after visiting here first, of course. Smart, witty, beautiful conservative women! Sounds like a winning party plank to me. Hell, I’d even be willing to allow the government to subsidize that instead of the Chevy Volt!

ITEM: By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them Department: Liberal blogger Wonkette has often contributed to the lack of civility so common in our social discourse. You know, the kind progressives live to criticize and stamp out? What’s that? It was all a lie? They never really meant it? Notify the Louis Renault Prize Committee! So why are we mentioning her? She has achieved the near-impossible, and has now descended even lower than the floor of the Marianas Trench (extra credit for depth and location--at the end of the QT. No fair peeking!) by crudely ridiculing Sarah Palin’s Down’s Syndrome-afflicted son on the occasion of his third birthday. Yes, there’s nothing quite like picking on people like Trig Palin to establish one’s humanity and progressive street cred. Go here for the story, but take your blood pressure medication first.

UPDATE: Wonkette has apparently made a sort of “apology.” Go here to see it. If you don’t currently take blood pressure medication, this will likely provoke it. Is it possible to actually reason with--to say nothing about negotiating with--such people? Such is the result of long-term exposure to Progressivism. Discuss.

ITEM: When You Look Into The Abyss, The Abyss Looks Into You! Department: From Fox News (here) comes the sad tale of DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Sean Smith who threatened to decapitate members of his own organization. That’s right, one of the Department of Homeland Security’s top public relations officials threatened to cut off the heads of coworkers. Isn’t that what Jihadists are supposed to do? Oh well. At least he’s leaving the DHS. He’s apparently been staring into the abyss too long. Janet Napolitano could not be reached for comment, but if she could, I’m sure she’d say that things were better than ever in the DHS, apart from a few decapitations, of course. I wonder if the Jihadist’s union knows that DHS management is trying to take over their jobs? Notify the NLRB!

ITEM: Also from Fox News (here) comes the news that the Holder Justice Department intends to seek the death penalty for Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nishiri, charged for the bombing of the USS Cole which wounded 40 sailors and killed 17. Reflect, gentle readers, on the fact that, under the Obama Administration, such a routine charging decision in the case of a mass murderer and terrorist has become so remarkable. Discuss.

ITEM: Oh Goody! Department: From CNBC (here) we learn that the possibility that gasoline prices could increase to as much as $6.00 per gallon by this summer is real indeed. Of course, none of this is Mr. Obama’s fault, nor does he have any power to do anything about it. Just ask him; he’ll tell you. As a matter of fact, he’s constantly telling you even if you haven’t asked. George W. Bush did it! That’s the ticket!

ITEM: Unintended (?) Consequences! Department: Go here for what you’ve known was coming. That’s right! Compact fluorescent light bulbs, you know, the miracle energy saving bulbs that contain Mercury, one of the most poisonous substances known to man? And you know how you have to call out the EPA for a Super Fund clean up if one breaks? Well, now we know that they emit cancer-causing chemicals too! Could our green future be any brighter--or more carcinogenic?!

ITEM: Art Imitates Life! Department: Remember that delightful scene in the Austin Powers film when Dr. Evil is annoyed because his associates cannot provide “sharks with fricking laser beams on their heads,” providing only ill-tempered Sea Bass instead? Consider this recent comment from Barack Obama: "You know the Oval Office always thought I was going to have like real cool phones and stuff. I'm like 'come on guys, I'm the president of the United States.' Where's the fancy buttons and stuff, and the big screen comes up? It doesn't happen." He’s an evil president!

ITEM: You’re a stockholder in a company that has seen a 57.6% drop in income in the first quarter, to $5.4 million from $12.8 million during the same quarter a year ago. What do you do? Well, if you’re the New York Times (here), you keep cranking out the same tripe that put you in that position in the first place. Not to worry though, shareholders! I’m sure the NYT can be sold, like Newsweek before it, for at least a dollar. What’s that? Sidney Harmon, the stereo magnate who bought Newsweek for a buck recently died? Uh-oh...

ITEM: Self-Delusion On A Mass Scale! Department. Go here for an article in The New Republic that seeks to explain why the Green Movement has been such a failure. There is much hand-wringing and angst over why Cap and Trade and other green initiatives have failed. It’s fascinating in that they cannot bring themselves to consider that “Climate Change” is essentially a crock. Such thinking is not possible for them. It’s an interesting, if slightly disturbing, look into the Progressive mind.

ITEM: Can’t See The Forest For The Trees! Department: A group of California politicians, including Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, recently traveled to Texas (here). To try the BBQ? Attend a rodeo? Attend a Cowboy’s or Ranger’s game? Nope. To try to figure out why all of their businesses are leaving California and moving to Texas. Hmm. This is a tough one. Could it be because in California, businesses are constantly harassed by bizarre regulations, exorbitant taxes, insane zoning regulations, constant lawsuits from a plethora of looney-toon lobbying groups, and a skyrocketing cost of living for their employees? Why yes, I do believe the answer is “E:” All Of The Above. And they had to go to Texas to figure that out?

Actually, none of this is surprising. Many self-styled “elite” West and East coastal dwellers really do believe that everything between is a vast cultural wasteland where the “little people,” most of whom are Republicans who cling to God and guns, live their pathetic, racist, sexist, you-name-it-ist little lives. For the California pols it was probably akin to a safari to an exotic land. Speaking as a Texan, I was going to say that I hope they never figure it out, but I’m reasonably certain they’re not capable of finding anything they do to be erroneous. I wonder of any of them defected and requested asylum?

ITEM: A Palmetto Florida woman (here) came home to find a 6-foot alligator in one of her bedrooms. Wildlife officers eventually captured the beastie in a bathroom and released it into the wild. I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of all of this speciesist discrimination! Whatever a consenting adult wants to do with a consenting alligator in the privacy of their own bedroom, or swamp, or bathroom, or whatever should be their business, unless they want to get married, then it’s everybody’s business. Strike a blow for biological diversity and inter-species equality! I think.

ITEM: More Tales From The Religion of Peace Department: One Israeli was killed and four other wounded as they prayed at Joseph’s Tomb during Passover. Their killers, the murderers who kept firing at their vehicles even as they fled? Uniformed Palestinian police officers. Yes, the very same peace-loving humanitarians the Obama Administration has been arming and training. Go here for the whole sordid story. Remember, gentle readers, that these are the people our President reflexively supports and wants to negotiate with against our allies, the Israelis. Hope Change. Outreach. Smart diplomacy. Terrorist murder.

ITEM: From the good folks at Powerline (here): “A year ago, the conventional wisdom about Barack Obama was: a nice guy but a weak president. That has been evolving, I think. The emerging conventional wisdom is: an awful president, and not that nice a guy either. Not a great position from which to run for re-election next year.”

Hmm. I would suggest that there are a great many Americans, your correspondent included, who have said from the beginning: A cheap, thuggish hustler, a terrible, willfully destructive president, a nasty, vengeful piece of work, and a narcissistic socialist. Still, it’s good to see people catching up and catching on. I believe that it was Lilly Tomlin who said: “No matter how cynical you get, you just can’t keep up.”

ITEM: Also from Powerline (here) comes the story of Mr. Obama who has launched a Justice Department investigation into those evil oil companies and speculators, and rich people and Republicans and people mean to democrats, and everyone who didn’t vote for Obama, etc. to protect the people from high gas prices. What’s that? Produce more American oil? HAHAHAHAHAHA! You obviously lack Mr. Obama’s brilliant grasp of the realities of economics and oil production. When your own nation isn’t producing oil, when gas prices are rising, when you’re in a recession and nearly bankrupt, all truly brilliant, Nobel Prize-winning economists know that the only smart thing to to is to help Brazil produce their oil so you can buy it from them! Do visit the story for a very informative graph.

ITEM: Finally! A story about a high speed rail system-get this--in China! The Washington Post (here) has the story about the efficiency and brilliant fiscal planning that went into the system, a system routinely full of happy, satisfied...what’s that? They’re not happy? It’s not full? It’s hopelessly corrupt and losing money at an incredible rate? It’s not a story about Amtrack? Are you sure about that? You are? Darn. Oh well. Read the WaPo story anyway to see the bright future of American high speed rail. All aboard!

ITEM: Man, Am I Glad We Got Rid Of That Guy! Department: From Fox News (here) comes a story about Van Jones, the avowed communist who was Mr. Obama’s pick for “green jobs czar.” Mr. Jones is now pushing for a movement to give “Mother Nature” the same rights as human beings, enforceable by--of course--international law. It doesn’t take much imagination to envision the lunacy that would run rampant under such a regime, nor does it take much imagination to envision the Obama’s administration’s underhanded support for such insanity. Read the entire article, if you have the stomach for it.

ITEM: Well, It’s About Time! Department. From the beautiful and brilliant Michelle Malkin (here) comes news that the Obama Administration is planning to make a $2.84 billion dollar loan to upgrade a petroleum refinery. I know what you’re thinking: It’s about time! Finally, the Obamites are getting with the program to help out Americans! Not so much. The refinery is in Columbia, but that makes a kind of deranged sense. Mr. Obama is helping the Brazilians drill for oil, why shouldn’t he help the Columbians refine it so we can owe them billions that we have to borrow from the Chinese too?

ITEM: From the Microsoft Network (here) comes an apparently earnest essay about why $5.00 a gallon gas is actually good for you and America. It has to be a parody, right? Right? The next thing you know, they’ll be publishing essays about why premature death eases pressures on overburdened medical providers. What? The Obamites are already doing that? Arrgggghh!

ITEM: More Wisdom From The One! Department: So what’s the cause of high gas prices? Greedy oil companies? Evil speculators? George W. Bush? From Doug Powers at michellemalkin.com (here) comes the answer: It’s climate-change denying Republicans who won’t go along with bankrupting the nation to solve the global warming problem that is our real national security threat! Who’da thunk it? No wonder we made him president!

ITEM: From Fox News (here) we learn that after spending almost $4 billion in the preparation and permit processes to begin drilling off the northern coast of Alaska, the EPA has turned down Shell’s application, likely forcing Shell to cancel its summer drilling plans. Why? The EPA said Shell failed to include the possible emissions from an ice-breaking ship in its overall environmental impact statement. Don’t read this story unless you’re prepared for an abrupt and dangerous rise in your blood pressure and anger levels. If this kind of thing doesn’t unseat Mr. Obama in 2012, America may very well be relegated to the status of European welfare states. The problem, of course, is that there will be no one to bail us out. Rosetta Stone has a Chinese language course, don’t they?

ITEM: Honey, The Landlord Is Threatening To Evict Us! Department: From Hot Air (here) we discover that China is making very real economic threats, such as hinting that they may start retreating from the dollar and dumping their US investments. Why is this a bad thing? It will make it much harder for us to sell our bonds. After all, Japan is the next buyer in line, and they won’t be buying any for a long time to come. The Democrat high speed gravy train to oblivion is entering the gorge of doom with the washed out bridge of death, and we’re all about to face the enchilada of bankruptcy. OK, so I have no idea what an enchilada has to do with bankruptcy, but things are not looking good, sort of like a spoiled enchilada, or something.

ITEM: So That Explains It! Department. From Forbes (here) comes news that Botox may interfere with the ability to empathize. OK. So that explains Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry. Yet to be explained by science is exactly how hair plugs cause the brain to be disconnected from the mouth in people like Vice President Biden, or how smoking, golf, spending other people’s money and excessive socialism causes the sense of shame to be removed in people like Mr. Obama.

ITEM: The National Labor Relations Board is attempting to tell Boeing where it may, and may not, build airplanes. The NLRB, recently fortified by recess appointments of SEIU cronies by President Obama, is trying to keep Boeing, which has already spent billions, from opening a plant in South Carolina to build its new 787 Dreamliner. South Carolina, you see, is a right-to-work state, so no one may be forced to join a union there. SC Governor Nikki Haley is vowing to put Mr. Obama’s political feet to the fire. More here.

So let’s see if I understand this: Businesses aren’t allowed to build plants where they want if unions object? Businesses are run entirely for the benefit of labor unions, and the government, acting on behalf of unions, gets to decide? Wait a minute! Isn’t that Socialism? But Mr. Obama isn’t a socialist! He said so!

ITEM: We’re Number One! We’re Number One! Once again Forbe’s (here) has announced its “Worst Cars On The Road” list for 2011, and of the bottom eleven cars, GM and Chrysler hold nine of the not-coveted spots! No Fords were given the dubious honor. When Mr. Obama took over GM, I bought a Ford Escape and this year, a Ford Fiesta, and I’m not looking back (Dear Ford: Please feel free to provide service and repairs gratis for life. I’m in your database. Thanks!). It seems almost like precognition now. Hope. Change. Is this the part where the world respects us more?

ITEM: I’ve Seen The Future, And It’s: “Leading From Behind.” That’s an Obama advisor’s assessment of Mr. Obama’s method of leadership in foreign policy, as so ably demonstrated in Libya. Go here for John Podhoretz’s brief explication of the issue. I’m reminded of the venerable Alaskan saying: “If you’re the last dog in line, the view never changes.” The tragedy, gentle readers, is that Mr. Obama and his advisors almost certainly consider such a pithy saying to be revealed wisdom and they are determined to see that America is the last dog. Oh well. At least it’ll make a great Republican sound bite and bumper sticker in the next election.

ITEM: Tales of Smart Diplomacy! Department: It has been known for some time that it was Barack Obama who imposed the settlement freeze issue on the Palestinians, who didn’t want it in the first place, thus dooming any hope for peace. Of course, when the Palestinians raise their children on the mantra of “eat your vegetables, kill Jews, death to America,” peace tends to be a rather elusive pursuit. Visit Hot Air (here) for the whole story of how the Obama Administration has utterly botched relations not only with the Israelis, but with the Palestinians—the side they favor. The world has long ago concluded that America under Mr. Obama is an erratic and treacherous ally and a toothless enemy.

ITEM: Visit the Atlantic (here) for an interesting article on another Democrat-sponsored attempt to run roughshod over freedom in the name of political correctness. I speak of the SaVE Act, which would establish new reporting requirements for alleged acts of sexual violence on college campuses. Among the troubling provision is the establishment of a “preponderance of the evidence” standard for charges of sexual misconduct in college disciplinary proceedings. Such a lowered standard of proof is inherently un-American. Yet another Progressive “improvement” about which to be aware—and to oppose. It seems like there is a great deal of that sort of thing abroad these days, doesn’t it? Discuss.

ITEM: Q: How can you tell when President Obama is lying? A: His lips are moving. Am I being mean to Mr. Obama? He has taken, of late, to claiming that there is nothing he can do about skyrocketing gas prices, nothing except telling us to buy $41,000 electric wondermobiles and building high speed rail. Read this piece by Will Collier at Pajamas Media and decide for yourself if I’m being unfair to the President. It seems that there may be something he can do after all. A quick trip to the indispensable PowerLine (here) will add a bit more useful information.

ITEM: Have you noticed that Mr. Obama seems to obsequiously grovel to our enemies and spit on our allies, particularly Israel? Me too. Go here for an essay by Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, which well explains why that sort of foolishness, is, well, foolishness.

ITEM: Imagine that the party in power practiced gangster government, threatening and bullying its political opponents and innocent businesses, extorting money from them, forcing out their CEOs on whims, and implicitly demanding contributions for its political campaigns. You don’t have to imagine. The Obama administration has been doing it since day one. Go here for just one of the most recent examples. The Obama Administration is giving thugs a bad name.

ITEM: Unexpected Good News! Department: Yet another state (here) has curtailed the bargaining rights of public employee unions, and expects to save $100 million in the bargain. Amazingly, the state is Massachusetts, which is wholly Democrat controlled, and it was the Democrats that passed the bill! Hmm. Perhaps imminent financial Armageddon can have the proper effect even on Dems. Who’da thunk it? A shame it doesn’t work on the socialists in DC.

ITEM: Moral Degeneracy Department: Israel builds dwellings (Washington Post editorial here) and the Obama administration goes berserk with moral outrage, forcing our best ally in the region to stop building homes for its own citizens on its own land. Syrian regime thugs massacre unarmed civilians marching in a funeral procession and the Obama Administration says and does…nothing. Tragically, this—as well as a great many other telling acts and/or omissions—says all we need to know about Mr. Obama and the moral degenerates he has hired to rule us. These people must be run out of office at the earliest possible opportunity and prosecuted where appropriate.

And speaking of moral degeneracy, Syria will soon be seated on the UN Human Rights Council (here). The UN, of course, will do nothing to derail Syria’s elevation to the pinnacle of Human Rights glory. I am, of course, engaging in world-class irony and sarcasm. After all, it’s the UN we’re talking about!

ITEM: From Hot Air (here) comes the news that our tax dollars have been spent for—wait for it—a climate change rap! I know! And they're serious too! That’s right you hippers and hoppers, now you can rap along with da feds! As a public service, Confederate Yankee provides, absolutely free of charge to the taxpayers (maybe we can get a subsidy?), our own little climate rap:

Yo! You say you wanna clean da ‘vironment, make ever’body walk?
Well, you make da energy prices skyrocket, not just talk the talk!
Obama make gas prices reach five bucks without fail,
An’ he be sayin’ “we gonna build da high-speed rail!”
And the UN be squawkin’ ‘bout meltin’ glaciers and such,
But the scientists be talkin’, sayin’ “not so much.”
And 50 mil climate refugees ‘sposed to be walkin’,
But they ain’t nowhere at all, da UN jive talkin’.
Now the CFCs be poisoning da folks,
Da bold green future, it don’t be no joke!
Chorus: Obama green! Yo! Obama Green! Yo! Da ‘bama machine, it be obscene! Obama green! Yo!
(repeat and fade)

And on that get down funky note, it’s time to thank you for stopping by and to look forward to seeing you again next Thursday!

EXTRA CREDIT: The Marianas Trench is the lowest point on the planet at 36,201 feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean. It is near Japan.

Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate

It's a trap!

Update: I adjusted the title because as William Jacobson points out, this looks like it may be an original of Obama's short-form birth certificate, not a long-form certificate.

And no, I don't know the difference. Nor do I care.

What I do find amusing is Jacobson's observation that the media pundits and so-called news organizations that claimed Obama couldn't get his long-form birth certificate are full of crap, if this does indeed happen to be the long-form document.

An Explosive Automotive Debut

As regular readers know, I have been writing on the Chevy Volt for some time. Site search under “Chevy Volt” if you’re interested in reading my previous scribblings. I’ve been accused of being a modern Luddite, but in truth, I have nothing at all against electric or hybrid vehicles, unless my taxes are building and subsidizing them, as is the case with General Motors. Any private corporation that wants to build such vehicles (Nissan with their Leaf, for example), to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. That said, it is one of the missions of CY to expose foolishness and waste, particularly where government is involved. But before I continue, visit here for an explosive tale of the Volt in the real world. More on that later.

The Chevy Volt is, for those requiring a quick review, a soap opera parody of government inefficiency. It’s a brilliant, pseudo-advanced technology solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. A $41,000 dollar MSRP (Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price) compact car selling for as much as $65,000, the Volt will travel in the real world only about 25 miles on a single charge, after which its weak gasoline engine--which requires premium fuel--takes over, providing no better mileage than a great many conventional vehicles.

And speaking of soap opera parodies, at the 2011 New York Auto Show, the Volt was named the 2011 “World Green Car.” Beating out the Volt for 2011 “World Car Of The Year” honors was the Nissan Leaf, a truly all-electric, let the juice run out and you have a wheeled weight set, car. Apparently some 66 “jurors” make such decisions. All of this just goes to show you that, as Lilly Tomlin said, no matter how cynical you get, it’s impossible to keep up.

Chevy originally billed the vehicle as a sort of super-electric car with a 50 mile range, and claimed that the wheels would never be driven by anything as crude as the onboard gasoline engine, which would only be used to generate electrical power--though this process was never clearly explained--to somehow propel the vehicle electrically. As early Volts were allowed out for independent tests, Chevy had to admit that the Volt is really nothing more than a needlessly complex hybrid, but a hybrid costing a great deal more than other hybrids on the market. When the charge level drops too low, the gasoline engine does indeed directly drive the wheels, as it was designed to do from the very beginning. In other words, Chevy was engaging in what the common folk often refer to as “lying.” Chevy also revised its all-electric mileage figure down to 40 miles, but neglected to mention that was the high end, under-ideal-conditions only estimate.

Current owners and longer-term testers are discovering that in the real world, where drivers do blatantly extravagant things like carry passengers and cargo, use lights, air conditioning, turn signals, the radio and frivolous accessories like that, all-electric range is much closer to 25 miles. Another major problem that Chevy has glossed over is the indisputable fact that batteries, even enormous, expensive (somewhere either side of $8000) hi-tech batteries like that of the Volt, lose power and capacity in cold climates. If it’s cold enough, and substantial portions of the US are at least part of the year, batteries are rendered virtually useless. Standard car batteries are not a good comparison because they need retain only enough charge to spin a starter motor while the Volt’s battery must propel a multi-thousand pound vehicle and everyone and everything in it down the road. In the cold, all-electric range dips below 25 miles, often far below, and it is the promise of cheap electrically driven miles that provides the hopelessly optimistic combined mileage figures that Chevy and the EPA have trumpeted. Even with an all-electric range of 40 miles, the Volt is still nothing to write home about, particularly when the purchase price is considered, but more about that later too.

But this is not the only cold weather problem. Owner reports indicate that the Volt’s cabin heater is quite weak. Considering that electric heaters draw considerable current, this is hardly surprising--the Volt uses a specially developed low-current draw Bose stereo system--but again, Chevy, like the Government, tends not to trumpet its bugs unless it is calling them features.

The potentially worst part of the Volt is the battery itself. Lithium-ion batteries contain chemicals that, if allowed to combine through even a pinhole, have the distressing tendency to violently burst into flame. A quick visit to Google will provide a great many articles and entertaining videos of lithium-ion battery fires and explosions(!). In addition, to develop enough power to propel the Volt, its battery contains substantial electrical power, more than enough to seriously injure or kill unwary paramedics or mechanics who do not have the knowledge and proper safety equipment and tools to deal with a wounded Volt.

The link at the beginning of this article tells the sad story of a Volt immolating itself. In Barkhamsted, Connecticut, Storm and Dee Connors were awakened by a smoke alarm one recent morning at 0400. Firefighters put out the blaze and a firewall between the house and garage saved the Connors’ home. The insurance company and state fire marshalls believe that the Volt was responsible for the blaze. A few days later, the fire department had to return; the Volt had again caught fire, apparently in its battery.
At the moment, what’s know is that Connors had another electric vehicle, a self-converted Suzuki Samurai, in the garage with the Volt, and both were charging. Apparently the Samurai had been operated for some two years without difficulties until the arrival of the Volt. GM personnel have examined the Volt and their initial statements suggest--not surprisingly--that the Volt was not to blame, but local fire officials have yet to make a final pronouncement on the cause.

Is this absolute proof that Volts are going to regularly spontaneously combust? Certainly not, and the investigation into the cause of both fires is ongoing. However, understanding the technology of the Volt’s battery, it is entirely possible that the Volt is the cause. It’s not known if the Connors had the optional. $2000 dollar, 220V “fast” charger installed in their garage. That charger cuts the 110V wall outlet charging from 10-12 hours down to 4-6 hours. Oh, Chevy didn’t mention the cost of that charger in its promotional materials? Imagine that.

So what we have is a ridiculously expensive compact car with not-ready-for-prime-time technology, technology which may never work as it is intended, and with no identifiable market, being built by a taxpayer supported company that the government had to bail out of bankruptcy. But wait, there’s more! If you buy a Volt, the Federal government will give you a $7500 tax credit (there goes more of my money)! And the Feds are in the process of eliminating the bother of the tax credit; they’re just going to have Chevy dealers hand out the cash at the point of sale. Isn’t that nice?

So the Volt is a very expensive product in search of a market. But praise the Lord and pass the charging cable, there is a market after all! General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt has pledged that GE will buy somewhere between 12,000 and 50,000 Volts. By the way, Immelt is also one of Mr. Obama’s primary economic advisors, and GE also manufactures the charging stations that will have to crop up like crabgrass across the nation if electric vehicles are ever to be even remotely viable. And all of this marvelous technological advancement, gentle readers, is coming out of your pockets.

So call me anti-technology, call me anti-government, say I’m trying to kill children, women, the elderly, and adorable puppies and kittens, but at least admit that the Volt might not be the brightest idea an American auto company ever foisted on the public, and for many good reasons. Perhaps the best reason is the cost. Putting aside the high initial purchase price, it’s almost impossible for the Volt to make fiscal sense by means of saving gas.

For most people, the MSRP of $41,000 places the Volt well out of consideration. To better understand why the Volt is priced out of any reasonable market, let’s compare two vehicles designed with high mileage in mind, the Ford Fiesta, and of course, the Volt. A well-equipped Fiesta will retail for $20,000, and just to be as fair as possible, let’s compare it with a Volt at the MSRP of $41,000. Subtract the government subsidy of $7500, but add the cost of a fast charger at $2000, and the difference between the two vehicles is $15,500. It’s reasonable to add in the fast charger cost as very few people will be satisfied with a 12 hour recharge time, and if you can afford the Volt in the first place, an extra couple of thousand likely won’t be an issue. Also notice that I have not added in the installation costs of the charger, which could run from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.

As it happens, I am the satisfied, proud owner of a Ford Fiesta (Dear Ford Motor Company: Please feel free to provide me with lifetime service and repair, free of charge. I’m in your database. Thank you.), which gets 31 MPG in everyday driving (40 highway). Please keep in mind that I was born without the math gene. I aced my college math courses on basic scholarship ability, but I do not look at equations and see the inherent beauty and wonder of the universe, so if I make any math mistakes, please, gentle readers, help me out. Just for ease of calculation, and to be as fair as possible to the Volt, let’s assume that the Fiesta will get 30 MPG. Figure that each vehicle will travel 10,000 miles in a year, and that the cost of gas will be $3.80 per gallon. Why $3.80? That’s about what it is as this is being written, and again, that’s fair to the Volt. As fuel costs rise, things do not get better for Chevy, as you’ll see.

So, 10,000 miles divided by 30 MPG equals 333 gallons of gas, times $3.80, and the fuel cost for driving that distance in a year for the Fiesta is $1265. To be ridiculously fair to the Volt, let’s assume that it’s combined electric/premium gasoline range yields the equivalent of 90 MPG, three times that of the Fiesta. So 10,000 miles divided by 90 MPG equals 111 gallons, times $3.80, and the fuel cost for the Volt is $422. Subtract $422 from $1265 and the Volt saves $843 per year in fuel compared to the the Fiesta! Pretty impressive, right? Maybe Ford had better hold off on that lifetime service and repair support.

Now let’s see how long it will take the Volt driver to break even in terms of money saved in fuel costs. Remember that the up-front cost difference between the Ford and Chevy is $15,500. Divide that by $843, and it will take 18 years(?!) to break even. Just to be ridiculously fair to the Volt, let’s assume that it gets 120 MPG, four times better mileage than the Ford. By that calculation, the Volt’s per year fuel cost is a miserly $315, a $950 per year savings, but again, that $15,500 difference is pretty stubborn, and it would still take 16 years to break even. Remember, that’s to break even, not to save a single penny on fuel. Just for fun, let’s give the Volt a combined MPG figure of 200 MPG. It would still take 14 years to break even.

Keep in mind that I’m not considering the cost of electricity which would only make the Volt more expensive to operate and add time to the break-even period. And of course, it’s not possible to calculate such things as pride of ownership or whatever reduction in overall emissions a Volt might provide, even if we ignore that extra pollution produced by the power plants making the electricity that will drive the Volt, the pollution caused by the manufacturing process, the dangerous chemicals in the Volt’s lithium-ion battery making special, expensive disposal procedures necessary, etc.

One of the biggest problems in making such calculations is there is no practical experience with a vehicle like the Volt. We have no real idea how to calculate a reasonably accurate MPG equivalency, rendering the EPA’s window sticker unicorn horns and fairy dust. Electricity and fuel prices vary over time, which makes things even more difficult, and because its gas engine requires premium fuel, driving the Volt with that engine is, mile for mile, more expensive. Even if an owner is careful to never drive the Volt with gas power, that presents its own set of problems such as deteriorating gasoline and corrosion of parts and seals, and very few people could afford such an inflexible vehicle, particularly if they could not afford a second, conventional vehicle to make up for the obvious shortcomings of the Volt. But as you can see, even with figures that in every way favor the Volt, it makes no fiscal sense for most people, but that’s not the only related problem.

Relatively few people keep a car for even ten years. Let’s assume that our Volt owner trades his Volt for a new car after eight years. At that point, even if we assume that the dealer will price the Volt to sell as a conventional used vehicle that is eight years old, rather than a high-priced curiosity, the Volt’s battery will be nearing or at the end of its life. Who is going to buy a used Volt when they’ll likely have to pay more to replace its battery any day than they paid to buy the entire car? Chevy is claiming that Volt batteries will last a decade and cost only about $8000 to replace, but any battery wears out more quickly with more frequent charge/discharge cycles, so in effect, the more you use the all-electric capability of the Volt, the more quickly you’ll need to replace its very expensive battery. Even as a used car, the Volt has unique, insurmountable problems.

