Literature Corner

As regular readers know, I spent most of my young adult life working as a police officer. Since leaving police work for reality, I've been writing short stories about my experiences in that field. Who knows? Perhaps someday I'll see about getting them published in book form.

For the time being, Bob and I thought you might enjoy finding out the reality, both humorous and tragic, of police work. So beginning Saturday, July 2, we'll begin our "Literature Corner." I can't promise to publish a new story every Saturday, but we'll do it on a fairly regular business.

I'm looking forward to your comments, as always. See you Saturday!

Dems Set To Vilify Gun Owners To Deflect Gunwalker Blame

Disgusting, and entirely predictable.

Instead of trying to find out who in the Obama Administration authorized and colluded in the felonious Gunwalker fiasco, Democrat Elijah Cumming is setting up a hearing that features testimony from anti-gun groups.

Why indict your Party when you can try to blame the citizenry?

Found: Local Industry Obama's Policies Have Helped

Seen on my way home from work yesterday, an increasingly rare Obama campaign sticker on the back of a van used by a local company in one of the few businesses the President's economic policies have actually helped.

Liberal Wisconsin Justices Looking Bad in "Chokegate"

I've had my hands full lately focusing on the Gunwalker investigation, but I have been at least reading along with what some are calling "Chokegate" (Ann Althouse has done a great job staying on top of this story).

Long story short: a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice named Ann Bradley has apparently tried to claim that another Supreme Court Justice, David Prosser, "choked" her.

The story had been leaked to a George Soros muckraking group, and then the incident seemed to get turned on its head when other witnesses came forth to indicate that while Prosser did put his hands up and touch Bradley's neck, it is because she was coming at him with fists raised, meaning the contact was defensive in nature, and Bradley was the aggressor.

The plot appears to be thickening now, with news that Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson may have had a hand in orchestrating the leak in an attempt to get the conservative Prosser impeached.

As the investigation moves forward, it appears than instead of collecting a conservative scalp, that the two liberal Wisconsin SCOTUS justices may face impeachment instead. If they are impeached—and that is far from certain at this point—Republican Governor Scott Walker will have the opportunity to add two conservative justices to the bench.

It appears that the plot to frame up Prosser has backfired spectacularly.

I can only wish for such a happy ending for all of convicted felon Soros' investments in deception.

Quick Takes: June 30, 2011

NOTE: We’re posting Quick Takes a bit early this week as I’ll be away from Internet connections for a few days. QTs will be back, as usual, on Thursday next week. Thanks!

ITEM: What’s Really Going On Under The Radar? Go here to Fox News for a very disturbing story about Progressive uber-donor and manipulator, George Soros. What’s that? Everything about George Soros is very disturbing? Indeed, but now we discover that’s he’s spending mega millions to subvert the process by which judges are seated across the nation. This one is not for the faint-hearted.

ITEM: Prayers Are In Order: for Austin Hatch of Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Austin, a 16 year-old basketball standout, survived a 2003 plane crash that killed his mother and siblings, and has now been involved in a second crash. He is in critical condition. Go here for the story which contains more than its share of tragedy and irony. You know what to do.

ITEM: Human—Rights? Remember Galid Shalit, Israeli army soldier wounded and kidnapped five years ago during a raid into Israel? Shalit has been held, presumably somewhere in the Gaza Strip, since by Palestinian proponents of the Religion of Peace. If you haven’t had your recommended daily allowance of outrage, go here to learn that the international “human rights” community has issued a joint statement to honor that infamous anniversary, a statement that does not, in any way, demand his release. Surprised? Thought not.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Egyptian Division: I was shocked, shocked! to learn (here) that pro-democracy activists in Egypt are seeing their chances for democracy slip away as the Muslim Brotherhood gains ever more strength. I’m sure the Obama Administration is equally shocked, except they’re probably actually shocked to learn that Muslim murderers tend to behave like, well, Muslim murderers. Whoda thunk it?

ITEM: I Know That If I Wanted to Broker Democracy and Eternal Peace in Lebanon and Syria, That’s Who I’d Send: Write this one up under the “What The ….?!” category. Rep. Dennis Kuchinich (D-Another Dimension) is apparently on a mission to Syria and Lebanon where he will—well, no one is quite sure what he’ll do or why he’s going, or---Geez. Read the story here and see if you can figure it out. He couldn’t cause any more harm than Jimmy Carter, could he? Discuss.

ITEM: Tales From the People’s Republic, #10,285: If anyone is still interested, go here for the story of the conviction of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on 17 of 20 counts in his retrial. Among the counts on which he was convicted was trying to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat. Blagojevich is the fourth Illinois governor since 1973 convicted of a felony and his predecessor is still in prison. Illinois remains the only American state that does not allow concealed carry in any form. I wonder if there is a connection? Discuss.

ITEM: He’s What?! Go here to learn that Mr. Obama will now operate on instinct rather than on building consensus. Uh, what? Correct me if I’m wrong, gentle readers, but wasn’t Mr. Obama sold as the most carefully deliberative, intellectual president in history, a man whose cerebral cogitations were beyond the understanding of mere mortals? And didn’t he just give the appearance of seeking consensus while doing whatever he wanted anyway? And now he’s throwing all that away and going with his “gut?” The story does pose some potential reasons for this Oval Office sea change. Not that anything Mr. Obama does is likely to be good for America…

ITEM: And Now From the TSA, Who Brought You Serial Child Molestation: Israel is very, very successful in identifying and stopping potential terrorists from boarding their airliners. This is so because Israel isn’t the least bit shy about figuring out precisely who is likely to be a terrorist, and they don’t care about whose feelings might be hurt. America, on the other hand—and this was begun under George W. Bush and the execrable Norman Mineta—has now descended to requiring that 95 year old, dying women in wheelchairs accompanied by their families on a domestic flight remove their adult diapers. Apparently the crack TSA agents involved were suspicious becomes they found something wet in the diaper. I’m not kidding. The TSA has defended their actions as nothing more than following procedure. Perhaps the best procedure would be disbanding the TSA and adopting proven Israeli methods. Go here for the story. Take your blood pressure meds first.

ITEM: TSA Déjà Vu: Go here for a related article on the uselessness and abuses of the TSA. You owe this one to yourself if for no other reason than its accurate explanation of exploding butt cheeks. You’ll see what I mean.

ITEM: Remember the DREAM Act? The lunatic legislation that would have given illegal immigrants money to attend college and on the basis of being college students, essentially legal immigration status? Well, now it seems that Mr. Obama has enacted it by executive order. Who needs a Congress when you can command anything into existence? Go here, but secure easily breakable items first.

ITEM: But Mr. Obama Wants Everybody to Go To College On The Public Dime and Took Over the Student Loan Industry Too! Isn’t college for everybody? Shouldn’t everyone earn a sheepskin? Won’t a college degree lead to the good life? Not so much. Read this report to discover why Obamian utopian idealism really doesn’t apply to the real world. Did it ever? Discuss.

ITEM: So What The %$##*& Is Going On In Wisconsin Now? Quick Background: The story goes that Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley has claimed that recently re-elected Justice David Prosser choked her without provocation. However, like Anthony Weiner, she has made no police report of what, if true, would be an clear and easily proved assault. The reason may be that the incident occurred during an informal meeting of some five justices who were discussing the court’s defeat of the union’s lawsuit to stop Gov. Walker’s union legislation. According to at least two of the justices present, Bradley lost it and charged Prosser with fists raised. Prosser merely raised his hands to block her and in so doing, she more or less ran into his hands with her neck. Good grief. Go here for an article that will help you sort it out. Go here for a related article by the invaluable Wisconsin law prof. and blogger, Ann Althouse.

ITEM: They Really Can’t Help Themselves, Can They? Last week in Quick Takes, I brought to your attention evidence that our self-appointed betters who live on the left and right coasts really do view those of us living in flyover country as subhuman, inbred throwbacks to the apes, and probably lesser life forms. I know that even with the incontrovertible evidence I provided, some of you—good folk all, willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those who wouldn’t urinate on you if you were on fire—really couldn’t bring yourself to believe that such self-imagined superior beings could be so heartless and mindlessly cruel. Ok then. Go here for a brief video that will put all doubt to rest. Are you surprised that a NY Times columnist and Bill Maher (who thinks that New Jersey is the epitome of enlightened civilization) are involved? Thought not. Note the delighted, informed, we’re-the-in-group laughter and delight of the entire pencil-necked, pin-headed panel. They really do think this way folks. Go here for Ed Driscoll’s intelligent take on the same video and some other interesting links.

CY Dictionary: Flyover Country. Noun. A term coined by oh-so-sophisticated denizens of the east and west coasts to describe that vast, cultural wasteland between LAX and LaGuardia where the little people lead their uninteresting, petty, uninformed and anti-intellectual meaningless little lives.

ITEM: Somebody Tell Mitt Romney! It’s Global Warming! Global cooling is evidence of Global Warming! Snow in June is evidence of Global Warming! Dennis Kuchinich in Syria is evidence of Global Warming! The absence of Global Warming is evidence of Global Warming! All the hurricanes we are having are evidence of Global Warming! What’s that you say? What hurricanes? Well, you know, the hurricanes that are ravaging…I mean that might ravage…that…you know…aw poopy! Go here to discover that in the six years since Hurricane Katrina—despite the predictions of Global Warming proponents of certain GW-caused hurricane Armageddon to come—we have experienced near-record low levels of such storms.

A Note To Female Readers: You’ll like the picture of the author. Who says scientists have to be geeks?

ITEM: Free Speech and The Schools Update: Go here for the story of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s June 13 decision on public school student’s rights on the internet. This is an important decision, gentle readers. In the cases decided, schools punished students for parody Internet publications making, well, juvenile fun of principals. The parodies were apparent not done on school time or with school resources, but by the students involved at home. The court ruled—correctly I believe--that the involved schools exceeded their authority. Some will try to make political hay over this, but it appears to be a narrowly crafted decision well founded on Constitutional law rather than judicial whim.

ITEM: How Much Do We Charge For the Exercise of a Fundamental Civil Right? In NYC (here), to obtain a permit for a gun, it’s more than the cost of many guns. Anyone surprised? Thought not. I spent nearly a week in NYC not long ago. Can’t imagine living there unarmed. Couldn’t be armed if I lived there, not legally, so I’ll never live there. I’m sure Gov. Cuomo will be weeping about that as soon as it is brought to his attention. See: “They Really Can’t Help Themselves, Can They?” above.

ITEM: The Left Coast Sinks—Even More: I’ve mentioned the invaluable Michael Barone in past Quick Takes. Go here for his latest article on the rise of the Gulf Coast (GASP! Flyover Country!) and the continuing decline of California, that oasis of intellect, coolness and all-around human superiority on the Left Coast.

ITEM: I Want That Job! Go here for a fine Forbes article by the charming Susannah Breslin about job interview tactics. You’ll enjoy her wit and style.

ITEM: Dateline—Gillette, WY. The old joke going around Gillete in the 80’s was: “Dear Lord, give us another boom. We promise not to screw it up like the last one.” I’m writing this in Gillette, where I once lived and served as a police officer during a previous boom. Gillette is where I met and married my wife, which is easily the smartest thing I ever did. The town is booming once again with coal and oil development. My brother in law, the owner of a concrete contracting company, can’t get enough good workers, homes are being built, businesses are moving in, and the economy is booming—as much as economies boom these days. Gillette can be a fairly expensive place to live, but if you’re out of work and looking for a good place to find it, Gillette, WY is a pretty good bet these days.

ITEM: The Pulchritude (Not) of Progressive Policies: OK, OK, so it was fun to be alliterative for a moment! Sheesh! Go here for an informative Pajamas Media story by Tom Blumer about what Progressive thinking and policies have done to Ohio, and about what might be done to save it. Parallels to America? You be the judge.

ITEM: White Collar Non-Crime: Go here for the invaluable Mark Steyn’s take on the never-ending Conrad Black case. If you’re not familiar with Steyn, easily one of the most brilliant commentators working today, this will be a good, albeit brief, introduction.

ITEM: Can The NYT Ever Play It Straight: Here, they do. The story: The Obama Administration is hiring stealth poll takers to contact doctors pretending to be patients to see if doctors are accepting new patients, Medicare, etc. As you might imagine, doctors are not amused. Remember: This is the most transparent Administration in American history! Can you imagine how bad things would be if it was not? Discuss.

ITEM: They WANT To Ask About That Stuff?! And in Florida, a group of doctors is going to court to try to overturn a recently passed law that they feel terribly infringes on their practice of medicine. That’s right, they’re referring to the law that prevents doctors from quizzing their patients about---gun ownership absent a clearly definable medical reason to do so! What? Gun ownership? Gun ownership. But what does that have to do with practicing medicine? Good question. Go here to find out.

ITEM: You Don’t Want to Raise Taxes? You Don’t Want to Spend America Into Oblivion? You’re Unpatriotic! So sayeth the former (it always feels sooooo good to write that!) Speaker of the House: Nancy Pelosi. To discover a bit of economic reality, go here.

ITEM: It Doesn’t? The July 4 edition of “Time” magazine will grace its cover with a graphic asking if the Constitution still matters. I’m sure you won’t be able to guess what Time thinks about that one. Go here for the story, and a bit of exposure of faulty liberal thinking and double standards.

ITEM: They’re Doing WHAT?! Go here for Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin where we learn that CNN is now using psychics to figure out economics. Yes, our federal financial officials are baffled. Everything they are doing is an abject failure. They’re following the same path that led European nations to ruin and they can’t figure out why it’s not working and what they should do differently, so CNN is helping out! You can’t make this stuff up, folks.

ITEM: So Barack Obama is Chauncy Gardiner? How many of you remember “Being There?” Apart from his role in the Pink Panther films, this is my favorite Peter Sellers vehicle. Sellers plays a dim-witted gardener named “Chance” (Chance the gardener—get it?) whose vague, pseudo-metaphorical utterances are mistaken for brilliant political commentary. The film is a deft parody of what passes for wisdom inside the Beltway. Go here for Michael Barone’s convincing take on Mr. Obama’s similarity to that character.

ITEM: Do You Like Smart, Witty, Strong Women? Yeah? Me Too! I certainly married one. Go here for Andrew Klavan’s (no slouch as a writer and satirist, he) take on Ann Coulter who is one of the best commentators writing today. As with Sarah Palin, liberals often degenerate to foaming-at-the-mouth incomprehensibility at the mere mention of her name. Quite apart from the fact that she is a stylish, funny and brilliant writer, that’s good enough for me.

ITEM: I’m Sure All They Need Is A Little More Outreach: The head of Iranian missile forces recently claimed that Iran can build missiles—no doubt soon to be tipped with nuclear warheads—with even greater range than current models. The good news? They’re not going to do that because their current missiles can already reach Israeli and American bases in the region. Go here for the story. I’m sure that if Mr. Obama just reaches out to the Iranians again, or maybe sets a new deadline or threatens even more sanctions, they’ll come around.

ITEM: Gun Control and Video Games: Have you heard of the Supreme Court’s Brown v. EMA decision? If not, go here. The Court overturned a California law (boy, that’s a surprise!) that sought to prevent the sale of violent video games to kids under 18. But this decision goes beyond video games and casts major doubt on a long time tactic of the gun banners: the weapons effect. This is the lame idea that mere exposure to firearms can cause people to commit violent acts. Go here to the Volokh Consipiracy for an informative article on what passes for thinking and research in the minds of anti-gun social scientists these days.

ITEM: Oh, How The Mighty Have Fallen! Go here to read the second of two essays by Walter Russell Mead (there’s a link to the first) on the fall from grace of the Goracle, Al Gore. It seems that farcical climate alarmism is not selling terribly well these days. Perhaps Mr. Gore will have to sell his 100 foot, fresh water houseboat. Al Gore has a 100 foot houseboat? Indeed he does. I’m sure it’s completely green, just like the jets he uses to fly around the world to lecture the rest of us about our carbon footprints, when he’s not in one of his mansions that use as much electricity as small towns. You know, I almost feel sorry for poor Al—nah. I don’t.

ITEM: Shooting Yourself In the Foot: Go here for a brief article by the invaluable Victor Davis Hanson about a mostly Latino crowd booing the US soccer team in a recent match against Mexico. As regular readers know, we do not, for a moment, harbor any animus toward those who want to immigrate to the United States. We do, however, expect everyone to obey the law, in this, and every other way. What continues to amaze is that many open-borders types continue to shoot themselves in the foot, as Dr. Hanson concisely explains, by lauding the nations they fled at the expense of America.

ITEM: So What Does He Know? He’s Not Barack Obama! Go here for John Bolton’s lucid explanation of what Mr. Obama has done wrong, and continues to do wrong, regarding the non-hostile hostilities in Libya.

ITEM: The Dangers of Police Work, Episode #2397: Go here for the harrowing story of a drunken Ohio woman who went berserk at a wedding. When the police arrived, she pulled out a potentially deadly weapon: her right breast. According to police reports, she squirted the surprised police with said breast. Fortunately, there were no serious injuries, which is amazing, because, as Steve Martin said: “Breasts make men stupid.” Not only that, those things normally travel in pairs, like a gang or something.

And with that shocking tale of lactose intolerance, I must thank you, once again, for stopping by and say my fond farewells. I encourage you to drop by once again next Thursday for another edition of Quick Takes!

Pravda on the Potomac: WaPo at it Again

You know who's really to blame for the Gunwalker scandal?

The NRA.

Letter From The Teacher #7: A Modest Proposal

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: John McIntyre
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: A Modest Proposal

Dear Mr. Williams:

I was interested to read your recent op-ed piece in the Anytown Review-Blabberer. I’m afraid I must disagree with you regarding the problems of American education and who, specifically, is at fault. Please allow me to make a modest proposal about how to solve the problems that do exist.

We’ll begin by establishing something called “School Districts.” These school districts will probably consist of the geographical areas of certain cities, perhaps several smaller towns as well.

We’ll have the people of these cities elect independent groups of citizens to oversee these school districts. I think we’ll call them “School Boards.” These school board members will serve rotating terms of office. Directly elected by their friends and neighbors, they will be directly responsible to those who elected them. It will be as close to a direct democracy as we are ever likely to see.

The School Boards will hire a Chief Executive Officer who will be responsible for hiring every other employee of these school districts. We’ll call him—or her--a “School Superintendent.” That has a nice ring, don’t you think?

The School Superintendent—my wife tells me that we could also call him a “Superintendent of Schools”—will hire various assistants and other administrative helpers and together, they will hire the administrators of what we will call “Schools.” We’ll have “Elementary Schools” for the lower grades, “Middle Schools” for older kids, and for the three or four oldest grades, we’ll establish “High Schools.” Catchy, eh?

The administrators of these various schools will be called “Principals,” and they will hire their own staffs, which will include “Teachers” and “Secretaries,” “Assistant Principals” and various other workers necessary to do the business of education.

These “Teachers” will be college educated specialists in what we’ll call “Teaching.” Because they will be in daily contact with our kids, we’ll subject them to rigorous vetting of all kinds, and we’ll make them serve a three-year probationary period. Did you know that police officers only have to serve a one-year probation? It’s true. They don’t have to be college educated and unlike teachers (in most school districts anyway) they make life and death decisions.
These “Teachers” will live in the communities they serve, so people will know them and be able to assess their character and abilities on a daily basis. We’ll pay them a living wage, but not much beyond that.

Then we’ll build what we’ll call “Schools,” where the teachers, principals, support staff and most importantly, the kids, will go five days a week to participate in what we’ll call “Education.” And football. That’s the real reason we build schools, but we’ll pretend it’s really all about education, and amazingly, pretty much everybody will go along with it!

When our teachers are not doing their jobs properly, it will be up to the principals to help them improve. If they can’t or won’t improve, they’ll fire them and find other teachers who can do the job properly.

If our principals aren’t doing their jobs properly, it will be up to the superintendents—or the various assistant superintendents—to help them improve. If they can’t or won’t improve, they’ll fire them and find other principals who can do the job properly.

If our superintendents aren’t doing their jobs properly, it will be up to the school boards to help them improve. If they can’t or won’t improve, they’ll fire them and find other superintendents who can do the job properly.

And if our school board members aren’t doing their jobs properly, it will be up to the citizens who elected them to encourage them—strongly—to improve. If they can’t or won’t improve, they’ll vote them out of office at the next opportunity and elect other school board members who can do the job properly.

There! What do you think? It’s a system with maximum accountability from the lowest to the highest ranks, and the best part is that the people are actually in control and can actually drive a few miles and actually speak with everyone involved from the teachers to the principals to the assistant superintendents to the superintendent to the school board members.

I know what you’re thinking: I’m making fun of you. Well, maybe I am, just a little, but the bigger point is that our school districts really are as accountable as we know how to make them, much more accountable and responsive than our state governments and certainly, more responsive and accountable then our federal government. When there are problems, we have the means to correct them. That’s the real problem.

What do I mean? If we’re going to correct problems, we have to be involved and ready to play our part in the system we set up. That’s the real problem. If we’re lazy, if we don’t inform ourselves about what our schools are doing, if we don’t complain—rationally and properly—when there are problems, if we aren’t willing to spend time and energy and perhaps even money to run the bums out at the next election, whose fault is it if our schools are having problems? The professionals we hire to do their jobs should be, well, professional, but sometimes, they’re not. Unfortunately we have to hire school employees solely from the human race, and you know the limitations of that bunch!

Let me provide some basic facts about school systems. The blanket generalizations and accusations in your article suggest that you aren’t aware of these simple truths.

(1) Teachers have almost no power in the system. They don’t hire, they don’t fire, they don’t supervise other employees, and they absolutely do not make policy. In good schools, principals listen to them and take their opinions and needs into account when making decisions. In many schools, that’s not the case. But generally, teachers only have the power to determine some of what they do in their own classrooms, and in some school districts, not even that. It’s paradoxical that teachers really know what’s right and what’s wrong in their school districts, but often, nobody will listen to them. After all, they're just teachers; what do they know about education?

(2) Teachers know that they’re at the bottom of the educational food chain. They know that they have perpetual targets painted on their backs. They know that they have little or no power to effect change, and that the public will tend to blame them anyway. Even so, most love teaching, they love kids, and despite the fact they could make substantially more money doing other things (most of those who teach CAN do as well), they pursue what they love. They like to speak with parents. They want parents to visit their classrooms. They wish more parents would call them and stop by to visit. They put an enormous amount of thought and effort into their curriculums. They’re proud of what they do and want people to know about it. They have no doubt that they can be disciplined and fired.

(3) School officials—those who aren’t corrupt anyway—really do respect, even fear the public. They want things to be smooth and quiet. They don’t want negative publicity and they don’t want lawsuits, so they’ll tend to listen and make changes if they think a citizen’s complaint has merit and they’re pretty sure it won’t go away by itself. This means that citizens really do have substantial power, if they’re well informed, rational, and if they’re willing to use it for the right reasons.

(4) School board members are usually people who have a sincere desire to serve the public. Most of them actually care about the schools, and want to do their best to ensure that their kids get the best educational opportunity possible. But some are in it for the power. They might have a narrow agenda, but power is their goal, and they tend to subordinate the greater good to get and keep the power they need to implement their agendas. In some school districts, particularly in big cities, they are paid a great deal of money, and they have substantial power to enrich themselves and to enrich others. Lord Acton was right: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

(5) In most school districts though, school board members do respect and fear the public. They know that school board elections can be won or lost by a mere handful of votes. I’ve seen school board members defeated by a single vote. Think of the power that gives citizens.

(6) School boards make the larger policies for their school districts, but they rely on their superintendents to tell them the truth and to give them all the alternatives before making their decisions. Most don’t know enough about education to really know what’s going on, so they must trust their superintendents. Sometimes that trust is misplaced, sometimes it isn’t.

(7) Principals are usually allowed to make policies for their schools, to at least some degree, as long as they don’t conflict with larger district policies. Most are willing to listen to parents and will honestly do what they can to meet their needs.

The best principals know that their primary job is to keep order. When the adults aren’t in charge, there is no learning. They know that they are responsible for making sure that their teachers have what they need to provide the best educational opportunity possible.

Do you see what I’m getting at? Most school districts are responsive to citizens, to parents. The people involved know that they should be responsive and they are. When they’re not, the public has the ultimate power to change things from the top down, but only if they’re willing to spend the time, energy and even money necessary to make necessary changes happen. In most places, it’s not necessary to throw out systems that are actually working very well. In most places, the schools really are on your side.

Do you now understand who really has the power to make changes? Do you realize that teachers have very little?