But ah, you say, a Volt will never travel 10,000 miles in a year! It’s not designed for that. You may very well be correct, but if so, you’re admitting that the Volt is not a practical car, a car capable of anything from commuting to work, taking a short trip, to driving across the nation on the spur of the moment. If it’s not capable of all of this, it truly is nothing more than a political exercise, and/or a novelty car for those who can afford its hefty price tag and lack of daily practicality while still maintaining a sufficient number of conventional vehicles for the real business of daily driving.

Any bets as to how long the Volt production line will operate if Mr. Obama loses the White House in 2012? They’ll probably have to open Yucca Mountain after all. Not to store nuclear waste, but to store expended Volt batteries, which have the very real potential to, over time, deteriorate, catch fire and even explode. That sort of thing just might pick your pocket or break your leg.

The Deadly Political Correctness of Gun-Free School Zones: Part II

The first installment of this series (available here) outlined a dangerous and very real issue facing American schools today: The likelihood of attacks by active shooters, whether disaffected or deranged citizens, or Islamic terrorists, foreign or domestic. This article will deal primarily with ways with which the problem may be successfully dealt, and with commonly raised objections to the only truly effective way to protect our children if a worst-case scenario occurs.

QUESTIONS, ANSWERS AND SOLUTIONS:

There is one simple update in school policy that can change American schools, as has been the case in Israel, from soft to hard--or at least harder--targets: allow teachers and other school staff to carry concealed handguns. This policy can be implemented at no cost to schools and mechanisms, both legal and practical, are already in place. Only two American states completely prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns, though it is likely, circa April of 2011, that this will change in Wisconsin. The rest allow it subject to records checks, testing and licensing. However, several states allow any law abiding citizen who is not otherwise disqualified by mental illness or past criminal status--Wyoming is the most recent--to carry a concealed handgun with no state testing or licensing. These laws have been a uniform success in that every state that has passed a concealed carry law has seen reductions in violent crime, mass shootings, and no corresponding increase in shooting incidents. The kinds of wild west shootouts anti-gun activists predicted would break out at the slightest provocation have simply failed to materialize.

Those licensed to carry concealed weapons have been, unsurprisingly, uncommonly law abiding, and only a tiny percentage (commonly much less than a single percent) have had their licenses suspended, most for technical violations of the law such as unintentionally carrying a handgun into a prohibited area. Concealed carry has been so universally successful and beneficial that no repeal legislation has been seriously considered, let alone passed. Circa Spring, 2011, concealed carry is allowed on school grounds only in Utah and Colorado, but 13 additional states are debating the issue, including Texas, where a bill that would allow concealed carry on state college campuses is being debated.

Q: SCHOOLS ARE GUN-FREE ZONES. WON’T GUNS MAKE SCHOOLS MORE DANGEROUS?

Gun free zones? Yes, but only for those who obey the law, and are, as a consequence, no threat. The fact that schools are “gun free zones” did not stop the Columbine killers or any other maniac intent on harming school children, nor will it stop those intent on harm in the future. The laws ensure only that schools are easy targets. In truth, they are victim disarmament zones, special preserves where shooters can be assured that they will have ample time to kill before any police response can be organized. A gun-free zone sign in front of a school provides only a false sense of security to parents, but is comforting indeed to killers who may be certain that their victims will be unarmed and in a very poor position to resist them.

Very few people are comfortable with the idea of prominently posting a sign in front of their home advertising the fact that they are unarmed. Yet some are delighted to see essentially the same sign in front of their children’s school. Signs and laws confer no protection. They suggest and provide for only the possibility of punishment after a violation of the law. The people who threaten our children don’t play by the rules of the American criminal justice system, and boldly standing ready to prosecute school murderers who commonly kill themselves during their attacks is, at best, an exercise in futility. Only the affirmative acts of those prepared to effectively defend themselves and others offer real protection.

Q: TEACHERS CARRYING GUNS?

One significant reason that violent crime has uniformly declined in right to carry states is that even though only a small fraction of the population carries a concealed weapon, the likelihood is high that some honest citizen will be carrying a handgun virtually anywhere at any time. Knowing this, criminals can never know who will be armed and must assume that everyone might be. Therefore though only a small portion of the honest population carry concealed weapons, they provide a protective, deterrent effect for the general public far out of proportion to their numbers.

Those already licensed for concealed carry provide a ready pool for schools. Many people assume that the police are all expert shots. Not so. Many police officers are required to qualify with their firearms only once a year. The courses of fire are commonly not demanding and passing scores generous. Many officers fire their weapons only on those occasions (and clean them less often).

Shooting skills can be learned by virtually anyone, and a great many citizens exceed the police in shooting skill. This is not to denigrate the police in any way--they do a difficult job well--but putting on a police uniform does not endow the wearer with magical shooting powers beyond the reach of civilians. Most teachers are women, and firearms teachers know that women often make the best students, usually lacking the preconceptions and ingrained bad habits present in many men.

Publicizing that teachers are allowed to carry, suggesting that they are carrying, but taking pains to ensure that no one knows who or how many in any given school, will confer upon all teachers, students and schools the benefit of making every school a harder target. No one should be required to carry a firearm against their will. Even if one school in a district has no one on campus carrying a concealed weapon, as long as the public doesn’t know that but reasonably believes that some are, the school retains the deterrent effect of appearing to be a harder target.

If you were planning a school attack and knew that the Smallville School District allowed concealed carry on school property, even encouraged it, but the Pleasantville School district next door did not, in which school district would you be more likely to attack? Terrorists are deterred only when they believe that their mission might be thwarted, which tends to cause them to shift to a softer target. At the moment, virtually every American elementary and secondary school is a soft target.

Q: CAN’T WE SECURE SCHOOLS WITH METAL DETECTORS, LOCKS AND OTHER METHODS?

As I previously noted, only recently have architects begun designing schools for greater security. However, the very nature of schools mitigates against effective security. Particularly in secondary schools, teachers, students and others are constantly coming and going, and a large number of exterior access doors are mandated by fire codes. Metal detectors do not protect against anyone who intends to kill, and security guards are often the first killed, as was the 2005 case at Red Lake High School in North Dakota. A 16 year-old student began his attack by killing the school’s only security guard. The shooter killed a teacher and five students and wounded 14 others before briefly trading gunfire with the police and killing himself in one of the relatively few school attacks in which the police played at least some part in stopping the shooting.

Strong locks and substantial classroom doors are certainly a good idea, as are video systems, comprehensive intercoms and other security measures, but they are expensive and as such, are often set aside for other priorities.
Good security design of school facilities can slow determined killers, but cannot stop them. By all means, employ these methods, but that’s not the point. The more capable and determined the shooter(s) the more likely it is that such passive methods will be of little or no value. The question is what works when these methods have failed, when a killer is present and ready to kill?

Q: WON’T STUDENTS STEAL TEACHER’S GUNS? WON’T TEACHERS LOSE OR MISPLACE THEM?

Anyone carrying a firearm must carry it on their person, invisible, safe and secure from theft. Handguns can’t be locked in cabinets, left in purses or desk drawers; they are not secure and will be useless if their owner is confronted by a deadly threat while thus unarmed. A handgun in a lockbox in a teacher’s classroom will be less than useless to the teacher confronted by a shooter in the hallways of their school. The most effective known weapons locked in an armory are useless to people under attack anywhere else, particularly if they don’t have the key.

It is difficult or impossible to detect a concealed handgun if it has been carefully chosen and concealed. Carrying a firearm entails the absolute responsibility to keep it from unauthorized or dangerous persons. This is all a part of competent training, and requires changes in mindset, behavior and wardrobe.

Carrying a concealed weapon, on or off school grounds, is clearly not for everyone, but is not unreasonably dangerous. By this I mean that when we leave our homes every morning, we assume a great many reasonable risks. Driving represents one of the most real and serious risks we face every day, yet we tend to think nothing of it. We trust average citizens each and every day with weapons far more destructive and deadly than handguns: automobiles. Driving is the most complex, demanding task that we do every day, far more difficult than shooting, yet we require less training, background checks and testing for drivers than that required for concealed carry and think nothing of it. Uniformed police officers who carry their weapons openly are far more likely to be the victim of an attempt to take their weapon than anyone discreetly carrying a concealed handgun in any setting.

Fortunately, there is an experience model. In all of the years of teachers carrying concealed handguns in Utah, there has never been an instance of a student obtaining and using a firearm taken from a teacher. While the theft of a handgun is always a possibility, all of life is a matter of balancing risks, of balancing the good against the bad. The potentially life saving effects of concealed carry during a worst case scenario clearly outweigh, by an enormous margin, the potential negative effects of a lost or stolen weapon.

Q: WE PAY THE POLICE TO PROTECT US. SHOULDN’T WE LEAVE IT TO PROFESSIONALS?

It’s true that police officers love to catch really bad guys, but the police have no duty to protect any individual citizen. On June 27, 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. In this case, the estranged husband of Gonzales defied a restraining order and kidnapped their three daughters, ages 7-10. Over many hours, the police were repeatedly called, even begged to act. Mrs. Gonzales even went to the police station in person and plead for their help, but they did nothing. Shortly thereafter, Gonzales’ husband committed suicide by cop by firing on the police station. His three daughters were found dead in his vehicle. He murdered them before attacking the police station.

The court affirmed decades of lower court precedence in holding that the police have a duty only to deter and investigate crime for the public at large but not for any individual; the police could not be held liable even though they did nothing to assist Gonzales despite her repeated, obviously valid and pitiful pleas for their help.

This might seem outrageous, but it is rational and necessary. Most people would be amazed, even shocked, to learn how few officers are patrolling their community at any time of the night or day. It is impossible for the police to guarantee protection to any individual, and if they could be successfully sued for failing to provide such protection, what city could possibly afford a police force? Police agencies are always understaffed. As a consequence, they staff their shifts with the most officers when most are required: evenings in general and Friday and Saturday nights in particular. Police agencies virtually always have the fewest officers working during weekday shifts when school is in session.

Indeed, the police love to catch bad guys in the act, and would love nothing more than to stop school shooters, but the police are primarily reactive rather than proactive. There aren’t many of them, and they’re not well prepared to deal--in terms of weapons, training or procedures--with actual terrorism which employs military methods, weapons, tactics and objectives. It is true that more police agencies are changing their response models and training regarding school shootings, but we are all responsible for our own--and our families’--personal safety. No matter how well trained and prepared responding police officers might be, the immutable issues that matter are time and distance. Unless officers are present--within easy handgun range of the shooters--when an attack begins, many children and teachers will die before they can arrive.

Q: WHAT ABOUT SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICERS?

Some schools have armed police officers on their campuses during school hours, more have part time officers, but most have none. School liaison officers are expensive; they are of little use to a day to day patrol force, yet their salary must come, in part or completely, out of a police budget. Even if a school has an assigned liaison officer, the odds that the officer will be on campus when an attack occurs, or will be in the part of the building necessary to take immediate and effective action are small. Such officers duties do not consist only of walking continuously around a school. For most, that’s a very small part of their daily routine. Many schools have the population of small towns, and modern schools are like mazes to those who don’t work in them daily. Those most likely to know who doesn’t belong on a campus and what is happening on a moment by moment basis are those who work there--the teachers.

Time is no longer on the side of the good guys. When an active shooter or shooters enter a school, if they are not engaged and stopped immediately, the only factor determining the eventual death toll will be their good will or lack of marksmanship. Many schools do not have intercom systems, so a teacher seeing an armed attacker in a hallway may have no way--other than their own cell phone, which may or may not work inside the school--to notify the office, warn other teachers, or to call the police.

Q: WON’T TEACHERS WITH GUNS JUST MAKE A BAD SITUATION WORSE?

Worse? Worse than what? Worse than active shooters intent on killing as many students and teachers as quickly as possible? Worse than terrorists feverishly wiring explosive charges? When an armed attack on a school occurs, “worse” has arrived. The only issue thereafter is how deadly things will become, and if the good guys have no effective response, “deadly” will be measured by the amount of time available to the killers to run up the final body count.

Unlike feel good gestures, arming teachers is one of the simplest and most effective measures that can have a positive effect if the worst case scenario occurs--ask the Israelis. If it never occurs, the school environment remains unaffected, except for the positive benefits of deterrence.

Teachers who hold concealed carry permits currently live a schizophrenic legal/professional existence. Standing on the sidewalk in front of a school, they are trusted upstanding citizens who have willingly, and at considerable expense in time and money, submitted to rigorous vetting by the state. Step onto school property and they instantly become potentially crazed killers, liable for firing and lengthy jail sentences. The determining factor? Geography.

Does the value of a teacher’s or student’s life change depending upon where he or she stands relative to a school property boundary? Should children be under the protection of their parents who hold concealed carry licenses be deprived of that protection merely because they step on school property, crossing an invisible line? Does a gun-free school zone sign confer magical protective properties on the real estate behind it, forcing the most deranged or homicidally determined to obey that law even as they doggedly prepare for mass murder? Unless this kind of magic exists, the only thing worse than an armed attack is failing to prepare for it, and therefore, having no effective response when it occurs.

Q: WON’T ARMED TEACHERS MAKE THINGS MORE DANGEROUS FOR RESPONDING POLICE OFFICERS? WON’T THEY SHOOT ARMED TEACHERS BY MISTAKE?

Most teachers wear identification cards and look a lot more like teachers than killers. Police officers are trained not to fire their weapons without being absolutely sure of their targets. Every police officer knows that they are, morally and legally, absolutely responsible for every round they fire and that they will frequently be required to walk into ambiguous situations. They train for these scenarios. Officers knowing that teachers might be armed makes friendly fire incidents less, rather than more, likely.

It is true that police officers sometimes make mistakes and injure or kill innocents. But again, the issue is one of balance. Should the mere possibility of mistakes prevent us from providing the best, most proven method of protecting the lives of our children at school?

Q: SCHOOLS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SAFE, SECURE ENVIRONMENTS FOR OUR CHILDREN. DON’T GUNS IN SCHOOLS GIVE STUDENTS THE WRONG MESSAGE?

Indeed, schools must be safe and secure environments for our children. Historically, this has been the case, but never has there been a clear and present--and often demonstrated--danger like that we now face. Never has it been more vital that those responsible for the safety of children entrusted to them at school deal with that responsibility rationally and effectively. Locks, doors, video, passive security measures are all nice to have, but the question that each and every parent must ask is: “what will you do if the worst case scenario comes to pass? How will you protect my child?” Unless the answer is to effectively deter attacks, and to meet deadly force with deadly force, your children are “protected” only by rhetoric, only by small, metal signs. School shooters have not, to date, been impressed, deterred, or stopped by rhetoric or by signage.

The true gun free school zone message is that we are not responsible for our own safety and security; someone else will protect us. It represents magical thinking: A thing is so because we say it is, because we sincerely wish it to be. Pity the poor Virginia Tech official who, months before the shooting, after the defeat of a law that would have allowed students and faculty to carry firearms on campus, smugly proclaimed that everyone could, as a result, feel safe. No doubt he and others felt safe for a time, but feelings and reality are often quite different, an irony that one can only hope will haunt him, and will certainly haunt the surviving relatives of the victims, for the rest of their lives.

We are all, by law and common sense, responsible for our personal security. Refusing to take affirmative measures to protect ourselves and our charges is an abrogation of responsibility and teaches weakness, helplessness and victimhood. We have established gun free school zone policies to lull ourselves into the belief that such “zones” are safe, to “send a message” about what we believe to be important, to advertise our belief in peace and safety and niceness. Unfortunately, reality dictates that such signs will be obeyed only by the law abiding and that they empower, even encourage those who would harm others. There are truly evil people abroad in the world, and any one of us may have the misfortunate to meet one of them at any time of the day or night. Do we really want to teach students to ignore reality and rely only on feel good/feel safe measures in this, or any other situation?

A recent focus in schools across the country is the prevention of bullying. Programs are being developed and large amounts of money being spent. There is little doubt that some children subjected to bullying, particularly where school authorities do nothing, commit suicide or otherwise suffer. But if we are willing to devote so much energy and so many resources to this issue--and it is surely reasonable to take prudent steps to prevent bullying and to effectively and immediately punish it when and where it occurs--why are so many educators and others unwilling to address an even greater and more potentially deadly danger?

PARTING THOUGHTS:

As regular readers know, I am a teacher of high school English. I’ve been fortunate to have some 15 years of experience in this wonderful and vital endeavor and have also had the pleasure of teaching college. These experiences have given me considerable insight into the culture of education.

Many educators, many of those in positions of authority in education, are liberals. As such, their views of those who own guns tend to run the gamut from disapproval to believing them to be barely sentient lunatics ready to kill the innocent at any moment. Some really have an irrational, visceral fear and loathing of firearms, as though inanimate objects have magical, evil powers capable of infecting those around them. It should hardly be surprising that such people would reflexively oppose what I’m suggesting.

However, the times are changing. Only a few years ago, before the Heller and McDonald decisions by the Supreme Court finally established the Second Amendment as a fundamental American right enforceable on state and local governments, the kinds of laws now being considered and increasingly passed would have been thought impossible. Anti-gun forces still exist, but are more and more marginalized. The field of education is one of their last power bases.

In the final installment of this series, which I’ll post next Monday, I’ll lay out a very realistic scenario that may help to persuade otherwise reluctant parents and school board members. It is my hope that America won’t have to suffer through a Beslan-like attack--or many such attacks--in an elementary school before our schools implement the only effective means of stopping those who would harm our children. Never has the danger been greater, yet never has the possibility for effective change been greater.

Messaging Republican Racism

“There you go again,” Ronald Reagan famously said to Jimmy Carter during a 1980 debate. The quip, which generated many laughs, quickly became part of American political lore as a witty response to tired, often recycled political boilerplate. It is in that spirit that I respond to an April 17 article by Mr. Ruben Navarrette Jr. posted at Pajamas Media (here) titled “A Roadmap on Immigration for 2012.”

Ruben Navarrette, for readers not familiar with his work, is very much a pro-immigration writer who can’t seem to stop accusing Republicans of racism for daring to suggest that immigration laws already on the books ought to be enforced. I’ve earlier responded to one of his articles (here) wherein he claimed that anyone who opposed illegal immigration must necessarily also oppose legal immigration and therefore, hate foreigners, and particularly “brown” people.

Mr. Navarrette’s theme, on first glance, would appear to be the relatively innocuous idea that Republicans ought to adopt “messaging” more pleasing to Latino ears for the 2012 election. Quoting Meg Whitman, who was defeated by Democrat Jerry “Governor Moonbeam” Brown in the recent race for California governor, Navarrette put forth the idea that Republicans should think and speak differently about immigration, taking credit for having championed that idea for years.

Put aside the lack of wisdom and honesty inherent in adopting the Obamian calculus of substituting “messaging” for truth, steadfast principles and effective public policy. Such is the worst and most deceptive form or pandering. The deeper themes of Mr. Navarette’s essay are easy to detect and are of a piece with much of his writing on immigration, particularly his stereotypical portrayal of Republicans, and even of Latinos. The most prominent themes here seem to be:

(1) All Latinos think alike on immigration-related issues and should therefore be approached as a monolithic class/voting block aligned with and beholden to the progressive left.

(2) Republicans are inherently anti-immigrant and particularly hostile toward Latinos. They just can’t help themselves.

(3) Republicans are irredeemably racist and nativist; it’s in their DNA.

(4) Republicans are dishonest and lack candor in dealing with immigration issues.

(5) The interests of labor unions and Latinos are inextricably intertwined.

Said Mr. Navarette:

"I think that Republicans have to figure out how to even talk about immigration without sounding like one of the characters from The Wizard of Oz. Most of the time, on this issue, Republicans either come across like the Scarecrow (no brain), the Tin Man (no heart), or the Cowardly Lion (no courage)."

Mr. Navarrette’s choice of the Scarecrow is particularly apt as he erects many Republican straw men to flail. But let’s allow Mr. Navarrette to extend his argument:

"No brain: Rather than think deeply about illegal immigration and how to control it, as well as how to fix the immigration system so more people can come to the United States legally, some Republicans merely recite bumper sticker slogans like 'Deport all illegals' or 'Seal the border.'"

The construction “some Republicans” is a rather lazy way to indict all for the unspecified and unsupported statements of a few, or the none. Presumably those Republicans who have suggested that our borders must first be effectively controlled before reasoned debate can take place are incapable of “deep” thought. While bumper stickers don’t allow much room for florid prose, they can express profound, even “deep” ideas. The bumper sticker sentiments obviously unappreciated by Mr. Navarrette are merely, for a substantial number of Americans--Latinos included--reflections of rational reality rather than expressions of racist animosity.

"No heart: Rather than see the current debate as simply an extension of a conversation that has been going on since the late 1770s when Benjamin Franklin warned that German immigrants would ruin the young nation, some Republicans still portray the immigrants of today as inferior or dangerous."

No doubt some Democrats wear tinfoil hats because they believe that George W. Bush is beaming mysterious Halliburton rays into their brains, but making that allegation is no more useful to the current debate than observing that Ben Franklin was somehow concerned about German immigrants in the 1700s. I’ve little doubt that some of the Founding Fathers made kindly statements about slavery, but referencing them does not establish an unbroken line of pro-slavery sentiment to contemporary Americans of any political party.

"No courage: Rather than admit the obvious – that illegal immigrants only come to the United States because there are U.S. employers here who hire them, some Republicans steer clear of proposing employer sanctions for fear of angering their supporters and benefactors in the business community."

I suspect it might be hard to find any Republican who fails to understand or who is unwilling to acknowledge the connection between US jobs and illegal immigration. And while Mr. Navarrette’s point that some Republicans don’t ardently advocate employer sanctions is likely true, a great many do, and more think controlling the border a necessary first step before any other facets of a potentially comprehensive immigration policy can be meaningfully discussed or enacted. Taking such issues out of logical order takes no courage, rather, it demonstrates a remarkable lack of logic and the ability to prioritize.

Mr. Navarrette’s concern for Republican fortunes might be touching were he not so apparently a doctrinaire man of the left. He raises many of the familiar tropes, suggesting that Republicans want to do away with the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship (an issue ripe for sincere and reasoned debate), that they care about the security of only the southern border, and that they hate American workers, which hatred they demonstrate by “trying to weaken labor unions in states like Wisconsin,” labor union primacy being apparently a self-evident and undeniable good. I have obviously been laboring under the apparently false impression that working Americans who choose not be union members are also “American workers.” If Mr. Navarrette is to be believed, I am wrong.

His pre-summation could have been written by cutting and pasting from past columns. He can’t resist casting all Republicans in the worst possible--to a progressive--light:

"...Republicans can’t seem to talk about the immigration issue in a candid and honest way that eschews racism, acknowledges labor needs, and holds everyone accountable. The message is bad, and the tone is worse. It’s always us vs them, with Latinos on the “them” side."

Such statements are essentially self-refuting, but the only dichotomy most Republicans concerned with immigration issues see with reasonable unanimity is Americans--native born or naturalized--vs those illegally in the country. In other words, people whose mere presence on US soil renders them, by definition, in violation of American law. Race doesn’t enter into it. There is no racial component to a violation of immigration law. You’re either here legally or not. It is Mr. Navarrette who reflexively projects racial animus on those who do not agree with his policy wishes.

Helpfully, Mr. Navarette offers his suggestions for the 2012 Republican candidate’s pro-Latino messaging. However, his suggestions seem to indicate that he has been in suspended animation for decades, unaware of what Republicans--and others--have been doing and saying. One is almost tempted to think some of his suggestions something of a parody.

"(1) talk about how it’s unfair for illegal immigrants to jump the line when others have had to play by the rules and wait their turn;"

Where has Mr. Navarrette been? Any fair-minded American who supports the rule of law has been making this point for decades.

"(2) admit that Americans won’t do the jobs that illegal immigrants do at any price, and explain that this is why we need a guest worker program;"

Particularly considering the current state of the economy, this assertion may be just a bit suspect, but Republicans--John McCain comes to mind--have been proposing various guest work programs for years. It is no doubt true that many Republicans would oppose Senator McCain in this, but their opposition tends to be far more about details than the concept.

"(3) stress that some of the estimated 10.3 million illegal immigrants in the United States should have a pathway to earned legal status if they meet conditions, including returning to their home country to be processed for legal reentry;"

Again, this has been an integral part of many Republican, and Democrat, immigration proposals for many years.

"(4) call for harsh penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and make sure they’re enforced since we’ll never fix this problem unless we attack it at the roots;"

Mr. Navarrette doesn’t know that this too has been repeatedly proposed?

"(5) promise a complete overhaul of the system by which immigrants can legally migrate to the United States so we can bring in more of them through the front door and do it a lot quicker than we do now; and"

Mr. Navarrette’s true agenda surfaces. Many Republicans would have a bit of a problem with this one, for no other reason than that without a positively controlled border, an overhaul of any kind is doomed to failure. There is also the small matter of debating how much legal immigration is a good thing. Bringing in more people much more quickly is not exactly a winning scheme, nor is it sane immigration policy for any political party. Americans do, after all, have the responsibility and authority to regulate immigration for the welfare of all Americans. No nation is morally required to admit anyone who violates the law by illegally crossing a border, southern or otherwise. To expect and allow less is to surrender national identity and sovereignty. Surely Mr. Navarrette doesn’t intend this?

"(6) condemn in no uncertain terms the racism and nativism that poison this debate and threaten to make the Republican Party obsolete before the end of the century."

Racism? Nativism? For thinking the rule of law a good thing? For expecting that the law should be fairly and uniformly enforced? For believing that American citizenship is valuable, something to be earned and cherished?

Mr. Navarrette concludes:

"This is the only roadmap for 2012 Republican presidential hopefuls to survive the pitfalls of the immigration debate. Every other path leads to the political margins and to eventual defeat."

Mr. Navarrette is correct, but only if all of his assumptions are correct. Only if all Latinos think and vote entirely alike and have little or no respect for national sovereignty. Only if all Latinos believe approximately half of Americans to be racist and nativist, dishonest and devoid of candor, and only if Mr. Navarrette’s straw man portrait of Republicans is entirely accurate.

In his essay “Ronald Reagan at 100,” Mr. Reagan’s former speechwriter Clark Judge writes:

"Former Reagan aide and speechwriter, now California congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, tells of a campaign stop involving a grade school class of blind children. After reporters had left for their bus, Reagan stayed behind and asked the teacher if the children would like to feel his face. The teacher said they would be thrilled. So for a few minutes, without publicity, the children got to "see" him in the only way they could."

Mr. Reagan didn’t care about the children’s race, and they didn’t care about his. Mr. Reagan was a success, a man who led American to success, not because he pandered to “activists” who would call him racist and nativist, not because he saw people as monolithic classes and voting blocks, but because he saw them as individuals and took the time to care for individuals, even blind children in a single classroom. He stood for the rule of law, American sovereignty and exceptionalism, and he believed in the inherent goodness of the American people. Mr. Reagan remains, in death as in life, the face of Republicans, of Americans. That, not Mr. Navarette’s prescription, is the path to the hearts of Latinos, to the hearts of all Americans and all those who sincerely wish to become Americans. It is these that all people of good will support and welcome. Many of them might even be Republicans.

Immigrants don’t come to America because of all of the faults Mr. Navarrette ascribes to its people, do they? If so, buying his prescription for Republican success will be America’s eventual dissolution.

Obama's Energy Lunacy

Go here to read my latest post that the good folks at Pajama Media have been kind enough to print (so to speak). It's about how Mr. Obama is using the Chevy Volt as a part of his policy of economic debilitation for America.

Building A Badly Maintained Bridge To Winning The Future

And so it begins, not with a bang, but with more lies than can be easily counted. Mr. Obama was on the campaign trail on April 18, jetting about the nation to perform in contrived “town hall” events. Go here to see a clip from the “town hall” At Northern Virginia Community College in Annendale, VA that includes some of his most blatantly false and offensive comments.

It was classic Obama: transparent claims to understand the lives of the little people and their economic woes, class warfare, the kind of smug superiority that is his trademark, and a glib ease with telling the most obvious and easily disproved lies. Its hard to know why Mr. Obama flings such falsehoods. Does he truly believe that because he’s Barack Obama, anything he says is, by the mere fact that he utters it, true? Is he really so ignorant of so much? Does he believe that, as always, others, including the media, will cover for him? Or perhaps he’s so arrogant that he doesn’t care what’s true and what isn’t because he believes he’s untouchable. Perhaps it’s an “all of the above” situation.

Mr. Obama’s theme was that Republican budget cutting would reduce America to third world status by destroying infrastructure denied maintenance. His most egregiously false example was the collapse of the Minneapolis St. Anthony Falls bridge in August of 2007. Mr. Obama used it as an example of a lack of maintenance, implying that much worse would come if Republicans had their way.

But facts are stubborn things. The NTSB concluded that the bridge collapsed due to a design defect. In fact, major maintenance was being done on the bridge when it collapsed, killing 13. Short of blaming the collapse of the bridge on George W. Bush--I assume that’s next--Mr. Obama could not have told a more outrageous lie, a lie dancing on the graves of those killed in the collapse of the bridge. Presidents normally have fact checkers for their speeches. Mr. Obama, not so much.