I know that in some places, particularly those with unions, things are different. Politics and money play an enormous role—providing the best educational opportunity possible is a secondary concern, and usually, it’s not that high on the list--and in those places, citizens have basically two choices: accept it or move. Yes, that’s wrong, but it’s reality, and it’s a reality the public has allowed to get out of hand. In some places, they even support it even as their schools and communities are crumbling around their ears.

But the good news is that in most places, the schools really do a good job. School employees really do care about doing a good job and they see parents as vital partners in their joint endeavor. They really do want to hear from parents and will listen to them.

I’d very much appreciate it if you would do one simple thing for me: the next time you take schools to task, would you be so kind as to be specific? Which school is not doing its job? Exactly what are they doing wrong? What have you done to change things and what happened? I hope you can agree that in this, and in any human endeavor, tarring everyone with the same brush is not only inaccurate, it’s fundamentally unfair. But the worst thing is, it doesn’t solve real problems.

Thanks for listening, and remember: I’ll always be glad to listen to what you have to say. Most teachers are.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

Gunwalker Goes Pravda

I did a total of six radio appearances last week related to "Gunwalker," and Mike did at least two (including one today).

Here's a fresh Youtube clip of my Friday night appearance on Cam and Company.

Getting the Message on Gunwalker

The Rhetoric of Losing--Everything

President Obama’s recent speech on Afghanistan was of a piece with his standard rhetoric, with one possible deviation: He only said “I” thirteen times by my count of the speech released by the White House prior to the delivery of the actual speech at West Point. I suspect that with his poll numbers at historic lows and his reelection campaign foremost on the minds of the occupants of the White House, the wisdom of more frequently using “we” has gained some urgency.

According to media accounts, few Americans watched the speech. This is unsurprising in that Mr. Obama is certainly the most over-exposed president in history. One would think that by now, someone on the White House staff would have figured out that the American people do not long for just one more Obama speech on any topic, but apparently making the I/we transition has, to date, fully occupied their attention and rhetorical energies.

A great many media outlets have covered the primary thrust of the speech: we will be pulling out of Afghanistan on a predetermined schedule and regardless of the strategic or tactical conditions at the time. It has also been noted that General Petraeus is less than thrilled with this idea. One would certainly hope so.

My intention with this post is to speak to several of Mr. Obama’s statements, which have, for the most part, escaped comment in the legacy media and even in the blogosphere. None of these comments, which are embedded among the numerous clichés and gaseous tropes, is original; they, in various formulations, have often flowed across Mr. Obama’s teleprompter screens in the past. The value in speaking to these comments is that their frequent repetition almost certainly reflects the fact that they represent Mr. Obama’s fundamental values. That should worry us all.

“For there should be no doubt that so long as I am President, the United States will never tolerate a safe-haven for those who aim to kill us: they cannot elude us, nor escape the justice they deserve.”

Actually, there is considerable doubt about this, most recently demonstrated in Mr. Obama’s failure to support allies throughout the world. Israel certainly has reason to doubt, and so do all of the leaders throughout Eastern Europe, the Middle East and even NATO allies whose requests for American aid in Libya have been, at best, slow-walked. Even in the case of the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden, Mr. Obama took nearly a full day to make a final decision as our assets stood, on alert, ready to go. His inability to make the decision cost a second additional day due to weather conditions and might tend to make reasonable people doubt his commitment in such matters even where Osama Bin Laden was involved.

“And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end.”

If our departure proves—as it is likely to do—that all America’s enemies need do is wait until we grow tired and announce our departure date—a responsible end to the war is the last thing likely to happen. As has often been observed, Mr. Obama does seem to have an aversion to saying “victory,” and apparently, an aversion to achieving it.

“Instead, we must rally international action, which we are doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their destiny.”

Uh, I’m confused. It has been widely noted that NATO does not have sufficient combat power to accomplish much of anything unless America is bearing most of the burden. According to our NATO allies, we’re not providing any real leadership in Libya, and Mr. Obama has announced his pride in “leading from behind” in that endeavor. Apparently Mr. Obama and his advisors consider “leading from behind” to be a good thing, a strategy so strategically innovative and brilliant that it has been accompanied by fighting the first war that does not actually involve “hostilities.” Rhetoric is a flexible thing indeed in the hands of Mr. Obama. So, apparently, is leadership.

‘Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens at home. Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times. Now, we must invest in America’s greatest resource – our people. We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means. We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy.”

Where to begin? Opportunity for our citizens at home is apparently to be won—along with the future--by destroying the coal and oil industries, destroying Boeing, nationalizing 2/3 of the American automobile industry, driving gasoline prices and unemployment through the roof, squandering nearly a trillion dollars on a stimulus that didn’t stimulate anything, and the list goes on and on. We are in a time of rising debt and hard economic times not because of our expenditures on war, but because of Mr. Obama’s ruinous economic policies and his emphasis on suppressing the private sector while enriching the public sector and unions.

Live within our means? Not when Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats are grimly determined to continue to spend money we don’t have--in unbelievable quantities--and to raise taxes so that they can do just that. Amazingly, they are talking--with straight faces--of a second, more expensive stimulus. Mr. Obama has admitted long ago that there never were any “shovel-ready jobs,” and has recently joked—in very bad taste—about that near-trillion dollar waste of money we didn’t have.

While our infrastructure is in need of repair, much of it is not the business of the federal government, and because our national debt has reached unheard of levels, there is no money to be had for that purpose. Mr. Obama and the Democrats will not admit that we have no money and that none of this may be reversed without substantially reducing spending, something they are genetically incapable of doing. Remember too that the Democrats, in violation of federal law, have not produced a budget for nearly 800 days, and have announced their determination to continue to violate that particular law rather than revealing their true intentions to the public.

It is in Mr. Obama’s so often repeated as to be unremarkable cliché about finding new and clean sources of energy that we see Mr. Obama’s most fundamental beliefs. He has long had the idea that what he says must be reality because he has spoken it. Is there any sentient being alive who does not realize that discovering “new and clean sources of energy” would make them instantly richer than Al Gore or John Kerry? Unfortunately, the laws of physics are not cooperating.

The problem is that rhetoric does not equal reality. None of the sources of energy currently under development, none currently known to man, can replace fossil fuels despite the most fervent wishes of Mr. Obama and his environmentalist allies. Wind and solar cannot, even if developed to a degree beyond their proponent’s wildest dreams, replace more than a tiny portion of our nation’s energy needs. Not only that, the very same environmentalists consistently oppose, delay and stop solar and wind projects across the nation. It almost makes one think that finding new sources of energy really isn’t their ultimate goal.

While Mr. Obama, his Energy Secretary Mr. Chu and various of their sycophants would be delighted to force Americans—for the sake of what they believe to be worthy Progressive goals--to abandon their cars, freeze in the winter and bake in the summer, most Americans realize that their lives, and the lives of their families, rely on affordable energy and that there is simply no even remotely viable replacement.

Would Americans accept new, clean sources of energy? Absolutely, but only immediately viable and affordable replacements for our current energy sources. What, pray tell, might those immediately viable and affordable replacements be? Rhetoric doesn’t fill fuel tanks and money “saved” by virtue of not being spent on the military, even if is not wasted on other boondoggles rather than being used to pay down the debt, cannot alter the law of physics and produce magic new forms of energy.

And finally: “America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.”

Uh, Mr. Obama, we already have a nation here at home. What we need is for you to quit deconstructing it. We’ll take it from there.

Pissing Off All The Right People

It looks like all the coverage of the Obama Administration gun-smuggling disaster known as "Gunwalker" is starting to get the waterboys of convicted felon George Soros worried.

Media Matters called me out by name in recent smear piece over the coverage of Gunwalker at Pajamas Media.

I can hardly wait to see their attack on fellow liberal Jon Stewart.

I'm sure it will be posted just as soon as Eric Holder's Department of Justice writes it for them.

The Erik Scott Case, Update 12.2: Litigation and Mutiny

It was in Update 9 “Mindset and Mutiny” on January 3, 2011 (available here) that I first addressed the issue of Las Vegas Metro police officers, led by the head of the Police Protective Association (PPA) Chris Collins, threatening to withhold cooperation, not only with Metro, but with the Las Vegas criminal justice system, if they were asked to submit to adversarial questioning in newly revamped Coroner’s Inquests. Since that post, much has occurred. Speaking for the PPA, Collins has removed all doubt that Metro officers intend to refuse to cooperate with Metro investigations into their official actions and that they also intend to refuse to cooperate with Coroner’s inquests under the newly written rules adopted by the Clark County Commission.

In Update 11, “Heroism and Loathing In Las Vegas” on April 17 (access the Erik Scott Archive in the right hand section of the home page for all Scott articles), I reported on the attempt by the PPA to change Nevada state law in such a way that the Clark County DA’s office—or the Coroner—would have absolute authority to simply dispense with a Coroner’s Inquest in any police shooting. Testifying before the Assembly Governmental Affairs Committee on April 15, Collins shocked those present by announcing that William Mosher and Joshua Stark had been given awards for heroism by the National Association of Police Organizations. Collins, a member of the board of directors of that organization, nominated them for the “honor.” Conspicuously absent was former Metro Officer Thomas Mendiola, who with Stark and Mosher, shot and killed Erik Scott. Mendiola had been arrested for knowingly giving a firearm to a convicted felon and has since been dismissed from Metro. Reportedly due, at least in part, to Collins’ arrogance, the Committee killed the bill and several legislators were reported to have commented that it would be dead at any time in the future as well.

This seemed, at the time, to be the end of this part of the Erik Scott story, but as this update will reveal, it was not. The PPA is now trying to get a local judge to halt Coroner’s Inquests under the new procedures (here). The first such inquest is scheduled for July 12. Sheriff Gillespie has commented (here) that he has 18 officers who cannot return to their regular duties until the inquests scheduled due to their actions have been held. He has had no further comment on the matter.

As usual, Collins has not been silent on the matter. Collins’ comments:

"Our officers' rights are being violated. Their constitutional protections are being stepped on."

"Now that they've changed the rules, it's no longer fair."

Maggie McLetchie of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada has a differing view:

“The PPA has consistently throughout the process taken a position that they are above the law.”

The most fundamental change in the inquest process is the appointment of an “ombudsman” whose role will be to represent the families of the victims of police shootings and the interests of the public. As I’ve pointed out in past updates, this is an inherent conflict of interest. However, the ombudsman does have the power to ask questions of police officer witnesses in inquests. It is this simple fact that has the PPA worried. There are a variety of other changes that are certainly displeasing to Metro and the PPA, but this is the largest sticking point, hence the PPA legal action to halt inquests in their tracks.

RATIONALE AND REALITY:

As citizens, police officers retain all of their Constitutional rights. They may, if they choose, invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (commonly known as “taking the 5th”). The new inquest procedures do not--cannot—in any way infringe on this right. In cases where they are involved in shootings, Metro officers are expected to do several things:

(1) Write complete and honest reports about their actions.

(2) Speak with Metro detectives and/or superior officers, as often as required, about their reports and their role in the events being investigated, being honest and complete in their statements.

(3) Speak with any other properly constituted authority having a role in the process, as often as necessary, also being completely honest and forthcoming in their statements.

(4) Testify, under oath, in a Coroners Inquest, which is required by law in Nevada.

(5) Testify, under oath, in any other kind of properly constituted hearing, including criminal and civil hearings, as often as necessary.

Officers are, in fact, expected to do all of this as necessary regarding any of their official actions. None of this is unique to Metro, Las Vegas, or Nevada. While Coroner’s inquests are not universal, they are held in a great many jurisdictions across the nation. This is the minimum expected of any police officer and rightly so.

We pay police officers to enforce the law. Writing honest and complete reports and honestly and completely testifying about their official actions is an integral part of being a police officer. Every officer understands this and accepts it. These obligations are taught from the earliest days of their basic police academies and constantly reinforced throughout their careers.

All of this makes perfect sense. Should we not expect police officers to write complete and honest reports about their official actions? Should we not expect them to fully cooperate with their employer and other agencies in recounting their official actions? Should we not expect them to testify honestly and completely, as often as necessary, about their official actions? Of course we should, and any suggestion to the contrary is patent nonsense.

So what’s the problem? Why is the PPA so upset? Two words: adversarial questioning. For the past 30 years in Las Vegas Coroner’s Inquests have been mere formalities. Questioning was entirely done by the District Attorney, and while relatives of shooting victims have been able to submit questions—in writing--it has been solely up to the judge if any have been asked. For some 200 inquests, the results were virtually uniform: no culpability for the police, and in the single exception, the DA did not prosecute. The locally televised inquest in the Erik Scott shooting exposed the one-sided, cozy relationship between the DA and Metro to a public that was finally paying attention. Almost universal outrage, and the revised inquest procedures were the result.

The fears of the PPA are clearly expressed by Collins who asserts that the officer’s constitutional rights are being violated and that the process is no longer fair. Ridiculous. For the first time in decades, officers will be required to fully do their duties, just as innumerable police officers around the nation do every day. Their constitutional rights are not in the least infringed by asking them to do their duties, the duties they voluntarily sought and sacrificed to do. What Collins and the officers he represents fear is taking the 5th on the witness stand.

Regardless of their motives, no one, officer or civilian alike, may ignore a subpoena to appear in court, whether a criminal or civil trial or an inquest. Anyone failing to honor a subpoena may be arrested and brought before the judge who will demand that they explain why they should not be held in contempt of court. It their reasons are not convincing, the judge may jail and fine them at his discretion. Unless Las Vegas judges are willing to abandon their duty in this regard, PPA threats to refuse to show up are hollow indeed, though it’s possible that they might be foolish enough to try, at least as a publicity stunt. I suspect that if they do, they’ll quickly discover that public sentiment is not on their side.

Once sworn to tell the truth, an officer has a choice: he can testify truthfully, commit perjury, or take the 5th. If he has done his duty properly, he can testify truthfully and answer any question, adversarial or otherwise, without fear. If he has not done his duty properly, his choices are somewhat more restricted. If we assume that he does not want to testify truthfully—and it is certainly possible that the PPA is making this assumption—he can either commit perjury or take the 5th. The consequences for committing perjury include losing one’s career and one’s liberty. And while there is no question that some officers have lied, and that some will lie in the future, it’s reasonable to believe that most police officers would avoid this option. However, taking the 5th is also problematic.

What must any citizen think about a police officer who, in explaining his official actions, the actions he is paid to do--his duty--takes the 5th? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that he believes that if he testifies truthfully and completely, he may be criminally prosecuted? If he believes it, why shouldn’t the public believe it? Why shouldn’t the public be asking Sheriff Gillespie why he is hiring and retaining officers who take the 5th when asked about their official actions while under oath?

It is true that when a citizen takes the 5th Amendment, judges will instruct a jury not to consider that fact in their deliberations. Human nature being what it is, they will anyway, one way or another. There is no such prohibition for the public when a police officer takes the 5th and refuses to testify about what he has done on their behalf. The public is free to draw any conclusion they choose, and the most likely conclusion is that the officer has something to hide, something that would get him in serious trouble if it was known. When these officers have shot and killed a citizen, the logical conclusion is that they do not believe they were justified, which might mean charges of manslaughter, negligent homicide or worse. One officer taking the 5th would be bad. Several officers doing it—particularly in any single case or related group of cases--would be potentially deadly to the careers and lives of officers from the newest patrolman to the Sheriff of Metro. This is what the PPA and the officers it represents fear. This is why they want to stop the inquest process at any cost.

The process is no longer fair to police officers? To use a metaphor with which citizens of Las Vegas will be intimately familiar, until now, the deck has always been stacked in favor of the house. With the new inquest procedures, the marks aren’t in control, not by a long shot, but they at least have a statistically significant chance of beating the house. That’s what the PPA, and almost certainly the leadership of Metro, fears.

We will, of course, continue to report on the process of the PPA’s legal action and its effect on the inquest process.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Among the comments accompanying the June 20 Las Vegas Review/Journal story was this comment by “Plastron”:

“Plastron wrote on June 20, 2011 08:45 PM:
You have to remember, The word "Protective" in their title, "Las Vegas Police Protective Association," means to PROTECT the "POLICE" (especially at inquests). Apparently if they want to cook something up for an inquest they feel it's something like their constitutional right to arrange/rearrange the facts as they see fit. And they are SO GREAT (at least in their own minds) that nobody "NOBODY" should be asking them questions they don't want to hear.

On the "Ziggy62" post about cell phone cameras. Interesting to note, about three months ago I ran into a former law enforcement person I know, we talked about the COSTCO shooting. He said Metro did confiscate some cell phones at the COSTCO shooing. "I'm" not saying it's true, he did, he's connected.

At any rate, PPA, keep it up . . . you are digging your own grave. I did a 25-year career in law enforcement (not out here) and I NEVER saw the crap pulled in that 25 years that I've read about out here (and, by the way, experienced).”

Of greatest interest is his comment that “a former law enforcement person” told him that Metro did confiscate an unknown number of cell phones at the scene of Erik Scott’s shooting. I do not know “Plastron,” nor can I vouch for the accuracy of this assertion. It has always been a source of some concern that in our digital age, no citizen videos of at least the aftermath of the shooting have surfaced. Part of this is no doubt due to the fact that only a handful of seconds elapsed from the moment the officers first laid eyes on Erik Scott until he was face down on the pavement, dying or dead from the seven rounds they fired in the middle of the crowd of people leaving the Costco store at their order. However, the absence of any citizen video—to say nothing of video from the many police cars, present, the police helicopter, and from Costco sources—is disturbing. If the assertion of “Plastron” is true, we may know the reason, at least as far as citizen video is concerned.

I would encourage “Plastron” or anyone who knows him to get in touch with me. I’d be very interested in verifying this account, if possible. My contact information is available in the “Contact/About” section at the top right of the home page.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

As I noted in Update 12, the Erik Scott civil case proceeds, despite the predictions of some that it would summarily dismissed. The outcome of the battle over inquest procedure will not have a direct effect on that case, but it will determine whether Las Vegas police officers will be held to account, just as officers are every day around the nation, for their official actions. For thirty years, this has not been the case. In a very real way, the outcome will determine whether Metro officers truly are above the law.

Writer That Ran with Post Character Assassination Piece Shopped by the Adminstration Just Came Off 3 Month Suspension for Plagiarism

None dare call it journalism.

Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli blocked all escape routes that his reporter Sari Horwitz might have mapped when he told Yahoo News reporter Michael Calderone yesterday, "There are no mitigating circumstances for plagiarism."

Horwitz stole from at least two Arizona Republic stories about the prosecution of Jared Lee Loughner earlier this month, the Post reports today. (Here's the Post editor's note on the matter.) Brauchli delivered his justice swiftly. Having learned of the plagiarism in a Monday e-mail from Randy Lovely, editor of the Republic, Brauchli had sentenced Horwitz to a three-month suspension by Wednesday.

If the 3-month suspension ran from March 16-June 16, Horwitz was back on the job less than a week before she ran this bogus story under her name. PJM sources claim someone in the Obama Administration allegedly shopped the article to various news outlets for a week in an attempt to try to stymie Congressman Darrell Issa's investigation in the Administration's role in the Gunwalker plot.

They weren't successful, but they are doing a damn good job of making the Administration look like guilty criminals flailing for a way out.

White House Unleashes MSM to Run Interference for Them on Gunwalker Plot

And they suck at it.

The MSM must be utterly terrified of what will happen to the Obama Administration if the truth comes out. Otherwise, why the transparent and desperate lies?

On the Airwaves on Gunwalker

Mike and I have both been part of the team providing on-going coverage of the ATF/DOJ/DHS "Gunwalker" scandal through Pajamas Media, and while the MSM is trying to avoid the story as much as possible, talk radio seems to love it. I've done three radio shows this week so far and will be doing three more tomorrow, and Mike is going to be speaking on the Martha Zoller Show (syndicated in GA) this morning at 11:20 ET.

Tomorrow, I'll be on with Kevin Miller in the Morning at 10:00 AM, The Ed Morrissey Show (yes, Ed Morrissey of Hotair.com) at 3:00 PM, and Talkback with Chuck Wilder just after 4:00 PM.

The MSM can try to ignore this, but just like past scandals, they can't keep the truth from coming out. We're going to keep pushing this story until the Obama Administration officials that are accessories to 152+ police murders are held to account.

Quick Takes, June 23, 2011

ITEM: You Go Girl! In Houston, TX there resides a “5-foot-nothing, 125 pound woman…” named Monique Lawless. When three punks tried to steal cases of beer from a WalMart, Lawless decided she wasn’t going to let them be, well, lawless, and took matters into her own feet. Go here for the story, and be sure to view the video. If we all did this, particularly if we were armed, I suspect crime rates would decline dramatically.

ITEM: Gunwalker: As regular readers know, Bob has been producing the finest work on this scandal anywhere in the media here at CY and also at Pajamas Media, and I’ve been adding the occasional supporting piece. Reflect, gentle readers, on the fact that if this sort of thing had been done by George W. Bush or any other Republican president, the Democrats and Lamestream media would be satisfied with nothing less than capital punishment followed by impeachment and a criminal trial. The foreign policy implications alone are staggering. It is possible that the President of the United States allowed foreign terroristic killers to be supplied with American weapons in a craven attempt to gin up support for domestic gun control policies. If so, it would be hard to imagine a better case for impeachment. Don’t let this one go down the memory hole, folks. We won’t. Discuss.

ITEM: So That’s What “Economic Recovery” Means! Let’s review: 9.1% unemployment, nearly a million lost construction jobs, about 865,00 manufacturing jobs lost, over six million home foreclosures, more than 3.7 trillion dollars added to the national debt, record high deficits for three straight years, and Dems, in violation of the law, refusing to write a budget for over 780 days. According to DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the economy has “turned around,” and it’s all to the credit of the Dems and Mr. Obama! Go here for the story. Secure breakable items first.

ITEM: Well, That’s A Pisser! There are those who suspect that professors in our universities are nothing more than a bunch of over-paid, under-worked, leftist whiners who don’t have the common sense the good Lord gave an avocado. And if they read this article (here) they’ll have no doubt that they’re right. Sheesh. Oh yes—it’s in California.

ITEM: What do you do if you’re a former Soviet Republic that is a solidly pro-American ally when Barack Obama treats you as he treats all American allies? You tell him that you’ll remain America’ strategic ally, but don’t bother calling back until a real American is in the White House. Go here to read the story of how Mr. Obama continues to stab the Czechs in the back in an idiotically transparent attempt to appease Russia.

ITEM: Don’t These Guys Have Editors? (Sub-title: Maybe that’s OK): Well, the nominations for the best inadvertently (I think) funny headline for the Summer of 2011 are now closed. From John at Powerline (here): “MISS USA CLIMAX APPROACHING.” I suspect the viewership of this particular pageant just might reverse recent trends and reach record levels.

ITEM: They did WHAT?! At the University of Colorado there exists a Sea Level Research Group. And this SLRG decided, beginning in May, to add 0.3 millimeters every year to its actual sea levels measurements because—well, just because. Steve Narem, director of the SLRG, according to Fox News (here) said:

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger---water volume is expanding.”

However, James Taylor of the Heartland Institute observed:

“We’ve only seen 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That’s not insignificant.”

Read the whole thing and wonder what the heck is going on in Mitt Romney’s mind as he seeks the Republican nomination by supporting global warming.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Hollywood Division: Imagine that you’re a 23 year old up-and-coming comedian and social commentator. Imagine that your manager shops your work around Hollywood, including John Stewart’s “Daily Show” on Comedy Central. Imagine that a producer for that show say that you’re “very talented,” but declines to book you because they never book conservatives. You’d be shocked, shocked! wouldn’t you? Not so much. Go here to Klavan on the Culture for the story of how Steven Crowder found himself in that very situation. Surely this sort of thing doesn’t go on in Hollywood? Not in Hollywoood where most folks are liberals and thus are good people, people who are all about tolerance and diversity? It does? I’m shocked, shocked! Be sure to take the link to Crowder’s YouTube video.

ITEM: It is blatantly stereotypical to suggest that liberals think that people who live in flyover country—and particularly the southern portions thereof—are missing toothed, inbred subhumans, and in the interests of fairness and reaching across the aisle, so to speak, we generally avoid that sort of stereotyping. And then a story like this comes along, and we remember that some stereotypes are absolutely true, and proved over and over and over. I suppose that’s why they’re stereotypes.

ITEN: It was, if memory serves, the execrable Tom Daschle (D-SD), who was famous for the South Dakota Two-Step, who said that the only way to professionalize airport security was to federalize it. The South Dakota Two-Step? Saying one, centrist to right thing in SD and being his inner leftist in DC. SD voters finally had enough of Daschle when John Thune came along, but Daschle was instrumental in saddling us with the child molesting Transportation Security Administration. And now the TSA has further distinguished itself by stealing the valuables of airline passengers across the nation. Go here for the story, but be sure your blood pressure meds are close at hand.