It was only a week ago during his budget speech that wasn’t really a budget speech that Mr. Obama proclaimed that the wealthy are more than happy to fork over a great deal more of their wealth to the Government, but they just haven’t been asked yet. I’m certain that, unlike most of his promises, Mr. Obama fully intends to keep his implied promise to ask. Yet, at the “town hall,” Mr. Obama said, “nobody volunteers and says ‘I’m just wild to pay more taxes.’” So which is it Mr. Obama? Are people wild to pay more or not wild to pay more? Perhaps it all depends on who is asking--or not--or something.

To be absolutely fair to the President, he had just finished telling the common folk that even he was taken aback after reviewing his own tax return. No doubt, he was merely showing the crowd that he was truly one of them before getting around to asking them for more tax revenue, contradictions be damned.

The bridge was only a warmup, as Mr. Obama observed that “our roads, our bridges, our sewer systems are all deteriorating.” Mr. Obama went on to produce a vision of America as a land of potholes from seas to shining sea. Fortunately, bits of infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers and potholes are almost entirely maintained locally rather than through the federal bureaucracy. Were the opposite true, there really would be potholes from coast to coast.

Perhaps the most faux-touching moment occurred when Mr. Obama, with a tone of self-evident shame and disgust, observed that “we don’t even have a serious high speed rail infrastructure in this country.” Too true. We also don’t have an infrastructure of the kinds of air-driven capsules you see in bank drive-ups to transport folks around the nation, but then again, it--like high speed rail--would make no practical or fiscal sense, and Americans don’t want either.

Fortunately, Mr. Obama cannot help but to reveal himself from time to time, as he did with the unfortunate Joe the Plumber when he revealed his core belief in wealth redistribution. At the faux town hall, he did it again: “I want to live in a society that’s fair...because it improves my life.”

Most Americans want government to keep the peace, enforce the law, provide for the common defense, and stay out of their way so that they have the opportunity to improve their life. They know that not everything is fair. Even Jimmy Carter admitted that, and he was attacked by a rabbit in a rowboat. The freedom to overcome diversity, the reality that success is, with hard work and determination, possible, is truly the American way.

Mr. Obama, however, envisions a “fair” society, a society that improves his life. Notice the passive voice. This is not merely lazy grammar. Like all statists, Mr. Obama really does believe that it is the job of government to provide. Of course, such provision will have to be rationed and apportioned according to the dictates of the elite who alone are fit to make such decisions, all in the name of fairness, of course.

Well. Society has certainly “improved” Mr. Obama’s life. I fact, I think it’s the patriotic duty of all Americans, as Vice President Biden might say, to improve it even more. After all, Mr. Obama has done so much to us. Let’s help him live his true calling: golf. Let’s ensure that society is truly fair for Mr. Obama and see that in January of 2013, he has the opportunity to be all that he can be. It’s the American way.

Quick Takes, April 20, 2011

ITEM: Is This Cool Or What? Department. From Hot Air (here) comes the news of the first successful test of an anti-ballistic missile system using an integrated systems approach. A missile was tracked from great range by a variety of integrated systems, including the Aegis Destroyer “USS O’Kane,” which fired the interceptor missile that shot down the target. Extra credit points for anyone who know for whom the O’Kane was named (no fair googling!) Answer at the end of the QTs.

ITEM: Is This Cool or What Too? Department: Go here for a short video of a test-firing of a practical, ship-mounted railgun in which General Atomics fired an aerodynamic sabot projectile for seven kilometers--after it punched through a steel plate at Mach 5! Propelled by powerful electromagnets, such projectiles destroy through kinetic energy rather than any application of explosives. Functional systems could be installed on US warships in less than a decade.

ITEM: By now, most Americans have seen a photograph (here) of crack TSA agents at the new Orleans airport frisking a blonde terrorist—a blonde, six year old, little girl terrorist who, if a photograph is sufficiently revealing, could scarcely have successfully concealed a piece of paper under her clothing. Regular readers know of my police background. I cannot conceive of any situation under which this particular child, or any such child, could be suspected of being a terrorist threat. Fortunately, I was not there. I fear that the child molester in government uniform would have experienced a rather more intense form of touching. When Ronald Reagan said “The most terrifying words in the English language are” ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help,’” he was more prescient than he could have possibly imagined.

ITEM: Cosmic Irony Department: A bill that would require all presidential candidates to prove their US citizenship has been sent to the desk of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (here). If the bill is signed, Arizona would be among the first states to make proof of citizenship a requirement for placement on the ballot. Considering Mr. Obama’s war on Arizona for the shocking offense of daring to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, there is a certain delicious irony in this. Discuss. UPDATE: The bill was vetoed by Governor Brewer; no news on a potential override as this is posted.

ITEM: Birther Redux: At Pajamas Media (here) David Solway explains why we should all just quit worrying about Mr. Obama’s birth bona fides and go with the spiritual flow. Hallelujah brothers!

ITEM: Continuing Tales Of The Religion of Peace: According to the AP via Fox News (here), the brutally beaten body of Vittorio Arragoni, 36, an Italian “pro-Palestinian activist” was found, hanged, in an abandoned Gaza Strip apartment a few hours after he was kidnapped by an Islamist group. Hamas, of course, blamed Israel: “Such an awful crime cannot take place without arrangements between all the parties to keep the blockade imposed on Gaza, said a Hamas “leader” Mahmoud Zahar. Remember, gentle readers, that it is these people with whom Mr. Obama reflexively sympathizes and whom he supports against our ally, Israel. Imagine what such peaceful people would do to someone who was not a pro-Palestinian activist.

ITEM: Political cartoons can be either stale political partisanship or brilliantly satirical and devoid of partisanship. A fine example of the latter by Nate Beeler of the Washington Examiner (Via Hot Air, here) is worthy of mention. By the way, what Sir Barack is holding is the scalpel he has sworn to use to brilliantly dissect the budget dragon.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award of the Week: Yes Ladies and Gentlemen, the much-coveted Louis Renault Award goes to Sen. Harry Reid (D-State of Perpetual Nastiness and Confusion), who in 2006 said: “Why is it right to increase our nation's dependence on foreign creditors? Democrats won't be making an argument to support this legalization [raising the budget ceiling], which will weaken our country.” According to ABC News (here), Mr. Reid is now “embarrassed” that he said that, calling it a “political” statement designed to oppose Mr. Bush. Hmm. “Political statement?” I believe the common folk would refer to that sort of thing as a “lie.” I’m shocked, shocked! to discover that a United States Senator would lie about such a thing, truly! OK, OK, so I’m lying…

NOTE: For those not familiar with Louis Renault, he is a police captain in the classic Humphrey Bogart film, “Casa Blanca.” He confronts Bogart’s Rick, saying that he is shocked, shocked! to discover that gambling is occurring at Rick’s Place. The words are no sooner out of his mouth than one of Rick’s employees hands Renault a stack of cash saying “Here are your winnings, Captain.” Renault thanks him, pockets the cash and continues with his faux outrage without missing a beat.

Item: Louise Renault Award Honorable Mention: The Washington Examiner (here) reports that on April 14, every Senate Democrat rejected killing ObamaCare funding. The vote was 47 to 53, and was strictly party-line. I was shocked, shocked! to learn this. The Examiner notes that Sen. Joe Manchin (D. WV) won a special election last year by portraying himself as an independent, even saying he would vote for repeal of ObamaCare. Hmm. It would appear that Mr. Manchin and the other Senate Dems learned even less than seems humanly possible from the last Congressional election. Even Pavlov’s dogs would seem to be more capable of learning, and they drool just as well as Dems when given the proper stimulus. The 2012 election will be interesting on more levels than most previously thought. Discuss.

ITEM: In light of Mr. Obama’s recent suggestion that wealthy people are just aching to give more of their money to the government, but have not done so because Mr. Obama hasn’t asked them, it may be time to revisit a simple concept: Charity. For the benefit of our readers, charity occurs when a citizen willingly and altruistically gives of their assets to help another. When the government demands it, that’s taxation. The IRS doesn’t “ask.” Discuss.

ITEM: Democrats Are All About The New Civility: And lying, don’t forget lying! At the Daily Caller (here) we find a charming little story about Keith Olbermann, who tweeted (Twittered? Twitted? Tweetyed?) about smart and lovely conservative pundit S.E. Cupp: “On so many levels she’s a perfect demonstration of the necessity of the work Planned Parenthood does .” Check out the brief story to see Olbermann’s pathetic attempts to backpedal and claim that he was talking about Planned Parenthood’s voluminous services other than abortion. So he meant that she’s a perfect demonstration of the necessity of pap smears? Of pre-birth counseling? Of sonograms? Of proper breast-feeding techniques? This is very confusing. Obviously, a superior intellect like Mr. Olbermann’s must be involved to make sense of it all.

ITEM: Judging Future Behavior By Past Performance Department: Investors .com has a lovely little story (here) about the reality of Mr. Obama’s conviction, expressed during his historic budget deficit teleprompter reading of April 13. He has actually promised (when running for president) to implement a system that would allow “40 million Americans” to “do their taxes in less than five minutes.” I’m not sure who the 40 million are, particularly considering that some 47% of Americans--who are reportedly very happy with the current tax system--pay no taxes at all, but apparently the other 260+ million have benefitted little under Mr. Obama. On his watch, it now takes 23 hours to fill out a 1040. It was 21 hours last year. And it now takes seven hours to fill out form 1040 EZ! I’m with Ronald Reagan: Please Mr. Obama, no more help, please!

ITEM: Flee! Flee As From A Pestilence! Department: The Obama Commerce Department (here) announced its new internet initiative that would provide a supposedly secure, individual identity/password for those who “choose” to participate. There is substantial hard and software development yet to be done. I don’t know about you, but the idea of the federal government having that information, and thus, unfettered access to my computer life—so to speak—does not give me chills of joy and warm-fuzzy security feelings, particularly not the present administration. Discuss.

ITEM: Those Evil Republicans! Department: From Hot Air (here) comes news of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s evil actions. He has beaten the unions at every turn, and now the state budget office predicts that his economic actions have essentially eliminated the budget deficit and will hold the growth of property taxes to no more than 1% per year for the next two years. Those cruel, heartless Republicans, killing children and old people and kicking puppies! How dare the Wisconsin public elect adults, and expect them to do what they were elected to do!

ITEM: With a margin of some 7300 votes, incumbent Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser has been declared the winner of the election over challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg. Kloppenburg, who all but affirmed that she would be a reliable liberal/union vote, initially held a margin of approximately 200 votes, but a mistake in reporting more than 10,000 votes overturned her slim margin. While it is possible that Kloppenburg will demand a recount, it is unlikely, considering the margin, that she will overturn the result. Recounts in such elections commonly change fewer than 200 votes.

What is remarkable is the way the results have been reported. Kloppenburg’s 200 vote margin of victory was proclaimed as a righteous vindication for union solidarity and a stunning repudiation of Republican Governor Scott Walker’s budget-cutting agenda. Prosser’s reelection to a ten-year term is seen as a narrow, highly suspect win meaning virtually nothing at all. In this case, the unions poured men and money into a state judicial race and accomplished nothing, except the continued gratuitous squandering of member dues. On the other hand, that’s what they do best.

ITEM: No Man Is Above The Law! Department: Unless, that is, you’re the Obama Attorney General (here). It seems that Eric Holder was recently caught in the act of failing to pay property taxes. That makes how many members of the Obama Administration? Is anyone surprised? After all, when the Treasury Secretary cheats on his taxes, anyone else is something of an anti-climax for the most transparent administration in history. Discuss.

ITEM: Tax The Rich! Department: From Powerline (here) comes an interesting exposition on the futility of taxing the rich as a means of cutting budget deficits. It has been often observed that even if we confiscated 100% of the income of the most wealthy Americans, it would amount to a teardrop in the ocean of our staggering debt. This article makes that point in a convincing way.

ITEM: Ah, Cuba! Land of sunshine and opportunity! The favorite place for vapid Hollywood celebrities and assorted American Marxists to visit and praise as a model of enlightened, humane governance! And that Fidel Castro! The very model of the modern leader! Yeah. Not so much. Go here to examine the reality of one of the last, horribly failed Marxist states. This, gentle readers, is what Mr. Obama and his most ardent followers want us to emulate. I mean, I like 1950s cars as much as the next guy, but...

ITEM: Nothing Succeeds Like, Um, Success? Department: Go here, for a short story on the grassroots success of the “Coffee Party,” which is billing itself as a “non-partisan alternative to the Tea Party.” It’s spreading like wildfire! Well, OK, not so much… Could this be why liberal talk radio is so overwhelmingly popular, even threatening to eclipse Rush Limbaugh in ratings…what? It’s not? It’s an enormous failure? It always has been? Oh.

ITEM: Global Warming Is True! Really! Why Won’t Anyone Listen To Me?! Department: From the Daily Caller (here) comes news of more climate shenanigans from the UN. It seems that in 2005 the UN Climate Program boldly predicted that Global Warming would create 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010. Hmm. Not so much; in fact, not at all. The UN is now predicting 50 million climate refugees by 2020. Visit the article to see the UN’s hilarious coverup hijinks! We must immediately surrender American sovereignty to the UN!

ITEM: The Most Neglected Aspect of National Defense Department: Go here for an article about the dangers of an electromagnetic pulse weapon. A nuclear bomb exploded high over a target produces an enormous EMP which destroys electronics, computers, cars, electric grids, anything that relies on electronic circuitry. Iran, for example, is very much aware of this and would be very likely to use it against us. Visit the article to more fully appreciate the potential consequences of smart diplomacy, cutting the defense budget, and outreach to those who would see us dead.

ITEM: I’ve always been fond of Dick Cavett, who wrote in his autobiography about his undergraduate days at Yale. As the only student on campus from Nebraska, he was a curiosity. Other students actually sought him out to have their photos taken with him as though he was an alien. To the upper crust, I suppose someone from the far-away mystical land of Nebraska was an alien. He wrote that he never joined a fraternity because he could “get nude, drink beer and throw up,” perfectly well alone. Go here for his article on why offending people is a good thing, you %##((**^$&&!!!

MANDATORY PC DISCLAIMER: I was not actually swearing at anyone. It was a joke. You know, a joke? Oh never mind...

ITEM: Shrinking The Deficit! Department: Go here for an account of the report by the Treasury Department’s Inspector General who discovered that the IRS allowed some $500 million in first time homebuyer tax credits to people who were ineligible to receive them, including 128 IRS employees. Hey! I have an idea for deficit reduction…

ITEM: Oh Goody! Department: Standard & Poor’s ratings service (here) has officially downgraded America’s sovereign debt rating from “stable” to “negative” due to political inability to get the deficit under control. S&P’s has warned that it might further lower America’s rating if positive steps are not taken soon. Unsurprisingly, the stock market tumbled on this news. So let’s see, our credit rating is nearing the bottom of the barrel and some countries are calling for the replacement of the dollar as the international reserve currency. We’re obviously in the best of hands. Now if the Republicans will only quit trying to kill children, women, old people, adorable kittens, puppies and baby ducks, we can make some progress. Somehow, this must all be George W. Bush’s fault.

UPDATE: It now appears that the Obama Administration tried to talk S & P's into not announcing the downgrade. I can't imagine that. I'm shocked, shocked!

ITEM: Learning From Past Mistakes Department: USA Today (here) has an article wherein Mr. Obama argues that it’s appropriate to try foreign terrorists captured on the battlefield in civilian court in New York City. “I think it's very important for us not to elevate folks who are murderers and thugs into something special. Our criminal justice system is -- and our trial system is capable of prosecuting terrorists,” said Mr. Obama.

Let me see if I have this straight: Holding a show trial in NYC, a trial that would cost hundreds of millions, disrupt the city for years, give terrorist scum a world stage on which to spread their ideology, give them access to defense and intelligence secrets, and paint targets on the backs of untold thousands of New Yorkers would not constitute elevating “folks who are murderers and thugs into something special,” while trying them in isolation at Gitmo would. With that kind of logic, it’s little wonder we’re in such trouble.

ITEM: Attack of the Death Panel! If you do nothing else this week, read this article by Stanley Kurtz (here) at National Review Online about the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the actual death panel established by ObamaCare. Kurtz suggests that if Republicans fail to fully publicize this thoroughly evil creation and to use it against its maker—Mr. Obama—they’ll lose in 2012. I agree. Do read it.

ITEM: In a past QT, we reported on Arizona border sheriff Larry Dever who has claimed that Border Patrol agents have been ordered not to do their jobs. Not surprisingly, government officials have called Dever a liar and DHA Secretary Janet Napolitano has claimed that the situation on the border is better than ever. Now comes Fox News (here) with information from current and former Border Patrol officers and others in a position to know who fully support what Dever has said. Apparently, Border Patrol Supervisors have even been heard ordering officers—by radio—to “TBS” illegals sneaking into to America, to make them “turn back south,” which only causes most to sneak across later. It’s an article well worth visiting if you want to know the truth about the Obama’s Administration’s border policies. Be sure to have your blood pressure medication close at hand. If you don’t need any, you probably will after reading this.

ITEM: Man, I’m Glad I Don’t Live in New York State! Department. From Fox News (here), comes the bizarre news that the legislature has enacted safety regulations to protect our children from some of life’s most treacherous dangers, dangers such as: Capture the flag, dodgeball, flag tag, flag football, kickball, red rover and tag. Any summer camp that wants children to engage in such dangerous games must pay a $200 registration fee and have medical staff on hand. No. This is not an Onion satire.

UPDATE: Due to immense public ridicule, the NY Health Department has allowed that perhaps they’ll sort of, you know, kind of, reconsider the whole thing. As Emily Litella would have said: “Never mind!”

ITEM: What’s going to become of grandma and grandpa if the evil Republicans have their way? That’s right! Grandpa will have to resort to stripping for sorority parties! See the shocking truth right here!

And on that “stimulating” note, it’s time, once again, to thank you for stopping by, and to look forward to seeing you again next Thursday!

EXTRA CREDIT ANSWER: The USS O’Kane is named for Rear Admiral Dick O’Kane who commanded one of America’s most famous and effective WWII submarines, the “USS Tang.” His memoir of that command, “Clear the Bridge” is justly famous as well. The Tang was ultimately sunk due to a circular run by one of it’s own faulty torpedoes.

Presophile

Once again, Barack Obama turns to the reliably left-leaning sensibilities of a college campus to continue his perpetual campaign.

It's creepy how the President continually hides behind the pseudo-intellectual ignorance of adolescents and young adults who lack real-world experience. They seem utterly unaware that the platitudes he offers and the monstrous debit he champions are shackles constricting their opportunities, resigning them to a bleak future.

It is in some respects pedophilistic watching the President gloat among the young. Let us make no mistake; the Obama agenda is child abuse of generations of Americans just starting to make their way in this world, and of generations to come. He rapes their futures with a smile and a wave and a lie, and didn't even offer them candy.

The Deadly Political Correctness of Gun-Free School Zones

Terrorists attempting attacks on American soil have, of late, had a run of bad luck. An underwear bomber succeeds mainly in torching his “junk” on an airliner; a car bomber is thwarted by an alert citizen in Times Square; would-be bombers are stung by the FBI in Dallas and Baltimore, and no doubt, other plots have been thwarted in earlier stages of execution, plots about which most will never know so that the methods and sources of our police and intelligence agencies might be protected, unless Julian Assange, the New York Times or similar internet/media vermin get their paws on the information.

But such good fortune has not been universal. During the seven years of the Bush Administration following 9-11, there were no successful terrorist attacks on American soil. In the first two years of the Obama Administration, hope and change have produced multiple successful attacks, including the Fort Hood attack, which cost 12 deaths and 31 injured. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), commenting on the report on that act of domestic terrorism, observed that it was not only preventable, but was the result of a climate of political correctness. It is that particular kind of attack that is likely to be the wave of the future. Due to misplaced, misinformed good intentions and political correctness run amok, America is particularly vulnerable.

Consider the case of obscure Florida minister Terry Jones, leader of a small flock, who burned a Koran in early April, 2011. Around the world, a few days later, Afghan President Hamid Karzai decried the burning and his citizens went berserk, attacking a UN compound and killing seven UN workers, as many as five fellow Afghan Muslims, and injuring 20 or more.

In response, Senator Lindsay Graham was upset that he could not punish the pastor or anyone who would burn a Koran. President Obama likewise “deplored” the Koran burning, but also got around to expressing his disapproval of those who killed innocents. While the Florida paster is certainly unwise, and book burning is the act of a Luddite, the politically correct response, by an American senator and the President--among many others--should give us all pause. There is no moral equivalence between burning a book and the brutal murder of innocents, none. It is particularly ironic that one of those killed was a 33 year old Swede who, according to media accounts, “worked for human rights.” That the default position of so many of our civic “leaders” is to blame anyone but those responsible for inhuman crimes is a symptom of a dangerous strain of emotionalism and illogic abroad in contemporary America, of political correctness elevated above all else.

Many Americans give lip service to the idea that everything changed on September 11, 2001. For our schools, however, that process of change began on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado. Unfortunately, far too many, and particularly educators, have learned the wrong lessons.

School shootings and terrorist attacks on schools are notorious primarily because they are relatively rare. Students are, statistically, more likely to be killed in an automobile accident, struck by lightning or hit by a meteor than to be involved in a Columbine, Virginia Tech or Beslan-like attack. That is the good news.

The bad news is that intelligence agencies have, for some time, been developing information that indicates that terrorists intend to strike soft targets in America in the same ways that they have struck soft targets in other nations. And even if such intelligence did not exist, it wouldn’t take Nostradamus to forecast the likelihood of such attacks. Terrorists know that it will be difficult to again turn an American airliner into a flying bomb, and so they have resorted to tactics such as suicide bombers wearing binary liquid or semi-liquid explosives. The recent Russian sale to Venezuela of advanced, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles has opened up another possible avenue of attack, particularly since intelligence is also indicating that terrorists have been--and almost certainly are--entering America over our porous southern border. Of course, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continues to claim that the situation on the border is better than ever. Thus, under the Obama Administration, is the future apparently to be won.

Mass, coordinated attacks originating from abroad are always possible, but perhaps the greatest current danger comes from homegrown jihadists who do not have consistent ties to foreign terror masters. Such neophyte jihadists have, to date, often made mistakes that have allowed law enforcement to intercept them, but as has already been noted, not every one of them has been so careless, and many will not be so careless in the future.

An allied danger is the disaffected citizen who, for whatever reason, decides to attack innocents and go out in a blaze of deranged glory, the Virginia Tech killer--who would certainly have liked me to mention his name--being only one example. For such killers, attacking undefended, soft targets like shopping malls, churches, theaters and schools will almost certainly become much more attractive. Unlike plots involving substantial amounts of explosives, or other military ordinance, such attacks require nothing more than a few pockets-full of ammunition and commonly available, non-military (not fully-automatic) firearms, and if the plots involve only one or two killers, particularly if they are closed-mouthed, they are virtually impossible to intercept and prevent.

Due to an unfortunate and outdated mix of social, academic and legal factors, schools are uniquely vulnerable to attack. The feel-good trend of the 80s and 90s to declare school zones “gun free,” to “make a statement,” may have impressed those who believe that statement making is a good in and of itself and would doubtless have unjustifiably raised their self-esteem to stratospheric heights. However such high-minded statement making has not served to provoke good will in those who have attacked schools or who are currently looking for a soft target.

For most schools that have considered the possibility of such attacks (most have not), response to an armed attack amounts to little more than locking classroom doors, and reminiscent of early Cold War duck-and-cover drills, overturning and hiding behind desks, relying on 3/4” particle board desktops for protection from bullets and bombs. Doors and desks don’t provide effective protection from either. Only coldly sober, rational tactical thinking, planning and action can prevent or ameliorate terrorist attacks. Hiding, particularly hiding poorly, provides no real protection. Unfortunately, tactical thinking remains off the radar of most educators, and only recently has any tactical thinking gone into the construction of school facilities.

Attacks by “active shooters,” whether Islamist terrorists or non-ideological, domestic juveniles or adults, have many elements in common. All have missions in mind, and for most, survival is decidedly secondary. Most expect to die, either through suicide or by means of the police (forcing the police to shoot them, AKA “suicide by cop”). Both types have no interest in negotiation, and on the rare occasions when they speak to the police at all, it is merely a means of obtaining greater publicity or playing for more time to rape, torture and kill helpless victims. Both care about police intervention only because the police might interfere with their plans. The police, who behave in legally proscribed and predictable ways, do not deter their attacks, and unlike common criminals, they have no reluctance in killing police officers. They plan their attacks with the goal of causing the maximum damage--usually in loss of innocent lives-- in the shortest time, which tends to produce the most and most lasting publicity and/or the greatest glory for their cause and themselves in whatever hellish afterlife they covet.

At the Virginia Tech attack in April of 2007, the killer, pausing after two initial murders, prepared and mailed a package of video, writings and photographs to NBC, which copied everything before bothering to call the police to turn over the originals, and blitzed the airwaves for days with the killer’s lunatic pronouncements. In short, the media gave him exactly what he wanted. In arrogantly and mindlessly defending their actions, NBC made clear to any and all future killers that their insane manifestos would receive a similarly warm welcome from the media. This was not lost on those considering similar atrocities.

LESSONS: All active shooter threats, regardless of ideology or motivation, are equally dangerous. It must now be assumed that those attacking schools will not behave as common criminals, won’t play by the rules of the criminal justice system, do not intend to survive and will kill as many innocents as possible as quickly as possible. Negotiation is likely futile. The press will be on the side of the terrorists in their publicity seeking desires.

The Columbine killers tried to kill as many teachers and students (15) as possible before they were stopped. Considering the time afforded them by the police, it is amazing that hundreds weren’t killed. The police were ineffective because they relied upon an outdated response model that assumed that the attackers were common criminals, wanted to negotiate, and that time was on the side of the police. A school liaison officer did trade a few rounds of gunfire with the shooters, but quickly withdrew, doing as he had been taught: contain and control, let the professionals--Special Weapons and Tactics--handle it. By the time a SWAT team assembled, organized and entered the building, the murderers had already killed their classmates and themselves, and a wounded teacher who might have been saved slowly bled to death over the course of many hours. The Columbine killers brought a crude propane tank bomb, hoping to set off an explosion that would kill scores, but were not able to cause a detonation. The Virginia Tech killer, who chained shut doors to keep victims in and the police out, also had more than enough time to kill 32 innocents before killing himself. He was armed only with two common handguns. The response of the police at Virginia Tech was many times faster than the Columbine response, yet they had no role in stopping the murderer, and their faster response mattered little to the victims or their families. In fact, the number of cases where the police have had any actual role in stopping an active shooter are vanishingly small.

LESSONS: In order to save lives, attackers must be immediately engaged and neutralized. Time is not on the side of the authorities and is absolutely not on the side of the victims. By the time a SWAT team--even if one is available--can be mobilized, arrive and formulate a plan, their only useful task will be in helping to remove the dead.

The 9-11 terrorists had no short-term goals save killing as many Americans as possible. There were no demands, no negotiations, nothing to contain or control. It was the passengers of Flight 93, the airliner the terrorists intended to crash into the White House or Congress, alerted by cell phone to the terrorist’s intentions, who changed the response model independently of the authorities. Crying “let’s roll,” they overwhelmed the terrorists, forcing the plane to crash in a Pennsylvania field, far short of the terrorist’s target. Terrorists now know that American airline passengers will not meekly wait for the authorities to save them. As positive as this development is, it tends to focus terrorists on softer targets.

Few are as soft as schools, as the world learned at Beslan, Russia during several days that began on September 01, 2004 when Islamic terrorists blew up a school, killing more than three hundred and wounding hundreds more as the culmination of three days of rape, torture and murder. This tactic should not have been a surprise, and would not have been a surprise had the mainstream media honestly done its job in the past. Israel has suffered the threat and reality of terrorist attacks on schools for decades. These attacks have been, at best, underreported in the American media, but one particular aspect of these attacks, and the most effective response to them--in Israel and potentially in America--has been ignored, even suppressed by the MSM: the use of firearms by school staff to deter and stop school attacks.

LESSON: Terrorists have been attacking schools and students, throughout the world, for decades. Domestic active shooters have been doing the same in America for decades. The threat is real and is already present. What is new is the potential for an escalation in the number of attacks and in their deadliness.

Living with terrorism in a way that is, for the moment, foreign to Americans, the Israelis have adopted practical responses to terror. For decades, Israeli teachers have been armed, even with true assault rifles (there is no such thing as an “assault weapon,” which is an anti-gun/MSM invention) and submachine guns, changing soft targets to hard targets, deterring attacks and preventing or minimizing the loss of life when attacks occur. As a result, school attacks are rare.

A January 25, 2008 attack on an Israeli High School by two armed terrorists ended with only slight wounds to the two school counselors who used their handguns to quickly kill the terrorists. That’s right: two armed school counselors protected their own lives and the lives of their students. They were not police officers, commandos or action heros, but school counselors. This story received scant attention in the American press, which continues to downplay or ignore Israeli, and many similar American, success stories, and routinely ignores the one to two million (or more) times each year that honest citizens use firearms to stop criminal assault, usually without firing a shot.