ITEM: In the last edition of QTs, we wrote about the Obama Administration’s Clintonian parsing of “hostilities,” as in whatever we’re doing in Libya, it isn’t “hostilities.” You know, those are nice bombs we’re dropping and friendly, diverse and tolerant Hellfire missiles we’re loosing on, well, whomever we’re loosing them on. But now we discover (here) that airmen and sailors in the non-hostile, non-hostilities zone of Libya are receiving “imminent danger pay.” And you’re surprised that Mr. Obama is lying because…?

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Wisconsin Edition: Go here for this one. The facts: A former county executive e-mailed judicial authorities, including Judge Maryann Sumi who eventually heard the case, announcing her intention to file it—the case opposing Governor Walker’s bill that removed some union negotiating abilities. It gets worse. Do read this one if you had any doubt about the utter corruption of Wisconsin Progressives. Read it anyway if you didn’t.

ITEM: Shameless Male Chauvinism Department: Do you remember “Dances With Wolves?” Well, go here for “Swims Naked With Whales.” It’s actually quite beautiful in a non-erotic, cold-shriveling sort of way. Come to think of it, you might need your blood pressure meds for this one too. Yes, I’m ashamed of myself. Heh, heh.

ITEM: Remember the good old days when science had integrity? You remember, the days when “peer review” meant that actual, unbiased scientists with actual credentials to review the material being reviewed, reviewed the material? Go here to Canada’s National Post for a story about how those days are long gone, at least as “science” relates to climate. I’m beginning to think I ought to buy stock in companies that manufacture blood pressure meds.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Fleeing States Hostile to Business and Prosperity Division: Guess which state is now seeing companies, in record numbers, fleeing to states that actually operate under the free enterprise system? C’mon…you can do it! It starts with…what’s that? California? How’d you know? I’m shocked, shocked! Go here for the story. Recall, if you will, that a high level delegation of CA politicians recently traveled to the barbaric wastelands of Texas to fact-find about why all of their businesses are moving to Texas. Apparently they learned nothing from that trip. I’m shocked, shocked!

ITEM: Do these people have the slightest idea how idiotic they sound? How idiotic they are? Go here to find out.

ITEM: At Michelle Malkin (here), Doug Powers informs us of former Obama chief political advisor now turned chief campaign honcho David Axelrod who thinks it’s very cool to be an Obama supporter. Said Axelrod:

“The people who were participating in the campaign in 2008 weren’t involved in some sort of cult of personality. It wasn’t just about Barack Obama, it was the country and they cared deeply about this country…”

Uh, Right. But to be fair, I suppose that’s what years of living on Planet Obama does to you. Google “Obama Halos” to discover just how much people weren’t involved in a cult of personality (have an airsickness bag or its equivalent ready). OK, OK, so I guess the Lamestream Media really don’t qualify as “people,” but you know what I mean…

ITEM: So, Isn’t Music Therapy A Good Thing? Go here to England’s The Sun for a glimpse into that brave, Socialist future of ObamaCare. It seems that staff at a hospital gave some 30 frail, elderly patients a rather unusual means for summoning help: a tambourine. They also provided a set of maracas as a backup. I’m not kidding. I’m reasonably imaginative, but I couldn’t have made that one up. I am definitely going to invest in pharmaceuticals. Read the whole thing.

ITEM: Say What?! Powerline (here) has been following the inane utterances of National Endowment for the Humanities Chairman Jim Leach for some time. Here are his comments on the occasion of National History Day:

“The most critical issue of our times is the capacity and willingness of peoples of the earth to respect and understand each other. If there is mutual respect and understanding, cooperative relations are likely. Conflict can be avoided. If respect is lacking, diplomacy is vastly more difficult. Any and all agreements become temporary at best.

History is important because it is the basis for mutual understanding. Without understanding there can be no meaningful respect, no sustaining diplomacy.
So my charge to you is to learn and to care and then share your learning and your caring with others. The planet will be in a world of problems if every day is not history day. If, on the other hand, peoples treat their neighbors near and far as if it were, the earth will be a better place to live and a safe haven for mankind.”

He’s kidding, right? This really isn’t a Federal official, is it? He can’t possibly be an adult? I’m sure he’d like to buy the world a Coke and teach it to sing in perfect harmony, but some things are just beyond parody. Power to the people, man! Peace and love!

ITEM: Dr. Bill Gray has been a member of the American Meteorological Society for more than 50 years. He is a professor emeritus at Colorado State University. Wouldn’t it be nice to read something about the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis that is actually rational and well reasoned? Now you can. Go here to see what Professor Gray has to say about the AMS and how it has strayed from the path of science.

ITEM: Want to join a union? You don’t? Too bad. In the very near future, you may have very little to say about it, thanks to those merry Marxists on the National Labor Relations Board who are in the process of writing new rules that will make it almost impossible for unions to lose—in just about every way imaginable. Go here for the story. The Obama Administration: Bringing you Socialism and thuggish labor union intimidation whether you, the Congress, the law or the Constitution want it or not.

ITEM: Yup. The World Has Now Officially Gone Crazy. Or at least it has gone crazy in England. Go here for proof from the indispensable Mark Steyn.

ITEM: He Said WHAT?! Attorney General Eric Holder recently spoke to the American Constitution Society, and in that speech, he called America’s civilian courts America’s “Most Effective Terror-fighting Weapon.” I have little doubt that he means it, and that, gentle readers, is absolutely horrifying. As one who worked with the civilian courts and the criminal justice system for much of my young adult life, I can tell you without qualification that the civilian courts are not, in any possible way, capable of dealing with terrorism. While many acts of terrorists will certainly break criminal laws, the system is simply not set up to deal with those kinds of law-breakers who do not play by any of the rules of the criminal justice system and do not abide by our social contract in any way, shape or form. Go here for a brief comment on Holder’s comment. This goes beyond lunacy and steps fully over the line into endangering American and Americans. Our AG is doing that, and he’s proud of it. To what have we come?

ITEM: Yes, It’s the Electric Car That Will Not Die! Actually, when Mr. Obama leaves office, I suspect it will die rather quickly, but for now, the Chevy Volt follies continue apace. Go here for the horror story of a prospective Volt buyer who found a Volt with a price tag just $5 shy of $49,000. Apparently that friendly, local Chevy dealer added a $4,300 “market availability adjustment.” That still makes the Volt price tag $44, 695, which is at least $3695 over the MSRP. Good grief. How long can a company market a car with such awful economics? Discuss.

ITEM: If Al Gore Did It, Why not James Hansen? Did what? Get rich hawking the false AGW hypothesis. Go here to Fox News where you’ll discover that Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been not only a leading AGW proponent for years, but has been handsomely profiting thereby. Oh yes, and it appears that he has been doing this in violation of federal ethics rules. What’s that? Why would someone in charge of “Space Studies” be worried about global warming? That’s a good question. What’s that? Why would NASA allow anyone working for it to do anything other than space work? That’s a good question too.

ITEM: What? They rode bicycles naked in San Francisco? No, I mean the people were naked, not the bicycles. Good grief, is this edition of Quick Takes going downhill fast or what? Actually, go here for the coverage (uncoverage?) of the event. There is a censored edition, wherein various naughty bits are covered with the grinning face of—who else?—Anthony Weiner (which is surprisingly horrifying in and of itself), and an uncensored version (which is just run of the mill naughty bits). The police and doctors share one essential bit of knowledge: most people look better with their clothing on. If you have ever felt the need to test that aphorism, here is your chance. San Francisco. Of course. By the way, the overwhelming majority of the riders appear to have been male. What’s that all about? Discuss.

And with the image of scores of nekkid liberals riding bicycles firmly lodged in our minds (It hurts! It hurts! Make it stop!), I must once again thank you for stopping by, bid you adieu, and encourage you to drop by once again next Thursday for another edition of Quick Takes! Oh yes, let us sincerely give thanks that this happened in San Francisco, which, as far as I can tell, is on another planet, or at the least, is in another reality.

Gunwalker: Facebook Edition

My Gun Culture knocks it out of the park.

A taste:

Via the always awesome SayUncle.

Predictable: NY Times Goes to Bat For Obama Administration Over GunWalker, Lies

It is hardly surprising that the left-wing MSM is trying to cover Obama's backside and see if they can get him past the scandal with his skin intact, but if this is the best they've got, Obama's toast.

If Congressional Republicans are really intent on getting to the bottom of an ill-conceived sting operation along the border by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, they should call President Felipe Calderón of Mexico as an expert witness.

Mr. Calderón has the data showing that the tens of thousands of weapons seized from the Mexican drug cartels in the last four years mostly came from the United States. Three out of five of those guns were battlefield weapons that were outlawed here until the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. To help him stop the bloody mayhem, he is pleading with Washington to re-enact the ban and impose other needed controls.

I suppose we should be encouraged that the unsigned editorial is no longer trying to defend Obama's 90-percent lie, but they're still lying.

Blatantly.

As I revealed today at Pajamas Media, MExico has over 300,000 weapons recovered from crime scenes locked up in vaults, and only 5,114 submitted in 2007-08 have been found to have come from the U.S.

Somebody do the math on that... does that sound like "three out of five" to you? The Times lied.

Of course, the lying doesn't stop there.

The editorial claims that the 1994 "assault weapons ban" that sunset in 2004 meant that " battlefield weapons that were outlawed here."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullshit.

The 1994 Bill to Outlaw Scary-Looking Cosmetic Features did not ban a single battlefield weapon. Not one.

But all of that is irrelevant. What we are witnessing here is a heavily-biased New York Times editorial board declaring that it is more important to salvage this trainwreck of a Presidency than it is to seek out and punish those that implemented a plot that put an estimated 2,000 Gunwalker firearms into the hands of narco-terrorists, which were used to kill at least 150 Mexican police and soldiers along with at least two U.S. federal agents.

Who are the real monsters? The bloodthirsty cartels, or the cool and calculating Manhattan liberals that enable their gun suppliers?

Rhetoric and Violence: A Gunwalker Timeline

My latest article on the Gunwalker scandal at Pajamas Media tracks (some, not all) of the anti-gun political rhetoric of the Obama Administration, from the beginning of the 44th Presidency until Gunwalker was exposed by an ATF whisteblower.

It's just my latest post, and it won't be the last.

Admittedly, we don't have direct evidence, but we don't have to have any. You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater filling up with smoke without first seeing the flames. As bloggers and journalists, our job is the raise the alarm, not to put out the fire.

Hopefully, this continues series of exposes will force the appointment of an independent prosecutor to see if officials ATF, DOJ, DHS and the White House are guilty of breaking laws of two nations.

Letter From the Teacher #6: Parenting and Self-Esteem

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Mrs. Williams
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Parenting and Self-esteem

Dear Mrs. Williams:

I glad my last e-mail was of some use to you, and I’ll be glad to try to more fully explain some of the things I mentioned. It’s important because most people really aren’t sure why we have decided to spend untold billions of dollars to provide a free public education for our kids. Yes, we do it to provide a common body of knowledge, to prepare citizens for the workplace, to try to make them good citizens, to help them figure out how they’ll fit into the future world of work, to civilize them to the greatest degree possible, and to achieve a wide variety of other worthy goals, but all of that represents what comes later, what is toward the end of the K-12 process. What we are really doing in education is so simple it escapes most people: building bigger, better brains.

We are literally trying to build bigger, better, more flexible, more convoluted brains. We do that by providing the opportunity for kids to make the greatest possible number of new neural connections. They do that by taking maximum advantage of their educational opportunities, which they do by constant, correct practice. Yes, I do mean practice, for you see, English is a skills class, and providing the opportunity for constant, correct practice is how I provide the educational opportunity to build bigger, better brains.

That’s why kids study English. The study of reading, writing, thinking, analysis, speaking, and everything else we do makes neural connections, builds the brain in ways that studying math can’t. Studying math builds the brain in ways that studying history can’t. Learning to be a musician builds the brain in ways that studying geography can’t, and so on and so on. Of course there are very practical reasons to study all of the disciplines the kids study, but at the very core of all we do, we try to build bigger, better brains, and everything we do is designed to further that ultimate goal.

This is where the issue of self-esteem comes into play. I don’t know exactly where this harmful notion originated. I would guess that the people who came up with it were well intentioned. Perhaps they noticed that kids were more engaged in their studies if they were happy, and recognizing that teachers can’t materially change the circumstances of their student’s lives away from school, set out to try to change them in school. Perhaps that’s where the self-esteem culture came from. Perhaps they thought that if they praised kids, if they told them that they were all very special, and smart, and capable and that they were so wonderful they would somehow, magically, reach previously unimagined heights of academic achievement. Unfortunately, that ignores human nature. That’s wishful thinking, not good teaching.

As I mentioned in my least e-mail, at the beginning of each year, I tell all of my students that I don’t care the least little bit for their self-esteem. Oh, they’re horrified, shocked, even outraged. Most of them don’t really know why they should be outraged, but they know enough to believe that they should think that nothing is more important in school than their “self of steam,” as one student put it.

So I tell them about my two decades as a police officer. I tell them that most of the criminals I met had sky-high self-esteem. They thought they were the slickest things since sliced bread. They thought they were smarter, cooler and just all-around better than everybody else. The truth was they were horrible people! They were selfish, crude, stupid and ready to betray anyone and everyone. If you left your mouth open too long within their reach, they’d try to steal your teeth. They were people who would hurt you in every way possible. They left nothing but pain and misery in their wake, but oh did they think highly of them selves! Their self-esteem was truly a thing to behold.

By this point, the kids are starting to think. Some usually ask how can such awful people have such high self-esteem. It’s so because self-esteem means nothing more than thinking highly of yourself, whether it’s justified or not. It’s completely internal. It requires no accomplishment, no character, no altruism, no kindness, and no adherence to a moral code, nothing external to one’s imagination. You think, therefore you are and reality doesn’t matter!

Now more are starting to come around. Some of them realize that they know people just like that and they’re not really all that special. That’s when I tell them that what I care about—what they must care about—is self-respect. Self-respect is earned. It must be worked on every day and in every interaction with others. You are worthy of self-respect in English class if you actually do your practice, your assignments. You are worthy if you really think about them, if you do your best, if you help others to be their best, and if you deal with everyone with sincerity. Ultimately, self-respect is judged on entirely external criteria, criteria determined by others, by teachers, parents, and yes, even by their peers.

I also tell the kids that I will not praise them for behavior that is unworthy of praise. If they hand in an assignment that is essentially dog poo, I will not praise them for their effort in producing dog poo. I will not tell them what good dog poo it is. I will, instead, say: “this is dog poo. Here is why this is dog poo. Now let’s talk about how you can avoid producing dog poo next time.” They learn quickly that when I praise their work, they have genuinely earned it, and once they understand how that feels, how self-respect is actually built, they want more of it and they try harder.

Don’t get me wrong. I know I’m dealing with teenagers, and not every one of them will buy into this fully. Not every one of them will work even harder next time, but the majority will try at least somewhat harder, and in that process, I have gently, subtly conditioned them into forgetting all about self-esteem and into building bigger, better brains, and they haven’t realized what I am doing! We English teachers are truly a sneaky lot. Heh-heh!

What’s that? Am I actually saying that kids have to produce excellent work to get excellent grades in my classes? In a public school? In schools where self-esteem matters, kids get A’s for dog poo. Not in schools where self-respect matters. That’s what building bigger, better brains is all about, and that’s what is going on in most American public schools. We know there are exceptions, yet the means to fix those problems already exists. But that’s a subject for another time.

I’m not sure why this is so hard for so many. I’m a baby-boomer, and I know that many of the parents of my generation, and the next, somehow got off the parenting track. Somewhere along the way, some of them came to believe that instead of being parents to their children, their highest calling was to be their best friend. From that simple misconception, all manner of harm has been wrought. Perhaps they were raised on the mantra of self-esteem and had no other frame of reference.

You know that one of the current fads, which is all about self-esteem, is what is known as “student-centered” teaching. In this odd way of thinking about education, teachers are not supposed to be learned sages who impart knowledge and ability to students, but instead, they must be “facilitators” who allow students to discover their inner brilliance by letting them decide how to learn and which assignments to do. Would it surprise you to learn that many students decide, and with amazing speed, that they will learn most effectively with no assignments at all or with assignments that require little or no effort?

If I don’t have knowledge to share, if I don’t know how to direct kids in the correct practice, if I can’t inspire them to want to try harder, if I have no idea of the difference between self-esteem and self-respect, why did I go to college? Why am I, even now, continuing my education? Why did my school district hire me? If I’m not the experienced, capable, responsible adult in the room, what good am I?

I’m not suggesting that teachers should stand in front of their classes and lecture from the same set of yellowed notes they’ve been using for years. That’s simply bad teaching. What I also tell my kids is that I do want to be their friend, but that I cannot and will not be their middle-aged homey. I can be their adult friend, their friend whose first name is “Mister,” until they’ve graduated from high school, until they’ve earned the right to address me by my given first name. They must expect me, always and in every way, to behave as a completely responsible adult who will always live up to his obligations and will always do what is best for them, whether their friends would like it or not.

I often wish more of their parents would do that. Being a parent isn’t easy. It isn’t always rewarding, but it is the most important job anyone has. I see the kids less than five hours a week for less than a year of their lives. I know that I can have some influence on them, but it’s nothing compared to the influence of their parents, parents I hope understand that they too should not give a boatload of deceased rodents for the self-esteem of their kids.

It’s so important and yet, so simple; when everyone knows that what matters is self-respect, it’s possible to build bigger, better brains. That’s what we’re supposed to do. All of the decisions, all of the plans, everything that eventually flows from 12 years of a free, public education flows from that simple understanding, and from those flexible, bigger, better brains. People in the process of building them tend to take advantage of their educational opportunities. People who can only think highly of themselves tend not to see the need for taking advantage of those opportunities. After all, when you’re that good, what’s the point of improvement?

I hope this has been helpful. Please let me know if I didn’t fully address your concerns, and please feel free to visit our classroom anytime. It’s a brain-building zone.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

What — and Who — Made 'Gunwalker' Tick?

In a new post at Pajamas Media, Mike has done a masterful job of explaining the psychology behind Gunwalker, which may have led to the most deadly scandal in American law enforcement history.

Gunwalker: Now a 'Mega-Scandal' According to My Headline Writer

This is bad, folks.

And it is only going to get worse.

First Down: Acting ATF Director Melson Likely Out in Gunwalker

The wheels on the bus go bump-bump-bump:

Andrew Traver was nominated in November by President Obama to become the permanent ATF director, but his nomination has been held by objections from groups that say Traver is hostile to the rights of gun owners.

Nonetheless, Traver's return to Washington Tuesday for a meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole could be the first step toward ousting acting director, Kenneth Melson.

Melson is complicit in Gunwalker and is the logical sacrificial lamb for the Obama administration.

I suspect he will not be the last to fall.

Update The Examiner says that while Melson needs to go, he is hardly the only one, and that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder must resign as well.

That Melson should be removed is obvious, as should other senior ATF officials in Washington and in the field. But Gunwalker could not have gone as far as it did without the approval of senior Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, which is why The Washington Examiner last week called for Holder's resignation. Holder should have stopped the program as soon as he found out about it if he was aware of it. And if he didn't know such an outrage was being perpetrated on his watch, he clearly isn't up to the job of managing the Justice Department.

Add Janet Napolitano to the mix and we're starting to get close to bringing those responsible to account.

Happy Father's Day

The Guerena Shooting, Analysis 4

We have established an archive for all articles relating to the Jose Guerena shooting. They may be found in our archives section in the right hand margin of the Confederate Yankee home page.

Since the publication of the third analysis article on June 9, several entirely predictable, but interesting, events have occurred. The Pima County District Attorney’s office has cleared five SWAT officers of any wrongdoing in the shooting death of Jose Guerena. Christopher Scileppi, attorney for Vanessa Guerena, Jose’s widow, has announced that he and his team are pleased with what their investigation has revealed and will, within days, be making predictable demands of the law enforcement agencies involved. They will refuse those demands and Scileppi will file suit.

Additional Links for this analysis article:

(1) For a June 3 KGUN9 interview of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, go here.

(2) For a June 4 Arizona Star article containing some SWAT officer statements, go here.

(3) For the June 14 KGUN9 story on the clearing of the SWAT team, go here.

(4) For a June 17 Fox11 interview with Guerena Attorney Christopher Scileppi, go here.

(5) For an Arizona Star article naming the officers who shot Guerena, go here.

This article will be devoted to an analysis of the statements of those involved, including several Pima County Sheriff’s Department press releases, the statements of Sheriff Dupnik, and attorney Scileppi. Most of the police reports have yet to be released to the public, but some additional information has been made public. I’ll provide that information and attempt to explain what it likely means. I’ll also try to further clarify the law governing the legitimate use of deadly force, particularly in light of statements made by Sheriff Dupnik

SWAT CLEARED:

It is unlikely that anyone is surprised that the Pima County DA’s Office has cleared the SWAT team of wrongdoing, noting that when SWAT killed Guerena, they were not breaking the law. Chief Criminal Deputy Attorney David Berkman wrote:

"A close examination of the rifle revealed it appeared to have been damaged by being fired upon from such an angle that it must have been pointed toward officers. The officers were mistaken in believing Mr. Guerena fired at them. However, when Mr. Guerena raised the AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle in their direction, they needed to take immediate action to stop the deadly threat against them."
Regarding the possibility of a civil suit, SWAT attorney Mike Storie said:

“"They've been posturing to make money off of this thing from the beginning, from the reckless comments from an attorney who knows nothing of what he's talking about. So that became obvious. I would think that if more intelligent minds have taken a hold of this thing and reviewed it they might rethink the whole lawsuit thing.”

ANALYSIS:

While it is legally the job of the Pima County DA’s Office to render judgment on the police in this, and any other case where police wrong doing is a possibility, there is always an inherent conflict of interest. Pima County stands to be civilly liable in this case. I have no knowledge that this fact influenced the DA’s decision, however it would certainly have been known to him and to those who provide his budget. That said, such pronouncements are routine, and while those supporting the SWAT team’s actions in this case have been quick to claim vindication, the case is far from over.

Deputy DA Berkman’s statement is disturbing on several levels. He identifies Guerena’s weapon as an “AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle.” This is incorrect and inflammatory. As I’ve noted in the earlier articles, most police officers are surprisingly uninformed and inexperienced in firearms use and terminology, so it is unsurprising that a prosecutor would also be uninformed. However, the police and attorneys alike are responsible for the precise use of language. Such issues are not merely niggling arguments over grammar. They matter.

The term “assault rifle” refers to a specific class of small arms with these very specific characteristics:

(1) Shoulder fired;
(2) Gas operated;
(3) Firing an intermediate (in size and power) rifle cartridge;
(4) Using a detachable box magazine;
(5) Capable of fully automatic fire.

A fully automatic weapon differs significantly from a semi-automatic weapon. A semi-automatic rifle will fire only one round for each separate pull of the trigger. When the trigger of a fully automatic rifle is pulled and held back, the weapon will continue to fire until the trigger is released (as in firing a two or three round burst using only manual trigger control) or until all of the ammunition in the magazine is exhausted. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are very common. Fully automatic rifles are not. Citizens can own fully automatic weapons, but the federal government strictly regulates such weapons. Permission to purchase one is time consuming, expensive and difficult to obtain.

One of the oldest tactics of the gun control movement has been to try to trick people into believing that machineguns--fully automatic weapons—are commonly used in crimes. Their internal documents have actually suggested lying about such things in an attempt to make the public think that any firearm that resembles a military weapon must be a machinegun. The term “assault weapon” was coined by anti-gunners and the media for this purpose. There is no such thing as an “assault weapon,” but there is a class of military weapons known as assault rifles. In fact, criminals overwhelmingly choose handguns. Semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15, which resemble their military counterparts, are virtually never used in crimes.

Jose Guerena’s rifle was an AR-15 type, semi-automatic rifle of the kind in widespread use for competition, sport shooting and hunting. AR-15 pattern rifles and carbines are among the best selling firearms on the market and are so common as to be unremarkable on any shooting range. It was not a fully automatic “assault rifle” and was actually mounted with a telescopic sight, an accessory that suggests that the rifle was to be used for hunting or target shooting. The AR-15 design is, in fact, inherently accurate.

Berkman’s imprecise language may have been revealing of nothing more than a lack of knowledge of firearms and firearm terminology, but it may also have been an unethical attempt to smear Jose Guerena to further the story that he was a dangerous, violent criminal.

NOTE: A Pima County SD “Media Release” done by Public Information Officer Deputy Jason S. Ogan also identified Guerena’s rifle as “an automatic AR-15 assault rifle.” A law enforcement officer should know better.

Deputy DA Berkman’s statement that a “close analysis of damage to Guerena’s rifle indicates that it must have been pointed “toward officers” is, to put it kindly, nonsense. Considering the volume of fire directed at Guerena, it would be practically impossible to tell, merely by an examination of potential bullet or shrapnel damage to his rifle, when or how that damage occurred. Even if such precision was possible, and it is highly unlikely that it is, particularly in this case, it would still be impossible to tell when the rifle was pointed “toward officers,” whatever that means. It is entirely possible that the rifle could have been pointed in a variety of directions at any given moment as Guerena reacted to the multiple hits on his body. It is equally possible that Guerena could have dropped the weapon with the muzzle oriented in the general direction of the front door of his home where it could have been hit by the bullets that hit him literally head to toe and that exited the back wall of his home from ground level to seven feet or more high.

When Guerena pointed the weapon at the SWAT team—if he did—is of course of paramount importance. Merely pointing it in their direction means little, but Berkman is clearly trying to suggest otherwise. He simply cannot know that what he is representing as fact is a fact.

SWAT Attorney Storie’s comments about the motives and intelligence of Vanessa Guerena and her attorneys are, to put it plainly unprofessional and foolish. Every rational attorney knows that it is unwise to publically challenge those who might be able to do their client substantial harm. Arrogant attorneys—and they certainly exist—are essentially painting figurative targets on their backs and on the backs of their clients. Considering the manner in which Jose Guerena was killed and the inhumane police treatment of Vanessa Guerena, common decency would dictate restraint in Mr. Storie’s use of language. It would appear that Mr. Storie is crudely daring Mr. Scileppi to sue. It is highly likely that he will get his wish. When the time comes to try to settle the case rather than risk the kind of award a jury will be likely to give, Mr. Storie’s juvenile taunts will be less than helpful.

INFORMATION BOTTLENECK:

There are four law enforcement agencies involved in this case: The Pima County Sheriff’s Department, the Sahuarita Police Department, the Oro Valley Police Department and the Marana Police Department. As I’ve noted in past articles, establishing a multi-agency SWAT team can help to ease the enormous financial burdens involved, but it creates unique problems, problems that are often never solved and that can actually make a SWAT team less effective, even dangerous.

In cases like this, things become very complicated. There are four separate governmental entities involved, and all have a duty to the public they serve to limit liability to the greatest degree possible. It is not known what, if any, agreement these entities have regarding criminal and civil liability as it relates to their joint SWAT venture, but it takes little imagination to realize that they will be likely to seek every way possible to limit their individual liability.

There will be four distinct groups of lawyers advising the town councils or county commissions involved, and all will want to circle the wagons and release as little information as possible, which is precisely what has happened. Police reports are public records, and generally may not be withheld. One of the obvious exceptions is records which might compromise ongoing investigations (including internal investigations), and that is the current reason given for withholding more specific information from the public.

An Arizona Star article names the five SWAT officers who killed Guerena. They are:

(1) Officer Jake Shumate, Marana Police;
(2) Officer Jason Horetski, Oro Valley Police;
(3) Officer Hector Iglesias, Sahuarita Police;
(4) Deputy Kenneth Walsh, Pima County SD;
(5) Deputy Chris Garcia, PCSD.

So it would seem that these five officers each fired at Guerena. It is currently unknown when they fired, exactly how many rounds each fired, how many rounds fired by each officer struck Guerena or any other particulars, however they have been clearly identified as the officers involved, which is interesting in that there were more officers present. As I noted in my analysis of the 54 second video of the raid, I could make out only three officers who were likely shooting, and the fourth officer who fired an unknown number of late, “me too” shots toward the end of the fusillade. I could not see a fifth officer firing, but apparently the police authorities involved and the DA’s Office believes there were five, and there was at least one officer from each agency involved.

With four police agencies and four separate governmental entities involved, expect substantial foot-dragging and outlandish delaying tactics to be employed in every way possible. An example is another press release where Deputy Ogan claimed that the PCSD was being “open and forthcoming with information released to the news media.” He wrote:

“The day the search warrant was served, we reported to the media that Mr. Guerena fired at SWAT officers. This is what was understood at that time. After a more detailed investigation, we learned that he pointed his assault rifle at SWAT officers, however, the safety was on and he could not fire. This is a clear example of erroneous information being provided without careful investigation. Rather than risking the release of further information, it is imperative that we complete all aspects of this investigation.”

The general thrust of the statement—if one does not wish to give the police the benefit of the doubt--is that because the police were incompetent in the release of false information, they are not going to release any additional information until it has been appropriately laundered. This might not be an unreasonable assumption when one considers Deputy Ogan’s odd syntax: “…the safety was on and he could not fire.” Perhaps this is simply clumsy syntax, akin to writing: “he had no car keys and he could not start the car.” It does have the effect of suggesting that the only reason Guerena did not shoot at the officers was because he somehow could not release the safety of his weapon.

If this is Dep. Ogan’s intent, it is unwise on many levels. Every Marine is, first and foremost, a rifleman. Were he alive today, Jose Guerena would be able to recite the serial number of his Marine-issued rifle. To suggest that a man with his experience could not, at will, manipulate the safety of an AR-15 is ridiculous. And as those who are familiar with the AR-15 family of weapons know, one of its great advantages is its excellent ergonomics. The safety is perfectly placed, mechanically positive, designed so that the operator can be absolutely sure of its position by touch alone, and is easily manipulated. Again, perhaps this is just an odd use of language, or a lack of knowledge of firearms, or it may be yet another ploy to smear Jose Guerena in death as a means of limiting police liability.

SHERIFF DUPNIK SPEAKS:

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has made a variety of statements regarding the case, but his most revealing interview to date was apparently made on June 2 and reported by KGUN9. Dupnik made a variety of surprising claims (I’ll add my analysis in brackets following his statements):

“My feeling is that the reason he came not to the door, but entered the hallway with an assault rifle pointed, the only reason none of us were shot, is because he forgot the safety was on. And by the time he realized, he was shot. But my feeling is the reason he came with that gun is that he thought we were there to arrest him for murder.”

[This introduces the possibility that Dupnik intends to pin one or more unsolved murders on Guerena. It is not uncommon for law enforcement agencies to use this tactic. It clears a major case (Look at us! We solved a murder!), there is no prosecution or trial, and the alleged killer can’t say otherwise. It would also have the effect in this case of providing a post mortem justification for SWAT actions where their pre-raid actions could and did not. Again, we are expected to believe that a Marine combat veteran would have no idea that his safety was on and would be unable to manipulate it. The most likely explanation: Guerena ultimately recognized the people breaking down his door as the police and, unwilling to shoot police officers for any reason, left his weapon on safe.]

Responding to a question about contradictory police stories about who the police believed would or would not be home when the warrant was served Dupnik said:

“I don't have an explanation, but that's not the facts that I have. We had reason to believe that he probably was going to be there. We also had reason to believe that the kids may not, and the mother, because they were supposed to be at school. That was their normal pattern. But we did not conduct the surveillance that day because we would have been identified. We can't do that. First of all, when we are serving a search warrant on a property, it's typical for when the people find out that you're outside the house, the start destroying evidence that they can, burning documents, and things of this nature. That's one of the reasons that we don't do that. We had no reason at all to believe that this was anything other than any of the multitude of other search warrants that we've served where we never had a problem. We had no reason to believe that this guy was going to do that. But because he is part of a very violent organization, we considered it high risk.”

[Notice the lack of precision in his statements. It is likely that the police had no idea whatever who was in the home when they assaulted it. The suggestion that they could not do surveillance prior to assaulting the home is nonsense. The video of the raid indicates clearly that the officers were not in the least concerned that anyone was going to be destroying evidence, and the search warrant affidavit also made no such claims. Yet in the next sentence, Sheriff Dupnik contradicts himself and clearly says that the police had no reason to believe the Guerena was going to destroy evidence! Amazingly, Sheriff Dupnik claims that Guerena was part of a “very violent organization” and that the police considered it to be a high-risk situation. This too is utter nonsense. The search warrant affidavit said nothing at all about violence. It did not identify anyone as a violent criminal, and certainly not Jose Guerena. It did not request a no-knock warrant, which is the logical, rational thing to do if violence or the destruction of evidence is anticipated. Again, the officer’s actions at the raid are indicative of officers engaged in a boring training session rather than officers about to assault the home of a violent murder suspect heavily involved in a drug gang.]

In response to a question about changes in SWAT procedures, Dupnik said:

“But as far as the other criticisms, let me tell you that Pima County has a nationally-recognized SWAT team. As a matter of fact, one of our commanders goes all over the country instructing other organizations on SWAT techniques and protocol. We have one that's known internationally, Dr. Richard Carmona, who goes all over the world talking about SWAT. In my judgment, we have a premiere SWAT organization, and at this point I don't see any need to -- This was an unfortunate situation that was provoked by the person himself.”

[Does Pima County have “a nationally-recognized SWAT team?” It’s possible. There is no Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for SWAT teams. There is no certifying agency. Many officers make a name for themselves by putting together a program that recycles freely available information in a slightly different form. Some know what they’re doing, others don’t, but anyone can claim to be the finest SWAT team on the planet and normally, such assertions are difficult to conclusively disprove. We can best judge the performance of this particular team by their own video and by their actions. At the moment, there is no reason to believe that what they did is anything other than a textbook example of how NOT to conduct a SWAT operation.

It is hard to understand what Sheriff Dupnik is thinking in his final sentence. Jose Guerena was awakened out of a sound sleep after a long shift at a copper mine by his wife who spotted armed men in their yard. Reportedly wearing only briefs, he attempted to defend his family, never having the chance to step outside his home. How this translates into an “unfortunate situation…provoked by the person himself” is exceedingly difficult for the rational mind to grasp.]

Telling, and frightening, is this exchange between reporter Jennifer Waddell and Sheriff Dupnik:

“Waddell: We have had some viewers who have come out and said, look, how do I know that the SWAT team isn't going to bust into my house and shoot me dead in my house for what they would say is no reason. What would you say to the community to address some of those concerns of perhaps mishandling?”

“Dupnik: I don't think anything was mishandled. Unfortunately, this individual points an assault rifle at cops. You do that, you are going to get killed. And the community has no reason to be concerned about it. We have a national reputation. We have been doing this for many years. And our organization as I said is nationally recognized as one of the most proficient. It's not an issue. We average about 50 of these searches of where we have to have a search warrant from judge. And law abiding people don't have to worry about confrontation with the cops.”

ANALYSIS: THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

As I noted in the first article of this series, the police may use deadly force if there is an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. They may use sufficient force to end that threat. These legal guidelines also apply to citizens. If a single bullet causes a bad guy to stop doing whatever he was doing that gave an officer the justification to shoot, that’s great. If six bullets are required, that’s allowable too. Of course, when 71 bullets are fired, only 22 strike the intended target, and the rest ventilate the neighborhood, it is reasonable to wonder if the officers involved used excessive force.

In such cases, some observe that police officers are taught to “shoot until the threat is ended.” It is entirely possible police officers are being taught this, or that they are incorrectly taking this lesson from more rational and less dangerous training. In any police shooting, officers are expected to fire only when absolutely necessary, to use the minimum force required—if two bullets will do the job, don’t empty a magazine—and to be accurate. A single hit by a properly aimed bullet is far more effective and likely to stop a bad guy than 71 rounds fired in the general direction of the bad guy.

The proper way to respond—and we’ll assume for the purpose of this example that the officer involved is unquestionably justified in shooting—is to start any confrontation from the “ready” position. In other words the officer should begin with his weapon in his hands, in a proper shooting posture, his finger “in register” (straight and in contact with the frame of his weapon, outside the trigger guard and away from the trigger) and pointed downward, roughly at the beltline of the bad guy. This is absolutely necessary so that the officer can actually see what the bad guy is doing. If his weapon is extended straight out from the shoulders in front of his face, he can only see his sights and that portion of the bad guy’s head above them; he can’t see what the bad guy’s hands are doing.

When it becomes obvious that he must shoot, he raises his muzzle several inches, simultaneously putting his finger on the trigger, and if he is well trained, he fires no more than two shots into the center mass of the bad guy as the muzzle comes on line. He immediately returns to ready to assess the effectiveness of his shooting. If necessary, he fires again, but notice that he is not simply emptying his magazine. If his weapon is not in ready, he can’t see what effect he is having, and he is likely, if the bad guy falls, to keep shooting until he runs out of ammunition even though his target has long since dropped below his line of fire.

This is vitally important because police officers are absolutely responsible for each and every round they fire. Some officers might say, “yeah, but no matter what, I’m going to make sure I go home at the end of my shift.” I understand the sentiment, but if that officer fired a round that struck a bystander, even if they weren’t killed, home is not going to be a happy place that night, perhaps not ever again. It’s hard enough to explain misses. What possible explanation is there for rounds that hit innocents? “I didn’t see her?” “He just came out of nowhere?”

Going to ready, assessing, and reengaging takes only fractions of a second. Some continue to suggest that once an officer starts to shoot, he should actually empty his magazine before checking the effect of his fire, firing as many as 15 rounds. They’re careful not to put it that way, but that’s the inevitable consequence. If you don’t take the fractions of a second necessary to pause to assess the effect of your fire, you will eventually be doing it anyway when your slide locks back on an empty magazine. If you need to continue firing then, you’re in real trouble, because it will take far longer to reload and recharge your weapon than the fractions of a second making an assessment would take. Remember: A single accurate round is far more effective than any number of panicked rounds, and an officer is responsible for each and every round he fires. There are no call-backs or do-overs once the trigger is pulled.

Keep in mind too that if the bad guy falls—or ducks—and the officer is blindly emptying his magazine, he is not only likely to shoot unintended things and people, but he is far more likely to end up not going home at the end of that particular shift. An officer emptying a magazine is an officer who is not in control of him self, and we reasonably expect police officers to be in control of them selves.

For SWAT officers, as I have argued in past updates, all of this is true, but they bear an added burden. Because of their specialized training, their specialized equipment and their experience, they are expected to be faster, more accurate, and more capable of not making deadly mistakes than other police officers. If this is not so, how may the existence of a SWAT team be justified? Particularly when SWAT officers are using rifles and submachine guns with optical sights that enhance speed and accuracy, weapons that by their very nature deliver more effective and deadly fire than handguns, should we not expect them to do the job with fewer rather than more rounds?

Consider Sheriff’s Dupnik’s statement that if you point a gun at cops “you are going to get killed.” To be as kind to the Sheriff as possible, I could say that he is probably making the point that when someone is clearly and unmistakably placing officers in imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death, they may legally be shot. Perhaps the Sheriff is simply incapable of saying what is inherently reasonable in a reasonable way.

The problem is that in deciding when to use deadly force, the police must have substantial discretion. I’ll provide an example from my police experience that illustrates the point.

The Situation: I am backing another officer and his trainee on a domestic violence call at an apartment. We’ve been here before and the bad guy is a real bad guy who has severely beaten his girlfriend before. Of course, she always comes back, and when we arrive—she called for help--windows are already broken and we can see and hear him beating her inside the apartment. He won’t stop, and we break in the door and find ourselves jammed in a narrow entry hallway. We can’t easily retreat and there is no cover.

The bad guy is standing only about six feet from us holding a can of hairspray in one hand and a lit cigarette lighter in the other. He had a field expedient flamethrower. We filmed a firefighter in proper protective gear using it later. He could have easily sprayed our faces with flame from that distance.

Were we in imminent danger of serious bodily injury? Some might say yes, and might even get away with immediately shooting the bad guy. We drew and went to ready and tried to talk to him. It didn’t work. After a few seconds, he made a particularly insane grin, and began to raise his hands--and dropped the hairspray and lighter. He made a run for an upstairs bedroom where we pursued, jumped and subdued him.

How close was I to shooting him? My finger was on the trigger and I had begun, ever so slightly, to pull it, but I was not yet completely out of ready. Because I was not, I was able to see him drop his makeshift weapon and didn’t have to shoot him. Would I have been justified in shooting him when he grinned like an idiot and began to move his arms upward? Probably, and the world might have been a better place, but I could afford to take the few fractions of a second necessary to be really sure. Many people think it might be “cool” to shoot a bad guy, but it is a life-changing experience, and never in a happy-making way. The overwhelming majority of police officers serve an entire career without having to shoot anyone. This is a good thing for the officers and the public.

My experience isn’t unusual—I had many more like it—and untold thousands of people are alive today because police officers around the nation were sufficiently trained and competent not to have to shoot at the first hint of potential danger. Isn’t that what we should expect of every police officer? Isn’t that particularly what we should expect of the most highly trained and experienced officers with the best equipment?

The idea that when a SWAT team breaks down the door of a home without a no-knock warrant and is thereby justified in firing on anyone who has a weapon in their hands--in their own home--particularly if that weapon might be aimed in their direction, is nothing less than horrifying. It is essentially saying that officers may shoot first—in fact that they may plan beforehand to shoot first--and be reasonably certain later. If that is the case, anyone living in Sheriff Dupnik’s jurisdiction does indeed have to worry about “confrontation with the cops.”

CHRISTOPHER SCILEPPI SPEAKS:

Guerena attorney Christopher Scileppi recently spoke to Fox11. A sampling of his observations:

"We were silent for a while, we were doing our investigation and we're very pleased thus far with the results of what our investigation is showing."

"I don't consider enough for even probable cause to execute the warrant, but it certainly doesn't paint Jose as the bad guy."

"They should have been separated right away so they don't come behind the story. They got together. They made mistakes and they made statements, initially. They changed their statements."

ANALYSIS:

Notice that Scileppi is not name calling or engaging in arrogant bravado. He is obviously proceeding patiently and professionally. His statements suggest:

(1) That he has found obvious and damaging mistakes, contradictions and other problems in police reports and other related documents and that he reasonably expects to find even more.

(2) That he too recognizes that the search warrant affidavit lacked probable cause and was little more than a judicially authorized fishing expedition.

(3) That the police could not portray Jose Guerena as a criminal in the search warrant affidavit.

(4) That there are telling contradictions and indications of improper collusion in the statements of the SWAT officers.

Christoper Scileppi is obviously a happy man, and happy because he realizes that he has a powerful case that the police may come to realize—if they are rational and realistic—that they do not want any jury to hear.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Sheriff Dupnik has said that there is “no reason for anybody to be suspicious of what happened.” One need only view the 54-second police video of the raid to understand the inherent absurdity of that statement. At the moment, it’s known that at least two officers (details remain sketchy) claimed that they fired because they saw the muzzle flash of Guerena’s weapon. They were, by their own belated admission, tragically mistaken. Several spoke of fearing for their life because they saw wood splintering around the front door. That splintering wood came from their own unaimed, panicky fire. They had reason to fear for their lives but Jose Guerena had nothing to do with it.

What did happen? It is possible that after breaking in the door, after milling about aimlessly for a few seconds, one of the officers had a negligent discharge, probably from outside the home, a discharge that struck the door frame and possibly the door, showering the officer holding the shield—or others--with fragments, perhaps of the bullet, the door, or both. Thinking that he was under fire, he and the other officers simply opened up and more or less exhausted their magazines. Several also struck the door, wall and doorframe, perhaps making the hapless shield holding officer think that he was continually being hit and causing him to fall down. It is also possible that, coming into a dark home, dark so that Jose Guerena could sleep during the daytime (incidently, the interior walls of the home were painted in dark shades), out of the bright sunlight, the officers really couldn’t clearly see Jose Guerena or what he was holding. He may have been nothing more than an indistinct form to them—if they could see him at all--and once the shooting started, they more or less focused on what they, in a panic, thought had to be the threat. Only when their magazines were empty--or in one case, a weapon malfunctioned--did they stop to assess what was happening.

Deputy Christopher Garcia said Guerena yelled something before he began firing at him. Could it have been "don't shoot?"

Is this actually what happened? It’s possible, and it’s a reasonable scenario constructed from the available evidence. At some point in the future, we’ll likely have better information and can reconstruct what likely occurred with a greater degree of confidence.

I know that when this goes to trial, I would not want to be the “me too” shooter. How could you possibly justify running up to the door at the last second, sticking your handgun between the heads of fellow officers who were blocking the door and firing off a few rounds at…what? I know also I wouldn’t want to be Officer Iglesias who was holding the shield. How can he explain how and why he fired ten rounds and how he ended up falling down in the middle of gunfight that wasn’t, unable to clear his malfunctioning handgun with his shield shielding him from the police camera filming the raid?

From the moment the last echo of the last, unexplained gunshot died, the police have done nothing but given the public reason to be suspicious about their actions. Everything they have released to the public has only served to make them look even less competent.

At the moment, it would seem that Christopher Scileppi has every reason to be happy. It seems likely that Vanessa Guerena will be justly compensated for what the police did. It also seems unlikely that any meaningful changes will be made in the police agencies involved.

Quite different from the crude and cruel assertions of Mr. Storie, I suspect that Vanessa Guerena and her children would simply prefer to have Jose back.

Mexican Government Opens Investigation Into Gunwalker

From Human Events:

Rahm Emanuel, when he was Obama's chief of staff, famously said that no crisis should ever go to waste if it could advance the agenda. Did Obama go Rahm one better, advancing the gun-control agenda by manufacturing a crisis caused by gunrunning into Mexico, where one of the gunrunners was the U.S. government?

Members of the Mexican Congress think the answer is yes and have opened their own investigation. From the Mexican standpoint, Operation Fast and Furious was an act of war on Mexico.

For Americans of a certain age, the next question is, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

Anthony Weiner And The Social Contract

Bob and I have dedicated a reasonable amount of pixels to the continuing story of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Deciding whether to cover such stories is always somewhat difficult. On one hand, a great many people have done, and likely are doing, the sorts of things Rep. Weiner did, and worse. We’re not covering those people and likely never will.

Therein lies the most compelling reason to cover Rep. Weiner. Not because he is a Democrat and this is a Conservative blog; not because his behavior is particularly salacious and therefore likely to increase readership; not because of his photos (we have not published those and likely never would; doctors and police officers know one great truth: most people look better with their clothing on); and certainly not because everyone else is covering it—we like to cover things others don’t think to cover. We cover Rep. Weiner because some people, by their own choice, place themselves in positions of public trust.

I know what you’re thinking: Trust?! Trust politicians?! There is no doubt that many—Republican and Democrat alike—are not worthy of trust. But the simple truth is that most are worthy of trust, to at least some degree. It is tempting indeed to believe that all politicians are liars, cheats and thieves, and sadly, there are good reasons to be so cynical. Lily Tomlin was very much on the mark when she said that no matter how cynical she got, she couldn’t keep up.

The modern era of political cynicism might be said to have started during the Clinton Administration. A great many politicians—some of them Presidents—prior to Clinton engaged in sexual adventurism, but Mr. Clinton introduced many innovations, including taking phone calls from Congressmen while receiving fellatio. He also told perhaps the most memorable political lie of the digital age, angrily shaking his finger in America’s face through the camera lens while intoning that he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. Of course, he did, and compounded the lie by more lying. He was impeached (only the second President in history) but not convicted, was eventually convicted of perjury and lost his law license, but retained his office. The Clinton era came to a fitting close when his staffers vandalized the White House on their way out the door and the Clintons stole substantial White House furnishings, which they were eventually forced to return.

Now, we are saddled with a President and a Congress that forces through, without a single Republican vote, the most massive, anti-freedom legislation in history, legislation that the majority of Americans did not want and still do not want, legislation that by itself will bankrupt the nation. Mr. Obama insults our allies, appeases our enemies, makes the Middle East less rather than more safe, single-handedly destroyed the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, conducts the most opaque administration in memory while claiming to run the most transparent, claims that we will be able to keep our current insurance knowing it to be a lie, claims to be for universal energy development while doing everything possible to impede it, and the list goes on and on and on.

Why shouldn’t we embrace cynicism? Why should we care anymore?

Democracy requires trust. America is a nation built on trust. Americans have always believed that a man’s word is his bond, and built cities and made fortunes on the strength of a handshake. We have to believe, if we are willing to walk out our front doors every day and deal with the world, that others are, for the most part, trustworthy. We must believe that most Americans embrace the social contract, that they will voluntarily obey the law, that they will practice sincerity and honesty, and that they will not purposely seek to harm others. We must know that our rights to property, and all of the rights expressed and implied by the Bill of Rights are essentially intact. When a sufficient number of Americans cease to believe in these principles, when they cease to embrace the uniquely American social contract, America is lost.