In Pearl, Mississippi on October 01, 1997, a crazed adolescent armed with a rifle shot nine students, killing two and wounding seven. Who has heard of Assistant Principal Joel Myrick who stopped the rampage, saving untold lives? Virtually no one, because he used a gun to overcome the shooter. Myrick ran a quarter of a mile to his car, which was parked off school property to comply with the federal law then in force (but since overturned) prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet of a school. Retrieving his handgun, he ran back to the school and confronted the shooter, disarming him and holding him for police. Media accounts, when they mentioned Myrick, virtually all failed to mention the presence and role of his handgun.

On January 16, 2002 at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia, a crazed student went on a shooting rampage, killing three and wounding three. He was stopped by two fellow students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, who ran to their cars to retrieve their handguns. At gunpoint, they ended his killing and held him for police.

Dr. John Lott, in his book “The Bias Against Guns,” recounts how he conducted a Lexis/Nexus search of the news stories surrounding this event. Of 208 news stories throughout the nation in the week following the attack, only four mentioned that the attack was stopped with the use of firearms. Only two reported that Gross and Bridges actually pointed their guns at the shooter. In his book, “Arrogance,” former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg wrote of his surprise, upon reading Lott’s research into the incident, that the MSM would leave out such a noteworthy and essential detail. Conducting his own research, he discovered that Lott was correct. Goldberg wrote: “Only a tiny handful of reporters in the entire country were willing to report an essential part of the story: that it wasn’t just the killer who used a gun on campus that day, but two of the rescuers too.”

Considering media treatment of the issue, it is hardly surprising that so many Americans buy into the false and deadly promise of safety of the “gun-free school zone.” It is unsurprising that most Americans do not recognize the very real threat of school attacks by terrorists. In the two most deadly American school attacks--Columbine and Virginia Tech--the police had no role in ending the killing, another fact which has gone unmentioned by the media. For school attacks, this is overwhelmingly the rule, not the exception.

LESSON: If the goal is saving lives--and where school children are involved, what more important goal exists?--force must be met, immediately, with equal or greater counter-force. The police virtually never arrive in time to make a difference.

Please keep in mind that I am not denigrating the police. I was a police officer for nearly two decades. That is why I understand the reality of police response time. The police love to catch dangerous criminals in the act. It’s what they live for, but in the real world, unlike television, catching bad guys in the act, or preventing their crimes, is uncommon precisely because most bad guys take pains to avoid being caught and because there are, relative to the size of any community, few police officers.

In installments two and three of this three-part series, I’ll elaborate on the difficulties the police face in responding to active shooters, and on the realities of time and distance that frustrate their response. I’ll also propose a means to harden schools, and address the arguments against that proposal.

E.J. Dionne: Fugitive From Reality

Washington Post opinion writer displays for us one again why he is past-due for replacement with his latest dim analysis.

An enlightened ruling class understands that it can get richer and its riches will be more secure if prosperity is broadly shared, if government is investing in productive projects that lift the whole society and if social mobility allows some circulation of the elites. A ruling class closed to new talent doesn't remain a ruling class for long.

Dionne obviously knows nothing of the business world, something he seems to share with others wedded to his peculiar political philosophy.

Business is never static, and not just thrives upon, but demands new ideas and new talent. In the business world, stagnation leads to death, and innovation can lead to nearly limitless prosperity. In the right political climate, businesses can create wealth out of thin air. Almost all wealth starts out as small businesses with big ideas. They drive our entire economy and way of life, when government doesn't get in the way.

There is this thing called a "Facebook," and something else called a "Google," that Dionne may want to read about, and these new software programs called "apps" that have made many of yesterday's nerds into today's millionaires and billionaires. Many of our most accomplished employers found success for themselves and their employees by innovating in fields that didn't even exist as few as a handful of years ago.

On the other end of the scale are protectionist industries that have sought to curry favor with Dionne's ruling class in order to protect the near monopolies they have, and which seek to use regulation to choke out both innovation and competition. One need look no further than the auto industry, manufacturing, and finance industries to find dinosaurs that use generous political contributions to thwart those with newer, better products. Simply look at President Obama's list of top campaign donors to find a list of companies using money to buy favor and defends the status woe.

The only question about Dionne's column worth asking is whether the aging writer is conscious of his hackery in support of the entrenched elites, or if he really is a naif who does not understand the ramifications of what he advocates. I have to think that Dionne's support is a conscious effort to placate those which have lent him relevance in their own self-interests.

The Erik Scott Case, Update 11: Heroism and Loathing in Las Vegas

THE LOCAL MEDIA AWAKENS:

Since the posting of Update 10.3 on April 02 (scroll down for that update), Scott Wyland of the Las Vegas Review-Journal has filed an article (here) on April 12 reporting on the story I broke about AB320, the bill filed by Assemblyman John Hambrick (R-Las Vegas) that would allow Clark County District Attorney David Roger to declare that no coroner’s inquest was necessary in any--or every--future police-involved shooting. It’s good to see that the local Las Vegas media is dealing with the issues revolving around this situation, but a bit disquieting to realize that a members of the pajamas set, a blog, keeps beating them to the story.

Before continuing, here is source material to which you may wish to refer:

For the Las Vegas Review-Journal article on AB320, go here.

For the Las Vegas Review-Journal Article on the award given two of the officers who shot Erik Scott go here.

For an additional LVR-J article on the testimony at the Committee hearing, go here.

For the National Association of Police Organizations home page, go here.

For a listing of that organization’s officers and directors, go here.

For information on that organizations TOP COPS program, go here.

For officers receiving honorable mentions, go here.

That said, Wyland also added that DA Roger is, like the Police Protective Association (PPA), pushing for the enactment of the bill. Wyland notes:

“...the police union and district attorney are now fighting in Carson City to dissolve inquests before the first case is heard under the new rules.

If the bill passes, the district attorney would investigate the deadly incidents and determine whether to file criminal charges, which he has the power to do now. Information from the investigations would be made public.”

NOTE: This post was updated on 04-17-11.

Wyland added:

“...the bill is in an early stage, with an uncertain fate. The first hearing on the bill was held by the Assembly Government Affairs Committee on Monday. It will resume Thursday to gather more testimony. The bill must make it out of its first committee by Friday, or it will be declared dead for the session.”

PPA President Chris Collins remained true to form:

“The district attorney can look into a police killing and determine whether the officer did anything wrong, Collins said. If the family is dissatisfied with the outcome and wants to delve deeper, it can file a lawsuit, he said.

Collins said no other county in the state has inquests, and few places in the nation do. He argued that local police should not be treated differently here than anywhere else.”

Wyland quotes local NAACP VP Richard Boulware who refutes Collins’ assertions. Wyland also mentioned the Scott case as being a proximate cause of the revisions on inquest procedure, which of course, it was.

DA Roger is also quoted as supporting the bill because of the allegedly great cost of providing prosecutors for inquests.

As mentioned in Update 10.3, I did ask Assemblyman Hambrick to comment on his intentions for AB320, but he has not responded. I did not expect that he would, but wanted to give him more than sufficient time to respond, just in case.

THE FATE OF AB320:

Testimony on AB320 was taken by the Assembly Government Affairs Committee on Friday, April 15. Among those testifying were Clark County District Attorney David Roger, PPA President Collins, and representatives of the NAACP, the ACLU, the Latino community and a number of Clark County citizens. Two uniformed, armed officers stood in the hallway outside the chamber--there were no known security issues--and approximately 15 Metro officers were present in the chamber.

DA Roger’s testimony was predictable. He reiterated his belief that inquests were unnecessary and that his office should be the sole agency (apart from Metro)examining officer-involved shootings and making charging determinations. Roger also asserted that if officers refuse to cooperate and testify, it would be hard for his office to investigate officer involved-shootings, and that the new inquest procedures would therefore hinder him in his work.

Roger also brought up budget issues. He is in a fight with the Clark County Commission, which is demanding a cut of some 8% in his budget. Roger claimed, as he has in the local media, that the new inquest procedures would be too expensive.

The PPA flew in--at their expense--a spokesman involved with the independent body that investigates all officer-involved shootings in San Francisco. San Francisco did an analysis of five years of police shootings, and as a result, made fundamental changes in the way they are handled, including the independent body, which is charged only with investigating officer-involved shootings. In addition, San Francisco has a citizen’s review board which can also conduct independent investigations, including the examination of witnesses.

Metro has an “Excessive Force” board. but its manual and rules are written entirely by Metro, and it hears only what the DA and Metro want it to hear. After hearing entirely one-sided testimony--it has no power to subpoena or examine witnesses--it is required to vote. It is little surprise that officers are rarely, if ever, found to have been using excessive force.

Collins’ testimony was likewise predictable, but added one interesting element. Collins claimed that 99% of America’s police agencies have no coroner’s inquests and that it was somehow unfair for Metro officers to be subject to scrutiny. Prior to this hearing, Collins had asserted that officers would refuse to cooperate with investigations and would refuse to testify in inquests, but had only implied that they would invoke their right not to speak under the Fifth Amendment. In the hearing, Collins removed all doubt, telling the Committee that officers would take the 5th.

A citizen had been earlier chastened by the Committee for discussing personal issues rather than the substance of the law, but Collins told the Committee he would ignore their wishes and delve into personal issues. He asserted that Trevon Cole was not on his knees when killed by a Metro officer (this was directly contradicted by the coroner in that case). He brought up the Scott case, saying that citizens were upset because the PPA was trying to muddy the waters by digging up Scott’s past. During his testimony, Collins made an announcement that caused some present to recoil in shock and horror. He announced that William Mosher and Joshua Stark has been given awards for heroism by the National Association of Police Organizations. Collins, a member of the leadership of that organization, nominated them for that “honor.”

Testifying was Las Vegas resident Heather Spaniol, who said: "I am shocked that we are here today. If this is passed, it is a license to kill again as they have done before."

Las Vegas NAACP President Frank Hawkins testified that people who support AB320 do so "out of fear," and urged the legislator to avoid what he characterized as a Clark County issue.

ACLU lobbyist Rebecca Gasca said: ""If you change it (the inquest process), the Legislature would be undermining the will of the people of Clark County. The public has a right to know what happened when an officer takes a life."

The fate of the bill may have been sealed, however, by the testimony of Metro’s lobbyist, Chuck Callaway, who, surprisingly, testified against the bill. It was Metro’s position that the new inquest procedure should be given a chance to work, however, the thrust of Metro’s argument seemed to be the primacy of local, rather than state, control. AB320 would, in practice, affect only Clark County, and it was clearly written for that purpose.

In the end, the bill was not passed out of committee and is dead for the time being. Assemblyman Hambrick, who is a powerful member of the Assembly, has reportedly said that he may bring it up again in 2013, however there is reason to believe that it may find an even less friendly reception in the future.

THE LOCAL MEDIA REMAINS AWAKE:

Mike Blasky and Lawrence Mower of the Review-Journal reported on the award given Mosher and Stark on April 15. They noted that Thomas Mendiola was not honored, having been suspended and arrested for giving a convicted felon a firearm, as I reported in previous updates. A sampling of statements from the article:

“Collins called the two incidents the ‘top two heroic events our officers participated in last year.” [Note: The other was an officer wounded in the line of duty. He was not honored with an award.]

“ At the inquest, medical examiners showed that Scott, who suffered from severe back pain, was taking a potentially lethal amount of prescription painkillers. Costco employees had called police after observing Scott acting oddly and seeing that he was armed.

Witnesses to the shooting said the officers approached Scott as he was leaving the store and that he reached for one of his pistols, prompting them to fire.”

“‘I don’t see it as a controversial shooting,’ he [Collins] said about the Costco shooting. What potentially could have been a bad situation they brought to an end with no citizens being hurt. It was a heroic deed and enough of a heroic deed for the judges to give them an honorable mention.’”

“Scott’s father, Bill Scott, called the honor ‘incredible.’ The arrogance of Chris Collins and the PPA in even nominating these two staggers the imagination. He called the officers’ actions a ‘mistake’ and added, ‘Now they’re being honored for their mistakes?’”

The article noted that a Metro spokesman said that Sheriff Gillespie was out of town, so there was no Metro reaction to the awards.

ANALYSIS:

“Information from the investigations would be made public.” Amazing and despicable. It is precisely the public’s lack of faith in the ability and willingness of Metro, the DA’s office and other elements of the Las Vegas justice system to be honest and transparent that is the motivation for the revised inquest procedures. One might be forgiven for believing, based on past experience, that the only “information” released would be a truncated and sanitized version of the “facts” that would lead to one and only one conclusion: the police will always be justified whenever they kill anyone.

Rogers and the PPA likely wanted AB320 to become law not to save public funds, not so emotionally fragile police officers might be spared the anguish of having their feelings hurt by adversarial questioning, not so they might be more transparent and responsive to the public, but so they can provide even less information than even the old inquest procedures provided. They want to keep the deck absolutely stacked in Metro’s favor and the public in the dark.

But families can file lawsuits, according to Mr. Collins, who surely knows full well that the overwhelming majority of surviving family members are not justice-system savvy, nor do they have sufficient funds to hire attorneys. In addition, many who must continue to live in Las Vegas reasonably fear a police force with a reputation for retaliation against those it perceives as enemies, and a prosecutor’s office that seems to many to be in league with Metro. I’ve catalogued incidents of outrageously thuggish police harassment of citizens for the crime of displaying Erik Scott memorial ribbons on their vehicles in previous updates. Most importantly, Collins reveals his contempt for the public by suggesting that in order to gain access to public documents--police investigative reports--relatives of citizens killed by the police must file lawsuits. Reasonable people might tend to wonder if Collins is serious about asserting that there has been sufficient transparency and disclosure in the past. Such comments surely suggest that his concern is not for sufficient transparency and disclosure in the future.

DA Rogers inadvertently removed all doubt about his collusion with the PPA in his testimony before the committee. I’ve noted in past updates that police and prosecutors virtually always have a love/hate relationship. They must work together, but prosecutors are always aware that if officers screw up badly enough, they will have to prosecute them. This single realization tends to put some professional distance between prosecutors and the police and mitigates against any quid pro quo relationship. More on this later.

Keep in mind that when Collins asserted that 99% of police agencies have no inquests, he was surely, at the least, misleading the Committee. Many states and counties have coroner’s inquests--I’ve testifying in several and attended others. However, what is misleading is that most professional law enforcement agencies do not investigate officer-involved shootings themselves. They have, like San Francisco, independent boards, or agreements with other agencies. Many refer all officer-involved shootings to grand juries. To do as Metro does, to investigate such shootings in-house, is unusual. While it certainly produces results favorable to Metro, it is certain to cause the kinds of public relations problems that bedevil Metro.

THE NAPO: The National Association of Police Organizations bills itself thus:

“The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) is a coalition of police unions and associations from across the United States that serves to advance the interests of America's law enforcement officers through legislative and legal advocacy, political action and education.

Founded in 1978, NAPO is now the strongest unified voice supporting law enforcement officers in the United States. NAPO represents more than 2,000 police units and associations, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 11,000 retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.”

The NAPO’s Officers and Directors page lists Collins as the Sergeant-At-Arms. The NAPO’s website has this to say about its Top Cops Program:

“Since NAPO launched the awards program in 1994, the TOP COPS Awards® have paid tribute to outstanding law enforcement officers across the country for actions above and beyond the call of duty. TOP COPS® awardees are nominated by their fellow officers for outstanding service during the preceding calendar year.

The TOP COPS® are selected by an Awards Selection Committee comprised of national law enforcement representatives who choose one TOP COPS® case from each state and U.S. territory. The cases are then ranked and the top ten case winners are flown to Washington, DC for the awards ceremony. The awards show features a three-minute videotape of each TOP COP® and his or her story.”

NAPO provides a list of dignitaries who have attended past ceremonies, including the President and Vice President. The upcoming ceremony will be held in Washington DC on May 12. As Stark and Mosher were given only honorable mentions, they will apparently not be feted at the ceremony.

Nominations for the award require a supporting essay. It would be interesting indeed to know what Collins wrote in support of Mosher and Stark. One wonders if the other directors of the NAPO actually know that the Scott case is still being litigated and that there are considerable, compelling reasons for believing that Mosher and Stark’s actions are anything but laudable.

Collins’ statement that the officer’s shooting of Scott was not controversial and that “What potentially could have been a bad situation they brought to an end with no citizens being hurt,” is simply stunning. The facts could hardly be clearer, or more disquieting.

Three officers, essentially comprising a circular firing squad, were caught totally by surprise when Costco security guard Shai Lierley pointed out Scott to them after he and Samantha Sterner walked right past them with the rest of the crowd leaving the Costco at the order of the Police. Despite looking for a man of Scott’s description, he was obviously unremarkable to them, and certainly did not appear a drug-crazed madman. When they were made aware of him, they drew their weapons, shouted hasty, confused and contradictory commands, and within just a few seconds, began to fire seven rounds. They showed no concern for or awareness of the many citizens surrounding them, or of the huge structural pillars faced with rock--perfect random ricochet generators--also around them. That no one else was hurt is miraculous, not heroic police work. Stark and Mendiola testified that when Mosher shot Scott twice, they had no idea who had fired, so Mendiola fired four rounds into Scott’s back and Stark fired once.

There is very good reason to believe that the only thing in Scott’s hand was his Blackberry. It was found on the ground near his body, and there are witnesses to that fact and who also saw no weapons at all in Scott’s hands or at the scene after he was shot and killed. Most of these witnesses were excluded from the inquest, but one such witness actually testified, to the apparent surprise of the prosecutor, who engaged in the bizarre act of savaging his own witness on the stand in a hearing in which he had no adversary.

Were they aware that Mosher had two prior Metro shootings, one resulting in a death and other in the wounding of a citizen? As I’ve mentioned before, the mere fact that an officer has been involved in a shooting is not evidence of anything other than that he has been involved in a shooting. But officers who have been involved in a shooting are rare in any police force. Two shootings? Highly unusual, and certainly something that should give any police administrator pause and encourage them to be very careful in their investigation of additional shootings by that officer.

One wonders too if the NAPO is aware of Thomas Mendiola and his fate? Despite being later arrested on a felony, he contributed four of the seven heroic bullets to the non-controversial shooting. Should not he share in the “heroism,” heroism which took place before he allegedly committed a felony? After all, heroes are only human; they make mistakes. Surely mistakes after the fact should not stain earlier acts of valor?

One would hope that the officers of the NAPO, if they were actually aware of these indisputable facts, would not have awarded even an honorable mention to Mosher or Stark, and that they might wish to reconsider the integrity of a member of their governing board who would presumably fail to mention such facts. Surely they did not have full disclosure about the shooting and hand out honorable mentions anyway? It would obviously be prudent for such an organization to at least wait until all litigation had been resolved before making a decision. Heroism never grows stale; it has no expiration date. If it’s truly heroic, it can wait.

As I noted earlier, DA Roger made plain the collusion of his office with the PPA. He testified that if officers refuse to cooperate, it would be difficult for his office to examine officer-involved shootings. That single statement, to professional, competent prosecutors and police officers, is revealing and almost unbelievable. when I first began looking into this case, as those who have read the earlier updates know, I found many of the reported actions of the police to be so unusual, so out of the ordinary that I doubted that they actually occurred as reported. No longer.

In the real criminal justice world, police officers testify about their official actions, as often as necessary. It is not disputed, and no one gives it a thought. It’s simply as much a part of every officer’s duty as wearing the uniform and carrying a badge or handgun. Professionals would not even think about refusing to testify, let alone threatening not to do it. Not only is it grossly unprofessional and a public relations nightmare, but their direct supervisors would take large chunks out of their hindquarters for such idiocy, for such a betrayal of their oaths of office and of the public trust, and if they wouldn’t, higher ranking officers would be taking larger and more lasting chunks out of theirs.

But the most telling indicator is Roger pretending that he is helpless to do his job if officers refuse to testify. As the prosecutor, he should be speaking with Sheriff Gillespie and demanding that he do his job and compel his officers to do theirs. Failing that, he has one very simple and effective means of dealing with the situation: when an officer fails to honor a subpoena and show up for an inquest or any hearing, the prosecutor simply asks the judge to have the officer arrested and brought before the judge to show cause why he should not beheld in contempt of court. There is nothing at all unusual in this. All competent prosecutors are aware of this basic exercise of judicial power.

But what if an officer shows up but refuses to testify? Again, the prosecutor simply asks the judge to direct the officer to take the stand and answer questions. Likely, the judge will do it for him. If the officer then refuses, he can obviously be held in contempt and jailed and/or fined.

But what if an officer takes the fifth on the stand? Obviously, no one, not even a police officer, may be compelled to be a witness against them self. However, an officer who takes the fifth is saying that he believes that if he testifies, he could be criminally liable for his official actions. This should be a concern to every citizen--to say nothing of the police--and should cause that officer to be suspended until an investigation can determine if he is, in fact, criminally culpable. In this, police officers are no different than citizens, except that they may suffer adverse employment actions as a result of their invocation of the Fifth Amendment. In fact, in Nevada, as I’ve noted in past updates, refusing to cooperate in investigations is insubordination, a firing offense.

Readers should keep in mind that Collins is saying that every officer will refuse to cooperate or testify and will take the fifth. He is actually claiming that even officers who have no direct role in an officer-involved shooting, who are merely witnesses before, during or after the fact, will not cooperate. Claiming the protections of the Fifth Amendment when one has no criminal culpability is akin to perjury, and is almost certainly willful obstruction of justice. It can have only one purpose: To protect the guilty and to see that justice is thwarted. One can only hope that individual officers are not foolish enough to take Collin’s advice, for the choice to be professionals and to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution and the law, rather than spit on them, is ultimately theirs.

Perhaps Mr. Rogers is merely using his feigned helplessness as a political ploy to obtain the legal power to end inquests, but it that less execrable than knowingly deceiving the public? What citizen of Las Vegas can now have any faith in the DA’s office where officer-involved shootings are concerned? Mr. Rogers has made plain his complete lack of enthusiasm for the inquest process, and his obvious allegiance to the goals of the PPA, which are clearly to ensure that the public gets only that information the PPA and the DA condescend to give them, and to ensure that the DA, and the DA alone, determines officer culpability. Judging by past performance--which is a reasonable way to predict future performance--it seems likely that the police would virtually always be found to be not only blameless, but actually heroic if Roger has his way.

Whether such a man can effectively serve as prosecutor is a question for future Las Vegas voters, but they should be aware of how bizarre and out of the mainstream of professional criminal justice practice such behavior is.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Throughout the process of dealing with this case, I find myself continually amazed by the behavior of virtually everyone involved with the Las Vegas criminal Justice system. In my police career, the kinds of mistakes, acts, omissions and statements that are legion in the Scott case would have caused immediate discipline and likely, dismissal and prosecution. All of the officers with whom I worked would have expected it. My first words upon hearing about development upon development have been “they did/said what?!” These are not words welcome to professionals, professionals in any field.

Throughout the process, I have been disappointed in the Las Vegas media who seem unable or unwilling to ask logical followup questions, to find and interview the many witnesses to the Scott shooting who were simply told by Metro to go home. Are their stories not compelling? Do they not tend to impeach the Metro version of events? I was pleased that the media finally reported on the involvement of the Public Administrator’s office, but amazed that they did not interview the deputy who lead the arguably illegal search and seizure at Scott’s home only hours after his death, nor did they ask a great many pertinent questions about that bizarre police/PA excursion such as who were the officers who accompanied Steve Grodin and what did they do and take at Scott’s home? Reporters, like all people, have bosses, but their behavior, particularly an apparent lack of curiosity, remains puzzling.

Commenters on this site and others, have continually latched on to the fact that Scott had prescription drugs in his system when he was killed, using that fact to suggest that he was therefore responsible for his death. I have covered that issue, including inquest testimony on both sides of the issue, in detail in earlier updates. What remains the central question of this case is what the officers reasonably could have known when they came into contact with Scott, and whether their actions from that point forward, based on what they could have known, were reasonable.

It is clear to me, from the available facts--many remain hidden by Metro--that the officers had severely limited information, information that might have indicated that Scott might have been acting oddly, and that he may have been carrying a concealed weapon, but that he likely had a license for it. All competent officers know that dispatchers do not always have accurate information, and that anyone acting only on what they’ve been told by a dispatcher is likely to stumble into a world of hurt. They must, always, act based on their own observations. No competent police officer relies solely on what they’ve been told, particularly in cases like this.

I’ve outlined in earlier outdates exactly what the officers could and should have done, not based on armchair quarterbacking, but on real world experience. I, and untold other officers have done exactly what I recommended--and continue to do it--every day. They should have simply watched and waited. They had no information that Scott was endangering others. In fact, Lierley was following him about the store reporting on his actions, but it’s not clear that the dispatcher was making all of this information available in a timely manner. When Lierley pointed Scott out, they could and should have realized that he was, like everyone else leaving the Costco at their order, calmly walking to his car. They should have allowed him to do that, kept him covered, controlled events and turned the tactical situation to their advantage. And when it was safe, when they knew where the rest of the public was, when it was advantageous for them, a single officer with a smile on his face could have approached Erik Scott and said “Pardon me Sir; could I have a word with you?” Had the officers done that, Erik Scott would almost certainly still be alive.

But instead, officers knowing only the tiny amount of information given them by a dispatcher, had a man hastily pointed out to them, a man in the midst of a crowd. A man who was completely unremarkable to them when he walked within mere feet of them only seconds earlier. A man who showed no sign of being under the influence of drugs or of posing a threat to anyone. What could they have observed in the few seconds before they started a gunfight in the middle of a crowd, a gunfight in which Scott fired not a single shot? They could have observed virtually nothing, because they did not take the necessary time to make a reasonable observation and were too busy shouting conflicting, incomprehensible commands at Scott from several directions. They simply did not have time to see anything before Mosher fired two shots, and Mendiola and Stark, having no idea who fired, added their contribution. They were never in control of events; events controlled them.

We still know relatively little about the officers involved, though rather more about Mendiola than he or Metro would likely want the public to know. We do know that Mendiola apparently failed the basic academy and was allowed a second chance, but nothing of the reasons for that situation is known. Had any of the officers been reprimanded for excessive use of force? Did any of them have psych exams that indicated warning signs? All of these are factors that will certainly come out when the discovery phase of the Scott civil case begins, but that is in the future.

Collin’s behavior is almost unfathomable. He appears to be daring the justice system to function properly, apparently believing that it will not, that he has the power to cow it as he chooses. There is reason to believe that his surreal announcement of hero status at the Committee hearing may have played a significant role in killing the bill and in ensuring that it remains dead. In any rational legislative body, that would surely be the case. What is unmistakeable is the utter contempt in which Collins, and apparently the membership of the PPA, holds the citizens of Las Vegas. As I've previously observed, when the spokesman for an entire police force apparently cares nothing at all for public relations, it is a glaring warning.

All of this, and more, is why the Scott case matters. As I’ve often said, in killing Erik Scott, Metro made a serious mistake. The Scott family is obviously system-savvy, and while I have no reason to think them wealthy, they seem to be the kind of people who will do whatever is necessary that the case be not flushed down the Las Vegas memory hole. God bless them and those like them. Metro obviously shares my opinion (though almost certainly not my wish for God’s blessing) and just as obviously is worried. They should be, and their worry should be encouraging to the Las Vegas public, for it is, at the moment, the public's best chance for necessary change. That many people have had to die to make even the possibility of change a reality is one of the most tragic, continuing aspects of this case.

As always, I welcome contact from any member of Metro or the public who can add factual information or correct any inadvertent mistakes I may have made. I will keep their confidence and will, of course, make any necessary corrections promptly and prominently.

History Repeating

My latest article at Pajamas Media deals with another faked hate crime at a university in North Carolina. And no, lacrosse players weren't falsely accused this time.

And yes, the community still plans to protest the faked crime.

Obama Doubles Down On The Budget

Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is truly amazing. Whenever I am certain that he has sunk to the absolute depths of mendacity and rank partisanship, whenever I have no doubt that his socialistic urges have sunk to the lowest measurable level, he digs a hole--nay, hires a dredge (with taxpayer dollars, of course)--and sinks even lower. I speak, of course, of his April 13 teleprompter reading on fixing America’s burgeoning debt.

All of the usual elements of an Obama TP reading were present: halting delivery, left-right-left head-waggling reminiscent of a fan at a tennis match, blaming nearly everything on Bush, blaming everything else on Republicans, class warfare, attacking the evil, greedy wealthy, “facts” and figures plucked wholesale from the ether, economic assumptions based on projected income or events that no sentient being believes will be forthcoming, the economic miracle that is ObamaCare, winning the future, and vision but no real, concrete details. As usual, Mr. Obama is leaving the little, niggling details to the little people.

False choices and moral hectoring, as usual, played a prominent role. Attacking Republicans, Mr. Obama said “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the social compact in America.” Wasn’t it Mr. Obama who has consistently promised (threatened?) to “fundamentally change America?” Ah, but those evil Republicans are attacking “children with autism or Down’s syndrome,” favoring instead “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.”

Wasn’t it Mr. Obama who swept into office promising to change the tone in Washington and to bridge the partisan divide? There is nothing quite like accusing political opponents of intending to savage handicapped children to win friends and influence people. “You’ve just accused me of the most craven and base moral degeneracy? Why of course I’ll be happy to work with you on a bipartisan basis, Mr. Obama!”