That’s why we have to force ourselves to care about people like Anthony Weiner. He chose to place himself in a position of public trust, and by that choice, he accepted his part in the social contract, just as I have, on many occasions in my life, accepted places in the social contract that in very real ways set me apart from most Americans. When I enlisted in the Air Force, I accepted limitations on my freedoms and the reality that I would be held to a substantially higher standard of behavior than most Americans. When I became a police officer, I did the same, and I did it yet again when I became a teacher. Even as I write this essay, by the nature of my employment as a teacher, I willingly submit to the reality that I must abide by a more stringent code of conduct than most of my fellow Americans. The same is true of doctors, librarians, many other professions and trades, and yes, politicians.

There are simply things that Congressmen—and others—cannot do and retain their positions of public trust. We all can agree that when they break the law, when they misuse their positions for personal aggrandizement or gain or when they wrongfully enable the personal gain of others, they are unworthy of their office. But there are a great many other things that, while not specifically illegal, they simply cannot do. They cannot do them because they are morally, practically wrong, because they reveal serious character flaws, because they demonstrate appallingly bad judgment, because they demonstrate that they cannot be trusted, that their handshake means nothing and that their words and smiles are as likely than not to hide deception.

There are many who argued that if Rep. Weiner had simply told the truth his admission would have been sufficient. He should have been allowed to keep his office. Imagine the red faces of those folks after the continuing, and ever more tawdry, revelations that have, to date, come to light (yes, I know that some people are beyond embarrassment and shame). Others have suggested that no matter what he did, he should stay in office because of his political utility to the Democrat party. Some have even suggested that a double standard exists, that the public expects far less of Democrats than Republicans particularly where moral issues are involved, and there is evidence to suggest that this is not an unreasonable belief.

But all of this, too, misses the point. Rep. Weiner violated the social contract, a contract that demanded more of him than of Joe Average American, a contract that he willingly sought through multiple elections and willingly accepted. If America is to rebound from our current difficulties, if America is to remain the one unique, indispensable nation, we must demand that all those with whom we deal are trustworthy, and we must be trustworthy ourselves. Political affiliation has nothing to do with this despite what some might say. Trust transcends political lines. If it does not, if it cannot, America is lost and all that we will do over the next few years is to play predetermined parts in a tragedy written by our apathy, by our own inability to believe in ourselves and in our ability to truly embody America. We have no choice but to demand that our politicians honor, defend and protect the social contract, and of course, the Constitution.

Anthony Weiner has finally resigned. I will be relieved and pleased if I never again write a word about Anthony Weiner. The social contract is still intact, though never free from the forces that would rip it asunder. No man of good will takes pleasure in the misery of others, yet only a fool fails to learn from the willful, serial mistakes of others.

One of the truisms I tell my students over and over again is that times change, but people don’t. Hubris—excessive pride—brought down the privileged and mighty in ancient Greece and it does no less today. Arrogance, narcissism, lying, mistreating others, all of the things Mother warned us about, have never stopped being destructive, yet too many never seem to change.

Perhaps the most important lesson we can learn from the Weiner affair (and note how it is almost impossible to speak of this tawdry episode without inadvertently punning or writing a double entendre; God does indeed have a sense of humor) is that politicians—and many other Americans—must be held to a higher standard of behavior, for it is they that have chosen to inhabit the highest levels of moral certitude, and we do no credit to ourselves or to them when we allow them to abuse the example they have sought and accepted. We really do owe it to ourselves. We owe it to America.

The Definitive Scandal: ‘Gunwalker’ Much Worse Than ‘Iran-Contra’

The horrible truth:

The more than 2,000 weapons that the Obama Justice Department allowed to be delivered to Mexican narco-terrorist cartels are thought to have been used in the shooting of an estimated 150 Mexican law enforcement officers and soldiers battling the cartels. Two American law enforcement officers have also presumably fallen prey to these weapons, along with an unknown number of civilians on both sides of the border.

President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has purposefully armed narco-terrorist drug cartels that have been accused of bombings, ambushes, mass murders, public executions, and the assassination of police, politicians, and civic leaders.

Obama's Justice Department armed the enemy of our neighbor and ally, providing enough arms to equip ten infantry companies, or two battalions, of violent drug dealers.

This could be very, very bad for the White House.

Weiner Out, Err, Leaving Congress

The disgraceful Democrat is finally quitting, presumably after acquiring a golden parachute from the Democrat Party to step down.

Expect a lengthy screed at the Daily Kos later in the day blaming Andrew Breitbart for any missing furniture as Weiner's staff—err, personnel—heads for the exits.

Was Gunwalker Designed to Affect U.S. Laws Through Cartel Violence?

I've been working the available evidence since last night, and there are enough smoking guns (literally and figuratively) to begin wondering if generating violence to justify gun control proposals wasn't precisely the point.

She'd Heard the Lies Before

Thoughts from someone that survived communism in the Soviet Union:

My husband and I applied for US citizenship the day we became eligible. I think my examining officer got the shock of his life when during the interview I recited the Bill of Rights, named all Supreme Court justices and added the names of all elected officials of the state including our hapless congressman. Talk about useless knowledge! After that we proudly voted in every election, but the idea of venturing a political opinion never crossed my mind (an unfortunate result of being brought up in a totalitarian society where keeping your mouth shut is a basic rule of survival). There was something unseemly in proclaiming my deep love and appreciation of America for all to hear.

When candidate Obama showed up, I realized that I had heard his typical stump speech every single day of my old Soviet life from big and small Communist party bosses -- the same structure, the same cadences, the same bogeymen, the same demagoguery, the same targets. The American people had no defense against this rhetoric. The result of the elections was totally predictable. To me it was a "Back to the Future" moment.

Imagine you are having a terrible nightmare. Just as you are about to suffer torture or certain death, you wake up and realize the sun is shining, your family is peacefully sleeping, and everything is in place. After enjoying a few blissful moments, you turn your head and see that hideous monster from your dream coming after you for real. This image described the trajectory of my life perfectly. Running from Communism, finding the safe haven and a new life, and now to have the same wrecking crew coming even here?

Quick Takes, June 16, 2011

ITEM: He Did WHAT?! Remember, gentle readers, the war over the Falkland Islands? You remember that Argentina seized the British Islands in 1982 and the Brits, plucky critters that they are, seized them back? Since taking office, one of the foremost elements of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy has been egregiously insulting our allies, and none more stupidly and regularly than the British. Last June, he backed an Argentinian call for “negotiations” over the islands (read: for forcing the British to give them to Argentina). And now, fresh from his latest diplomatic debacle of insulting the Queen with a clumsy toast, he has again backed a similar resolution. Oh yes, Argentina is more and more allying itself with our declared enemies in the region, so it’s a cinch that Mr. Obama would support them. Go here for the story.

ITEM: And You’re Upset Just Because They Made People Sell Guns To Mexican Drug Cartels? According to Fox News (here), the Department of Justice is panicking at the thought of congressional hearings set to begin June 13 over “Operation Fast and Furious.” In that now infamous “operation,” BATF and DOJ officials talked legitimate American gun dealers into selling large numbers of weapons to Mexican criminals on the fiction that they would not allow them to cross the border. They did, and at least two American agents and countless Mexicans have been killed by those weapons. Many have speculated that this was done as part of a scheme to drum up support for gun control. By all means, read this story and otherwise acquaint yourself with this ugly and entirely avoidable situation.

NOTE: Reading Bob’s Pajamas Media article (here) on the same subject, and his several recent CY posts will be helpful.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, International Division. I was shocked, shocked! to learn from Fox News (here) that the United Nations Environment Program has no idea how it’s $450 million dollar budget is spent or even who it is dealing with. No! Certainly not the UN! Entrepreneur Alert: It seems all you have to do is contact them, pretend to be a greenie organization and say the right things, and you too may be a recipient of UN largess. By all means, read the whole thing, but take your blood pressure meds first.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Smart Diplomacy Division. I was shocked, shocked! when I discovered that Mr. Obama and the State Department were—how should I put it? Naïve? Foolish? Abysmally stupid?—in their approach to Egypt and their assumption that everything would be just fine, because after all, the Muslim Brotherhood are really just a bunch of moderates who long for democracy. Right. Not so much. Go here to the Washington Post, which speaks of the current and ongoing battle for the future of Egyptian culture. Will Egypt continue to be a reasonably secular democracy or an Islamic theocracy with all that implies? “There is going to be a battle between two visions for Egypt,” the article quotes. Indeed. And the Islamists are heavy favorites as they will have no hesitation in murdering anyone who disagrees with them. Smart diplomacy indeed.

ITEM: Are you looking forward to that brave, bright new CFL future, the future that promises unlimited light bulb life, lower electric bills, green paradise? Me neither. Visit Bloomberg News (here) for Virginia Postrel’s informative take on the history and problems of replacing the once ubiquitous and cheap 100 watt incandescent light bulb with much more expensive and actually dangerous CFLs. Next year, you won’t have a choice, thanks to our Congressional masters who do it all for (to?) us.

ITEM: The Glory of High Speed Rail: So the federal Department of Transportation wants to build a high speed rail line from Iowa City to Chicago that would be substantially slower than bus service (only 45 MPH), would cost at least three times more per passenger, in an area with a completely insufficient number of potential passengers, and would cost megabucks to build and maintain. But of course! We must build it immediately! Think of the stimulus, the jobs created and saved! Go here to read Michael Barone’s brief article on this latest lunatic Obama Administration boondoggle.

ITEM: OMG! Ten years of rising greenhouse gas emissions! Ten year of emissions rising faster than predicted by the UN! Run for the hills! The planet is doomed! Nah. Not so much. Despite the truth of the last few statements, there has been no global warming—none—for the last decade. This, gentle readers, is a large part of the reason why the alarmists are now using the term “climate change.” Go here for the story.

ITEM: Remember how Mr. Obama, during the campaign, said that if he got his way, energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket?” Well, that appears to be one of the few promises he has actually kept, or at least he’s trying very hard to keep it. If new regulations the Obama EPA wants to implement actually happen, electric bills could rise up to 60% by 2014. Go here for the good news about the hope and change.

ITEM: We’re Number 1! We’re Number 1! That’s right gentle readers, America once again leads the world. We’re in worse financial shape than Greece, the nation recently rated by Standard and Poors at the absolute bottom for bond security, even lower than Pakistan. Go here for the story.

ITEM: Money Quote: “No President since Jimmy Carter has enacted programs that were so job destroying.” I was old enough to drive during those halcyon days of Jimmy Carter. I remember the horrendous inflation, the gas lines, the lusting in his heart, the insipid speeches. To paraphrase, “I knew Jimmy Carter; Jimmy Carter was a President of mine. Mr. Obama, you’re no Jimmy Carter; you’re worse.” More and more, it appears that the best we can hope for is that Barack Obama will be no worse than Jimmy Carter, but I fear he’s long past that black marker. Go here for the story. Also visit Walter Russell Mead at The American Interest (here) for his thoughts on this topic.

ITEM: Have you seen those clever Nissan ads? You know, the ads where everything—alarm clocks, computers, hair dryers, is gasoline powered? Unfortunately, I fear that Nissan is being a bit too clever. The ads show the ridiculous application of gasoline engines to everyday items, and then go immediately to a Nissan logo with a few cryptic lines of text. Nissan is obviously trying to satirize the pseudo-hybrid Chevy Volt by touting the all-electric purity of their Leaf, but I’m quite sure that most people have no idea of the respective qualities of either car, and a great many have no idea that either vehicle exists. Still, go here to PACNW Righty, where Rob has supplied one of the commercials, which finally makes the connection directly, but with a very brief view of a Volt, which might be easily missed.

ITEM: Go here to Fox News for the story of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which ruled on June 14 that the law passed by Wisconsin Republicans limiting union power as a partial means of dealing with Wisconsin’s fiscal crisis is lawful. The law will soon be in effect, ending months of Democrat efforts to delay or overturn it. The story notes that the decision was 4-3. The media is fond of quoting such numbers as though they are of great significance. Supreme courts have odd numbers of justices to avoid deadlocks, and a 4-3 decision is no less valid and has no less force than a 7-0 decision. Go here for excerpts from the decision.

UPDATE!: Now the unions have filed a lawsuit in federal court. Apparently they’re asserting that all union workers must be treated exactly alike, or something. This is likely nothing more than another delaying tactic in the hope that recall elections can turn the tide in the legislature in favor of the unlimited enrichment of unions. Go here for the story.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Jobs Division! I was shocked, shocked! when Mr. Obama recently made a lame joke about the “shovel-ready jobs” the stimulus was supposed to produce in huge numbers. ”Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Surprisingly, Americans were not amused. So I was again shocked, shocked! when, according to Fox News (here):

“On Tuesday the administration said despite the joke, the shovel-ready projects met the administration’s goals.”

Uh, correct me if I’m wrong, gentle readers, but didn’t the Obamites admit—quite some time ago--that there never were any shovel-ready jobs or projects? How then, can those non-existent jobs and projects meet the Obama Administrations goals…oh. Now I get it. They never intended the stimulus to produce jobs in the first place! I’m shocked, shocked!

ITEM: Mr. Obama Explains It All For You! So why aren’t businesses hiring? Why it’s a structural issue! That’s right! Businesses are learning to do more with fewer employees, you know, that’s why they have ATMs! It couldn’t have anything to do with convenience, could it? You know, being able to access accounts after business hours? Nah. ATMs have only been around for two years, right? Remember that Mr. Obama once suggested that energy issues could be in large part addressed by maintaining proper tire inflation. Visit Hot Air (here) for a quick glimpse of the kind of economic, practical cluelessness that is actually quite frightening. Discuss.

ITEM: I’m posting an education series every Tuesday, and in my most recent post (here), I touched on the problem of the culture of self-esteem. There is a bizarre idea out there in education that if children think highly of themselves, that will somehow translate into greater academic achievement. Visit the Atlantic (here) for an interesting story by psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb about the realities of the culture of self-esteem. It’s long, but worth your time.

ITEM: Those Who Will Not Learn From Weiner Are Doomed To Become Weiner!: Go here for a quaint story about a Democrat Wisconsin politician facing a recall election. When his cold call didn’t go as he planned, he revealed a bit more of his views than he intended, all caught by the still recording answering machine of one of his female constituents. No, he wasn’t preaching universal love and bipartisanship.

ITEM: Palin Derangement Syndrome: This Time It’s Personal! With the release of thousands of Palin-era e-mails, the mainstream media descended (ascended?) on Alaska like a swarm of self-righteous locusts, just dying to strip bare all of the idiocy and corruption that just had to be there! The vaunted New York Times even asked for public help! It was a sort of do-it-yourself muckraking in the new digital age! And they found…nothing, nothing but good government, honesty, sincerity, common sense, hard work, and the kind of humble kindness and devotion to God that was once the hallmark of all we considered right about America. Go here to Ann Althouse for her take on the continuing descent of the media into self-parodying madness and irrelevance.

IYEM: While rhetorically pretending to be for nuclear energy development, Barack Obama has done quite the opposite. Yucca Mountain, the nuclear fuel repository for the nation, waylaid by the Obama Administration, is a case in point. Visit here for an article by the excellent Kimberly Strassel on the Obamite battle to ensure a cold, dark, expensive and miserable energy future for America, starting with Yucca Mountain.

ITEM: Do you like America? Do you, on a regular basis, take the time to thank God for being born an American? Do you see what’s right with America and resolve to fix the relatively few things that are wrong? If so, you’ll want to visit this essay (here) by the ever-informative Victor Davis Hanson who writes on America from the perspective of one who has recently experienced the Old World.

ITEM: Hope And Climate Change? Global warming is upon us! We must immediately make energy prices skyrocket and return to a preindustrial age, like the Medieval Warm Period—uh, OK, so that’s not such a great example, but we have to do away with cars and air conditioners, and private jets—OK, so that means Al Gore can’t go anywhere, but Global warming is real and if you don’t listen to me, I’ll make you use compact florescent light bulbs! Maybe not so much. Go here to learn that we just might be seeing the beginning of a mini ice age. Hope. Change. Down jackets.

ITEM: Remember when stereo Magnate Sidney Harmon bought Newsweek not long ago? Remember how huge banks geared up to transfer the funds…what’s that? He paid only one dollar for the company? Oh. Sadly, Mr. Harmon has moved on to that hi-fidelity paradise in the sky, so he won’t be bailing out Newsweek, which now claims to be a journal of “elite liberal opinion” and which recently—and presumably elitely-- announced that it will be publishing even fewer issues this summer than planned. “News-biweek” perhaps? Go here to JammieWearingFool for the tragically elite story.

ITEM: Is Nothing Sacred Anymore? Wisconsin, the birthplace and one of the last bastions of modern liberalism, has had a rough go of it of late. Unions have spent millions and been soundly trounced at the ballot box and in the Legislature and have only succeeded in stupidly disrupting a Special Olympics award ceremony. And now, horror of horrors, it appears that Wisconsin will soon become the 49th state to allow concealed carry of handguns! Only the People’s Republic of Chicago—er, Illinois—remains steadfast in prohibiting self-defense and maintaining a state-sized victim disarmament zone. Go here for the story.

ITEM: Is There an Upper Limit To Over-weaning Government Regulation? Steven Hayward at Powerline (here) suggests that it’s possible, as a number of EPA and other long-promised regulations that would all but destroy the economy just in time for the 2012 elections have apparently been withdrawn “for further study,” and other such likely reasons. The primary lesson we should all take from this is that Mr. Obama understands that Socialism has electoral limits in America and he will abide by them as long as he thinks he has a chance at reelection. Should he be re-elected, we can expect an avalanche of utterly destructive, freedom-stealing regulations such as mankind has never experienced. Think ahead a bit gentle readers; think ahead.

ITEM: Double Standard? We Don' Got No Stinkin’ Double Standard! AT CY we’re not shy about calling attention to the improper antics of any politician. In our recent mentions of Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Twitter), we have occasionally been accused of picking only on Democrats. As soon as a similar Republican scandal comes up, we’ll be sure to comment. But for now, visit the invaluable Michele Malkin (here) for a story about the realities of Congressional Dems and their reluctant self-oversight.

ITEM: Wait a Minute! Mitt Romney Is A Republican?! It would be hard to think up a more effective Republican campaign killer than having Al Gore congratulate you on your global warming orthodoxy, but that, gentle readers, is just what the Goracle recently did for Mr. Romney, and with good reason. Go here for the story, if your stomach is strong enough.

ITEM: Remember when Bill Clinton was caught up in determining what the meaning of “is” is? This is apparently a semantic malady peculiar to Democrats, as Mr. Obama is now trying to figure out what “hostilities” means, but is quite sure it has nothing to do with our military bombing Libya or our involvement with NATO there, which really isn’t us, because, you know, it’s NATO, even though we, you know, sort of, pretty much run NATO and pay most of the bills and stuff, but it’s not hostilities, that’s for sure! It’s all about Mr. Obama’s attempt to evade the War Powers Act. Go here for the story, and remember: it’s George W. Bush’s fault; everything is George W. Bush’s fault.

ITEM: Many years ago, actor Tom Selleck appeared on the Tonight Show. Johnny Carson was the host, and Carson veered into politics, asking Selleck for his opinion. Selleck responded that his job was to effectively act roles and couldn’t imagine why anyone should or would care about what an actor had to say about politics. He’s shown similar class in the intervening years, and I’ve purchased every one of his films since that Tonight Show appearance, lo, those many years ago. Now comes Conan O’Brien and his graduation speech at Dartmouth University on June 12. For class and humor, it’s very, very good. You owe it to yourself to see (here) what a worthy graduation speech can be.

And on that very satisfying note, I thank you once again for stopping by and I bid you all farewell until next Thursday and another edition of Quick Takes! As Roy Rogers and Dale Evans said: “Happy trails to you, until we meet again!”

Talking Gunwalker on NRA News

Just a quick programing note. I'll be on NRA News with Cam and Company tonight, (SiriusXM Satellite Radio Patriot 125) at about 10:20 EST to talk about BATF's Gunwalker fiasco.

We'll be discussing my recent article at Pajamas Media, Gunwalker under Fire.

Update: The video:

Weiner Still Sexting Porn Star After His Perversions Were Revealed

The perverted New York Democrat continued to talk to former porn star Ginger Lee after the story of the scandal broke, encouraged her to lie about their relationship.

And even with the scandal blowing up in his face, he couldn't quit talking about his junk:

According to Allred, Weiner wrote Lee, "Alright, my package and I are not going to beg. We both see the hazard of going down the path of comparative sexiness."

In another email also read at the press conference, Weiner wrote, "You aren't giving my package due credit."

In yet another, Allred said Weiner wrote, "I have wardrobe demands, too. I need to highlight my package."

Anthony Weiner is the self-gratification poster child for the Democrat Party.

The Palin Switch

Regular readers have long suspected this, and I’d hoped to keep it secret as long as possible, but now I’m out of the closet. Yes, I’m—gasp—conservative! I suppose I’m what might be called a quiet conservative. I’m hardly a political evangelist, running about verbally assaulting complete strangers in the hope of converting them to the one, true political/economic faith. I’m happy to converse with just about anyone on any topic, and put my opinions in writing for those who might agree and those who might not, but I always expect to discuss them with reason and civility. Indeed, I look forward to it.

I’ve found that Conservatives are generally willing to discuss political, economic and cultural issues with civility. There are exceptions, of course, but I’ve found this to be generally true. On the other hand, I’ve found Liberals to be generally unable to discuss such things with civility. All too often, they become very angry and emotional, and begin to fling about accusations of my hating this or that group, wanting to take food out of the mouths of poor children, my obviously ardent desire to murder various foreign minority groups (all non-white of course), racism, sexism and various other “isims.” There are, of course exceptions to this as well.

With that background, I provide the true, recent story that follows without comment. Make of it what you will.

Several of us, people involved in a long-term musical endeavor, were waiting for a performance. One gentleman was talking about going on a driving vacation through a considerable portion of the Western United States in the near future and was commenting particularly on the number of states he expected to visit. Quite innocently, I joked that he might take the Obama tour and visit all 57 states.

Everyone present chuckled, everyone that is except for one young fellow who was obviously unaware of the reference. I explained that it was a gaffe made by Mr. Obama during the 2008 campaign. He looked at me blankly for a moment, blinked, and in an excited, loud voice launched into a verbal assault on Sarah Palin! It was as though I had somehow thrown a secret Palin switch, which once thrown, required a complete, non-stop, pre-recorded recitation of Palin’s idiocy and all-around sub-human status. The effect was surprising as he was speaking in an animated manner unusual for him, as though he was on a sort of automatic pilot and could not stop until the entire recording was complete.

He became increasingly loud and incredulous in stating that Palin actually said that Paul Revere warned the British during his famous ride. His expressions and manner were surprising. None of us had ever seen him behave that way before, despite having known him for at least a year. This particular example of Palin’s stupidity seemed to be his ultimate proof of her sub-normal IQ, and was clearly what he considered his most convincing proof.

I traded surprised glances with several people and quietly pointed out that Palin was in fact correct, and that Revere did warn the British after he was captured. I explained that numerous historians confirmed Palin’s accuracy. He stopped only long enough to blink, and then immediately continued as though the Palin switch had been interrupted for only a second and immediately reset. He continued for another few minutes, finally winding down—the recording apparently complete--and resuming his normal tone of voice and demeanor as we sat quietly, watching the spectacle.

Minutes later, we performed as we had on many previous occasions, and he was quite himself again.

The Palin Letter

To the Sisters, Brother, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, and Friends of Trig Paxson Van Palin (or whatever you end up naming him!):

I am blessing you with this surprise baby because I only want the best for you. I've heard your prayers that this baby will be happy and healthy, and I've answered them because I only want the best for you!

I heard your heart when you hinted that another boy would fit best in the Palin family, to round it out and complete that starting five line-up.

Though another girl would be so nice, you didn't think you could ask for what you REALLY wanted, but I knew, so I gave you a boy because I only want the best for you!

Then, I put the idea in your hearts that his name should be 'Trig', because it's so fitting, with two Norse meanings: "True" and "Brave Victory". You also have a Bristol Bay relative with that name, so I knew it would be best for you!

Then, I let Trig's mom have an exceptionally comfortable pregnancy so she could enjoy every minute of it, and I even seemed to rush it along so she could wait until near the end to surprise you with the news - that way Piper wouldn't have so long to wait and count down so many days - just like Christmastime when you have to wait, impatiently, for that special day to finally open your gift? (Or the way the Palmas look forward to birthday celebrations that go on for three, four days_ you all really like cake.) I know you, I knew you'd be better off with just a short time to wait!

Then, finally, I let Trig's mom and dad find out before he was born that this little boy will truly be a GIFT. They were told in early tests that Trig may provide more challenges, and more joy, than what they ever may have imagined or ever asked for.

At first the news seemed unreal and sad and confusing. But I gave Trig's mom and dad lots of time to think about it because they needed lots of time to understand that everything will be OK, in fact, everything will be great, because I only want the best for you!

I've given Trig's mom and dad peace and joy as they wait to meet their new son. I gave them a happy anticipation because they asked me for that.

I'll give all of you the same happy anticipation and strength to deal with Trig's challenges, but I won't impose on you... I just need to know you want to receive my offer to be with all of you and help you everyday to make Trig's life a great one.

This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together and get everyone focused on what really matters.

The baby will expand your world and let you see and feel things you haven't experienced yet. He'll show you what "true, brave victory" really means as those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells you is "normal" or "perfect°.

You will grow and be blessed with greater understanding that will he born along with Trig.Trig will be his dad's little buddy and he'll wear Carhartts while he learns to tinker in the garage. He'll love to be read to, he'll want to play goalie, and he'll steal his mom's heart just like Track, Bristol, Willow and Piper did.

And Trig will be the cuddly, innocent, mischievous, dependent little brother that his siblings have been waiting for_in fact Trig will - in some diagnostic ways - always be a mischievous, dependent little brother, because I created him a bit different than a lot of babies born into this world today.

Every child is created special, with awesome purpose and amazing potential. Children are the most precious and promising ingredient in this mixed up world you live in down there on earth. Trig is no different, except he has one extra chromosome. Doctors call it "Down's Syndrome", and Downs kids have challenges, but can bring you much delight and more love than you can ever imagine! Just wait and see, let me prove this, because I only want the best for you!

Some of the rest of the world may not want him, but take comfort in that because the world will not compete for him. Take care of him and he will always be yours!

Trig's mom and dad don't want people to focus on the baby's extra chromosome. They're human, so they haven't known how to explain this to people who are so caring and are interested in this new little Alaskan. Sarah and Todd want people to share in the joy of this gift I'm giving to the Palin family, and the greater Alaska family.

Many people won't understand_ and I understand that. Some will think Trig should not be allowed to be born because they fear a Downs child won't be considered "perfect" in your world. (But tell me, what do you earthlings consider "perfect" or even "normal" anyway? Have you peeked down any grocery store isle, or school hallway, or into your office lunchroom lately? Or considered the odd celebrities you celebrate as "perfect" on t.v.? Have you noticed I make 'em all shapes and sizes? Believe me, there is no "perfect"!)

Many people will express sympathy, but you don't want or need that, because Trig will be a joy. You will have to trust me on this.

I know it will take time to grasp this and come to accept that I only want the best for you, and I only give my best. Remember though: "My ways are not your ways, my thoughts are not your thoughts- for as the heavens are higher than the earth, my ways are higher than yours!"

I wrote that all down for you in the Good Book! Look it up! You claim that you believe me - now it's time to live out that belief!

Please look to me as this new challenge and chapter of life unfolds in front of you. I promise to equip you. I won't give you anything you can't handle. I am answering your prayers. Trig can't wait to meet you. I'm giving you ONLY THE BEST!

Love,
Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father

This letter was not for written for public consumption, but for the extended Palin family several days before the arrival of the Palin's fifth child, Trig, who was born with Down's Syndrome.

It speaks of the challenges and blessings such a child will bring into their lives and if it doesn't soften your heart to Palin the woman, the mother and matriarch... well, you simply do not have a heart. This is from the soul, and speaks to the character of the then Governor, long before she became a target for character assassination.

Jeff Goldstein writes eloquently (as he so often does) about the letter, how he hopes some will feel after reading it, and a bit about the soul of future of this nation.

I don't care if you love Sarah Palin, or loathe her. I don't care if you feel indifferent towards her. But I do want you to understand that this nation desperately needs someone like her in charge, if we are to ever regain our footing and our confidence in this nation.

I find myself a bit surprised by that declaration, but is nonetheless true.

I do not pretend she is perfect.

I do not know if she is up to the job.

And I can predict with exacting, excruciating certainty that her name, character and family will be dragged through the mud and crucified by the MSM and Democrat Party every step of the way (even more than they already have, if that is possible). The din will grow ever more shrill, hysterical, and panicked if she approaches taking the GOP nomination for President, and then contrasts Obama in the 2012 general election.

But I think Jeff is on to something in his thoughts. Sarah Palin reflects the spirit that makes this country great and what it needs to recover. She has had the character and fortitude to fight, survive, and triumph in the face of concerted and powerful opposition, and shows no sign of giving up.

We're going to need someone like that guiding us in the hard times ahead, as we as a nation re-address Obamacare, the reformulation of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other entitlement programs. We'll need someone with strength and humility and a solid sense of core American values, who has proven that a leader can come from anywhere... even the mayor of a small town in Alaska.

Run, Sarah, Run.

I'm still a bit of a skeptic, but I want to believe.

CNN Pushing Long-Debunked Cartel Guns Story To Protect Obama Administration during GunWalker Hearings

I had this as an update to the previous post, but it deserves it's own.

CNN has decided to engage in fact free anti-gun propaganda this morning on behalf of the Obama Administration, co-incidentally on the second day of Congressional hearing that promise to excoriate Eric Holder's Department of Justice in general and acting director Ken Melson's BATF in specific.

The BATF is under fire for supplying more than 2,500 firearms to Mexican narco-terrorists as part of a poorly-conceived operation that turned the U.S. government into the largest single supplier of cartel weapons found north of the border. These weapons have been used to murder two U.S. law enforcement officers (Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata), and were used to gun down 150 Mexican police officers and soldiers.

CNN has chosen to trot out a variation of the 90-percent lie, a bit propaganda debunked by the ATF two years ago.

CNN claims:

More than 70% of 29,284 firearms submitted to the U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for tracing by the Mexican government during 2009 and 2010 originated in the United States, according to the report.

"Congress has been virtually moribund while powerful Mexican drug trafficking organizations continue to gain unfettered access to military-style firearms coming from the United States," said Sen. Diane Feinstein of California.

In a letter this month to Feinstein, the ATF acknowledged that the United States keeps no record of criminal firearms seized in Mexico and that "the Mexican government does not submit every recovered firearm to ATF for tracing."

As a result, the ATF-provided figures may not be representative of all firearms recovered by Mexican officials.

"May not be representative."

You think?

Of the 100,000 weapons recovered by Mexican authorities, only 18,000 [out of the 29,284 submitted. -- ed.] were determined to have been manufactured, sold, or imported from the United States, and of those 18,000, just 7,900 came from sales by licensed gun dealers.

We now know that of those 7,900 firearms supplied to the cartels via U.S. gun shops, roughly 2,000-2,500 were forced on BATF's orders making them the largest single direct supplier of cartel weaponry (not counting the thousands of military weapons the U.S. indirectly supplies).

The actual figure is that a little over 5-percent of cartel weapons have come from border gun shops, and that translates to less than one gun per shop in the region.

Of course, neither the Obama Administration nor CNN want to share that factoid, as it undermines their shared goal of pushing for more gun control laws.

Here's an idea.

If you want to stop Mexican cartels from getting U.S. weapons, have the U.s. government quit supplying the weapons.

Through legal and illegal means, it is the U.S. government the primary supplier of cartel guns.

If you really want those responsible for running guns to narco-terrorists to be put behind bars, put Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Ken Melson on trial.

Of course, that is precisely what CNN is trying to avoid.

"Gunwalker" Under Fire

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Acting BATF Director Ken Melson are fighting a Congressional oversight committee that is attempting to investigate a botched plot within the Department of Justice that saw the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco (BATF) become a major supplier to narco-terrorist cartels that have been battling the Mexican government.

The plot, called Operation and Fast and Furious withing the Justice Department and also known as "Gunwalker" to the majority of Americans, saw the BATF encourage American gun shops to provide as many as 2,500 weapons to suspected "strawmen" gun buyers for the cartels.

At least 150 Mexican police and soldiers have been shot with Gunwalker weapons, a Mexican military helicopter brought down, and two American law enforcement officers have been killed with these guns as well.

Why won't the Obama Administration be transparent about their botched operation that supported narco-terrorism? That's a question I've asked in my latest article at Pajamas Media.

Update: Meanwhile, CNN continues to spread previously debunked propaganda and lies for the Administration.

Amuse yourself. Read the Pajamas article including the links, and then read the CNN article. The scale of journalist fraud they are promoting in service to the White House's gun control agenda is breathtaking.

Letter From The Teacher #5: Mission and Discipline

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Mrs. Williams
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Are America’s Schools Really Complete Failures?

Dear Mrs. Williams:

Thanks for your recent e-mail. I know exactly what you mean. It’s hard to read much of anything these days without finding an article by an academic or a speech by a politician asserting that public education is a complete failure. When I see talking heads and their guests talking about this as though it is unquestionably true, I’m amazed. Can they really believe what they’re saying, are they working a political agenda, or do they have something to sell?

I’ll put the answer as directly and simply as possible: No, America’s public schools are not complete failures. Specifically, Anytown High School is certainly not failing our kids, and certainly not your daughter, Brittany. By the way, Brittany should be reading Fahrenheit 451 this week. She’ll need to finish it for the test on Monday and to be prepared for her final critique. Has she told you that she will earn extra credit if she correctly identifies what most worried Ray Bradbury when he wrote the novel? Hint: It’s not censorship.

I don’t have statistics and studies to quote. I won’t fill pages with footnotes. I won’t claim that I am the world’s foremost education authority. I can only respond to you with experience, common sense, reason and logic. If the prophets of doom were correct, if American schools—all of them—were really utterly incompetent, wouldn’t we have seen the kinds of consequences of that complete failure long ago? If most people really can’t read and write, or if they can barely read and write, how is it that America has remained the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation in history?

I suspect it’s something like the missing child hoax of the 80s. Remember the milk cartons, the TV shows, the overwhelming sense that hundreds of thousands of children were, well, were just missing? Reality finally caught up and the fervor was exposed as hyperbole. Relatively few children in America are ever actually missing, and not nearly the huge numbers the missing children advocates routinely flung about.

We all know that some schools are badly run. In fact, some school districts—including many obvious examples in major cities--are a horror show of incompetent management, bizarre priorities, and blatant corruption. But I’m sure that the overwhelming majority of American schools do a good job of providing a solid educational opportunity. I can’t say that enough: a solid educational opportunity. That’s all any school can do; that’s all any teacher can do. They provide the opportunity for kids to learn.

It’s a pleasure to teach kids like Brittany. Sure, she’s a teenaged girl and teenaged girls are a little goofy from time to time, but she likes reading and learning and she understands that she’s responsible for her education. You’re responsible too, and that’s why I was so glad to receive your e-mail. You’re always welcome in our classroom. I love to have parents stop in to see what we are doing, to find out for them selves what is really going on. Just call ahead so you don’t end up watching kids take a test or write an essay, but if you’d like to do that, you’re certainly welcome.

We all know about the big school districts that have enormous dropout rates, very low academic achievement, continuing scandals and outrages, horrible teachers, and all kinds of other problems. I’ll just note that all of those districts have certain characteristics in common:

(1) The cities in which they are located are virtually always controlled by Democrats and have been for many, many years.

(2) The school boards are also controlled by Democrats.

(3) School board seats are tickets to big money.

(4) The schools, from the top down, have lost sight of the essential—the only--mission of education and are far more concerned about social experimentation.

(5) The inmates run the asylum. There is little or no discipline in the schools.

(6) The schools are unionized and there is substantial collaboration between union bosses and school board members on union objectives. Money often changes hands.

You’ll notice that this is not the case in most American schools. It certainly is not the case at Anytown High School. Our school board members are not paid, and we have no unions. We have our problems with those who want us to be social laboratories rather than schools, but we resist that sort of thing quite well. And most importantly, in our schools, the adults are in charge, and those adults are responsible or they’re gone. It is certainly not impossible to fire bad teachers here, and it’s really not impossible to fire bad teachers in most American schools.

I’ll just spend a little time on two significant and related issues. When any school pays proper attention to these issues, they are very likely to succeed. When they don’t, failure is virtually inevitable. I’m talking about mission and discipline. Every parents needs to ask questions about these issues, and they need to get the right answers. If they don’t, they have reason to be worried.
The mission is simple. Every school exists to provide the best possible educational opportunity for the kids it serves. That’s it. No idiotic jargon, no slick Power Point presentations, nothing but hard work, excellent, consistent preparation, and clear expectations. It’s very old fashioned. Hire good teachers, make sure they have what they need to teach their disciplines, and get out of their way. Don’t take kids out of the classroom for any reason, or for no reason. Kids are there to learn, teachers are there to teach, and everybody else involved is there to support that simple mission. When schools become bus stations that kids occasionally pass through on the way to this field trip or that event, the mission is lost.

The second, related issue is discipline. Kids need structure. They need to know that when they misbehave, there will be immediate and sure consequences. There will be no arguing, no whining, no escape. Violate the rules and there will be consequences.

By that I don’t mean the kind of “zero-tolerance” idiocy in schools that expel elementary students who bring a toy soldier with a ½” plastic gun to school. Zero tolerance all too often means zero-reasoning on the part of school administrators and is usually a sign of a school more interested in social experimentation than in teaching and learning.

Let me give you an example of how an effective discipline program works. It must be written down, must be graduated, and must have multiple options. But the entire point is that teachers must be able to control the learning environment. Kids must do what they ask. If they don’t, there must be immediate, inevitable consequences. If teachers aren’t in control, the opportunity for learning is going to be, at the very least, damaged, and sometimes, destroyed. If students directly challenge a teacher they must be immediately removed from the classroom and must not return that day. If they swear at a teacher, the same thing must happen. If they refuse to do as a teacher asks, the same thing must happen.

Students who assault teachers must be immediately removed, suspended, criminally prosecuted and expelled. After all, if students can get away with beating teachers, everyone is in a “B” movie, not a high school. It would be hard to imagine any behavior that is more destructive to the mission than that.

At the beginning of every school year, I tell all my kids that there are very simple rules in my classroom: They are not allowed to be rude or stupid. They are allowed to be kids; I expect them to be kids, but they simply can’t be rude or stupid. If you think about it, that pretty much covers everything. I explain that I won’t jump up and down, I won’t raise my voice, I won’t turn red in the face, I’ll merely tell them not to act rudely or stupidly, and if they don’t comply, there will be consequences, consequences appropriate to them and to the occasion. I don’t take it personally, and I’ll be just as happy to see them the next day as always. I explain that I always say “please” and “thank you,” and that should I suddenly stop saying those words to them, they should take that as a dire warning. Some always have to see if I’m kidding. They quickly discover that I am not.

Of course, this only works because my principal understands the mission and the necessity of discipline. Without discipline, the mission will fail. He absolutely backs me up because he knows that I use good judgment, and that if I tell him a student did a thing, he can be sure that it happened just as I explained. He’s a good man, my principal. You should consider yourself fortunate that Brittany attends such a school.

An important part of discipline is organization. A well-organized classroom is a busy classroom, a classroom where kids have little or no time to get into trouble. Something as simple as good organization can make an enormous difference.

I wish you could be present on the day I tell the kids I care nothing at all for their self-esteem! The gasps! The looks of shock and horror! I explain that self- esteem is nothing more than feeling good about oneself whether those feelings are justified or not. It’s all internal and relative. What I care about is self-respect, which is earned positive feelings about one’s growth, accomplishments and character. Self-respect is external and judged by objective criteria, criteria established by others. Write an excellent essay and you’re worthy of self-respect. Self-esteem is worthless.

You see, when kids understand that difference, life ceases to be all about them. They really do have to perform and grow. To have genuine self-respect, they have to demonstrate, every day, character and responsibility, particularly responsibility for taking advantage of their educational opportunities. That simple, yet vital, understanding is the first epiphany--a light bulb moment, a sudden burst of insight or understanding—I lead them to experience each year.

Whew! I got a little carried away. As you can see, I’m passionate about this. But it really is that simple. In every school district, in every school that is genuinely failing, I have no doubt that you’ll find that they’ve lost track of the mission—perhaps they never had it--and that there is little or no discipline. They really do go hand in hand, for good or ill.

Thanks again for getting in touch, and please don’t hesitate to call whenever you have a question.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

Will Rand Bring Booth to Justice?

As regular readers of this blog and Pajamas Media know, I've been running down the story of Lee Franklin Booth since October of last year. My first story on the subject was Felons Can’t Own Guns. So How Did This Guy Acquire Three … Gun Companies?

It included enough details—including a photo of Booth holding two Detonics handguns in direct violation of federal law—to put Mr. Booth in prison for a very, very long time. Mr. Booth subsequently had an attorney contact Pajamas Media and I threatening legal action over the story, and even after a through vetting by lawyers, Pajamas Media determined there was nothing to retract, and only a three minor points to correct.

In short, we "had the goods" on Mr. Booth as best as we could determine. Our evidence came from interviews with multiple sources, and from legal documents.

Even pictures allegedly taken with Booth's own camera.

After the article was published, I pushed for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to arrest Booth based upon the compiled evidence. The main office in Washington DC contacted the regional office in Charlotte, NC, and they were very anxious to talk to me... until they read the article. The same day, I received a curt return call from the agent, who told me they had "no interest" in pursuing the case.

I was stunned, to put it mildly, that a federal law enforcement agency was refusing to prosecute what appeared to be an open-and-shut case handed to them on a silver platter. When I could get no co-operation from the BATF (apparently they aren't interested in gun-runners if there isn't a cult to burn) I contacted state and local authorities, who very very interested in putting Booth behind bars... only to be stopped by the BATF.

The BATF had "launched an investigation" and as a federal agency, had precedence over the local and state authorities. But interestingly enough, sources claimed that the BATF had no interest in working with the state and local authorities, or in seeing their evidence. It seemed the "investigation" was merely a screening mechanism to keep other agencies at bay.

The BATF was protecting a convicted criminal linked to three gun companies.

It simply made no sense.

Then I found out that a BATF agent out of Charlotte was going forward with his own investigation of Booth, only to be blocked within his own agency. To put it mildly, it was looking like corruption or a cover-up, or a combination of the two.

Then the logic bomb hit. Booth was being protected.

It didn't take long for sources to confirm that Booth was a confidential informant for the federal government, the specific branch of which I have chosen not to reveal. Was is also apparently the correct tense to use, as Booth is apparently losing, or has lost his protected status as an informant.

Now that he is not longer apparently being protected, and evidence of his apparent criminality is easily obtained, I have high hopes that the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of North Carolina with step in and bring this convicted felon back to trial.

U.S. Attorney Ripley Eagles Rand just stepped into the job in January of this year and if his office's press releases are any guide, he's done a heck of a job putting away perverts. I'd like to see Mr. Rand use his office to investigate and prosecute Mr. Booth, or at least order the BATF to close their "investigation" so that justice can finally, after long last, move forward.

The Most Important Post in the History of the Internets

Some consider this comedy.

If it describes your, however, please read it a second time.

"Gay Girl From Damascus" Actually a Che-Loving, Jew-Hating Douche From Georgia

Didn't much care about it before and so I can't pretend to be outraged now, but is is funny that so many "educated" rubes got sucked into buying this.

"I'm not a government-abducted Syrian lesbian. I'm you."

And Now, a Commercial Post

From time to time I get requests to post a link to a product or service.

This is one of those times.

If you happen to live in a U.S. state or Canadian province that requires a hunter safety class, you may be able to take it online at HunterCourse.com.

When I took hunter safety training (longer ago than I care to remember), I spent a Saturday stuck in a stuffy cinder-block building with a boring instructor reading out of a book. This certain beats the heck out of that, so if you can use this course, I hope you do.

The Erik Scott Case, Update 12: Slow Discipline and Progress

Since the last update, substantial and important developments have come to light. However, before exploring that information...

Links relevant to this update:

(1) Go here for the Las Vegas Review/Journal story about the discipline handed down to two Metro officers who took a road trip to Arizona in their police vehicle.

(2) Go here for the PDF version of the Judge’s decision in the June 1 motion hearing.

(3) Go here for the Las Vegas Sun’s post-hearing article (06-02-11).

(4) Go here for the Las Vegas Review/Journal’s post-hearing article (06-02-11).

(5) Go here for the Las Vegas Sun’s article on Judge Reed’s decision (06-08-11).

BRAD AND JAKES’S EXCELLENT ROAD TRIP, THE SEQUEL:

In Update 10, posted on February 6, 2011, I wrote a short section titled “Brad and Jake’s Excellent Road Trip.” On January 19, Metro patrolmen Brad Gallup and Jake Grunwald signed out as busy in court but instead drove into Arizona, in their marked Metro patrol car, into Mohave County where a sheriff’s deputy, fearing the car might be stolen, stopped them for speeding 20 MPH over the speed limit. Gallup and Grunwald claimed that they were scouting locations for a K-9 photo shoot and the deputy let them go without a ticket, but called Metro to be sure that the car wasn’t stolen. Gallup and Grunwald were suspended with pay shortly thereafter.

During the week of June 5th, Metro Assistant Sheriff Ray Flynn announced that the two officers were apparently planning to take a photograph of themselves and their police vehicle with the Grand Canyon as a backdrop. Flynn said that the officers would receive a week off without pay, which he characterized as the second most severe form of discipline an officer can receive, termination being the most severe. Flynn said that the entire division in which they worked was investigated to determine if similar things were happening. According to Flynn, they were not. Regarding Gallup and Grunwald, Flynn said:

“They’ve never been in trouble before, and they owned up to their responsibilities.”

Apparently, Gallup and Grunwald have been on paid leave since their initial suspension.

ANALYSIS:

What is immediately striking is the fact that it took nearly five months for this case to be resolved. In every law enforcement agency where I worked and in every agency with which I am familiar, this sort of thing would have been handled within a week at the most. The normal procedure would go something like this:

(1) The officer’s shift supervisor (usually a Sgt.) would speak with the officers and find out what happened. This would normally occur within a day or two of the incident coming to his attention.

(2) The Sgt. would write a report and discuss it with his immediate supervisor, usually a Lieutenant. They would discuss such matters as the severity of the offense, the records of the officers involved, their apparent remorse or lack thereof, and any other related factors. The Lieutenant would write a report, attaching the Sergeant’s report. His report would contain all that had been learned to that point, and would include a listing of the specific rules of the organization that had been violated, and would recommend a punishment.

In deciding on an appropriate punishment, the Lieutenant and Sgt. would consider the punishments administered for the same or similar violations in the past. This is important in that substantially different punishments for the same or similar offenses are far more likely to be overturned in the grievance process, particularly in unionized police forces like Metro. Basic fairness also plays a part. And of course, the officer’s internal disciplinary records and their behavior since the incident would be taken into account. This would normally take no more than a day or two.

(3) The Lieutenant would forward his recommendation to the division commander, usually a Captain, who would, in most cases, simply approve the recommendation and return the signed paperwork to the Lt. and Sgt. so that they could implement the discipline. This too would take no more than a day or two.

It is very important that such things be handled promptly. Left hanging for months, as in this case, the patrol force is missing two able-bodied officers. Morale suffers, not only for the officers directly involved, but for every other officer who understands that they too could be hanging in limbo for months on end for no apparent reason. Allowing disciplinary matters to be unresolved for so long also violates the principles of swift and predictable discipline for chargeable errors and makes supervisors and administrators appear to be indecisive and incompetent.

Assistant Sheriff Flynn said that the entire division was investigated to determine if this sort of thing was regularly occurring. This is yet another indication of the utterly dysfunctional nature of Metro. If supervisors have no idea that their officers are routinely taking road trips out of state, or otherwise abandoning their posts, Metro is in even worse shape than I imagined. In my years as a supervisor, officers occasionally screwed up, but I cannot imagine anyone getting away with actually leaving the state for hours on end without my knowing about it.

Even if an investigation was, in fact done, it should have had no effect on the case of Gallup and Grunwald. Their case could and should have been quickly handled, and any other investigation could proceed independently.

It is also surprising that AS Flynn called a week’s suspension without pay the second most serious discipline available in Metro. In criminal justice system terms, this would be analogous to having only two punishments for crime: five years in prison or death. I’ve never heard of or experienced a police agency with this kind of system. Most have clear and specific levels of discipline written into their policies and procedures, and those levels of discipline are carefully graduated to allow managers the maximum discretion to tailor discipline to fit each individual and each offense.

The punishment announced by AS Flynn is reasonable. Abandoning one’s post is a serious offense in the military and in any paramilitary organization (all police organizations are paramilitary—organized in much the same way as the military). Apparently no serious harm occurred as a result of their unauthorized absence, but that does not lessen the seriousness of the offense and the potential for great harm whenever a post is abandoned.