NOTE: Sources for this article may be found here, here, here, here, here and here.

Perhaps the most lunatic assertion of the TP reading was Mr. Obama’s suggestion that the wealthy are, in reality, more than willing to pay much higher taxes. They really want to “give back” to the nation that gave them so much. Really? Why aren’t they simply writing checks to the IRS over and above their already considerable tax burdens? Surely they’re free to do that; why do they fail? Why, it’s merely because the government hasn’t asked them yet! Who knew it was that easy?! No wonder we made him president.

I can see it now:

Mr. Obama: “Mr. Wealthy American, I’m asking you to pay a bunch more of your income in taxes. As Vice President Biden, who slept through my economic speech, would say [he actually did, and he wasn’t alone], it’s your patriotic duty! I know you’ve just been waiting for me to ask, so I’m asking.”

Mr. Wealthy American: “Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha! Administrative Assistant, book me a flight to Switzerland, close all the factories, furlough all the workers and transfer all my assets to off shore accounts immediately!”

To be fair to the President, I suspect that a great many Americans would be willing to pay a bit more in taxes, but only if they could be certain that the money would be used solely for paying down the debt. Finding evidence of that in the Obama Administration would be akin to looking for mermaids.

If there was anyone left in America who had the slightest doubt that Mr. Obama has no idea whatever how wealth is created, or who doubted that he firmly believes that every dime anyone makes belongs to the government, this TP reading surely must have disabused them of those foolish notions. And to confirm that understanding, we now have a new economic term: “spending reductions in the tax code.” Mr. Obama means what the simple folks would call “tax cuts.” Tax cuts are no such thing. They are nothing more than money--which belongs to individual citizens--that the government will not get. Such things are, of course, anathema to Mr. Obama and all good socialists everywhere, who alone are fit to decide how much--if any--of the money individuals earn they will be allowed to keep.

And who are the wealthy? Any single person making $200,000 per year, or any married couple making $250,000. Where I live and work, that’s a pretty heady income, but in many places in America, that’s middle class. Many economists have crunched the numbers, and even if we confiscated all of the wealth of the truly wealthy people in America, that amount, that one time amount taken from people who know how to create wealth, would pay off less than one-half of the current, not the ever-increasing, debt. And it would be a one time amount, because most of those wealthy Americans would almost certainly become other than Americans as soon as they could fly out of the socialistic dictatorship capable of confiscating all of their wealth (the IRS doesn’t “ask”), leaving behind everyone they ever employed to join the ever-increasing ranks of the unemployed.

Mr. Obama’s “vision”--it surely doesn’t rise to the level of a plan, or even of an idle, passing fancy--rests on several broad sort-of themes. Following are quotes from his published speech, accompanied by translations in actual American English as opposed to socialist stealth-speak.

Mr. Obama: “The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week – a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We’ll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We’ll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.”

TRANSLATION: “We is me, and “we” only “saved” about $352 million for this year. We sure put one over on the Republicans! We borrowed that much and more while I’m giving this speech. If you think I’m going to cut any program I care about, you’re an idiot. I’m going to continue to spend as much as I like, and I’m going to send everybody to college on the public dime while training new legions of government employees, who will compete and win the future by draining ever-decreasing taxpayer dollars to pay for jobs that create no wealth at all.

Mr. Obama: “The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America’s national security is America’s debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America’s missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it’s complete.”

TRANSLATION: “I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America’s interests around the world.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Whew! I can’t believe they bought that! Would the President who believes that America is responsible for all of the world’s problems, who won’t defend her borders, whose ambassadors denigrate their nation in foreign capitals, who won’t even identify the enemy that wants to destroy America do anything to harm national defense? Of course not!

Somebody should have told Defense Secretary Gates and the Pentagon about all of this. Only minutes after the TP reading, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said that Secretary Gates “has been clear that further significant defense cuts cannot be accomplished without reducing force structure and military capability.” Ooops! Somebody didn’t get the memo!

Mr. Obama: “The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.”

TRANSLATION: “We” are absolutely not going to do anything to cut ObamaCare, which will proceed as planned. I’ll just lie--as usual--about the Republican’s proposals, scare the seniors, and get right to rationing health care. Those stupid seniors won’t know what hit them after the death panels get busy. After all, they’re the biggest health care expense. Ration them off the table and I’ll have loads more money to spend on high speed rail, green energy, energy development in Brazil, unions, and my other favorite boondoggles. Save $1.5 trillion by 2033? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I won’t even save a billion this year! But at least I’ll have another omnipotent commission controlling everyone’s lives. Sure “we’ll reform” programs! ObamaCare is the ultimate reform, and I care soooo much about keeping promises.

Mr. Obama: “That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”

TRANSLATION: I know that Social Security is in far less trouble than Medicare or Medicaid, but I also know that seniors are stupid, so I’ll just pander to them a bit more. If they complain, one of my supporters will probably call them racist. Hell, I don’t know anything about Social Security, and I could care less, but I do know that it’s going to go bust, and by the time it does, I’ll be long gone, happily enriched for life by my supporters. I’ll never have to depend on it, so screw them all!

Mr. Obama: “The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again. Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.

My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.”

TRANSLATION: Sure, I took credit for extending the Bush tax cuts just a few months ago, but I lied! I’m going to do away with all kinds of deductions, like the mortgage deduction. Sure, that’ll brutally depress the real estate market and slaughter the economy, but I don’t control the entire economy yet, and you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs! And, yeah, I know that calling for reforming the corporate tax code while simultaneously calling for raising taxes on the people who form and own corporations makes no real sense, but again, I’m all about me, and me is all about control. And power. And golf. Let those nitwits in Congress deal with the details. I’m gonna go play golf. Somewhere overseas I haven’t visited yet. I’ll ask Michelle; she’s got a list...

So Mr. Obama intends to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion dollars over the next 12 years. He says he’ll do it by $2 trillion in spending cuts, and that will lower interest payments by a trillion, and tax reform will cut “$1 trillion in spending from the tax code.” Nonsense. It’s unicorn horns and fairy dust.

REALITY: The Treasury Department recently reported that the deficit increased 15.7% from October to March, the first six months of fiscal 2011. It reached $829 billion compared with $717 billion of the same period during the previous year. This, despite the fact that revenue for the same period increased 6.9%.

Mr. Obama wants to cut spending by $2 trillion, but is continually proposing new spending programs that would require entirely new permanent federal bureaucracies. In addition, he is unleashing bureaucrats to further burden the economy with regulations, and is all but obliterating our domestic energy production. ObamaCare alone, the biggest, most wasteful and costly entitlement program ever devised by man, would cost at least that much and more, and even the Congressional Budget Office and many Democrats are now admitting it. And even if he kept his word on spending cuts he obviously has no intention of making, interest payments on a debt which Mr. Obama is dramatically increasing daily will never come close to being reduced $1 trillion dollars. The more you borrow and the longer the term of the loan, the more interest you pay. It’s called “compound interest,” yet another economic reality with which Mr. Obama seems unacquainted.

The best part is the idea that tax reform will cut a trillion in spending from the tax code. What spending?! The tax code is all about revenues owed the government by individuals and corporations. It spends nothing, except the money required to operate the IRS and everything associated with it. There is no “spending” to be cut there, not a dime, let alone a trillion dollars. There is either less tax revenue or more. Is Mr. Obama so economically illiterate that he doesn’t realize this, or does he just have so little respect for the intelligence of the public that he’s willing to run any con whenever he feels he can get away with it?

True reform of the tax code would require greatly reducing regulations and simplifying everything. It would require laying off an army of IRS bureaucrats. It would actually--if properly done--reduce taxes across the board, while simultaneously and genuinely stimulating the economy. People who have more money spend more, invest more, save more, build more businesses, employ more people and create more wealth, all of which equals substantially increased tax revenue garnered at lower cost to the taxpayers. Mr. Obama has shown absolutely no inclination to do any of this as it would decrease the size of government and limit its power, concepts utterly distasteful and foreign to him.

How do we know that Mr. Obama is not being forthcoming? Michael Tanner, at National Review Online, provides perspective:

“ Just a month after he took office, President Obama hosted a fiscal summit at the White House. The president invited more than 100 lawmakers, economists, policy specialists, and special-interest groups to a daylong meeting designed to ‘launch a national conversation on how to put the nation on sounder financial footing.’

‘We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences,’ the president declared, promising to cut the deficit, then $1.3 trillion, in half before the end of his first term. Having made that promise, the president instead went out and increased the budget deficit to $1.4 trillion. He also pushed through a $2.7 trillion health-care bill that adds $833 billion to the deficit over its first decade of full implementation.

Roughly a year later, he appointed a bipartisan deficit commission, warning that ’these are tough times and [the federal government] can’t keep spending like they’re not.’

In December, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued its report calling for spending cuts, tax reform, and changes to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The president ignored it. The deficit reached $1.65 trillion.

In this year’s State of the Union address, President Obama again said we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. ‘That is not sustainable,’ he said.

He then proposed a 2012 budget that adds $13 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.

One begins to detect a pattern.”

One does indeed begin to detect a pattern. Let’s not forget that Mr. Obama already proposed a budget for 2012, only two months ago. That “budget” set a new low for adult seriousness, a low that Mr. Obama has, historically surpassed with his April 13 TP reading, a performance that threw his own ridiculous budget under the bus. So adept is Mr. Obama at conning the public, at diverting our attention from the furiously lever-pulling man behind the curtain, that we tend to forget the basis of all economic reality: Spend no more than you make. If you do, quit spending and pay off debts until that balance is restored. No amount of nuance, no amount of faux-eloquent teleprompter reading can alter that simple formula for individual and national success.

The speech was obviously intended to be a refutation and response to Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, a convincing alternative. In that it neither refuted nor responded to Ryan’s proposal, except to insult its author, it was a complete failure. Likewise, it lacked any coherent details or figures that could be tested or measured, so it cannot serve as an alternative. If it was intended to convince the public that Mr. Obama is knowledgeable about and fully engaged in economic issues, it again failed and abysmally so.

It was a small, mean-spirited, partisan speech. It was not the speech of a confident, engaged, serious leader, but of the perpetual campaigner who knows only how to bask in the glory of his own press releases. It can no longer be denied that Mr. Obama is not only incompetent, but a clear and present danger to the short and long term security of America. The alternative is that he actually seeks our economic downfall. We ignore his utter lack of adult seriousness and competence--or his intentional hostility to our continuing national existence--at our own, very real, peril.

Duke LAX Rape Accuser to Face Murder Charges in Stabbing Death

Duke University's "Gang of 88" faculty members really backed a winner in Chrystal Mangum:

The man Crystal Mangum is accused of stabbing has died, Durham Police Department Chief Jose Lopez Sr. said Wednesday.

Mangum already was in jail under a $300,000 secured bond charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.

"More than likely, we will be upgrading the charge to murder," Lopez said.

In 2006, Mangum, 32, falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of raping her.

Mangum had just been in court on December in an arson case where she had threatened to stab her previous boyfriend. That trial ended in a mistrial.

Perhaps this time they'll put this psychopath in prison for life, where she belongs.

Quick Takes, April 13, 2011

ITEM: Is This Cool Or What? Department: From Fox News (here) comes news of a GPS guided mortar round already entering service in Afghanistan. This innovation promises much greater precision at the lower levels of our order of battle, giving our ground troops a much greater margin of effectiveness and safety. Greatest nation in the history of the world? Discuss.

ITEM: Is This Cool Or What II? Department: We’ve previously reported on US Navy research into a practical ship-bourn laser weapon, but the first practical test has been completed. Go here for a video and story. For the first time, a lower powered laser fired at a moving target, a mile distant, in four-foot seas set the engines ablaze within seconds. Very cool indeed. Work is underway on a massively more powerful free electron laser that promises to be able to more or less instantly swat missiles from the sky in all weather conditions. As you watch the video, remember that lasers do not produce a visible beam, ala Star Trek and Star Wars.

ITEM: In the Same Old, Same Old, Department, Instapundit (here) reports on a trip by Mr. Obama to a wind turbine plant where he said there is nothing he can do in the short term to effect gasoline prices. When someone in the audience complained about high gas prices, Mr. Obama suggested that he trade in his car for one that gets better mileage. Uh, Mr. Obama? Saying that drilling for oil is useless because it will take several years to get production up to speed doesn’t work anymore. It’s several years later and gas is climbing rapidly to $5.00 a gallon. Oh yes, and because of your economic debacle, most folks can’t afford new cars, especially if they cost $41,000 like your Chevy Volt wonder greeniemobile. The best part is that the story by the AP, which originally reported on this issue has since been sanitized and rewritten to squelch Mr. Obama’s haughtily offensive suggestion to his questioner. Good to know our mainstream media is looking out for the interests of the public by not worrying their pretty little heads with Mr. Obama’s condescension and economic cluelessness.

ITEM: Well, it’s final. The United States Congress and Mr. Obama have agreed to cut: Wait for it...$38.5 billions dollars! That’s right, almost nothing at all. Visit John Hinderaker’s piece at Powerline (here) for his take on this non-event which staved off a government shutdown. I’m still not sure why that would be a bad thing. Anyway, Hinderaker has a balanced, rational outlook on this issue, and the Ramirez cartoon, like so much of his work, is a classic, though sure to provoke cries of “RACIST!” All the more reason to view it like the good little racists all those who disagree with Mr. Obama are.

ITEM: According to the LA Times (here), the White House is worried that rising gas prices could derail Mr. Obama’s reelection hopes. Ya think? What to do? They’re arranging a series of opportunities for Mr. Obama to give teleprompter readings! They’re going to give him the opportunity to reassure the public that he has a plan to lower prices, which have risen 30% in the last year. Ah! That explains why he’s telling people worried about high gas prices to buy more fuel efficient cars! That’ll convince folks, won’t it? Discuss.

ITEM: Continuing Tales Of The Religion Of Peace Department: Peaceful Palestinians hit an Israeli school bus with a peaceful anti-tank missile on April 7, seriously wounding a 16 year old boy and the bus driver. Fortunately. Most of the kids got off the bus only minutes earlier. And these are the people with whom President Obama reflexively sides? Sigh. Yes, they are. Go here for the whole story.

ITEM: Blasts From The Past! Department: Go here for an interesting—and sobering—analysis of our fiscal problem by former Reagan budget guru David Stockman. Yes, it is as bad as you think it is, and worse.

ITEM: In the bad old days of the Cold War, and even today, Communist regimes always talk about “The People’s” this and “The People’s” that. It is part of the inherent propaganda of communism, and an essential part of the big lie that communist governments care for their people. Mao cared so much that he killed, arguably, 100 million of his “the people.” Congressional Democrats have produced their own budget outline, and the most amazing coincidence! They’re calling it “The People’s Budget.” Anyone who is not offended—and deeply concerned—by this, knows nothing of history or of communism, or worse, is very well aware. Go here to read the whole thing. Notice that they are not afraid to tell “the people” that they intend to reduce our strategic capabilities—to greatly decrease our ability to defend ourselves and others. To what has Barack Obama—The One--brought us?

ITEM: Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-State of Incoherence) recently delivered a speech (here) wherein she observed that in 1994 Republicans were elected to defund the National Endowment of the Arts, but in 2010, they were elected to “kill women.” Uh…what?! Ladies and Gentlemen: Your Democrat representatives! (cue laugh track and rim shot)

ITEM: Louis Renault Award of the Millennium: Yes, those peaceful humanitarians of Iran are at it again. The world was recently shocked, shocked! to discover yet another previously unknown nuclear facility where the Iranians were producing centrifuge parts--according to them--for purely peaceful purposes, of course. Read the whole thing here. I’m shocked, shocked! that Mr. Obama’s smart diplomacy and serious sanctions don’t appear to be having any effect on the peaceful theocratic lunatics who run Iran and export peaceful terror around the globe. Perhaps if Mr. Obama gives another teleprompter reading to the Muslim world?

ITEM: Uh, Who Are The Children Here? Via Fox News (here), a football coach in San Diego attacked and seriously injured a man when he thought he overheard the man trying to recruit one of his players. The players were 9, 10 and 11 years old. “Get a life” comes to mind...

ITEM: Drinkin’ Good In the Neighborhood! A 15 month old toddler in a Michigan Applebee’s began to act strangely. His mother found that what she thought was apple juice was actually margarita mix. The manager of the Applebee’s called it “unacceptable.” Well, yeah. Go here for the story. LATE UPDATE: Apparently the kiddie was served booze due to a labeling mixup. Applebees plans to dispense all juices in sealed, individual containers from now on. Good idea.

ITEM: At Hot Air (here) Jazz Shaw has an article on the incredible self-delusion of progressives who cannot imagine why the Tea Party and it’s obviously stupid, horribly flawed ideals is, well, kicking their butts. Shaw takes a bit of vicarious pleasure in their misery. It’s worth reading to provide a bit of insight into what passes for thinking in progressive circles, but do not, gentle reader, begin your victory dance just yet. Thus far, we have only saved or slightly hindered a tiny portion of an ever-expanding and still out of control budget and bureaucracy. We’ve successfully fired the first signal flare in what will certainly be a very long and bitterly fought war. The live ammunition has not yet begun to fly.

ITEM: The “We’re Doing WHAT?!” Department: The Obama Administration, mired in the worst debt crisis in American, nay, in world history, is going to spend $20 million to: Wait for it...remake Sesame Street in Pakistan! There just aren’t words... Some are apparently saying, “hey, it’s only $20 million...” I dunno. Seems like a lot of money to me regardless of what it’s for. Why, I’d bet that if you started saving 20 million here and 20 million there, eventually, it would add up to some real money! Go here if you have the stomach.

ITEM: Newsmax (here) has a story on the never-ending fun in Wisconsin. As you may recall, Wisconsin Supreme Court hopeful JoAnn Kloppenburg, who all but promised to be a partisan progressive rubber stamp, declared victory with a 200+ vote margin. Then, miracle of miracles, some 15,00 uncounted votes were discovered and incumbent Justice David Prosser was suddenly up by 7500 votes, which will most likely hold and be outside the trigger for a state-paid recount. How do we know this is likely an honest mistake rather than criminal vote fraud? Easy: It benefited a Republican. Gov. Scott Walker is vowing that unions won’t be able to cheat their way to victory. Wisconsin is becoming an endless source of entertainment, and I thought that all it had to recommend it was cheese hats.

ITEM: Say, wasn’t there some sort of trouble in one of those foreign places, like last week or so. You know, like, Venezlulu, or Nobukistan, or Libya maybe? Wasn’t it Libya or something like that? Go here for Mark Steyn’s take. Apparently the non-war with a non-battle plan for non-victory is going non-well under the non-inspired non-guidance of our non-Commander-In-Chief. What a non-relief!

ITEM: Remember the multiple injunctions issued by Judge Sumi in Wisconsin on behalf of the unions? Go here to find out, specifically, why everything she did was illegal under Wisconsin law. But hey, what’s a little thing like breaking the law when public sector union pocketbooks are at risk? It’s all about the money. It always was.

ITEM: Are you a state laboring under oppressive DOJ interference? Want to take on the Holder DOJ and not only win, but kick its nether regions a considerable distance down the road? Visit here to find out how. There may be justice in the world after all.

ITEM: Even in the People’s Democrat Republic of Illinois, it seems, some sanity may yet exist. State Attorney General Lisa Madigan, determined to release the names of law-abiding gun owners to the press, has been temporarily restrained by the Illinois House which passed a bill to keep those names—remind me again why any state should be collecting the names of gun owners?—private. Go here for the whole mess.

ITEM: Signs of the Apocalypse Department: From Fox News (here) comes the tale of a man and woman who robbed a lemonade stand, taking $150 that three girls had raised for charity. The woman was arrested but the man is still at large. What, I wonder, besides lengthy prison terms, would be an appropriate punishment? Mandatory lemon sucking for life?

ITEM: Harry Reid Follies Redux: In this space, we’ve criticized Sen. Harry Reid (D-State of Delusion) for weeping over the coming cowboy poetry apocalypse. The New York Times (here), of all places (Yeeeha! Git along, little urban doggies!) has a sympathetic article on the topic. Paul Zarzyski, a cowboy poet said:

“A lot of art forms at first brush might sound peculiar,” he said. “After you learn a little bit about them and the people who perform them, you find out that they are as significant as any kind of art forms. Cowboy poetry comes out of a culture that most people don’t understand. Most of that criticism is urban and uninformed.”

Not really, Paul. We suburban, informed types just don’t believe that money falls out of the back of chuck wagons, and if it’s a choice between, for example, ammunition for our troops or, well, cowboy poetry, we’ll go for the most bang for the buck anytime.

ITEM: And You Wonder Why Public Education Get A Bad Reputation? Department: From Michelle Malkin (here) comes the story of a Chicago elementary school where the principal has decided she knows better than parents and has enacted a nanny-state policy to protect them from themselves. The policy? Kids can’t bring lunch from home; they have to eat cafeteria food. Unsurprisingly, a great many kids choose to eat nothing at all rather than the wonderfully nutritious and tasty choices provided on the school menu. Isn’t forcing kids to eat school food a violation of the Geneva Conventions? Perhaps a violation of the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? Where are the human rights types when you need them? Oh, the humanity!

ITEM: Cruzin! Department: I’ve been taking General (Government) Motors to task of late for wasting taxpayer dollars, primarily with the Chevy Volt. Now, from the Wall Street Journal (here), comes news of some minor difficulties with another Chevy offering: The Cruze, which is the new small car on which Chevy is basing a significant part of its post-bailout fortunes. Apparently the proud owner of a new Cruze was making a turn and the steering wheel broke off in their hands. Boy, that’s winning the future! Chevy has issued a recall (good idea!) and said that they will fix the problem for free (that’s big of them). Hmm. Have they asked Mr. Obama about that? He’ll probably want a repair tax added. Your taxpayer dollars at work!

ITEM: Do you remember when Mr. Obama was a senator way back in 2008, a senator taking gratuitous shots at Mr. Bush for high gas prices and for having the unbelievably high unemployment rate of 5.5%? Yeah, well, Mr. Obama would like you to forget that. After all, 10% functional unemployment and gas prices shooting toward $5.00 per gallon aren’t his fault and he can’t do anything about it anyway! That’s right, the man who could stop the rise of the seas and heal the planet is helpless! Read more at Powerline, here.

ITEM: Libya Update: Kaddafi is still in power, the war continues, our planes are still withdrawn, the French say that NATO isn’t enough, and Mr. Obama—like any semblance of American leadership or resolve—is absent. Hmm. Doesn’t demonstrated weakness and irresolution encourage tribal, Islamist barbarians? But hey, we’re winning the future! Or something...

ITEM: Further News From The Religion Of Peace Department: According to Reuters, as reported in the Jerusalem Post (here), Iran has announced plans to build “four our five” new nuclear reactors “in the next few years.” Iran plans to use these reactors for research and to produce medical radioisotopes. Suuuuuuure they do. One wonders what kind of sanctions Mr. Obama will want to impose when the first Iranian nuc goes off in Israel or America. No doubt it is only smart diplomacy that has prevented Iran for already having a bomb—maybe.

ITEM: And speaking of energy, the Washington Examiner (here) reports that America has the largest reserves of untapped energy on the entire planet. Exploiting those resources would greatly increase energy supplies while greatly lowering costs, and none of this exploitation would cost a single taxpayer dollar. So let’s see if I have this straight: We have the means, at no cost to the taxpayer, to immediately stimulate the economy, greatly increase the number of solid, long-term jobs, reduce our dependence on energy from hostile foreign suppliers, increase our national security, lower prices on just about everything, and to help to pay down the budget deficit. So of course, Mr. Obama is vehemently opposed, despite his rhetoric to the contrary. Is that about it? Thought so.

ITEM: So what does the hard Left think about budget cuts? Visit a column by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post (here) to get a glimpse into the cobwebbed recesses of the liberal brain. An example: “There’s no question who won last week’s showdown. The outcome — nearly $40 billion in painful cuts — goes well beyond the GOP’s initial demands.” To Robinson, $40 billion cut from a multi-trillion dollar deficit is painful and unreasonable. Basically, liberals actually appear to believe that the Federal Government is not nearly large enough and that it is not possible to cut even a penny from the budget, unless, of course, it comes directly out of the defense budget. That we can cut, no problem. The article is certainly informative, but probably not as Mr. Robinson intended.

ITEM: From Fox News (here) comes news of The California Federation of Teachers which has passed a resolution renewing its support for convicted Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal has long been a liberal icon, despite overwhelmingly conclusive evidence of his guilt, including multiple eye witnesses, his possession of the gun used to kill the officer, and a bullet fired by the officer he killed recovered from his own personal body. Despite all of this, he has become a liberal symbol of the racism and injustice of the system. Power to the people, right on! One might be forgiven for wondering what business a teacher’s union might have dealing with an issue like this—particularly where the object of their affections is so utterly loathsome--but then again, what business does a teacher’s union have being a subsidiary of and fund raiser for the Democrat party?

ITEM: Louis Renault Award for March: Remember all the mainstream media news stories about the Iranian cargo plane forced to land in Turkey by Turkish fighters in March? Remember the international outrage when it was discovered that the plane carried 600 kilos of explosives, mortars, assault rifles, rocket launchers and about $560 million in cash, all bound for Hezbollah through Syria? You don’t? I’m shocked, shocked! that you didn’t. Well, maybe not so much. Google the event and you’ll discover much Israeli and internet coverage, but otherwise? After all, all of those goodies were only destined to kill Israelis, you know, Jews. It only had the potential to inflame an entire region of strategic interest to the United States. Why would that be news? Oh, right! It would embarrass Mr. Obama. Go here for the rest.

ITEM: Remember how Obamites postulated that once ObamaCare was a fait accompli, everyone would find out what was in it and just love it up one side and down the other? Reality, fortunately, is not quite so sanguine. According to a recent AP poll (here), only 35% support ObamaCare, which is almost tied with the low of 34% during the season of entertaining town hall meetings, during which many Democrats were nearly tarred, feathered and run out of town on rails. How’s that hope and change workin’ out for yah?

ITEM: In the “Oh Goody” Department, comes the news (here) that the Magma pocket under Yellowstone National Park’s super volcano is likely far larger than had been previously suspected. The last eruption, which was about 600,000 years ago, blanketed much of North American was a thick blanket of ash. According to scientists, a super eruption occurs about once every 600,000 years…uh-oh…

ITEM: Continuing with the unceasing tradition of public employee labor union altruism and civic-mindedness, the California Teacher’s association (here) has budgeted one million dollars for protests against upcoming cuts to education in a state that is about ready, economically speaking, to slide off the map into the Pacific any day now. Among the tactics they’ve posted on their website:

“Follow targeted legislators for the entire day.”

“Have students and parents camp in front of schools all night.’

And my personal favorite:

“Work with organization[sic] like Ben & Jerry to have them create a labor-union flavored ice cream that can be sold at the rallies and in stores.”

Like what, exactly, would mouth-watering “labor-union flavored ice cream” taste? Would that be anything like “environmental-activist flavored ice cream?” The mind boggles. Discuss.

Mark Twain was right: Truth is stranger than fiction. And on that somewhat disquieting note, thanks for stopping by, and I’ll see you next Thursday!

UNC Student Falsified Hate Crimes Allegations

At least this liar was shot down before anyone was falsely accused.

I anticipate his expulsion from the university as a warning to others.

Me? Own A Gun? Article 5: Cartridges and Carrying

In this final installment of the five part series (the first four installments may be found here, here, here and here), I’ll explore the basics of cartridge and holster choice, and add a few interesting additional tidbits. I hope this series has been useful and informative.

CARTRIDGE CHOICE:

Cartridge choices for handguns are relatively simple. For revolvers, the .38 special and .357 magnum predominate. One can also obtain revolvers in .44 special, .44 magnum and larger, specialized cartridges most commonly used for hunting, but for most people choosing a revolver, the choice is .38 special or .357 magnum. The .357 is nothing more than a .38 special with a slightly longer case which allows more powder, greater bullet velocity, and therefore, more power. Smaller revolvers like the Ruger LCR are chambered only in .38 special (there is a .357 model with a different model designation), and while any revolver chambered for .357 magnum will also fire .38 special ammunition, the opposite is not true. It would be wise to consider .38 special to be the smallest cartridge appropriate for self defense in revolvers. Smaller calibers are available, but there is no advantage in size or otherwise in such weapons. Revolvers chambered for .357 magnum and larger calibers are themselves larger and heavier, often much larger and heavier than smaller, short barreled revolvers chambered in .38 special.

Common cartridge choices for semiautos are somewhat more numerous: .380 ACP, 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP predominate. Again, there are a variety of other available cartridges, but these are the primary four. Of the four, the .40 S&W is the most recent, having been developed from the 10mm cartridge as a shorter cartridge with less brutal recoil characteristics. It does approximate the performance of some .45 ACP ammunition with lighter bullet weights, while being physically small enough to use the same frames and slides as guns chambered in 9mm. Generally speaking, none of these cartridges is interchangeable. With semiautos, one should load and fire only those cartridges for which a given handgun was designed. In this genre, the .380 is generally considered the smallest cartridge effective for self defense. Handguns chambered for it, such as the polymer Ruger LCP, can be very small and light indeed, but as with very small and light revolvers, tend to have mediocre sights and triggers and because of their very light weight and small size, tend to impart considerably more recoil energy to the shooter. This usually results in equally mediocre accuracy.