It’s likely that this matter, a relatively low-level affair that should have been handled within the patrol division--which would have been handled within the shift by many agencies--went all the way to the top of Metro and was the subject of months of political dithering by high-ranking officers who apparently don’t have nearly enough actual work to do. Given what is currently known, there is no other likely explanation. Given what is known, this does not reflect well on the management of Metro and provides additional insight into the culture of incompetence that may have made Erik Scott’s death—and the deaths of others--inevitable.

JUNE 1, 2011: THE MOTION HEARING IN FEDERAL COURT

Also in Update 10, I noted that Ross Goodman, the Scott family attorney, announced on January 10, 2011 that he was dropping Costco and Summerlin Costco Security employee Shai Lierley from the Federal lawsuit. Several commentators and others pointed to this as damning evidence that the Scott case was falling apart and predicted that everyone involved would be granted immunity and that no trial would occur. In Update 10, I noted that this was almost certainly a tactical matter relating to the differences in law and procedure between the Federal and State courts, and that the case against Costco and Lierley could be re-filed within the two year statute of limitations under Nevada law.

On May 31, the day before the motion hearing, Lisa Mayo-DeRiso of Mayo and Associates, a Las Vegas PR firm handling publicity for the Scott family, issued a press release. I reprint it, in its entirety, here with several of my comments added in brackets:

LAS VEGAS, (May 31, 2011) – On June 1, at 1:00 PM, a federal judge will hear oral arguments regarding the killing of Erik B. Scott, who was shot to death by three Las Vegas, NV, police officers in front of a Costco warehouse store on July 10, 2010. This will be the first hearing in a wrongful-death, civil-rights-violation lawsuit filed last fall. Attorney Ross Goodman will be representing the Scott family.

Three months after Erik was gunned down, a Clark County District Attorney-controlled Coroner's Inquest Hearing exonerated all three Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) officers. Over 34 years and 194 inquest hearings, only one Las Vegas police officer has ever been found at fault, and the DA chose to not prosecute him.

After the Coroner’s Inquest, the Metro Police Investigation files and the Coroner’s Inquest transcripts were made available to the Scott family and attorney Ross Goodman. Numerous questions about glaring irregularities attributed to the District Attorney, Metro police and investigation documents remain unanswered. Further, the behavior of one officer involved in the shooting raises serious issues concerning Metro officers who responded that tragic day, and the investigation that followed:

* Since the incident, the officer who shot Erik four-times in the back, Officer Thomas Mendiola, has been charged with unlawfully giving a handgun to a two-time felon and terminated by Metro.

* Testimony given by Officer William Mosher in his Voluntary Statement on July 10, 2010, conflicts with his testimony at the Coroner’s Inquest on September 23 and 24, 2010. How he confronted Erik, the nature of his commands, and the response by Erik, which resulted in his death, are not only in conflict, but the DA knew the testimony was not consistent, yet never revealed those inconsistencies to the jury.

* Mosher testified in his Voluntary Statement that he was “approximately, uh, an arm’s, arm’s length, about three—about two and a half feet” from Erik, when the victim walked past the officer, outside Costco.

* But on the witness stand, Mosher testified he was “Uh, approximately, probably about six feet” from Erik.

* Mosher's Voluntary Statement says, “I may have patted him on the back to try and get his attention and have him turn around.”

* On the witness stand, when asked by DA Laurent, “Do you recall if you placed your hand on him?” Mosher answered, “No; never.” The DA should have clarified that discrepancy; he had access to the Voluntary Statement.

* Witnesses testified that Officer Mosher did touch Erik.

[This is significant in that it would tend to indicate that Mosher did not consider Scott to be an imminent threat. As I’ve often stated in earlier updates, Scott must have appeared to be entirely unremarkable to Mosher and the other officers as we walked within feet of them as he and Samantha Sterner left the Costco Store. Clearly, he did not appear to be the drug-crazed, frenetic, dangerous, gun-carrying madman that Metro and others have tried to portray after his death. No officer who considers someone an imminent threat requiring the immediate use of deadly force would stand at arm’s length and touch them on the shoulder to get their attention, which action would also tend to indicate that the person was not a threat. After all, if you need to get them to turn around to notice you, how threatening can they be? Could Off. Mosher have later come to realize that it would be wise to never have touched Scott? Stranger things have happened in Metro and certainly in this case.]

* Mosher next claims, in his Voluntary Statement: “But almost as soon as I gave him the verbal command, he (Erik) said, “I HAVE A GUN.” This material omission puts into context other witnesses’ testimony that Erik was complying with the officer’s command by handing over the gun, which was later photographed, in the holster, on the ground.

[If we assume that Scott did, in fact, tell Mosher that he was armed, this would be unsurprising. Concealed Carry classes and materials across the nation suggest that when confronted by police officers, those carrying legally concealed weapons should immediately identify themselves as concealed carry licensees and tell the officers that they are carrying a concealed weapon. The possibility remains that Scott simply did not have time to do this before being shot.]

* From the 911 Call recording, verbal commands were given in this order:

1. “Let me see your hands” or “Put your hands where I can see them”
2. “Drop It”
3. “Get down on the ground”

* Erik turned to find Metro Officer William Mosher brandishing a .45-caliber weapon. Mosher shouted three conflicting commands, and then fired twice—all within two seconds, based on a Metro detective’s testimony, backed by the 911 recording. The first round struck Erik in the heart, killing him instantly. A second slug hit him in the right thigh. Erik dropped to his knees, twisted to his right, and fell to the pavement. Two other Metro officers, Thomas Mendiola and Joshua Stark, subsequently fired five additional rounds, all into Erik's back.

[There seems to be little or no evidence contradicting the proposition that Mosher yelled conflicting, confusing commands within two seconds. However, there is evidence to suggest that Stark, Mendiola or both were also yelling conflicting commands. Remember that the non-adversarial nature of the Inquest, the only evidentiary hearing held in this case to date, ensured that such matters would not be examined and determined to be true or false.]

* Why did Metro leave critical evidence—a surveillance/security video recorder and hard disk—in Costco's possession for approximately five days? Why were critical video data of the shooting "missing" and the digital video recorder's hard disk irreparably damaged, when the unit finally was seized and impounded by Metro detectives?

* The potential destruction of video evidence is further exacerbated by the fact that Costco security video shows Metro’s black-and-whites pulling up in front of Costco, followed by people running from the scene, after hearing gunshots. Apparently, none of these "parking lot" cameras captured the actual shooting, though.

* Metro and the Costco Loss Prevention Officer claimed the "missing video" was attributable to a DVR that had failed two days earlier (on July 8th). However, a Metro information technology specialist testified that, roughly four hours after Erik was killed, he simply "rebooted" the "failed" Costco DVR and it started operating normally.

[The bizarre, entirely incompetent, manner in which video evidence was handled (covered in Update 8), and eventually shipped out of state, and the facts about the large amount of data apparently recovered and what that data reveals remains unknown. There are a great many acts and omissions in this case, which would appear to make the police and other involved agencies appear to be completely, even dangerously, incompetent. As I’ve suggested in past updates, normally, the only reason such agencies would voluntarily prefer to appear to be incompetent is because the truth, if known, would be much, much worse.]

The high-profile case is considered a potential tipping point for not only Las Vegas, which experienced a staggering 26 law enforcement officer-involved shootings in 2010, but also a nation alarmed by a sharp increase in the number of killings by police officers.

Further, Erik Scott’s case has several unique elements: Erik was a decorated former U.S. Army officer, a 1994 graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, who also held an MBA degree from Duke University. A successful cardiac-equipment sales representative for Boston Scientific and a commercial real estate sales professional, Erik had been a highly respected citizen of the Las Vegas community for about 10 years. A physician later testified that, a few days before Erik’s killing, he had worked side-by-side with Erik in surgery, and Erik performed his job perfectly. He was not a criminal and, based on more than two-dozen eyewitnesses, did nothing to warrant being brutally gunned down in a crowd of approximately 70 Costco customers.

[What is known about this incident is that innumerable witnesses were simply told to go home and were not interviewed by Metro. These were witnesses who saw what happened and wanted to give the police their statements, but they were dismissed out of hand. Is this incompetence, or an attempt to ensure that witnesses whose observations did not match the official police account were never heard? The fact is that at least one witness testifying in the Inquest gave an account completely at odds with the official version, causing the prosecutors to try to discredit him on the stand. The prosecutor, in a hearing he controlled, a hearing with no adversary, no adversarial questioning, with witness he handpicked, chose to try to savage one of his handpicked witnesses. To say that this is unusual, even bizarre, is an understatement of epic proportions.]

The incident began when Erik and his girlfriend were shopping at the Costco-Summerlin store on July 10th. When Erik knelt to verify metal water bottles would fit in a soft-sided, zip-type cooler, a Costco employee spotted Erik’s concealed firearm in an inside-the-belt holster. The employee informed Erik that Costco had a no-firearms policy—even though no signs were posted to alert customers. Erik replied that his pistol was legally registered, that he held a valid concealed weapons permit issued by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and that he and his girlfriend would be leaving soon.

Another Costco employee, an undercover Loss Prevention Officer (LPO), decided to call the police, claiming that Erik was carrying a weapon and “acting erratically.” Metro officers responded in force, dispatching about 15 cruisers, orbiting a helicopter over the Costco store, and suggesting Costco employees begin an orderly evacuation. Erik and his girlfriend calmly departed with other customers, having no idea they were the reason for the evacuation. Because the two were walking calmly, like other customers, the Costco undercover guard had to point Erik out to a waiting Metro officer, who immediately panicked and starting shouting orders, then shot Erik twice—all within two seconds.

Presentation of Erik's and his family's side of this tragic tale, backed by numerous witness testimonies, were not permitted, during the coroner's inquest hearing. Aside from several billboards (see attached), news media interviews, a memorial website (www.erikbscott.com) and blog entries penned by family and friends, Erik's side of this nightmare effectively has been silenced. Only Metro's and the DA's versions have been aired—until now.

The Erik Scott killing may be one of the more-egregious examples of recent police abuse, but it's definitely not alone. Indeed, the marked increase in police-abuse cases, including a shocking number of civilian deaths, is a national issue of great concern. But because Erik Scott's case features unique elements—dozens of eyewitnesses, conflicting testimony, missing evidence, violation of Metro’s policy and procedures—it may be the turning point that ultimately triggers reforms of out-of-control police departments throughout America.

THE HEARING, JUNE O1, 2011, SENIOR US DISTRICT JUDGE EDWARD REED:

The case was argued by Ross Goodman for the Scott family and by Clark County Deputy District DA Stephanie Barker who represented Clark County. Metro was represented by Las Vegas attorney Joshua Benson. Barker sought to have Clark County and Sheriff Doug Gillespie removed from the suit, essentially claiming that Goodman’s allegations were not plausible. Judge Reed observed several times “that sounds plausible to me,” in regard to Goodman’s allegations during the hearing.

Benson conceded during the hearing, and in a November motion, that the Scott family does have standing to sue with claims of wrongful death under state law and excessive force under federal law. The Goodman suit alleges that Metro and Sheriff Gillespie have been negligent in training and supervision of its officers, and have inflicted assault, battery and emotional distress on Scott.

During the hearing, Goodman agreed to remove Kevin Scott—Erik Scott’s younger brother--as a plaintiff in the case.

After the hearing, Goodman made clear that Costco and Shai Lierley would be named in a state suit in the future, within the statute of limitations (two years).

JUDGE REED’S DECISION:

On June 8, Judge Reed issued his decision. He removed Clark County from the suit and also dropped Sheriff Gillespie in his “official capacity,” because under the law, as the man in charge of Metro, he is already liable under the claim being made against Metro. Judge Reed also affirmed the Scott family’s right to sue for negligent hiring, training and supervision of Metro officers.

Responding to the decision, Ross Goodman said Reed’s decision “basically left the entire complaint intact against Metro, Sheriff Gillespie individually and the officers.” Goodman also said: "We wanted to focus on those claims in a federal court first and then, based on the investigation during discovery, will lead us to the appropriate time to refile a case involving state claims against Costco," Goodman said. "Costco is jointly to blame and will be held accountable at the right time. In state court, we will sue Costco and Shai Lierly and whoever else we deem to be responsible in the discovery."
In his decision, Judge Reed cited precedent indicating clearly that Clark County “is not a proper party to a wrongful death action…” He also observed that Goodman had, on January 6, 2011, filed a voluntary motion to dismiss claims against Costco and Lierley without prejudice and that the motion to dismiss Costco and Lierley currently before him was therefore moot.

ANALYSIS:

Judge Reed’s decision is a well-written and concise document that relies entirely on applicable state and federal law and on well-established precedence in reaching its conclusions. It is sober and shows no hint of political influence. The claims dismissed do not, in any material way, hinder the Scott family in its case against Metro and dealt with issues that were primarily procedural and legally technical. What matters, and what has been affirmed, is the Scott family’s right to pursue the case against Metro and the officers who shot and killed Erik Scott.

The decisions makes clear that the City of Las Vegas is the proper entity to sue in matters of this kind. As I’ve stated before, I have no pipeline into the decision-making process of the Goodman law firm. I do not know why Ross Goodman has not named Las Vegas to date. Some, including DA Barker, have asserted that this is because Goodman’s father is the current mayor of Las Vegas and his mother is running for that position. While this is possible, there is no known evidence to suggest that this is so, and Goodman’s ability to name Las Vegas as a defendant in the suit is unimpaired. There are certainly sound legal reasons for Goodman’s actions thus far, and should he eventually name Las Vegas, the law, as well as Judge Reed’s decision, will support his action. As with much else in this case, time will tell.

What is most important at the moment is that all issues that had to be resolved prior to discovery have been resolved. The case will proceed, and the phase that Metro must surely dread—discovery--is about to begin.

Metro is infamous in the Las Vegas legal community for “slow-walking” discovery. Discovery is the process whereby the plaintiff’s in a suit of this kind are entitled to all of the documents, computer records, videotapes, DVDs, CDs, and any other kind of information relevant to the case. In a very real sense, the plaintiffs are entitled to “discover” what the defendant (Metro, in this case) has done and what it knows. This process is enforceable by court order.

By “slow-walking,” I mean that Metro has a reputation, apparently well deserved, for complying with discovery orders as slowly as possible. It tends to provide incorrect or incomplete information, or does not provide information at all. It tends to do this as slowly as possible so as to run up costs for the plaintiffs and to make it as difficult as possible for them to proceed. Within the Las Vegas system, where the District Attorney’s Office is essentially Metro’s representative in the Inquest—and some would argue, otherwise—Metro has long been able to get away with this. However, since this case will be heard in Federal Court, it is much more likely that Metro will not be able to get away with slow-walking discovery so easily, if at all.

It is during the discovery phase that many of the questions in this case that remain unanswered may be answered. In addition, additional instances of incompetence or cover-up, instances previously unsuspected or unknown, may be revealed. It is also possible that enormous holes will be discovered in the materials provided. Important documents may be missing or incomplete. Metro may indeed choose to appear to be stunningly incompetent rather than completely forthcoming. Such information as complete hiring, training and disciplinary records for the officers involved will also be fair game.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

The Erik Scott case is now firmly on track to an eventual trial. Those who hoped that the case would be summarily dismissed have had their hopes dashed. Not only will there be a trial in Federal Court, a related trial under Nevada law seems a foregone conclusion. No doubt, Mr. Goodman would prefer to begin the process for a trial in state court having already won in Federal court.

The discovery process will be very interesting indeed. Panic within Metro should be expected during this phase of the process. As Ross Goodman observed, he is expecting to find a great deal of information that will greatly enhance his case and may open other avenues to proceed against Metro. It is likely that Metro will do everything possible to obstruct the discovery process. If this turns out to be the case, that fact alone will say a very great deal about Metro’s culture, professionalism, and culpability. If, as I suspect, much is being hidden and withheld, as the case comes closer to trial, the possibility of revelations that may shake Metro to the core becomes ever greater.

In the trial, expect to see a long line of Metro witnesses in great duress. They will be uncomfortable because they will be unable to produce any reasonable explanation for their many unprofessional acts and omissions. It will also be very interesting to hear the testimony of such people as Assistant Public Administrator Steve Grodin, and the paramedics who took Erik Scott to the hospital and reportedly found Scott's handgun.

What should not also be forgotten is that federal law enforcement agencies may also be working on this case, perhaps contemplating a case against Metro. Should the Scott family win, the possibility of that kind of involvement may well be greater. Agencies such as the FBI have a policy that prohibits discussing such cases, but it is at least possible that they are involved or may become involved. Any charges they might eventually bring would be separate and apart from the Scott family’s case(s).

As I have often observed in writing about this case, in killing Erik Scott, Metro killed the wrong man. They killed a man from a family for whom honor and duty are not simply little used words in a dictionary. They killed a man from the Long, Gray Line, a tradition centuries old of men and women for whom duty, honor, country and honesty are a part of their DNA. They killed a man whose family and friends cannot be intimidated by thuggish, unprofessional behavior and who will not stop until justice is done. Judge Reed, in professionally doing his duty under the law, in acting with integrity, has ensured that they will have that opportunity.

As Lisa Mayo-DeRiso wrote, the Erik Scott case does have the potential to be a pivotal case in turning the tide against unprofessional police conduct, not only in Las Vegas, but elsewhere.

New Hampshire Man Arrested for Extreme Liberalism

When liberalism isn't a persistent vegetative state, it's a faked brain injury.

A 23-year-old man pretended he suffered from a brain injury so an unsuspecting in-home nurse would change his adult diaper, police said.

Eric Carrier, of 95 Granite St., Hooksett, turned himself into police Tuesday after a warrant was issued charging him with indecent exposure.

Carrier allegedly faked having a severe brain injury that would require him to wear adult diapers. A nurse caring for him became suspicious, police said.

Carrier was attempting to live the dream of every young liberal, becoming so dependent on others that he can't even wipe his own ass.

(H/T Hot Air headlines)

Weiner With Honey Mustard, Please. Hold the Statutory Rape

We've wondered for over a week about Democrat Anthony Weiner's explicit sexting with at least six women, especially as it appears that at least two of the young women engaging in conversations with the disgraced Congressmen may be minors.

Patterico has been all over the story of the under-aged girls—the part of the story the MSM is trying to hardest to ignore—and may not have the smoking gun, but the circumstantial evidence is adding up.

Ethel: I love 69ing big hunt + like to use honey mustard as lube. Ohh yeahh baby I love bdh weiner May 22

Ethel on Tumblr, quoting Weiner: "I came back strong. Large. In charge. Tights and cape shit…" My favorite congressman<3
May 26

You can choose to believe that Ethel, who publicly declared her love for Weiner repeatedly, and who had no compunction about dirty talk in public, turned prim and proper when Weiner talked to her in private . . . about his cape and tights. You can choose to believe that he didn’t know Ethel was underage, despite her youthful appearance, mentions of high school, and profile talking about marching band.

Sure, you can believe that if you want.

Anthony Weiner should resign from Congress, today. There is no way this story gets better, and every indication it will only get worse.

The Guerena Shooting, Analysis 3

Since the posting of my first two articles (available here and here) on the shooting of Jose Guerena by a Pima Co., AZ SWAT team, a number of documents and photographs have been released by the Pima Co. Sheriff’s Department and by other sources. This update will focus primarily on four issues: The affidavit for the search warrant that provided the legal justification for what turned out to be the shooting death of Jose Guerena by SWAT officers, an analysis of photographs of gunfire damage to the Guerena home (available here), particularly the area of the front door, the Coroner’s report, and the statement of Vanessa Guerena obtained by police shortly after Jose’s death.

Additional Links:

(1) Go here for the KGUN9 story, which includes photos of the interior of the Guerena Home.

(2) Go here for the KGUN9 story on the autopsy report.

(3) Go here for a photograph of the Guerena front door.

(4) Go here for a photograph of the rear of the Guerena home.

Thanks to "K" for providing some very useful information I might have otherwise overlooked.

We have also established a permanent archive for our articles on the Guerena shooting. Access it in the archives section at the right hand side of the Confederate Yankee home page.

The PIMA County SD should be given credit for making public certain documents. Unlike the Erik Scott case in Las Vegas, they have been reasonably forthcoming in making pubic at least some information. However, I sincerely hope that they do not believe that the information they have released tends to completely justify their actions or tends to make them look professional. In many ways, it does just the opposite.

As a former police officer, I understand the difficulties and demands of police work and want to give the benefit of the doubt to the officers involved. However, every police officer knows that their decisions and the actions flowing from those decisions, often made within seconds, will be picked apart later by those who have unlimited time to review what they had to do in an instant. They understand that they are only as good as their last arrest and that their abilities and performance are being constantly monitored and judged, not only by their peers, but by the other elements of the criminal justice system and by the public. Every officer knows this, and more, when he climbs into his police car to begin every shift. Unlike many cases, in the Guerena case, officers had more than sufficient time to carefully reflect and plan. There is, sadly, substantial evidence that they did not well use that luxury of time.

It is also important to note that while I do have access to the documents and photographs in the public realm, I do not have access to everything the police know. I am almost certainly missing information that would provide certain specific contexts. The analysis I provide is based on my experience and knowledge of the law and police procedure and psychology. I may make unintentional mistakes, small or large, and invite those who might have the specific knowledge necessary to correct such potential errors to contact me. I will promptly make any necessary changes.

THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT (PDF available here):

For the benefit of those readers who may have missed my first article, all police procedure relating to search and seizure of property or persons is governed by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

To obtain a search warrant, an officer must submit, in writing, a sworn affidavit, which particularly describes the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. It must establish probable cause, facts and circumstances that would convince a reasonable police officer (and a reasonable judge) that specific crimes have been committed and that the specific people identified in the affidavit have committed them. Only after reviewing the affidavit will a judge issue a warrant. A warrant is based entirely on the affidavit and is the paper record of an officer’s legal authority to act. In many ways, the affidavit is far more important and revealing of an officer’s knowledge and competence than the warrant which issues from the affidavit.

The PDF of the Guerena affidavit I obtained runs to 17 pages which includes two attachments. It does not appear to be a direct copy of the actual affidavit as it is not dated, notarized or signed by Detective Tisch who is identified as the affiant. It is also not signed by a judge. It is therefore possible that there are differences between this document and the actual affidavit. It is not possible, considering what is currently known, to know what, if any, differences exist or the significance of those potential differences. One paragraph of the affidavit—lines 378-385—has been blacked out. The reasons for this are unknown.

The first two pages of the affidavit list the properties to be searched and the things to be seized. I am struck by the extraordinarily non-specific nature of the items listed. Nowhere does the affidavit suggest that specific kinds of illegal drugs in specific quantities may be found, nor are any other specific items of contraband or anything which might be used in a crime or fruits of a crime identified. The affidavit seems to be asking a judge to authorize a fishing expedition on a massive scale and would give officers the ability to search anywhere—including any vehicles—for just about anything, including an almost unlimited quantity of everyday items which commonly have nothing whatever to do with the drug trade.

To put it simply, this affidavit does not particularly describe the things to be seized; quite the opposite appears to be true.

The investigation appears to have begun in January of 2009 when Det. Tisch stopped Alejandro Guerena (Jose’s bother) and found several thousand dollars in cash and a concealed handgun. Alejandro was arrested on a CCW charge and apparently later convicted. No drugs were found. This obviously caused Det. Tisch to continue looking into Alejandro and surveillance was done between September 9, 2009 and February 23, 2010, though Det. Tisch does not specify if this was around the clock, continual surveillance, or the far more likely option: occasional, random surveillance when time and manpower allowed.

The affidavit describes watching Alejandro and others engaging in what might be drug activity and claims that Alejandro had no apparent means of financial support. On September 15, 2009 the police followed Alejandro who stopped at a Best Buy store, an appliance resale store and his home. The officers followed a vehicle that later left Alejandro’s home (Alejandro was apparently not driving it) and stopped at another home. Some time later, “numerous other vehicles” arrived and an unidentified person put a cardboard box taken from the garage in a white GMC Sierra pickup truck. The police followed and stopped the truck, finding that it was driven by Ramses Caballero. Jose was the sole listed passenger in the truck. Caballero gave the officers permission to search the truck. They found no drugs, but only plastic wrap, in the box. Det. Tisch suggested that plastic wrap is used in the drug trade, which is true, but there is nothing but suspicion to suggest that this particular plastic wrap had been so used or was destined to be so used. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that at the time, the Guerena family was using it to protect a relative’s furniture. This appears, according to the affidavit, to be the officer’s first contact with Jose in relation to this case.