Cartridges are commonly named for their bore diameter and developer, or to clearly differentiate them from similar cartridges. The .357 magnum, for instance, fires a bullet whose diameter is 357/1000 of an inch, and the “magnum” designation is intended to denote a more powerful version of the .38 special, which fires a bullet of the same diameter. The .40 S&W fires a bullet of 400/1000 inch diameter, and major development work was done by Smith and Wesson. It is essentially a development of the 10mm cartridge, but the case is slightly shorter to allow smaller framed weapons to fire it with less recoil. Again, the .40 S&W designation clearly differentiates it from 10mm ammunition, though both fire bullets of essentially the same diameter. While it is possible to fire .40 S&W ammunition in a handgun chambered for 10mm, the opposite is not true, and it is always best to fire only that ammunition for which a gun is specifically chambered, particularly with semiautos.

BROAD AMMUNITION GENERALIZATIONS:

For self defense, only jacketed hollow points should be used. Hollow points have the greatest likelihood of expending more of their energy within a target--thus having the maximum stopping effect--and the least likelihood of over-penetration and ricochet as they will tend to “mushroom” or fragment on impact with solid objects. Full metal jacket, or “hardball” ammunition--lead bullets fully encased with copper and with rounded noses--are military issue due to international treaties and because of the military need for greater penetration of cover. In the military context, it is often better to wound than to kill an enemy. A wounded enemy takes three people out of the fight: the wounded soldier and two of his comrades to carry him. This kind of ammunition is entirely appropriate--and much cheaper--for practice, but not for daily carry.

Practice ammunition, whether with lead bullets or jacketed bullets, is generally substantially cheaper than carry ammo, however, it is often of lower power and will therefore have different recoil, report and muzzle flash characteristics than carry ammo. In fact, some light-loaded practice/target ammunition may cause malfunctions in some semiautos. The lesson is to practice, upon occasion, with the ammunition you intend to carry.

Another significant issue is ammunition cost. If you’re going to be truly proficient, if you’re going to have the confidence that will help to ensure that you’ll likely be able to avoid using a handgun, which should be your preferred outcome, you must practice--and practice correctly--regularly. Anyone can learn to shoot, but shooting well under pressure is an acquired skill, and a skill that is degraded without consistent, correct practice.

For all of the ammunition that follows except the 9mm, the cost was derived by multiplying the per box (50 rounds) cost by 20. Revolver cartridges and the .380 can be sometimes difficult to find in 1000 round lots, but when purchased in that quantity, one can usually save $20 or so over the per-box price. The prices listed are quite close to those of other brands currently for sale on the discount ammo market. Hollow point ammunition suitable for concealed carry normally comes in 50 round boxes, but every manufacturer markets ammunition claimed to be nothing short of miraculous in 20 round boxes at much higher prices. As you can see, 9mm ammunition is generally substantially cheaper than any other popular caliber.

In revolvers, .38 special ammo is generally cheaper than .357 ammo of the same type. In semiautos, 9mm ammo is generally much cheaper than the other three types and is generally much more readily available. Checking prices at Midway USA (a popular supplier of ammunition and all things gun) in early April 2011 for roughly comparable practice FMJ (full metal jacketed) ammunition (per thousand rounds ), I find (bullet weights are expressed in “grains”):

Magtech .38 Special, 158 gr. lead round nose, 1000 rounds, $287.80

Sellier & Bellot .357 Magnum, 158 gr. FMJ, 1000 rounds, $459.80

Sellier & Bellot .380 ACP, 92 gr. FMJ, 1000 rounds, $339.80

CCI Blazer 9mm, 115 grain FMJ, 1000 rounds, $219.00

Magtech .40 S&W, 180 gr. FMJ, 1000 rounds, $323.80

Magtech .45 ACP, 230 gr. FMJ RN, 1000 rounds, $377.80

By way of comparison, 1000 rounds of .22LR ammunition--and there are many models chambered for this caliber in revolvers and semiautos--can be had for about $35.00. However, .22LR is not a good choice for a self defense arm, though for a backup gun meant to be used only at near contact range as a last resort if a primary arm is lost or out of ammunition, it is a reasonable choice. That said, the .22LR is a very versatile--and obviously inexpensive--cartridge and no shooter should be without at least one .22LR rifle, and arguably, a .22LR handgun, but more about that later. As the Texas Ranger suggested earlier, in ammunition, bigger is often better.

Consider the Moro uprising of 1899-1913. The Moros, Islamic revolutionaries in the Phillipines, fought a protracted jungle war with the US Army. This was America’s first real war against an Islamic enemy and its first jungle war. The Moros were small in stature, being only a bit over five feet tall on average, but were fierce, dedicated and prone to atrocities. Many would drug themselves prior to combat, lowering their resistance to pain and increasing their homicidal rage.

At the time, the US Army’s issued handgun and cartridge was a .38 special which was quickly discovered to be wanting. The round nosed lead bullets fired at slow velocities might inflict wounds on a charging, drug crazed Moro that would eventually result in his death, but proved to be exceptionally poor in stopping such charges, even with multiple hits in vital areas.

Desperate for a better gun/cartridge combination, the Army adopted what is perhaps authentic American genius John M. Browning’s most enduring design: The Colt 1911 pistol in .45 ACP. Large, heavy and reliable, the 1911 fired much heavier jacketed .45 caliber bullets that proved to be excellent man stoppers, often immediately dropping Moros with a single hit. The model 1911 in various configurations and the .45 ACP have been very popular since.

This brings up one of the classic shooter controversies: 9mm vs. .45ACP. The basic argument is which is best, a larger/heavier, slower bullet, or a smaller/lighter but faster bullet? Proponents on each side often engage in lengthy proofs in the popular gun press fraught with righteous anger and disdain, supported by scientifically derived (or not) ballistic tables and anecdotal evidence of horrendous failures of the cartridge they disfavor, but the truth is that any of the cartridges I mention here, properly placed, will be effective. Poorly placed, the most powerful handgun cartridge will have minimal effect.

In truth, I have carried both cartridges and have never felt under-armed with either. There are indeed instances where people have been shot multiple times with either cartridge and have barely been affected, only to more or less fully recover later. On the other hand, there are many instances of attackers being completely and immediately stopped by single rounds. Generally, the. 45ACP has a well-deserved reputation as a man-stopper and will, in objective, scientific measurements tend to outperform smaller, lighter calibers. However, there are many other factors to consider.

A full-sized model 1911 has a seven-round magazine of .45ACP. It is an excellent, but large and heavy handgun and while some people do commonly carry it, it is hardly an optimal concealed carry choice for most people. Because the focus of this article is on concealed carry, following are the specifications of three Glock subcompact models and the Ruger LCR.

Keep in mind that it was the decade-long Clinton gun ban that gave birth to the Glock 26 and a great many other similarly sized handguns by other manufacturers. Under the ban, new magazines were limited to 10 rounds, so Glock, whose smallest gun at the time was the G19 with a 15 round magazine, designed the G26 for ten round magazines, making a much more concealable weapon that still carried an impressive amount of ammunition. It certainly gave the gun banners fits. Irony can, upon occasion, be particularly satisfying.

SUBCOMPACT HANDGUN COMPARISON (weight in ounces):

G26: 9mm, Barrel: 3.46”, L: 6.29”, W:1.18”, H: 4.17”, Weight: 19.75/26.1 (unloaded/loaded), 10 Round magazine capacity.

G27: .40 S&W, Barrel: 3.46”, L: 6.29”, W:1.18”, H: 4.17”, Weight: 19.75/26.98, 9 Round magazine capacity.

G36: .45ACP, Barrel: 3.78”, L: 6.77”, W:1.13”, H: 4.76”, Weight:20.11/26.96, 9 Round magazine capacity.

LCR: .38 Special, Barrel: 1.875”, L: 6.5”, W: 1.283”, H: 4.5”, Weight: 13.5 unloaded, 5 round capacity.

Notice that the .45 model is larger and heavier than its 9mm and .40 S&W cousins, but not by much, which is a testament to Glock design and engineering. the largest difference is in magazine capacity. With one round in the chamber and a spare magazine, carrying a Glock 26 yields 21 rounds. For the Glock 27 it’s 19, and for the 36, 13. A Ruger LCR with a speedloader yields 10.

HOLSTERS:

What should guide one’s choice of a holster? What will be comfortable, concealable, and most importantly, what you will actually wear every day. A holster that looks great but just doesn’t fit your body or life will be of little use. There are several primary categories of holsters useful for concealed carry, but much depends on the individual, their lifestyle, the climate, and their weapon. Generally, those living in predominantly hot climates have fewer choices than those who live in cold climates as coats and jackets can effectively cover a wider variety of weapon/holster combinations than a shirt. Shoulder holsters, for example, while looking sexy on James Bond, are generally not a great choice in hot climates. As it is best to carry only one gun, it is best to always carry it in the same holster. Here are the primary options:

BELT HOLSTERS: These come in a variety of materials--primarily polymer or leather--and styles, and attach to a belt by means of various clips, slots or paddles. Among them, the widely used “pancake” holsters hold the weapon close to the body, but are marginally slower to draw than holsters that are not so body-hugging. Fobus makes a line of inexpensive but effective polymer holsters that allow easy adjustment of the angle of the holster on the hip.

INSIDE THE BELT/WAISTBAND HOLSTERS: Made of leather, Cordura and nylon or polymer, these are among the most effective concealment holsters as they minimize the appearance of a handgun and hold it as close to the body as possible, between the waistband of the pants and the body. They are slightly slower to draw that pancake holsters, but for most people, drawing speed is not the primary concern. Most require a belt for proper support and to keep the pants from constantly sliding downward under the weight of a handgun.

SHOULDER HOLSTERS: Made of leather, Cordura and nylon, polymer or combinations of these, shoulder holsters are generally comfortable, particularly if balanced by two magazines on the opposite side of the body. However, they do require loose-fitting overgarments to properly conceal them and generally cost much more than other types of holsters. In addition, one cannot take off the outer garments without revealing the handgun. They come primarily with vertical or horizontal holster orientations.

FANNY PACKS: Usually made of Cordura, nylon or some combination, these devices are normally worn with the pack on the front of the body or on the hip. Depending on their release/opening mechanism, they may afford a rapid draw. Obviously, they allow the convenient carrying of a handgun, magazines and other common items with little concern for wardrobe. These are a particularly good choice for hot climates, but avoid units that place the belt release buckle on or near the back. It’s far too easy for a bad guy to make off with the pack, thinking he’s getting a billfold, only to find an entirely unexpected windfall.

Fanny packs can be a very good choice for women, whose clothing options tend not to be as numerous or carry-friendly as those of men. Many belt holsters require a substantial leather or nylon belt to work properly, and that, in turn, requires wide, substantial belt loops (to say nothing of pants), something many women’s pants simply do not have. On the other hand, an unobtrusive fanny pack accessorizes well with pants and skirts alike, as long as they’re not too formal, and can double as a small purse.

There are a variety of other specialty holsters for a wide variety of weapons. Some manufacturers make purses with easily accessible holsters, but this presents a unique problem. You must keep your concealed weapon with you and in your direct control at all times. If it’s in a purse, it can easily be forgotten, or stolen without the owner’s knowledge. It’s not an impossible choice, but anyone carrying one has to be extra careful to keep it within her immediate grasp at all times. A quick trip to the internet/Google will reveal the profusion of holsters available. Expect to spend from $25-$100 on a good holster.

ONE ILLUMINATING ACCESSORY: Laser sights. Lasers are now available for most popular handguns in two types (red and green) and three primary mounting methods: Incorporated in the the handgun grip, attaching to an under-frame rail, or incorporated into the rear sight. Some manufacturers also make models that replace the guide rods of semiautos, though this limits the models for which the laser is available and they cannot be finely adjusted for precise accuracy. Quality laser sights run just a bit over $100 to as much as $500 and are now quite small.

Red lasers are more common and less expensive than green lasers. The only real advantage green lasers have over red is that the laser dot is more visible in a wider range of situations over greater distances. Red laser dots might be hard for some people to see in bright sunlight, particularly over ranges greater than 15 yards, while green will commonly be more visible. However, since virtually all handgun engagements take place at ranges under 15 yards--commonly a great deal under 15 yards--this is not as significant an issue as it might seem. For most people, a red laser will be quite sufficient, and this problem is reasonably effectively addressed with a pulsing laser dot which is much more easily seen than a solid beam. Pulse mode lasers are offered by many manufacturers.

Lasers are a real solution to the generally poor, non-adjustable “iron” sights standard on most small revolvers and many .380 semiautos. In addition, they are an excellent training tool, giving shooters an immediate visual representation of the effects of their trigger techniques, an important issue for any shooter, but particularly for beginners. For any shooter, they can improve speed and accuracy, and for shooters whose eyesight is not as sharp as it once was, are an obvious benefit. Some may ask “but what happens when the battery fails?” Simple: just use the sights that came with the handgun; they don’t require batteries. I change batteries yearly, and despite relatively frequent use, I’m always replacing batteries that still have useful life remaining.

Some of the best-known laser companies are: Crimson Trace, Laser Lyte, LaserMax and Veridian. I have used lasers from the first three companies and have found them to be high quality and reasonably priced. Veridian specializes in green lasers, so their offerings tend to be more expensive than average.

AN IDEAL SITUATION:

Please keep in mind that I am not paid to endorse any product, so my suggestions are based entirely on decades of experience in carrying weapons, in the military, civilian police work, and as a citizen rather than motivated by financial self-interest.

That said, I have carried a Glock 26, and only a Glock 26, for about 15 years. For the last nine years, I have carried it in a fanny pack. This makes a great deal of sense as I live in the southern US where it is commonly very hot. As I was raised in the north, cold bothers me little, and in a common southern (what passes for) winter might wear a jacket two to three times at most. A fanny pack, which I wear on the right front portion of my body, allows me to carry not only my handgun and spare magazines, but other items like a checkbook and keys. One of the advantages of this method of carry is that when I have no choice but to enter a place that prohibits legal concealed weapons, it’s easy to put the weapon in the truck of my car without making it obvious to anyone that I’m storing a handgun there. I’ve used several different models, including one by Uncle Mike’s, but these days, I’m carrying a UTG model that cost only about $15.00. With a bit of easily done sewing modification, this one works are well as several I’ve carried at three and more times the cost.

I chose the Glock 26 because of its small size and weight while still keeping substantial magazine capacity. With two spare magazines, I have 31 rounds handy, and keep fifty in my vehicle. Because I have relatively large hands, I’ve equipped each of my magazines with a Pearce Grip floor plate/finger rest. This is a simple plastic device that replaces the floor plate of a Glock magazine (a simple and quick change) while providing a secure place to perch the little finger. This helps in controlling recoil, which with the 9mm in a pistol of this size is relatively mild in the first place. These neat little bits of plastic cost only about $7.00 each and are available for a wide variety of makes and models. Many women and men with smaller hands might find that the G26 grip is just fine without the addition of a finger rest. My wife could probably do without them, but likes the feel.

While I’m on the topic of magazines, it is a good idea to have a complete replacement set of magazines. If you normally carry two spares, buy a total of six magazines. On a regular basis, say every two-three months, switch magazines. This allows the magazine springs to relax and lessens the chance of a magazine failure. Is this absolutely necessary? Possibly not. Will you experience magazine failures if you don’t? Eventually. Any spring will eventually weaken, but it may well take many years. For relatively little extra cost--spare Glock magazines are usually about $25.00--the potential problem is probably eliminated.

I also chose a Glock because I have long experience with them, in law enforcement and out. They are faultlessly rugged, reliable, accurate and work the way they should right out of the box. In transition training from .357 S&W model 686 revolvers to Glocks, we were told that if we lost our grip to simply let the Glocks fly. A great many were flung down our concrete-floored range, and aside from some slight scuffing on some sights, showed or sustained no other damage. Doing the same with our .357s would have resulted in a great many non-functional, badly dinged revolvers. Glocks are also very easy to take down, clean, and reassemble, breaking down into only four parts: Slide, frame, barrel and spring. This is a happy consequence of Glocks having been designed as military pistols.

Glocks are also among the simplest semiautos, having no manual safety devices, but three separate internal and trigger safety mechanisms incorporated into the design. I recently traded a G26 for a new G26. The only wear on my old handgun was some paint worn off the painted slide release, and this in a gun regularly carried for a decade. In every field of endeavor, some manufacturers do it right from the beginning. Glock was the first to market a pistol with a polymer frame and many polymer parts, and everyone else has followed suit. The Glocks I have owned and/or carried have easily been the most reliable handguns I have ever used.

Another advantage of Glocks is that if you know know the manual of arms for one Glock, you know them all. They share the same general configuration, triggers, and in every way that matters, work identically, making it very easy to transition from, say, a G26 with a 10 round magazine, to a full-sized G17 with a 17 round magazine.

My old G26 was equipped with a Crimson Trace grip laser, which I found to be an effective, though expensive unit. My newest G26 has a Laser Lyte rear sight laser, which is a brilliantly miniaturized unit which is actually a part of the rear sight. As such, it does not widen the grip and does not interfere with any type of holster. It also has two significant red laser advantages: It’s quite inexpensive (no more than $150) and has a pulse mode which is not only easier to see but doubles battery life to about ten hours.

Third generation G26s are going for $500 or a bit less (circa early April 2011), while the 4th generation models are about $50 more, and if gun media accounts are accurate, seem to be having some initial teething problems, i.e.: more malfunctions than one expects with Glocks. This might be two to three malfunctions in 500 rounds, which illustrates the general reliability standards one expects of Glocks.

The part of this situation that is ideal, at least for me, is the Walther P22, which is a neat little double action .22LR handgun that sells for around $380. My wife and I each have one of these, which we use about twice as often as we use our Glocks for practice. While not identical, the feel of the weapons is similar and the trigger, even though double action, are not greatly different than our Glocks. The manual of arms is also very similar. The greatest advantage, however, is the cost of ammunition. A thousand rounds of 9mm, again, can be found for about $220, while a thousand rounds of .22LR will fetch about $35.00. All of the principles of marksmanship apply as well to the Walther as they do to the Glock.

One major difference is that the Walther comes with differing backstraps to allow the user some adjustability. But the most significant--and potentially useful--difference is that the Walther has virtually no recoil or muzzle flash, and a mild report. It’s an excellent weapon for the first-time shooter and for training beginning shooters. In practice, malfunctions drills are identical with the Walther and the Glock, but you’ll likely have to rig them as both weapons have been virtually malfunction free, at least in my experience. Having a Glock in .22LR would be ideal, but alas, such is not to be, and the Walther is a reasonably close substitute.

The .22LR cartridge is not a good choice, as I’ve mentioned before, in a weapon on which you’re going to bet your life, but for training, it’s a very inexpensive choice. If you can afford the expense, this would be an excellent combination of firearms for a beginning shooter.

A WORKABLE SOLUTION:

If you cannot afford two weapons, or if you’d simply prefer to work with one, the same weapon you’ll carry, by all means, do that, but for the first year or so, try to shoot at least 50, or better, 100 rounds a month. With 9mm, that’s a bit over $20 a month, and at the end of that year, you’ll be completely comfortable with shooting, taking down, cleaning and reassembling your weapon. It is that kind of confidence that makes all the difference. As I mentioned in the past portions of this series, the man to fear is not the man with a great many different guns, but the man who owns and carries only one.

Obviously, I prefer and recommend Glocks, for the reasons I’ve mentioned. However, there are a great many fine handguns on the market, and no single make or model is an ideal choice for everyone. Some people think Glocks are ugly and expect a certain elegance in their firearms, while I find them to be efficiently designed and perfectly functional. Shopping for guns is part of the fun. Be careful, however, of gun shop salesmen who are pushing a given gun or caliber. Some gun shops do their best to push whatever isn’t selling well, and as I’ve pointed out here, it’s wise to look into a wide variety of factors before making a final decision. A handgun chambered for a cartridge that is so pricey that you’ll seldom be able to shoot it will be of far less use than one that may have less impressive ballistic performance on paper, but which you can afford to regularly shoot.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

I have not spent much time delving into the specifics of training. There are a great many books and professional, private training academies out there that can provide what is not possible for me to do in a few articles. And of course, please feel free to contact me if you have questions. My contact information is available on the site in the “About The Authors/Contact” link on the right hand side of the page. I do, however, have several suggestions:

(1) Always wear hearing protectors and eye protection. Amplified hearing protectors are very neat and will allow you to hear conversation and instructions, but immediately mute when damaging sounds--like gunshots--occur. They’re available for as little as $30.00. It used to be thought unmanly to wear hearing protection. As a result, there are a lot of very manly deaf folks of an earlier shooting generation still walking about saying things like: “Eh? What’s that?”

(2) Use the Weaver Stance to the exclusion of all others. Information is widely available. Some may argue this point, but trust me on this one. It is a foundational issue.

(3) Be purposeful, focus your attention and be firm, but always work to be, above all else, relaxed and smooth. Smooth is truly fast. Yes, you can be relaxed and firm simultaneously.

(4) Train the same way consistently. As I’ve said before, train the way you want to fight, because you will fight as you’ve trained.

(5) Above all, train yourself to be so aware of your surroundings that you’ll likely never have to use your shooting skills.

INTERESTING PS: Federal law requires that you buy firearms only in your state of residence. There is no such thing as direct sales from out of state suppliers to customers. All sales of new weapons must be done through federally licensed dealers and you will have to fill out federal paperwork swearing that you are not a convicted felon, haven’t been judged mentally ill, etc. If you already have a concealed carry license issued by your state of residence, this will speed up the process in most states. If not, various delays or waiting periods might apply.

FINAL LESSON:

As I close this series, I leave you with a wonderful story from Japan, a people with a longer martial history and tradition than ours. There was a master of the tea ceremony who was traveling. As he came to a crossroads near a town, he met a Ronin, a masterless samurai. The Ronan was ready to take offense at anything, and taking offense at the inoffensive man, challenged him to a duel.

The master of the tea ceremony didn’t own a sword and had no skill as a fencer, but could not honorably refuse. However, he was able to convince the Ronin to meet him at the crossroads the following day at the same time so that he could find a sword.

The master of the tea ceremony hastened into the town and found a fencing master. He begged the Sensei (teacher) to loan him a sword and to teach him something so that he could die with honor. Learning of the man’s skills, he asked him to perform the tea ceremony.

As the man displayed his skill, won over many years, he was transformed before the Sensei’s eyes from a frightened shell of a man to a calm, graceful, confident man, at peace with the world and with himself. When the ceremony was done, the Sensei agreed to loan him a sword, but told him that it was impossible to teach him anything of value in such a short time.

The master of the tea ceremony was crestfallen. He asked how he could possibly die honorably. The Sensei told him that when he went to the Ronin, to approach him with the peaceful confidence and grace he had just displayed and that when he did, he would surely personally return the borrowed sword.

The next day at the appointed time, the Ronin was at the crossroads, impatiently waiting. He saw a man approaching, a man wearing a sword, but it did not appear to be the same man he challenged. As the man drew near, the Ronin saw that it was the same man, yet not the same man, and certainly not a man he wanted to fight. He quickly made his apologies and left.

Be the master of the tea ceremony, but back up his tranquility and attitude with an effective handgun, and with consistent, correct practice. It is the man or woman carrying the gun that is truly dangerous; the gun is merely a tool. Good luck, and welcome to the ranks of those who fully accept their responsibility to take care of themselves and those they love.

Obama Recants?

And so it begins. In 2006, Senator Barack Obama voted against raising the debt limit, a vote his various spokesmen now characterize as a “mistake.” Accordingly, Mr. Obama is set to present yet another historic teleprompter reading on Wednesday wherein, on the heels of The Ryan budget proposal, he will lay out his own bold initiative. The public would be well advised to recall that for Mr. Obama, rhetoric is exceedingly cheap, and action, particularly that which would in any way displease the most ardent socialist, exceedingly hard to find.

What is Mr. Obama expected to say? According to various advisors and spokespeople:

(1) The debt limit must be raised or the effect would be “Armageddon-like” for the economy.

(2) Taxes must be substantially raised on the evil, greedy, rich, those making more than $250,000--or so, more or less--per year.

I’ll go out on a limb and predict:

(1) Taxes won’t be raised on the nearly 50% of Americans who pay nothing at all in taxes.

(2) Spending cuts, what spending cuts?

(3) Even more entitlement spending.

(4) High-sounding promises to win the future--or something.

(5) Increased spending on green energy boondoggles, high speed rail, education, anything that will waste huge amounts of money for no good purpose.

We can be absolutely sure that whatever he proposes will require far more government spending, a much larger government, and will further degrade a very shaky economy. There is, to date, no sign that Mr. Obama has changed his view that economic distress can only be addressed by means of much higher taxes and unfathomably greater spending. More after the historic teleprompter reading. Stay tuned.

Fathers - Strength Under Fire

Do you ever wake up alone and not know where you are?

You sense a room, slightly cold and roll over in bed to drape your arms across the one whose form felt like gold in your hand, nuzzling the short, soft hair there at the base of the skull. But there is only cold air, and it dawns on you that side of the bed is still empty. That realization rushes you into wakefulness with a sense of fear and loss that hovers constant in the corners of the dark and you wish you weren't alone. It's not much different than when you were a little kid and you wake from a nightmare of monsters and homework, calling out to a parent who rushes to your side to let you know you are safe.

What woke me was a bad dream, metallic form tumbling end over end, driven by provoking gusts, tumbling away from me even as I chase after it. I close the distance, sparks bursting out like fireworks, flames spraying towards me as I walk towards it unharmed, attempting to reach its precious cargo before it's immolated. But in my dream, there is nothing left but ash, and I stand there in a halo of fire that smells of burning flesh, slapping at the small and blooming holes of fire that are erupting on my shirt like crimson flowers. There's no going back to sleep after that. Days like this you need the extra big bowl of Lucky Charms. But the dream is just that, a dream. For now it's time to get up. Duty waits, for I too have those things I must protect.

I look out the window, the landscape is flat, the shadowed forms of the city in the distance rising out of the dawn. There are no mountains, and no more of the thick cloud cover that has been the Western sky for the last several months, clouds hanging like sodden towels on the peaks, making distance and form deceptive. I last saw Dad before Christmas but with family living close by, a brother a stone's throw away. I know he is fine.

But I will still call him. Saturday night. I always do. Doesn't matter how old I get, I'm his little girl and he worries about me out in the world. This picture of Dad and Barkley stays on my computer, taken in my sun room on his last trip to the Range last June. Barkley is 8, getting a little white around the muzzle and slowing just a little. Dad is still going full tilt. Hard to believe he turned 90 this June.

I give my Dad a lot of credit. He's not a big man but he's an imposing figure. I tower over him in heels. But he's incredibly strong, still working out with weights six days a week. A golden glove boxer, a veteran of WWII, retired as a Colonel. They lost their first child, a little girl named Marsha Kay, born early, only surviving days. After that, with complications from the birth, they remained childless for over 15 years, , watching their friends have kids, then grandkids. Mom said "adoption"?

I imagine his first words were "but I'm retired?!" But he soon took up the monumental task of filling out all the paperwork, with hope and joy and adopted more than one. It can't have been easy at that age. Being a parent, isn't about blood lines or age or paternity, it's simply a love beyond feeling that resonates in the heart as you look on your child. It's making tough sacrificial decisions, decisions that say without words what is important to you. It's remembering the lessons your father passed on to you, for a father with a sense of honor wants to be even more than he is and to pass something good and hopeful into the hands of his child.

I remember coming home crying when I was about 10, wrapped in angst because some boy I liked had said something very cruel to me, crueler in that they had pretended to be my friend. So I went to my Dad, for he was that approachable, golden authority on everything from dugouts to Daisy rifles in whom I held total faith and trust. I told him what the boy said and asked "is that true? " He looked e in the eye and said, "I once caught a steelhead as big as a cow." HUH? I thought". He repeated "maybe it was as big as a Buick" and I started to giggle knowing that wasn't true. Then my Dad said "Just because someone says something doesn't mean it's true" and then he added under his breath "remember that when you're old enough to vote, and chuckled. And in that simple moment, spoken with humor, Dad showed me truth. I went back to school, whacked the snot out of the kid that said it, and felt immensely better.

When I was a teen, I was a volunteer at a nursing home. The elderly people thoroughly enjoyed the visits, and often would keep me in their room for what seemed like hours to someone my age, as I brought juice and some blessed company. But for a teenager it was not a fun way to spend the afternoon and one time when Dad was dropping me off, I said "You know, I don't really want to do this". The silence echoed in the car like a question. Then Dad quietly said, "Did you tell them you would do it?" I said, "Yes." That was that. I knew exactly what he meant. They were counting on me. I missed an afternoon at the mall with friends and felt right for doing so. Dad showed me dependability.

Later I had a chance to work and go to college far from my hometown. The first leap into independence is hard for anyone, the time when you know who you are but not what you may be. Hesitant to take the step, to move so far from home, I did what I still do, I called my Dad."What if I don't make it" I asked. Dad told me about leaving Montana behind as a young man and going to England on the Queen Mary to be an Army Air Corp area police officer during WWII. How hard that trip was to make. After listening to him I realized a simple trip across a state border was nothing and packed my things. I harnessed my dream because Dad showed me the important thing is to be able, at any moment, to sacrifice what we are for what we could become. Dad showed me courage even as things change.

Dad probably doesn't remember these conversations, but I do. The things that leave the biggest impression on a child may not be obvious to them until they are grown. They are not money given, or cars bought or video games provided. It's being a pillar of strength and support, patience and compassion. What will make you memorable to your children will be the things you don't think they see, and perhaps they don't now, but when they get older and step back from you, leaving for their own life—then they will measure the greatness of your example and fully appreciate it.

My Dad has always been active in the community and the church, especially working with the Lion's Club, where for a time he was Club President, raising money for eyesight programs, the Red Cross and Service Dog programs as well as and local scholarships for area children. One thing he was particularly proud of was their newspaper recycling fund-raising program, which provided income for these programs but not without a lot of hard, volunteer work. The shining marker of that program was a Newspaper Recycling Building built to further expand on that community project.

The members constructed it themselves, husbands and fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers, laboring in cold and rain, hot and sun, often at the expense of their own sleep. In November 2000, newly constructed, vandals burned it to the ground.

There was nothing left, but a few support timbers, lined up in stark order like gravestones at a military service. The men, my father, simply stood there stunned, as water dripped from the remains, strips of clouds like bayonets against the sky. A lot of work went into it, all volunteer and many of them in their 60's and 70's. You would have expected my Dad to storm and rage against a senseless act of destruction. But he didn't, though I was not so naive that I didn't miss the simmering outrage within which lives a betrayal too intense and inert to be articulated.

I read somewhere, though I don't know who said it, that heartache is to a noble what cold water is to burning metal; it strengthens, tempers, intensifies, but never destroys it. So true and words my Dad lived by. From him I have learned that whatever terrible things may happen to us, there is only one thing that allows them to damage our core self, and that is continued belief in them. Dad's lived these beliefs. He's survived cancer, and a small stroke, buried two beloved wives, married to them over 60 years. He held my hand during 34 hours in natural childbirth, when Brigid Jr.s father abandoned me, and swept me away to our cabin after I handed her over to her adoptive parents, listening to me cry myself to sleep for months. I was a teen, barely out of high school and he never judged, never said he was disappointed in me, never said I told you so, for a choice in first loves that he had warned was going to be a bad one.

He taught me commitment in times of trouble.

I've just watched him sit a vigil at his wife's bedside that lasted days, sleeping only in naps in a chair, never letting go of her hand. He was simply there, a constant presence next to her tiny, silent form, from which weariness and exertion had yet to depart, holding her, never doubting the actuality of his faith, guarding with sharp and unremitting alertness those minutes that he knows are fleeting.

For a man such as this, that vandalism was merely a setback. He and his friends simply set out to rebuild what was loss. They did so with the help of kids from the local Elementary school, who amassed more than 600 pounds of pennies to help pay for the new building with other groups, amazed at the kids efforts, donating the rest. The kids had a little contest between boys and girls and had their own little assembly line, putting the pennies into bags to take to the bank, learning the value of hard work and what it can bring. Those little kids raised well over $1000 from just pennies they rounded up at home and school in thanks for what the Lions had done for them, a covered play area and an improved playground accessible to all the children.

That new recycling building still stands proudly today, a testament to the faith of children and the loving example of fathers.

With the lessons my Dad taught me, I still stand strong , forgetting those things that trouble me . It's time to give my Dad a call before I go to work. For he too is waking up in a lonely bed, wondering where he is. We can pour a bowl of Lucky Charms and have our regular chat, while I tell him how very proud I am, that he chose to be my Father.

Obama and Energy

The nice folks at Pajamas Media have been kind enough to publish an essay on Mr. Obama and the falsity of his energy policy. It's called Obama's New Energy Policy: A Lesson In Stealth Socialism. I explore Mr. Obama's true political philosophy and how he has applied it in ObamaCare, and how he is applying it in domestic energy policy. To read it, go here.

Me? Own A Gun? Article 4: What To Buy?

In this installment I’ll discuss the primary differences, advantages and disadvantages between revolvers and semi-automatic handguns. In the final installment, which will be posted in a few days, I’ll get into caliber choices, methods of carrying, and several other items of interest. I’m making the assumption that readers contemplating what I’ve had to say in the first three installments (here, here and here) intend to do more than purchase a firearm exclusively for home defense. After all, our lives don’t lose their value outside the home, and one is, depending on a variety of factors, arguably more rather than less likely to need to defend their life outside their home.

I’m also going to be writing for those whose knowledge of firearms and related terminology is limited. As the information I’m providing here is covered in a wide variety of magazines--print and online--and books, I’ll be providing primarily an overview rather than an exhaustive exposition of the issues. I do recommend as a basic text The Complete Book of Handgunning by Chuck Taylor. It’s available through Amazon and other sources, and contains the fundamentals necessary to develop essential basic skills. Full disclosure: I am one of a relative few certified as an instructor by Taylor’s American Small Arms Academy, and I am also certified by the NRA as a range safety and handgun instructor.

Why a handgun? There’s an old story about a reporter who asked a Texas Ranger why he carried a .45. He replied (of course), in a slow drawl: “Because they don’t make a .46.” The bottom line is that one should always carry the most effective weapon they can effectively manage. Anyone who knowingly enters a gunfight armed with less than a rifle (or submachine gun) is asking to die. Long guns are much easier to shoot accurately at much greater than handgun ranges and are far more deadly. However, since it is practically difficult or impossible to carry such weapons on a daily basis, a handgun is the best alternative.

But what about shotguns? Aren’t they more effective than handguns? Again, we run into the size issue, and despite what Hollywood would have you believe, you do have to aim them. The effectiveness of shotgun ammunition depends primarily on keeping the shot column together, as close to the diameter with which it left the muzzle of the shotgun as possible, which means that to be truly effective, shotgun range is essentially the same as handgun range: Out to about 25 yards, and the closer the better. Experts can deliver accurate handgun fire at greater ranges, but for most, 25 yards is the outer effective limit. Twenty-five yards may not sound like much, until you’re trying to place a bullet on a target that looks surprisingly small at that range. It is fortunate--and frightening--that the overwhelming majority of gunfights take place at much closer ranges.

The choice of a personal, defensive handgun must take into account many factors, but ultimately one should choose a handgun that is powerful, concealable, reliable, that they can shoot well, and with which they are comfortable. That said, the choice is simpler, and more difficult, than many imagine.

REVOLVER OR SEMIAUTOMATIC?

Revolvers predate semiautomatics. Revolvers are so called because ammunition is loaded into a steel cylinder commonly holding 5-6 rounds. Pulling the trigger mechanically rotates the cylinder bringing a fresh round into precise alignment with the barrel. Revolvers come in two action types: Double action and single action. Single action revolvers are like the Colt .45 handguns of cinema westerns. The cylinder is rotated by cocking the large, exposed hammer. The resulting short and light trigger pull serves only to release the hammer to strike the primer, firing the cartridge. Such weapons are generally inappropriate for personal defense. Double action revolvers are modern weapons, and can be fired in double action mode, with a long, relatively heavy trigger pull that rotates the cylinder and ultimately drops the hammer to strike the primer and fire the cartridge, and single action, where cocking the hammer rotates the cylinder and pulls the trigger back, producing a very short, light trigger pull. Owners of revolvers should always train to use their weapon in double action mode. It is very easy indeed to accidentally fire a cocked revolver when under great stress.

Semiautomatics are sometimes incorrectly called “automatics.” An automatic weapon fires multiple rounds for each pull of the trigger. As long as the trigger is pulled and held back, the weapon will fire until its ammunition supply is exhausted. A semiautomatic weapon fires only one round for each pull of the trigger. Semiautomatics hold their ammunition in magazines. Magazines are often incorrectly called “clips.” The only currently manufactured, widely available firearm that actually uses ammunition clips is the M1 Garand battle rifle. Most semiautomatic pistols hold more rounds than revolvers.

All semiautomatic pistols work on the same principle: Firing a cartridge uses the energy of firing to push a heavy metal slide back against a powerful spring. the slide simultaneously extracts and ejects the fired brass from the chamber, and when the slide is propelled forward under spring tension, picks up a fresh cartridge from the magazine, inserting it into the chamber. This process is almost faster than can be seen by the naked eye. A powerful spring in the magazine pushes each fresh cartridge upward, ready to be fed into the chamber.

Semiautomatic pistols, however, have a greater number of trigger types than revolvers. The oldest, characterized by John Moses Browning designs, is the single action mechanism employed on the Model 1911 .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) and the Browning Hi-Power in 9mm Parabellum (Latin: for war). In these pistols, an exposed hammer is manually cocked and a safety lever mounted on the left side of the frame engaged. To fire, the shooter clicks off (pushes down on) the safety and pulls the trigger, which commonly has a light and short travel. This means of carrying these pistols, commonly known as “cocked and locked,” frightens the uninitiated, but is perfectly safe when done by those properly trained who use proper holsters. With this action type, each trigger pull is consistent, contributing to ease of use and accuracy. Such weapons employ the manufacturing methods and materials--heavy steel--available more than a century ago and are labor intensive to make. So while well-proved designs, they can be expensive.

A second action type is the double action mechanism that mimics the trigger action of the double action revolver. Invented decades ago to increase sales of semiautomatics to police forces used to double action revolvers, Col. Jeff Cooper called this invention “an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem.” The inherent problem with this type of trigger mechanism is that the first trigger pull is long and heavy, but because the first, and every subsequent shot fired causes the recoil of the slide to cock the hammer, the second and every subsequent shot requires a single action trigger pull, in other words, a much shorter, lighter pull of the trigger. This commonly results in widely varying impact points between the first two shots on any target, and while experienced, capable shooters can overcome this “feature,” double action mechanisms are a less than optimum option for most people.

Another action type is a hybrid of the double action mechanism that seeks to address the inherent problem of such actions. In this case, manufacturers produce weapons incapable of single action fire, so that each pull of the trigger must be double action. In other words, even through slide recoil cocks the hammer after the first and each subsequent round fired, the trigger recycles fully forward after each shot, making a long, relatively heavy trigger pull necessary for each shot. While this method might be a theoretical improvement on double action mechanisms, any action that requires a long, heavy trigger pull will be inherently less accurate and harder to shoot than a lighter, shorter trigger.

The most modern mechanism is the striker fired pistol, typified by the Glock design. These weapons do not have an exposed external hammer or an internal hammer, but instead employ what is essentially a larger, heavier firing pin driven by a strong spring. When recoil cycles the slide, the striker spring is compressed until it is released by the next activation of the trigger. Trigger pulls with this type of weapon are generally shorter and lighter than those of double action pistols, and are consistent from shot to shot. One advantage of the Glock design is that trigger pull weight can be easily changed from seven to five pounds, for example, merely by changing drop-in parts, an easy process with the modular Glock which uses not a single screw. Such weapons are often made with polymer (plastic) frames and many other polymer parts. This method of manufacture has many advantages, such as low cost, speed of manufacture, long life, no rusting, and the ability to absorb some recoil energy that would otherwise be imparted directly to the shooter. To contain the inherent pressures and recoil forces, however, such weapons must have steel barrels, slides, and slide rails. This is no such thing as a “plastic gun” that can’t be seen on x-ray machines. A Glock under x-ray looks exactly like what it is.

Another interesting Glock feature is the ability to “catch the link.” When firing a round, the shooter holds the trigger fully back as the slide cycles and then slowly releases the trigger until an audible and easily felt “click” occurs. This allows the next shot to have a much shorter trigger pull, enhancing long range accuracy. But this is not a true single action mode as it does not function in the same way, and it requires a conscious effort on the part of the shooter to make the weapon function in this way for each shot.

REVOLVER ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

Modern double action revolvers come, generally, in large, medium and small sizes. However, there are some revolvers made for hunting or competition with very large magnum cartridges that fall into the “huge” category. Such weapons are universally made of steel, are very heavy, and have barrels of 6” or longer. On the opposite side are mini-revolvers, such as the stainless steel, derringer-like, 5 shot .22LR (Long Rifle) weapons made by Freedom Arms. Such weapons, which fire single action only, are made primarily as back-up guns, or for circumstances in which carrying an larger weapon is impossible. Unfortunately, their barrels are very short which can cause keyholing (for the appearance of the holes they leave in paper targets), or unstable bullets tumbling end over end. As a result, their accuracy beyond a few yards is generally poor, their penetration ability is limited, reloading requires removing the entire cylinder from the weapon, and for the inexperienced, or even the average shooter, they are hard to shoot with any degree of consistent accuracy, to say nothing of the general unsuitability of the .22LR cartridge in the self-defense role.

Large, or full-sized revolvers generally hold six rounds (though a few designs hold seven), have at least a 4” barrel, and usually have fully adjustable rear sights (adjustable for windage--side-to-side, and elevation--up and down). This class is generally considered to be “duty” revolvers of the kind some police forces still use. Unless you’re a large, strong person, concealing such weapons is difficult. They are meant to be carried in exposed holsters. It is possible to conceal them with the right holsters, but they are big, heavy handguns built to take heavy wear from powerful cartridges over the long term.

Medium framed revolvers also share barrels of the same length, but are lighter and not as solidly built, but will still provide many years of service for most people. Many models have barrels from 2” to 3” and some do not have adjustable rear sights. They are generally somewhat smaller and weigh somewhat less than fully sized revolvers.

Small frame revolvers commonly have barrels of around 2” length and are of only five round capacity. They rarely have adjustable rear sights. In fact, many rear sights are merely notches machined in the top strap of the weapon. They commonly have small grips. Such weapons are designed in recognition of the fact that full sized revolvers are not easily concealed. Some revolvers in this class have aluminum, titanium or alloy frames for reduced weight, but their barrels and cylinders must be steel. Some of the newer weapons in this class, such as the Ruger LCR are being manufactured with frames and some parts made of polymer to reduce weight as much as possible.

ADVANTAGES OF REVOLVERS: Because they have no separate safety devices, they are also simple; pull the trigger and they go “bang.” In fact, long, heavy double action trigger pulls are usually thought to be an inherent safety feature, requiring the shooter to really intend to shoot to discharge the weapon. On the other hand, short, light single action trigger pulls are, with justification, thought to be dangerous because they are far more prone to unintentional discharge. It is also easy to load and unload revolvers, and one can tell at a glance if they are loaded. Properly maintained, revolvers--particularly in stainless steel--can last a lifetime. Stainless steel does rust, but is far less susceptible to it than other steels commonly used in firearms.

Revolvers represent well developed technology and manufacturing methods and are relatively free of inherent malfunctions. With speed loaders, they can be reloaded reasonably quickly, though experts can reload with amazing speed even without speed loaders. High quality revolvers are also potentially more accurate than most semiautomatic pistols, though relatively few shooters are skilled enough to notice any significant difference at common handgun ranges. There is a difference between intrinsic accuracy and practical accuracy. With the wide range of different materials and shapes available, most people can adapt a given revolver to their unique hand by simply exchanging factory for aftermarket grips. Revolvers are also capable of handling the largest, most powerful pistol cartridges, but only with very large, heavy and hard-recoiling weapons.

DISADVANTAGES OF REVOLVERS: The higher the bore axis of a handgun is above the hand, the greater the recoil effect on the shooter. All revolvers, by design, suffer from this inherent problem, a problem made worse by more powerful cartridges and lighter weapons. It is ironic that in an attempt to make some revolvers more easily carried and concealed, manufacturers have also greatly increased the recoil effect (from light weight), muzzle blast and report (from short barrels), and lessened accuracy (by means of small, non-adjustable sights). While speedloaders greatly lessen reloading times, they tend to be inconvenient for most people for concealed carry. In addition, many grips interfere with speedloaders and often have to be “relieved,” which consists of removing any grip material in the way. This is not difficult, but does take some skill and specialized materials.

Revolvers are very dirt sensitive and can malfunction. This is one of the primary reasons that virtually every military issues semi-automatic pistols rather than revolvers. Even with well-maintained revolvers a tiny piece of grit under the ejector “star” can actually jam the cylinder, preventing the gun from firing. Remember that the round aligned with the cylinder at rest will not be fired. When the trigger is pulled (or the hammer is cocked to single action mode), the cylinder rotates to the next cartridge, so if the cylinder won’t rotate, the shooter will not be able to fire a single round. Unfortunately, virtually anything other than grit under an ejector star that causes a malfunction in a revolver is due to breakage of mechanical parts and cannot be quickly repaired in the field or without tools. If one is under fire, this is a significant weakness indeed. Revolvers much be kept scrupulously clean, but many designs are ironically time consuming and demanding to clean thoroughly and properly.

Even expensive, top of the line revolvers have the same potential weaknesses. In my early days of police work, I carried Colt Pythons, very expensive, high quality weapons, as did several of my police shooting buddies. One day at a range session, one of my friend’s brand new Python suddenly started printing down and to the side of the target. He couldn’t figure it out and asked me to take a look. I peered down the sights and was amazed to find that the barrel had come unpinned and was, under the recoil of .357 magnum ammunition, unscrewing itself from the frame. The front sight was cocked at a 30° angle! I simply unscrewed the barrel with my bare hands, handed my amazed pal the two parts, announcing, deadpan, that I was reasonably sure I’d identified the problem. A good gunsmith quickly and cheaply fixed the problem, but you get the point.

Cylinder cranes and ejector rods are likewise prone to damage. Anyone flipping out a cylinder or violently snapping it back into place with the flip of a hand is looking for a bent crane and a lengthy, expensive visit to a gunsmith. Whenever the cylinder is out of the frame--as in ejecting spent rounds from the cylinder and/or reloading--those parts must be handled with gentle care. The kind of idiotic handling of revolvers one sees in movies or on TV is highly likely to result in damage that will probably render a revolver an expensive paperweight. Don’t get me started on people who “spin” cylinders. Don’t.

The exposed hammers of small revolvers are prone to hanging up in pockets or clothing. Many manufacturers have designed smaller, or “bobbed” hammers, made shrouds around external hammers, or have even made internal hammer designs to address this well-known problem. The aforementioned Ruger LCR, which represents contemporary state of the art small revolver design, has an internal hammer and cannot be fired single action. Careful holster design can minimize this unfortunate snagging tendency.

The largest problem with revolvers remains their long, often rough double action triggers. This factor makes revolvers much more difficult to shoot with consistent accuracy than semi-automatic pistols, though with proper training and consistent practice, it is possible to shoot revolvers with considerable accuracy. This problem can be addressed with an action job by a competent gunsmith, but that’s additional expense, commonly in the $100+ range. Some revolvers now come from the factory with much better triggers than one would have found in the recent past, but this is still an issue to be considered.

It should also be noted that this problem is exacerbated with the smaller, lighter more concealable weapons, and made even worse by the recoil effects of full-powered, as opposed to lighter loaded target, ammunition. Smaller men and many women often find long shooting sessions to be actually painful, and any weapon that is painful to shoot will dramatically degrade accuracy and effectiveness. It is ironic that even full-sized, heavy revolvers that are poor choices for concealment can suffer from this problem, though to a lesser degree and requiring more rounds fired.

Consider the experience of a police department for which I once worked. In the mid-90’s, that police department was run by an anti-gun chief, and the issued department weapon was the S&W model 686, a stainless steel, 4” barrel .357 magnum revolver. As an issued weapon, it was a mediocre choice. On one hand, it was--and is--a high quality, reliable weapon. Its stainless steel construction made it easier to maintain, and the 125 grain hollowpoint duty cartridge was an excellent, effective choice. On the other, the revolver was very large, heavy, had substantial muzzle blast and report, substantial real and felt recoil, was difficult to conceal, and the only concession allowed to the individual officer was the choice of a few different styles of rubberized grips. Female officers had a hell of time with the weapon. We used to joke--sort of--that even if we missed, the bad guys would be incinerated by the muzzle blast. Night-firing qualifications were truly wonders to behold. I had no difficulty with the weapon, but I became a police shooter in a time with few reliable semiautomatic pistol choices. As a result, I became adept with the revolver, even earning the top shooter honor in my first basic academy class.

I’m also a 6’, 200+ pound man with larger than average hands and greater than average strength. Consider too that I was--and am--an avid shooter, so I was far more practiced than most of my compatriots (most cops aren’t shooters). Even so, after 50 rounds of qualification with full-charge cartridges, I was feeling the effects of fatigue in my hands and arms and glad to be done. Many of my smaller, less experienced colleagues absolutely hated to shoot their handguns, wincing with each report and actually experiencing bruises and abrasions to their hands. Their qualification scores reflected this reality. Still, if my only option for a duty weapon had to be a stainless steel Smith and Wesson in .357 caliber, the 686 would probably be my choice.

Because of the necessary width of their cylinders, revolvers are generally wider and more difficult to conceal than semiautos. One final observation is that because of their designs, revolvers can become “out of time.” In other words, the cylinder no longer precisely aligns cartridges with the barrel. This can cause splashback of portions of a bullet, or in extreme cases, injure the shooter or bystanders. While this is usually not seen outside of significant mechanical failure or significantly worn weapons, it is something about which to always be aware with revolvers.

Despite this litany of potential problems, modern, quality revolvers are generally quite safe and reliable and will usually fire every round without fail right out of the box. However, no one should carry or use any firearm for self defense without familiarization training consisting of firing several hundred rounds through the weapon.

Police experience is revealing. Police agencies transitioning from revolvers to semiautos have commonly found that the hit ratio of their officers, on the range and in actual gunfights, goes up. This was my experience when an agency of some 100 officers for which I worked transitioned to Glocks. Officers who struggled to make minimum passing scores with their .357 revolvers were consistently scoring much higher with much less effort. Officers who were highly skilled demonstrated far less variation. One hundred percent shooters are 100% shooters for a reason. In other words, semiautos are generally easier to shoot accurately than revolvers despite the fact that revolvers may have greater intrinsic accuracy.

ADVANTAGES OF SEMIAUTOS:

The primary advantages of semiautos are that they are more easily concealable, tend to have lighter triggers, have greater ammunition capacity than revolvers--in many cases, much greater--and are more quickly and easily reloaded than revolvers. Semiautos also, in most common calibers, have less recoil effect and muzzle blast than revolvers, and have a bore axis much lower than revolvers. With polymer frame construction, some semiautos can be substantially lighter than revolvers yet hold substantially more ammunition.

Because of their very nature, semiautos are subject to more common malfunctions than revolvers, but each of these common malfunctions can be cleared in the field, without tools, in four seconds or less by those without expert levels of knowledge and skill. Note: A “malfunction” is a stoppage that can be rapidly cleared by hand without tools. A “jam” is a stoppage that requires tools to clear/repair. Thus, a gun that “jams” is a gun that cannot fire and cannot be made to fire on the spot. Because they do not have cylinders, as long as there is a round in the chamber--and this is the way modern semiautos should be carried--semiautos will virtually always fire at least one round even if they malfunction thereafter.

One interesting advantage that is of little use to most shooters is that semiautos can accept suppressors (there is no such thing as a “silencer”). Suppressors are useless on revolvers--despite what Hollywood would have you believe--because of the gas that escapes through the gap between the cylinder and the barrel.

Semiautos, many of which are designed with military service in mind, usually break down without tools and are easy to clean. Even non-military designs are generally easy to break down, clean and reassemble, and virtually always without tools.

DISADVANTAGES OF SEMIAUTOS:

There are two primary types of malfunctions common to semiautos: failures to feed and failures to eject. Each has several commonly known variations, but as previously mentioned, proper training will show anyone how to, within mere seconds, clear such malfunctions. One of the most common problems with semiautos is “limp wristing,” or not giving the handgun a firm grip with a straight, rigid wrist. Semiautos need a solid grip against which to cycle the slide. If the weapon is held limply, it may lack the force to complete the cycle and may not fully eject an empty casing, or may not fully seat a fresh round. Proper technique can easily sort out this common problem.

Semiautos generally come in only one grip size, so some may simply be too large for smaller hands. However, some manufacturers are now shipping models with easily switched backstraps to correct this problem. In addition, weapons with polymer frames like Glocks allow magazines with substantial capacity while still keeping the grip relatively small.

One cannot normally tell whether a semiauto is loaded merely by looking at it, though some do have mechanical loaded chamber indicators. However, this can be addressed with a simple “pinch-check,” or retracting the slide just enough to see brass in the chamber. Some people also experience accidental discharges when, after removing the magazine, assume that the weapon is empty and fire the round in the chamber. This too can be easily addressed by using the proper manual of arms of always removing the magazine, cycling the slide several times, locking it back, and looking and using a finger to verify that the magazine well and chamber are empty.

Some semiautos, due to their unique design, have very stiff recoil and magazine springs. Some people with weak hands or limited strength may have difficulty cycling their slides and loading magazines. However, inexpensive magazine loading tools that essentially eliminate this problem are widely available--Glocks include one with every handgun sold--and it is a very small percentage of the population that cannot learn how to use what strength they have to cycle a slide. Even so, some people, due to disability or illness may find such tasks daunting.

The greatest single weakness of semiautos is the magazine. They are generally easier to damage than the guns themselves, and if a magazine won’t properly feed through fatigue or damage, the shooter suddenly has a very hard to load single- shot handgun. To address this problem, at least one spare magazine should always be carried, and all magazines should be regularly rotated with a complete set of spares.

Though this is a much smaller issue than it was only a decade ago, some semiautos are ammunition sensitive; some brands and/or configurations of ammunition may make some guns more prone to malfunctions. Most guns designed for self-defense will fire just about anything with little or no difficulty, but some guns, particularly those built to very tight tolerances, such as guns intended for competition, may take a bit of trial and error to find ammunition that is completely reliable. On the other hand, brands such as Glock have a well-deserved reputation for reliability right out of the box.

There is no question that semiautos are, by their very nature, more complex to operate than revolvers. This makes accidental discharges somewhat more likely for some people. However, learning the proper manual of arms is far from rocket science, and I’m tempted to wonder about the fitness of anyone unable to safely handle a semiautomatic handgun to handle any kind of firearm.

I’m sure that gun buffs can easily make various points, pro and con, regarding what I’ve had to say, and comments are always welcome and appreciated, however, I believe I’ve provided a good general overview of the relevant issues. The final installment of this series will be posted within a few days. Thanks for reading!

Media Suppresses Leftist Violence (Again)

Michael Thomas describes himself as a liberal Democrat and communist. The police say he's mentally unstable, but that's redundant.

A Portland man charged with sending threatening letters to Gov. Paul LePage admitted to agents that he sent those and other threatening letters to national political figures, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and U.S. Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, according to testimony Wednesday in U.S. District Court.

Authorities also found a gun and an ammunition clip in Michael Thomas' desk drawer when he was arrested Friday, FBI Special Agent Pamela Flick testified; and Thomas told her that if they had showed up later, he would have launched a shootout with police.

Thomas claims he would have carried out his death threats if he had the means. In other words, he had the intent of becoming the next Jared Lee Laughner, just not the ability to carry it out.

Because all of his targets were Republicans, and Thomas is a self-described Democrat and communist, the MSM won't give this story the front-page treatment they would if the situation was reversed.

It's far too important for them to protect the narrative.

Quick Takes, April 07, 2011

ITEM: It is a mark of the character of the American people that this kind of story will touch their hearts and bring a tear to their eyes. Go here, and see what I mean.

ITEM: A Trip Down Memory Lane. Why are we currently at a budget impasse? Is it those evil Republicans who want to kill children and old people with their “radical” spending cuts? Not quite. Rewind to October, 2010 when the budget for this fiscal year was due. Ah, those heady days of absolute Democrat control of the White House and both houses of Congress, yet they refused to pass a budget for this fiscal year. Why? Because they were sufficiently aware of their debilitating spending addiction to know that any budget they passed would elect even more Republicans in November. Thus they set the stage for continuing resolution after continuing resolution and the government shutdown (tell me again why that’s a bad thing?) looming at midnight Friday. Keep this in mind the next time a Democrat tells you that they are protecting the public against the evils of rational spending and avoiding a global economic shutdown.

ITEM: Is This Cool Or What? Department: ABC News (here) reports on the XM-25, a weapon currently being field tested in Afghanistan. The weapon—troops call it “The Punisher”—is a programmable, semi-automatic 25mm grenade launcher. Equipped with a combination day/night/laser ranging sight, soldiers can set the smart round it fires to explode at a predetermined distance. Terrorists hiding behind a thick mortar wall? Lase the distance, set the round to explode at that distance + three feet, aim above the wall and fire. The round will travel directly to that point and explode directly above the terrorists. The weapon is still under development and all of the types of ammunition are not yet perfected and widely available, but the troops who have used it in combat reportedly do not want to give it up. It is this kind of American ingenuity some despise. The tragedy is that many of them are American politicians.

ITEM: Perhaps the best advertising strategy for the 2012 presidential election is to let Mr. Obama indict himself. Use his actions, his words, his stated intentions and their results to convince people that he must be a one-term president. It should be ridiculously easy as there has never been a president who has talked at the American people in such shallow depth, yet with such clock-like regularity and such tsunami-like volume. For a good look at what just might work, at least for people who have not had Obama implants secreted under their skin on the Obama mothership, go here.

ITEM: Tales Of The Religion Of Peace, Department: From Fox News (here) comes the story of Muslim riots in Afghanistan that in two days (April 1 and 2) have left 13 dead, including seven foreign UN employees. In addition more than 50 have been injured. Yes, once again, the most peaceful religion on Earth has murdered many innocents, including fellow Muslims. Why? Because Afghan president Hamid Karzai announced and condemned the actions of one, small Florida church in burning a copy of the Koran on March 20. And Mr. Obama thinks it’s possible to negotiate with such people because...? I guess that historic Muslim outreach speech in Cairo didn’t go as far as Afghanistan--or Egypt--or Syria--or Iran--or Libya, or, well, anywhere else in the Muslim world, but that’s hope and change for ya!

ITEM: In The Throw Away The Key! Department, from Fox News (here) we learn of two parents in Michigan who sicced their seven year old son on another boy. When a 73 year old crossing guard tried to stop the attack, the parents attacked him. They’ve been arrested and charged with assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Well, yeah...

ITEM: In the “He Did WHAT?! Department comes news (here) that Mr. Obama, in a stunning display of the kind of military acumen that has made him the Commander-In-Chief that he is, has withdrawn American attack planes, more or less, sort of so that NATO--which is actually, really us--can kind of take over. This military move, worthy of Sun Tzu’s much dumber brother Dim Duk, has occurred at the same time that Qaddafi’s forces have begun a serious push to eradicate the rebel forces, and have begun to run up a significant casualty toll. Senators on the Armed Services Committee characterized the move as “odd,” “troubling” and “unnerving,” and Senator John McCain told Defense Secretary Robert Gates “your timing is exquisite.” He was not delivering a compliment. Gates allowed that the situation was “unfortunate,” but said that our grounded aircraft could be recalled if things became so bad for the rebels that it was necessary. Senator Lindsay Graham said: "The idea that the AC-130s and the A-10s and American air power is grounded unless the place goes to hell is just so unnerving that I can't express it adequately.” And critics have called Mr. Obama’s Libya not-war policy “incoherent.” What were they thinking? It’s perfectly coherent in an utter lack of coherence sort of way.

ITEM: The Everything is Under Control! Department (here): "There is a perception that the border is worse now than it ever has been," DHS Secretary Napolitano said at the El Paso border crossing last week. "That is wrong. The border is better now than it ever has been." Unfortunately for Napolitano, and incidentally, the entire nation, Arizona’s Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever has a differing opinion. “The senior supervisor agent is telling me about how their mission is now to scare people back. He said, ‘I had to go back to my guys and tell them not to catch anybody, that their job is to chase people away. … They were not to catch anyone, arrest anyone. Their job was to set up posture, to intimidate people, to get them to go back.”

Jeffery Self, commander of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Joint Field Command in Arizona, said in a written statement. “The claim that Border Patrol supervisors have been instructed to underreport or manipulate our statistics is unequivocally false,” Hmm. Wait a minute. Mr. Self didn’t actually address what Sheriff Dever said, did he? I’m sure everything is completely under control. After all, Janet Napolitano said so!

ITEM: The Government Is Using Your Tax Dollars With the Greatest Care! Department: From Hot Air (here) comes news of the enormous sculpture of a fairy on the back of a toad which lights up and “gurgles sounds of nature.” The sculpture, to be placed at the Defense Department’s Mark Center in Alexandria, Virginia to open this fall, costs a mere $600,000, pocket change to the Federal Government. Army Corps of Engineers officials, responding to charges of waste and, well, idiocy, have noted that the decision to build the enormous toad and fairy, which is due on April 1 (talk about irony), can’t be put off because it would “impact completion” of the project. I don’t know what all the fuss is about. After all, it’s not even a million bucks, and I can’t think of anything more inspiring to people working to help defend America than the kind of patriotic symbolism embodied by a ten foot fairy riding an enormous toad. After all, wasn’t it just such a vision that inspired George Washington to cross the Potomac in a wooden shoe while chopping down a cherry tree and lying to his father? It wasn’t? Oh. This is an April Fool's joke, right? Even the Feds couldn't be this dopey? Right? Right?

ITEM: And in the “So Ironic It Hurts!” Department, comes this story from Hot Air (here) about Mr. Obama recently receiving an award for—wait for it…transparency! And the best part is that he locked all reporters out of the secret White House ceremony where the award was bestowed! You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

ITEM: So Now The Republicans Want to Kill Children, Eh? Rajiv, Shas, USAID Administrator told a House subcommittee:

“… the budget plan, which would cut $61 billion in federal spending, would lead to the deaths of 30,000 kids in a malaria control program that would have to be scaled back, 24,000 from a lack of immunizations and 16,000 from a lack of skilled attendants at birth.” "’There's a way to do this that does not have to cost lives and we're very focused and very much want to work with the committee to identify a path forward that can allow us to be effective at doing so,’ he said. Shah is seeking $59.5 billion in funding for his agency, up 22 percent, or $10.7 billion, from the current level.”

Well, when you put it that way… Perhaps the Dems can come up with how many children will be killed per dollar of budget cuts. Any bets? One? 2.37? 18.82? Go here for the entire sad story and contact your Republican legislator and tell them to kill as many children as possible.

NOTE TO THE IRONY CHALLENGED/MANDATORY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DISCLAIMER: That last comment was satirical. I am not, in fact, in favor of killing children and I am not, in fact, actually telling you to tell legislators to kill children. However, I am fond of Jonathan Swift’s modest proposal about eating them.

ITEM: We’re so far underwater in national debt that we can’t see sunlight, so one wonders on which pressing, absolutely vital national priority does Mr. Obama want to spend even more money? Buying more land for parks and conservation. The federal government already owns about 1/3 of all American lands, and Mr. Obama (here) wants to double spending next year to $900 million dollars. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has pointed out that the Feds cannot afford to maintain the land they already own, and would have to sell, rather than buy, land to properly maintain it. Hmm. If I was broke and owned property I couldn’t afford to maintain, wouldn’t I sell that property? But then again, I’m not Barack Obama, am I?

Another thought: How does this square with Mr. Obama’s recent speech claiming to be all about expanding American energy production? Does he want more land to open it to exploration and energy production? Isn’t private land already open to exploration and energy production? Something doesn’t smell quite right, and I’m sure it doesn’t smell remotely like oil.

ITEM: Epic Fail Department: Remember all of Mr. Obama’s bold outreach initiatives? Remember the way he was going to utterly transform not only America, but make the world love us? Remember how having a black, sort-of-Muslim-when-it’s-convenient-and-don’t-you-dare-call-me-Muslim-even-though-my-middle-name-is-about-as-muslim-as-it-gets President would change the way every nation dealt with America? How’s all of that working out? Go here for John Hannah’s take. My take? Mr. Obama couldn’t have made a worse hash of the world if he tried, and I’m not entirely sure he didn’t--and isn’t.

ITEM: Read the article here to discover one of the greatest tragedies of modern times. Oh, the humanity! Yes, California state legislators, in a state that is about to, economically and perhaps not metaphorically speaking, slide into the Pacific Ocean, may actually—gasp!—lose—wailing and gnashing of teeth—their taxpayer paid luxury automobiles! I may eat some organic vegetables in protest of the obvious violation of universal human rights such cruel deprivation would constitute. And yes, CA is the only state that provides state-subsidized rides for state legislators. And it's bankrupt. And it just elected a man it fondly (?!) calls "Governor Moonbeam" again(?!). Perhaps there’s a lesson in there somewhere? Discuss.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award of the Week: From Fox News (here) comes the tragic tale of Attorney General Eric Holder, a man who works tirelessly for his people, making a petulant April 4 appearance to announce that some of the most vile terrorists of the century will not be allowed to have star-studded media-circus trials in the Big Apple. No, NYC will be denied the world-wide attention, astronomical expense, disruption and terrorist targeting that is—according to Mr. Holder and Mr. Obama--its natural right. And it’s all the more tragic, according to Mr. Holder, because he guarantees they’d be convicted, so let’s get on with the fair, impartial trials and show the world how fair our justice system really is. But that’s not what makes me shocked, shocked!, no. I know you won’t be able to believe it either. It’s the fault of Congress and those darned American people that Mr. Holder won’t get his way. Awwww. Once again, the people--the bastards--have spoken.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award of the Week #II: I am shocked, shocked! to learn that the Nevada chapter of ACORN has pleaded guilty to one count of violating election laws in Las Vegas, NV during the 2008 campaign. ACORN, which is now defunct (I really can’t get tired of writing that!), is almost certainly operating under other names. The mainstream media might figure that out sometime after the next presidential election--or not. Go to Fox News (here) for the rest of the story. Hope. Change. Nation-wide election fraud. Community Organizing.

ITEM: From Hot Air (here) comes the news that Former Speaker of the House (I absolutely never get tired of writing that!) Nancy Pelosi is now saying that some budget bill or something or other that Republicans may or may not be proposing will make six million seniors starve to death. Sigh. On the April 5th O’Reilly Factor, John Stossel reported that his staff called Pelosi’s office and they had no idea what bill Pelosi was talking about or where she was getting her figures. Imagine that. This woman was third in line for the presidency. Contact your Republican legislators immediately and ask that they make eating old people legal. Starting with Nancy Pelosi. For the required disclaimer, see the “ So Now The Republicans Want to Kill Children, Eh?” item above and substitute “old people” for “children.” Thanks.

ITEM: I’m All For Free Speech, But…: From Hot Air (here) comes the predictably erratic Senator Lindsay Graham who says: “I wish we could hold people accountable for their actions, but under free speech, you can’t.” He speaks, of course of the killing of UN workers and fellow Afghani Muslims by Afghan adherents of the religion of peace following the burning of a Koran by an obscure Florida minister. Graham, who is actually a military (reserve) lawyer(?!), thinks that the fact that he, and apparently General David Petraeus--according to Graham--would like to ban Koran burning overrides the First Amendment because without people like the general, there would be no First Amendment. Well, I’m a teacher, and without people like me, there would be no writ…

ITEM: Delicious Irony Department: From Rob over at PACNW Righty (here) we discover that in the very heart of leftist, Global Warming, tree-hugging territory, California, The Sierra Nevada Mountains have near-record snowfalls, with some 61 feet of snow. But of course, 61 feet of snow is obvious evidence of global warming. So is rain, hail, night, day, too-tight jeans, Victoria’s Secret, little yappy dogs, Koran burning and Nancy Pelosi. Discuss.

ITEM: Who Says There Are No Happy Endings? Department: If you’d like a smile on your face and a tear in your eye, go here. Oh yes, and be glad you’re an American, one of hundreds of millions of people who would care about something so simple, so common, yet so touching.

And on that touching note, thanks for stopping by, and I'll see you again next Thursday, same bat-time, same bat-channel!

Fiscal Malpractice

In recent weeks, America’s fiscal crisis has, day by day, worsened and the stark realities we face have been made more and more clear. Yet in the face of disaster, Congressional Democrats scream about cutting a few billions, accusing Republicans of wanting to kill 70,000 children when we are facing deficits in the tens of trillions. President Obama has been essentially absent, apparently adopting the childish tactic of ignoring the deficit in the hope that it will simply go away and stop bothering him. If that was all that he did--or didn’t do--it would be bad enough, but of late, he has taken a number of policy steps that clearly indicate that he has no idea of economics, or simply could care less.

Mr. Obama has announced (here) his executive order to replace all 600,000 federal vehicles with “advanced technology” vehicles by 2015. “Advanced technology,” of course, means hybrids and electric vehicles such as the Chevy Volt, which is essentially a needly complex plug-in pseudo hybrid retailing for $41,000, but costing as much as $65,000. The costs of this bit of economic lunacy are staggering. Every Volt purchased will cost more than double the price of a comparable sedan and will also require a huge investment in charging stations at federal installations across the nation. Even hybrids commonly cost thousands more than comparable conventional vehicles.

Mr. Obama has also announced his intention (here) to double--to $900 million dollars--the Federal Government’s budget for purchasing privately owned land, ostensibly for conservation. The Feds already own 1/3 of all land in America and, according to Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, cannot come close to properly maintaining it, an assertion many Americans who have recently visited a national park can confirm. In fact, the only way the Government can possibly afford to properly maintain the land it now owns would be to sell large portions of it to raise the money necessary to maintain the rest.

There are a great many additional examples of Mr. Obama’s utter lack of adult seriousness regarding debt reduction, but these are illustrative. Certainly, there are political motivations in these two situations. Mr. Obama clearly intends to buy large numbers of Chevy Volts, in effect, to create a market where one could not otherwise exist. In doing this, he continues to put money in union coffers, and in turn, his 2012 campaign chest. It is no coincidence that Mr. Obama’s crony and advisor, Jeffery Immelt, president of General Electric, has committed GE to buying 12,000 Volts. It is likewise an amazing non-coincidence that GE manufactures the charging stations that will be necessary to support fleets of electric vehicles with limited utility and even more limited range (about 25 miles in real world experience). Mr. Obama has also recently expressed his support for an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but everything he has done to date indicates just the opposite. Putting more land under direct government control almost certainly means that much more land closed to coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas development and production.

Any rational adult serious about cutting spending would actually cut spending. Mr. Obama is manifestly not rational or serious in his non-pursuit of fiscal sobriety. But for a man who non-fights non-wars, we should be non-surprised. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama’s lack of attention to American’s welfare will result, and sooner rather than later, in all too real consequences.

The Erik Scott Case, Update 10.3, Stealth Legislation and Misdirection

Since the posting of Update 10.2, additional information relating to the issues it raised has come to light in the local Las Vegas media (here). Officers Mark Hatten and Timothy English, who were placed on administrative suspension following the taser death of Anthony Jones have been put back to work in unspecified jobs that allow no public contact. In addition, most of the approximately one dozen officers similarly suspended over the last five months after fatal shootings or in-custody deaths have also been placed in similar, unspecified duties.

Kathy O’Connor, Sheriff Doug Gillespie’s Chief of Staff said:

“There’s really no reason we need to leave these officers sitting at home. We’re just looking to be as efficient as we possibly can.”

O’Connor also observed that the practice of keeping officers off duty until after a coroner’s inquest was of long standing and common in law enforcement. She characterized the practice as giving the officers time for counseling and emotional recovery.

According to Clark County Assistant Coroner John Fundenberg, inquests will take place from four to six months after an incident. Two decades ago, they often began in as little as two weeks, and in recent years, within six weeks. Commenting on the changes in the process wrought by the Clark County Commission, Fundenberg, who has apparently had his sense of irony surgically removed as a condition of employment, said:

“People didn’t believe the district attorney acted as an impartial party in the past. I disagreed with that, but they were accused of being partial.”

Multiple cases awaiting a coroner’s inquest will have to wait until late May, at the earliest, though Fundenberg hopes they will be caught up by the end of the year.

Chris Collins, President of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association--the police union--did not depart from the union line. He said that participation in inquests would open officers to civil liability. Collins claimed that four unnamed attorneys came to that conclusion.

“We warned them, if you will, that if they made this process so adversarial we would not participate.” Collins added “It’s a shame. The process before worked. It was open to the public. And now, in my opinion, the tail wagged the dog and the small vocal minority has taken away what was once an open process.”

ANALYSIS:

DOES THE PPA REPRESENT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS OF LAS VEGAS? One expects a union boss to do and say whatever is necessary to advance union interests above all else, however, Mr. Collins not only engages in substantial misrepresentation, he departs from the truth in this pursuit. Police officers are always at risk of civil liability for their official acts, and the criminal justice system of which they are a part is, by design, adversarial. Anyone suggesting that police officers are somehow being unfairly treated by being expected to play their societal and statutory role in the very system they labor to serve and uphold is either badly misinformed, or is purposely misleading the public. Any officer unable to stand up to adversarial questioning is simply unfit for duty.

Coroner’s inquests are not a whim of unnamed forces out to harm innocent Las Vegas police officers, they are mandated by Nevada law and in large part regulated by local county commissions. In other words, they exist as an extension of the will of the people of Nevada. Despite the suggestions of some, coroners, and coroner’s inquests, exist throughout the nation and all unattended deaths, whether they have police involvement or not, are examined. Police testimony at inquests is common.

The “small, vocal minority” Collins decries was sufficiently large to motivate an unprecedented change by a county commission previously characterized by doing little or nothing to change the status quo, and to at least some degree, flies in the face of powerful, entrenched local interests, including Metro and the police union.
Collins’ suggestion that a previously “open process” has been “taken away” is simply false. The new inquest rules require that each inquest be broadcast live on the Clark County public access TV channel. Collins surely knows this, and more.

BEHIND THE SCENES:

Mr. Collins’ misleading of the people of Las Vegas is yet more egregious and cynical. The PPA is energetically lobbying for a bill sponsored by Assemblyman John Hambrick (R, Clark County, District 2). Assemblyman Hambrick should know better. His background information on the Legislature site indicates that he is a “retired investigator,” who apparently worked in federal law enforcement investigating fraud. The bill had its first reading on March 18, 2011 and has been referred to the Committee on Government Affairs. It reportedly has not yet been considered by that committee, but it is likely that it will be. Here is the bill, from the Legislature’s pending bill site, in it’s entirety.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. NRS 259.010 is hereby amended to read as follows: 259.010 1. Every county in this State constitutes a coroner’s district, except a county where a coroner is appointed pursuant to the provisions of NRS 244.163.

2. The provisions of this chapter, except NRS 259.025 , 259.050 and 259.150 to 259.180, inclusive, do not apply to any county where a coroner is appointed pursuant to the provisions of NRS 244.163.

Sec. 2. NRS 259.050 is hereby amended to read as follows: 259.050

1. When a coroner or the coroner’s deputy is informed that a person has been killed, has committed suicide or has suddenly died under such circumstances as to afford reasonable ground to suspect that the death has been occasioned by unnatural means, the coroner shall make an appropriate investigation.

2. In all cases where it is apparent or can be reasonably inferred that the death may have been caused by a criminal act, the coroner or the coroner’s deputy shall notify the district attorney of the county where the inquiry is made, and the district attorney shall make an investigation with the assistance of the coroner. If the sheriff is not ex officio the coroner, the coroner shall also notify the sheriff, and the district attorney and sheriff shall make the investigation with the assistance of the coroner.

3. In all cases where it is apparent or can be reasonably inferred that the death may have been caused by a peace officer while acting in his or her official capacity:

(a) Through the use of force, including, without limitation, physical force, the use of chemical agents, electric force or the use of a firearm; or

(b) As a result of a motor vehicle accident caused, in whole or in part, by an action of the peace officer, ␣ the coroner or the coroner’s deputy shall notify the district attorney in the county where the inquiry is made and the district attorney shall investigate the death as a homicide.

4. The holding of a coroner’s inquest pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 is within the sound discretion of the district attorney or district judge of the county. An inquest need not be conducted in any case of death manifestly occasioned by natural cause, suicide, accident or when it is publicly known that the death was caused by a person already in custody, but an inquest must be held unless the district attorney or a district judge certifies that no inquest is required.

[4.] 5. If an inquest is to be held, the district attorney shall call upon a justice of the peace of the county to preside over it. The justice of the peace shall summon three persons qualified by law to serve as jurors, to appear before the justice of the peace forthwith at the place where the body is or such other place within the county as may be designated by him or her to inquire into the cause of death.

[5.] 6. A single inquest may be held with respect to more than one death, where all the deaths were occasioned by a common cause.

7. As used in this section, “peace officer” means any person upon whom some or all the powers of a peace officer are conferred pursuant to NRS 289.150 to 289.360, inclusive, when carrying out those powers.

Sec. 3. Sec. 4. 259.200

NRS 259.200 is hereby repealed. This act becomes effective on July 1, 2011.

What does it mean? It’s quite simple. Inquests involving police officers are required unless “the district attorney or a district judge certifies that no inquest is required.” In other words, it’s up to the DA, not and, but OR, a district judge to decide whether a given police-involved inquest--or any police-involved inquests at all--take place.

Considering the history of the DA’s office in Las Vegas, it may not be unreasonable to believe that any police-involved death that was not obviously absolutely and conclusively fully justified would not be held. In fact, it would not be stretching the bounds of credulity to think that there would never again be a police-involved inquest in Las Vegas. If this is not the motivation behind the law, what could the motivation be? To save money? I’m sure that those pushing the law would cite that reason, but there are certainly areas of government that are far more expensive and wasteful and the timing of this particular bill is, should we say, interesting.

I have contacted Assemblyman Hambrick to ask him to clarify his intentions regarding this bill, but have yet to hear from him. If he does respond, I’ll relay his comments in their entirety.

If the DA’s office and the Corner’s office are aware of this bill and the push to pass it, and it may not be unreasonable to believe that they are not only aware of it, but may also be pushing it, Mr. Fundenberg’s comments take on less an air of opinion and more an air of misdirection.

If this bill passes, there are several harmful effects, all no doubt intended:

(1) The PPA and Metro officers will have established that they are in charge of Clark County, Nevada, and not its citizens or Sheriff. They will have demonstrated the power, through threat, intimidation and the exercise of deceptive political power to bend the law to their whims, not to honor their oaths to uphold and enforce it. They will be encouraged to be even more lawless.

(2) Where law enforcement is concerned, the minimal transparency that now barely exists will be extinguished. In Clark County, it is only coroner’s inquests that have provided the scant factual information available to the public when police officers kill citizens, something that occurs with alarming frequency. Absent inquests, the public will know nothing other than what Metro is willing to release. In essence, Metro will investigate Metro--or pretend to--and will inevitably conclude that Metro is blameless in every instance, just as it has for more than a decade, with a single, small exception.

(3) Knowing, finally and beyond doubt that they are the masters of the public rather than the servants of the public, Metro officers will hardly behave in a more restrained, professional manner. The public may come to universally fear and despise their police force ( there are credible indications that much of the public already does). No sane police administrator or police officer could possibly welcome this state of affairs which is incredibly dangerous for the police and the public.

(4) Knowing that they will not be held accountable for the deaths of citizens, Metro officers may be involved in an ever-increasing number of them.

SUSPENSIONS:

Regarding returning officers to limited duty, Ms. O’Connor is partially correct. Officers relieved after a shooting or other death are on paid leave, and are removed from duty, in part, to allow for recovery and counseling. In fact, many agencies require psychological counseling and the written authorization of a psychologist before officers are allowed to return to duty. However, equally important is the protection of the public and its interests. Officers must remain out of contact with the public until a police agency can be certain that they have not committed a crime. In these cases, such crimes would virtually always be felonies. Officers under suspicion of criminal wrong doing, or who are convicted felons may not serve as law enforcement officers. Only until an inquest has been completed and the involved prosecutor has clearly ruled on whether an officer will be charged can this be known with certainty. In addition, police agencies must be reasonably certain that an officer is physically and psychologically fit to return to duty. Any competent police executive must see that all of this is done to avoid potentially ruinous civil liability for his officers, his city or county, and himself.

In Las Vegas, however, it would appear that policies and procedures considered to be current best professional practice elsewhere have little or no application. The new inquest procedures have been established since the beginning of the year. Why is it taking so long to hold inquests? Ombudsmen have been chosen (for discussion of the lack of wisdom of and likely motivation for that policy, scroll down for Updates 9 and 9.2), and there is apparently nothing else to be done in preparation, so what’s the impediment?

WHAT’S TAKING SO LONG?

One possibility is that Metro is waiting until Assemblyman Hamrick’s bill is passed and takes effect on July 1. At that point, one can argue all they like that pending cases are not included in the law because they took place prior to July 1. In that the US Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, this may indeed be the case, but in Las Vegas, when the DA and Metro speak, who can stand against them? Even if a citizen or the ACLU filed a civil suit, it would likely take years to adjudicate and by then, witnesses will have moved away, even died, memories will have dimmed, and pending cases, like so many other cases in Las Vegas history, will have gone down the Clark County memory hole.

Absent that, the primary impediment would appear to be the Metro officer’s union and the lack of an effective, professional response by Sheriff Gillespie, the Clark County Commission and the courts. To what should they respond? I’ve gone into this in significant detail in Updates 9 and 9.2, but to recap:

An integral part of every police officer’s duty is to write complete, factual and honest reports about their official actions and to testify, as often as necessary and in as many different venues as necessary, about those actions. Officers are also expected to cooperate fully in all investigations conducted by their agencies. There is nothing unusual in any of this, any more than expecting fire fighters to participate in all aspects of fighting fires and cleaning and maintaining their equipment afterward would be considered unusual. Suggesting, as Collins has repeatedly done, that police officers are being somehow abused by being required to do this basic, fundamental aspect of their duties is simply wrong, and if Collins, knowing it is wrong persists, deceptive and outrageous.

As I’ve previously noted, police officers retain their full constitutional rights, and may, if they consider it necessary, retain an attorney and even invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if they wish, but none of this absolves them of their duty or protects them from punishment for failing to do it.

Nevada law assumes that officers will cooperate in internal investigations and allows their agencies to charge them with insubordination if they refuse. Insubordination is most commonly defined as refusal to obey lawful orders, and officers may be disciplined for insubordination relating to any aspect of their duties. Sheriff Gillespie certainly understands this, yet appears to be abiding insubordination.

What’s at stake is who--if anyone--is in charge of the Metro Police, and whether the Las Vegas Criminal Justice system can function as designed or whether it will be controlled by special interests, in this case, the Metro Police and their union.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED:

The day after the Union announced its mutiny against the lawful authority granted the Sheriff by the public, Sheriff Gillespie should have announced, to the public and in writing to every officer, to be read by every shift and division commander to their officers, the following:

(1) That every employee of Metro is expected to fully cooperate with official investigations, and is ordered to do so.

(2) That every employee of Metro is expected to write full, complete, and accurate reports of their official actions, and is ordered to do so.

(3) That every employee of Metro is expected to fully honor each and every notice or subpoena to appear in any judicial hearing relating to their official acts, to include, but not limited to: Coroner’s Inquests, preliminary hearings and trials. Every employee of Metro is ordered to do so.

(4) That every employee of Metro is expected to honestly and completely testify when directed at such hearings, and is ordered to do so, but retains all of their rights under the Nevada and US Constitutions.

(5) Any officer may invoke their right against self-incrimination, but those who do will be subject to immediate suspension and internal investigation.

Any officer refusing to obey these lawful orders should be immediately charged with insubordination, relieved of duty without pay, relieved of their gun, badge and credentials, and subjected to termination proceedings. If this seems harsh, consider that these orders are merely confirmations and reflections of what honest, professional officers are expected and required to do, and on a daily basis do everywhere else in the nation.

And it is entirely reasonable to immediately suspend and investigate any officer who “takes the 5th.” This is not a violation of their rights or in any way underhanded. In criminal cases, taking the 5th may not be held against a criminal suspect at trial, but this protection does not apply to administrative matters where all that is at stake is a job. Insubordination and willful neglect of duty are not protected by the Bill of Rights, nor is concealing knowledge of a crime, particularly where an officer is not directly involved, but is merely a witness before, during or after the fact.

And consider carefully what is happening when an officer takes the fifth: A police officer is saying that if he tells those who hire and entrust great power to him--the public--how he is using that power, he could be convicted of crimes! If a police officer who is paid to be knowledgable about the law believes that, should we not take him at his word and ask what crimes he believes he has committed? Wouldn’t any police officer ask such questions of anyone he suspected of committing crimes? Is that not what he is paid and expected to do?

Further, the Sheriff should have conferred with the chief judge of the Las Vegas courts and reached an agreement that any officer refusing to honor a subpoena to appear at an inquest or any other judicial proceeding will be immediately arrested and brought before the appropriate judge to show cause why he or she should not be held in contempt of court. If their explanation is union boilerplate, or otherwise without merit, they must be put on the witness stand and afforded the opportunity to do their duty. If they refuse to take the stand or refuse to answer questions, they should be immediately jailed and fined. This too should have been disseminated to the public and to every officer.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN:

(1) Any effort to subvert Nevada law to allow corrupt officials to avoid their duties, obstruct public transparency, and to allow potentially guilty parties to escape detection and prosecution must be defeated. Police reports are public documents.

(2) It must be made, once and for all and unmistakably, clear to the union and its officers who is in control of law enforcement in Las Vegas and Nevada.

(3) The public must take back control of their politicians and of law enforcement.

(4) A complete and professional outside review of Metro should be done and every unprofessional, corrupt influence removed and prosecuted as appropriate.

If transparency is eliminated, if corruption and criminal wrong-doing by the police and others is not exposed and prosecuted, it can only be because the Sheriff, the police and local and state politicians want it to be that way. Absent removing the offending elements via the ballot box, moving to a state or city where the rule of law holds sway may be the only rational option.

As always, any misrepresentation or misstatement of fact in these pages is unintentional and may result from a lack of complete, factual information in the hands of Metro and related agencies. I continue to invite contact from representatives of Metro or any other involved agency or individual. I will keep their confidence and promptly and prominently correct any inadvertent error, and will continue to report on and analyze new developments.