The affidavit mentions a variety of drug related incidents involving people other than Jose. In particular, it mentions an Oct. 13 2009 incident:

“PCSD SIU [Special Investigations Unit] determined that Alejando Guerena had driven his 2010 Ford F-150 ‘Raptor’ Truck to the Phoenix, Arizona area.”

The affidavit does not say how the police knew this. Remember that Det. Tisch identifies that Raptor as Alejandro’s. This will be important shortly. The affidavit states that he made several stops in that area and when he returned was stopped for speeding. He gave permission to search and nothing was found.

Det. Tisch claims that Alejandro then began driving only his wife’s car and says that he believed that the people he was watching were drug traffickers who were changing vehicles to avoid detection. He also claimed that they were aware that they were being followed by the police and were therefore hard to follow. Det. Tisch wrote that after Alejandro was stopped while driving the Raptor, they never drove the white GMC Sierra truck and the Raptor again (lines 186-187).

The problem with this statement and the implications Det. Tisch is making is that on lines 151-153 he notes that the white GMC Sierra pickup was sold to people unrelated to the investigation near the end of September, 2009. Alejandro wasn’t driving the truck because it had been sold at least two weeks earlier, so it can hardly be evidence of suspicious behavior that he was not driving that vehicle, yet Det. Tisch treats it as such.

The police apparently began watching Jose’s home at 7180 S. Redwater St. on April 20, 2011. The affidavit does not say why nor does it particularly describe the nature of the surveillance. Det. Tisch writes that someone began following one of the police officers who was unable to lose them, and that Alejandro was seen “…driving in the area and talking on the phone.” Det. Tisch spends several paragraphs talking about the habits of drug dealers and suggests that what he is seeing is evidence of narcotics trafficking. The background information he provides does indeed describe the common practices of drug traffickers, but again, he is not consistently tying it to specific people. The only mention, to this point in the affidavit, of Jose is that he was a passenger in the white GMC pickup carrying plastic wrap in Sept. of 2009.

The next several pages of the affidavit consist of background information on those the police believe are involved in drug trafficking. I won’t go into great detail on those pages. Those interested should read the affidavit for them selves. What is clear is that Det. Tisch is doing his best to suggest that the people named have prior drug involvement, no clear means of financial support, and assets, including cars and clothing, that would seem to suggest drug involvement. I suspect that most readers will be struck by the inconsistencies and omissions present.

Some examples:

Alejandro is said to own four vehicles, two of which are said to be worth $11,934.00 (via the Kelly Blue Book), but Det. Tisch could not name or provide a value for the other two vehicles (Det. Tisch doesn't know how to run a registration check? He can find two vehicles in the Blue Book, but not the others?). Det. Tisch lists various arrests and charges going back to 2002, but states that many of the dispositions of these charges and arrests are unknown (Det. Tisch doesn't know how to look up dispositions?).

Jose Celeya, the father of Alejandro’s wife Pauline, is listed, but his criminal contacts and their dispositions going back to 1993 are also murky at best. Several vehicles are mentioned, but again, Det. Tisch apparently has substantial difficulty figuring out their worth.

Denise Ruiz, the daughter of Jose Celeya, is mentioned, but apparently has no criminal history. Det. Tisch says that she is the registered owner of six vehicles valued at $41,780 (a bit under $7000 each) but does not identify them or explain why that has any relevance, other than the implication that she is somehow living beyond her means. Det. Tisch tries to link her to the past, apparently unrelated drug involvement of others, including a boyfriend.

Det. Tisch is clearly trying to paint a portrait of a variety of people involved in a drug conspiracy, but one is immediately struck by the modest, mostly non-recent criminal histories—some have none—involved, as well as the modest assets of these alleged drug traffickers. These are not high-rollers driving brand new BMWs and living in million dollar homes, yet the police have at least allowed the suggestion of a high level drug conspiracy to be publically floated.

What is also very surprising is that the affidavit does not list a single, specific, recent drug transaction, arrest, or even any information from a confidential informant or witness directly tying anyone involved to drug activity. No drugs have been found in anyone’s possession, no drugs have been purchased from anyone and no one has been seen so much as smoking a joint. Indeed, on lines 396 and 397 of the affidavit, Det. Tisch writes:

“During the SIU surveillance concerning the aforementioned subjects, they were not observed handling or even in the proximity of narcotics.”

Det. Tisch, in lines 403-405, concludes by writing:

“For the above stated reasons, I believe that these individuals operate a mid-level drug trafficking organization in the Tucson area.”

Also oddly missing is any indication of why it was necessary to serve these warrants at this specific time. In drug cases, warrants usually aren’t served until the officers are certain that they can make substantial arrests and seize substantial quantities of drugs. Or alternatively, when they know that the case really isn’t going anywhere and they want to finish it to look for larger fish to catch elsewhere. There is nothing in the affidavit to indicate normal police procedures in drug cases. No major drug shipment is coming in or going out, no major players are arriving, nothing that one would expect in a “mid-level” drug operation investigation.

Let’s return to Det. Tisch’s take on Jose, a man the police have referred to as a sort of muscle or enforcer for this drug "gang." Det. Tisch begins his history by speaking of a previous drug and weapons arrest, however he is very non-specific, not even mentioning the date, and said only that: “no felony convictions were annotated on the record.” Indeed. It appears that all charges were dropped. Odd that Det. Tisch didn’t mention this.

Det. Tisch suggests that Jose was a “person of interest in a Immigration Customs Enforcement (I.C.E) investigation involving Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana,” and goes on to again mention that he was “the passenger in the truck stopped containing the large rolls of saran-type wrap.” Again, there is no mention of anything more sinister than Jose riding in a vehicle, the owner of which was in possession of plastic wrap. It may have been used in the drug trade, but the police do not build a case for that and certainly do not tie Jose into such a case.

Det. Tisch claims that Jose is the registered owner of six vehicles, including the Raptor, which he previously identified as being Alejandro’s vehicle. If the vehicle does indeed belong to Jose, then it is certainly unremarkable that Alejandro would not be seen driving it at any point in time, yet Det. Tisch seems to want to use that “fact” to implicate Alejandro in drug trafficking behavior. Yet, on Attachment B, Det. Tisch lists only three vehicles belonging to Jose, the Raptor, a 2007 Chevy and a 2005 Chevy pickup. He requests permission to search all of the listed vehicles or any vehicles parked on or near the properties to be searched when the warrant is served.

Det. Tisch notes that Jose makes about $41000 a year. However, base salary and earned salary often are two different things, as overtime and other augmentations can considerably increase one’s earnings.

AFFIDAVIT ANALYSIS:

The affidavit is remarkably incomplete and lacking in genuine probable cause. That any judge would have issued a warrant based on this affidavit is amazing. During my police service, I would never have taken such a document to a judge. No judge with whom I ever worked would have issued a warrant, and my credibility would have been shot from that moment forward.

Det. Tish is clearly attempting to paint those involved as drug traffickers, and to be completely fair, what he and his fellow officers have observed and documented seems suspicious, and could indeed appear to be indications of drug involvement. But what is lacking is any specific, current criminal activity. He clearly has suspicions—possibly reasonably so—of ongoing criminal activity, but not the slightest shred of evidence of it. He wants a warrant for not one, but four homes and any number of vehicles, not because he has laid out grounds to believe that those homes are associated with specific crimes and that the evidence of those crimes may be found there, but because he obviously hopes to find such evidence if he’s allowed to search. That's why there were no associated arrest warrants. That’s a fishing expedition. That’s not the way search warrants work.

Det. Tish’s probable cause is particularly weak in relation to Jose. Let’s review the “evidence” against Jose listed in the affidavit:

(1) He was a passenger in a truck carrying plastic wrap in 2009.

(2) He was arrested in a drug related case sometime in the past, but all the charges were dropped. Remember that Det. Tisch didn’t fully explain this to the judge.

(3) He is related to some people who may or may not be involved in drugs in this investigation and has actually been seen at their homes and in their company, the company of his relatives by birth and marriage.

(4) He was once “a person of interest” in an unrelated drug investigation by another agency. There was no evidence of criminal complicity, nor was he apparently charged with or convicted of committing a crime.

(5) He lived in a modest home, worked full time in a physically demanding job, earned a solidly middle class salary and owned either three or six vehicles of some value.

Where is the specific evidence, the probable cause, that would convince a reasonable police officer that specific illegal items or the evidence of specific crimes committed by Jose could be found at his residence? There simply is none on this affidavit. The fishing expedition wish list of the first two pages of the affidavit serves only to clearly indicate that Det. Tisch could not, for one moment, connect Jose or anyone else mentioned with a specific crime or to demonstrate that any specific contraband or fruits of a crime could be found in any of their specific homes or cars. Perhaps there is additional information, information that would fulfill the very plain requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but if so, it doesn’t appear on this affidavit.

Det. Tisch seems capable of being specific one moment, but incapable the next. He can identify precise vehicle values using the common “Blue Book” for two vehicles, but cannot do the same for two more. He knows that people were arrested, but cannot say whether they were convicted or exonerated. Any competent police officer can find such information with a phone call or by computer.

I cannot emphasize this enough: the Constitution absolutely requires the police to be able to clearly articulate how each and every person involved is directly involved in the commission of specific crimes—which must be specified—and exactly what items relating to those crimes may be found and where. The police must also be able to explain exactly how they came to know what they know. All of that is missing in this ridiculously general affidavit.

Here’s an example from my police experience. One morning a young man came to see me and told me that he was at the apartment of two acquaintances the previous night. We’ll call them Bob and Steve. He told me that he saw quite a bit of car and home stereo equipment in the home and asked about it. Bob and Steve wove a tale of multiple home and car burglaries, going into considerable detail. Not wanting to be caught up in these crimes, he decided to talk to the police.

By comparing reports of recently burglarized homes and cars, I was able to positively identify property from six separate burglaries including four costly tires they stole from a car, which tires they told him were in their apartment’s storage locker. I was able to do this based not just on his descriptions of the property, but by their descriptions to him of what they did, where they did it, and how they did it, which also matched the crimes in the reports.

Even though his information was only hours old, it wasn’t enough, so I visited the apartment. No one was home, but standing on the doorstep, looking through the front window--as anyone legally could—I could clearly see several items that matched the reported stolen property. Walking into the apartment’s laundry room, another publically accessible area which also doubled as the storage area, I could see the tread of one car tire which appeared to match that reported stolen, through a gap in the locked door of the shed.

With that information, I was able to specifically identify the people involved, the specific places to be searched, and the specific things to be seized, even including some serial numbers. I was also able to list the specific crimes committed, in this case, burglary, grand theft and felony destruction of property. I wrote the affidavit, obtained the warrant and recovered all of the property, and even more that also matched other reported crimes.

Review the Guerena affidavit. Is any of that kind of detail or information present? Drug cases are different, but actual evidence of crimes is mandatory. Informants are used to buy drugs, to get into buildings and to actually see drugs or the equipment used to package them. Lower level drug users are caught and used to obtain evidence against their dealers. Dealers are caught and used to obtain evidence against their suppliers. Intelligence on shipments is developed and careful, continual surveillance is employed to develop complete intelligence on the entire operation so that the police can identify criminals as high up the chain as possible. No competent police agency wants to waste six months of police work with nothing more than a small amount of drugs to show for it. In this case, it appears that surveillance was occasional at best, and again, there are no specifics, nor is there any indication of which crimes the police think any of those involved have committed.

What is also striking is that there is no indication of the expectation of danger, not for any of the suspects listed, and certainly not for Jose. Det. Tisch does not state than any of those involved were recently seen (during the course of the six month investigation) carrying or using firearms, or that any special permissions would be required to deal with any such concerns. As dangerous as Jose has become in death, in life he apparently posed no danger worth mentioning to Det. Tisch or other officers. Indeed, drug dealers often carry firearms and are known to use them, but Det. Tisch made no such assertions in this affidavit.

Det. Tish did not ask for any special conditions, such as service at night or an extended time frame for service. He did not ask for a no-knock warrant, and no judge would issue one absent a specific and convincing request.

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that Det. Tisch was trying to mislead the judge involved. It does describe what appears to be a pattern of possible drug-related activity, but that is not sufficient to establish probable cause. Det. Tisch does provide background information on how drug traffickers commonly operate, but that too does not establish probable cause. Det. Tisch does try to make those involved appear to be as criminal and suspicious as possible, but he does this by often leaving out inconvenient, even contradictory details such as the fact that Jose was arrested years earlier and the charges were dropped. I am still mystified why any judge would issue a warrant based on this affidavit unless he merely scanned it instead of reading it. If that was the case, it might appear to be competent.

If this is, in fact, a valid copy of the actual affidavit, Vanessa Guerena’s attorney is a happy man today.

PHOTOS AND GUNFIRE:

The Pima County SD has released photographs of the interior of the Guerena home. As expected, the interior of the home is heavily damaged, bullet holes and the resulting debris everywhere. However, because no floor plan of the home has been released, it is very difficult to draw any technical conclusions from those photographs as it’s not possible to establish the line of fire and the orientation of any of the rooms or items of furniture and other furnishings that are so obviously and heavily damaged in the home, however, it appears that bullets flew pretty much everywhere, particularly toward the back portion of the home.

I have also seen several photographs of the front door of the Guerena home, which provides a bit more information that supports my past observations. On the right doorframe, from waist to chest height, three apparent bullet entry holes are visible. One is actually in the wall of the home immediately adjacent the right outside edge of the doorframe molding at about waist height, and two are at roughly chest height in the actual right hand doorframe molding. One round pierced the left side door frame molding about 5” above the lock, and another pierced the wall of the home, some 3” to the left of the outside left edge of the molding and about 2” below the hole above the lock. Also visible are three gouge marks/bullet tracks on the right hand side of the door in the area of the two highest holes. These gouges indicate two bullets that obviously scored the outer surface of the door at some point in the shooting as the door swung open or perhaps rebounded back toward the officers. The third bullet appears to have actually pierced the edge of the door—it’s not visible in the only photograph I’ve seen—while it was standing open, and exited the front of the door at a relatively shallow angle, gouging the door and continuing on into the house.

Another very interesting photograph was of Jose’s AR-15, which was liberally flecked with bits of blood and flesh. More on this shortly.

ANALYSIS:

It is apparent that if Jose Guerena was a mid-level drug enforcer, as the police have tried to insinuate, he certainly lived modestly. His home is not full of expensive furnishings, and is like the homes of many a young couple just starting in life. It is not cluttered with the expensive accumulations of many years of living, and it certainly contains no material evidence of conspicuous consumption fueled by drug money.

The photos make graphically clear the panicky and un-aimed volume of fire poured into the Guerena home. No jury will be able to view these photographs and see the police as professional or competent. There is no explanation, no excuse, no words, which can make those photographs tell any story other than that the police were completely out of control. God must have been looking out for Vanessa Guerena and her son that morning. The police certainly weren’t. That they were not hit is surely a miracle.

As the exit holes on the back of the Guerena home make clear, the bullet damage throughout the home reveals an appalling lack of team cohesion and marksmanship. Walls and furnishings are perforated from ceiling to floor and with significant horizontal dispersion. It’s reminiscent of a semi-comic scene in a movie where a home is so filled with bullet holes that it collapses. And as I suggested in the second update, it would seem that the police were not using hollow or soft point ammunition as many rounds penetrated many items before being stopped, or before blowing through the back wall entirely, striking the back concrete wall of the home, the home of a neighbor, or flying off into the surrounding area, striking things unknown.

The bullet holes and marks around the front door also speak to a complete lack of professional ability and execution. Because of the generally poor quality of the 54 second police video and the angle of the camera, it’s not possible to see exactly who shot the door and door frame and when, but it’s clear that the shots came from at least two officers. As my analysis of that video suggested, it is possible that at least one officer was actually inside the home and shooting, ahead of the three officers who can be seen shooting from outside the home, or while leaning in through the door. If this is the case, he was likely in the direct line of fire of those who perforated the door and doorframe. If an officer was inside the home, it is amazing that his fellow officers did not shoot him.

The gouges in the door also suggest one potential reason why the officer carrying the shield fell down. It is possible that he was struck by shrapnel from the door and feeling the impact, thought he was hit and fell. It’s not possible to know this with certainly, and he is unlikely to admit it, but this is now at least a possibility.

In addition, a new photograph of the back wall of the Guerena home makes clear that there are at least ten rather than the nine exit holes I could make out in the original video. The lowest hole now appears to be less than two feet above ground level, making the police marksmanship even more random than I originally thought. Giving automatic weapons to the inexperienced will tend to do that.

It is hard to explain precisely what these six or more holes in the front door and wall mean to those who aren’t familiar with these issues. Police officers are absolutely responsible for each and every round they fire. They are trained to fire only when absolutely necessary and with absolute accuracy and concern for their surroundings. Police officers don’t have the luxury of blindly firing away and sorting things out later. They must absolutely know where the muzzles of their weapons are every second and what is in front of them. This is particularly true for SWAT troops who are supposed to be even more highly trained and capable than the average officer. To paraphrase Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, if these bullet holes could speak, they would speak of officers who had no idea of their surroundings, no situational awareness, and no idea what was directly in front of the muzzles of their weapons. Imagine what those officers will say in court when they’re asked why they shot a door or why they fired with another officer in front of their muzzles. What possible answer exists that will not make them look like rank incompetents?

VANESSA GUERENA INTERVIEW:

Most people badly misunderstand the Miranda v. Arizona decision. Watching too many TV and movie police dramas, they think that if the police don’t read a bad guy “his rights,” he walks. Or they think that officers must read Miranda to everyone they arrest or anyone with whom they speak.

In truth, officers need read Miranda only when someone is actually under arrest and they are asking them questions aimed at getting statements what will implicate them in crimes. If they don’t, or if the bad guy demands an attorney and the police don’t stop, the worst that will happen is usually that any statement they get can’t be used in court against him. As with much of the law, there are exceptions to the rule, but they’re specific and rare. If the police have other evidence, the bad guy may still be convicted.

People also misunderstand what arrest means. When a field training officer, I always taught my trainees what I called the seven magic words: “please,” “thank you,” and “you are under arrest.” The first three have obvious utility. The last four are equally important because they made my trainees think carefully about arrest and what it meant and tended to remove all doubt or confusion.

If you’ve ever received a traffic ticket, you’ve been arrested. An officer doesn’t have to say “you’re under arrest,” for you to be arrested, though it’s always a really good idea so that no one has any unfortunate misapprehensions about what is going on. If a reasonable person was stopped by the police and did not believe that they were free to go when they wished, they were arrested. Do you see what I mean? Were you free to go until the officer handed you a ticket and told you that you could leave? Of course not, hence, you were arrested. Officers simply allow people to leave on their own recognizance because it would be impossible to take everyone who committed a traffic violation into physical custody, take them to jail, and take them immediately before a judge, although that sometimes--rarely--happens.

Why have I brought all of this up? Because the police actually arrested Vanessa Guerena while telling her that she was not under arrest.

The Scene: It is 1150 on May 5, 2011. Jose Guerena has been dead for only about 2 hours, officially for only about one. Vanessa Guerena, Jose’s wife, is in a room with three detectives, Pruess, Cornidez and Anderson. Her English is limited—she is from Mexico—and she is obviously upset, perhaps even in shock. The transcript of the interview makes clear that she doesn’t consistently understand what the detectives are saying—many of her answers consist of “okay”--and there is no initial attempt at translation. She has apparently been removed from her home and taken to their “command center.”

The detectives begin, as detectives do, by getting general personal information. Then they tell her that they’re there to talk with her about what happened.

Det. Pruess says: “Okay? And, when I leave, by the time I leave, um, you know, hopefully you’ll all are, both of us will have all of our, our questions answered.”

Notice that he says: “when I leave,” not “when you leave.”

The following conversation is taken verbatim from the transcript:

Pruess: “Okay? Um, they took you out of the house, and they put you in, in this, command center?”

Vanessa Guerena: “Yes.”

P: “In this room. Obviously you can’t get out. What I have to do, is I have to read you your rights. I doesn’t mean you’re under arrest, it doesn’t mean you’re gonna be charged with anything.”

VG: “Okay.”

P: “But by law, because you’re not allowed to leave, I have to read you your rights. Do you understand that?”

VG: “And, will, I speak, I can, I, gonna try my best, my, best English.”

NOTE: Det. Pruess has told her that she can’t get out of the room, and that she is not allowed to leave. This means that she is under arrest. Again, contrary to what people see on TV, if you don’t wish to speak with the police, you can refuse and leave at any time. If they don’t allow you to leave, you are under arrest. There is no other interpretation. The police have no authority to put you in a room and hang onto you—or to otherwise detain you--as long as they please unless they arrest you. He says that “by law” she’s not allowed to leave. That’s nonsense. He’s lying to her. He also says that he has to read her Miranda. As I’ve pointed out, there is no reason to read Miranda to anyone unless they are under arrest and you are asking them questions that you intend to use against them in court. The legal term is “custodial interrogation.” The police do not mirandize witnesses; it’s not necessary. Am I exaggerating? Did the detective misspeak? The transcript continues after Pruess read Miranda to her and says:

P: “Now, I know that you said that you don’t speak English. And I’m gonna slow down. We’re gonna go through this.”

VG: “Okay. I don’t understand…”

P: “Absolutely. I’m not gonna.”

VG: “I’m gonna go to the courts?”

P: “No, no, no, no, no.”

VG: “Oh, okay.”

P: “God, no, no.”

VG: (No answer listed.)

P: “What I’m telling you, is that you can’t leave here right now.”

VG: “Okay.”

P: “Because, there’s a door here. You know.”

VG: Oh, yeah, she told me already.”

P: “Okay.”

VG: “I’m not going to leave, I don’t have nowhere to go.”

P: “Exactly. But much less, I wouldn’t let you leave right now, because I need to talk to you.”

VG: “Okay.”

P: “Okay? _____ is being into custody right now. It doesn’t mean you’re gonna go to court.”

VG: “Okay.”

P: “Doesn’t mean you’re gonna go to jail.

VG: “Okay.”

P: “Doesn’t mean your gonna be in arrest. But, what I have to do, is I have to let your know, that, you have a right to have an attorney present, only because you can’t go anywhere.”

VG: “Okay.”

P: “We don’t trap you in a room, and say, talk to us.”

VG: “Okay.”

P: “And we’re not gonna let you leave until you talk to us.”

VG: “Okay.”

P: “We don’t do it like that.”

VG: “Okay.”

ANALYSIS:

“We don’t trap you in a room, and say, talk to us.” “And we’re not gonna let you leave until you talk to us.” “We don’t do it like that.”

In fact, they have trapped her in a room; they have told her that the law requires her to talk to them; they have told her that they're not going to let her leave until she talks to them, and they do, in fact, do it exactly like that.

Remember the term “custodial interrogation?” Vanessa Guerena is in a room with three detectives. They have told her, repeatedly, that she is not free to leave, that she has to stay and answer their questions. Would she reasonably expect that she was free to leave? Would you? Clearly, she has been arrested. Clearly, she is enduring a coerced interrogation whether she understands sufficient English to realize that is another question.

Are the police lying to her? Let’s give this the most charitable interpretation possible. The detectives aren’t sure if she has broken the law, so they want to be careful. They know that they (their fellow officers) just killed her husband in a particularly brutal and bloody manner and that no evidence of a crime whatever was found in their home. They want to protect themselves, their fellow officers, and get as much information, particularly incriminating information, out of her as possible before she gets wise and ”lawyers up.” They also want to mirandize her so that if she does implicate herself in any crime of which they are unaware, they can use her statement against her. So just to make sure, they mirandize her.

Notice how even the most charitable interpretation does not exactly make the police look noble. The reality is that three detectives have the wife of a man their fellow officers butchered only a few hours earlier in a room with them and they’re going to get what they want out of her regardless of the language barrier, regardless of her condition, regardless of the law. They tell her that she is not free to go, they tell her that’s it’s the law, that she has to answer their questions. They tell her that they have to read Miranda to her but that she’s not going to court when they’re clearly doing this in case they need to take her to court, perhaps in the hope of taking her to court. All lies, and lies that any competent detective would know are lies. They clearly don’t want to do anything that will cause her to shut up. They’re going to use any tactic necessary to get her to talk with them. These detectives did have a job to do, but they had considerable discretion in deciding how to do it.

In the rest of the transcript, the Spanish-speaking detective begins to translate. Vanessa’s questions and answers truly are emotionally wrenching. I’ll leave it to readers to decide whether they should think well of the police of Pima County, AZ.

THE CORONER SPEAKS:

According to Pima Co. Medical Examiner Dr. Gergory Hess, two of the 22 rounds that hit Jose Guerena were probably fatal. Hess spoke of a bullet that hit the left thigh and traveled into the abdomen where it lacerated a kidney and cut an artery and a bullet that entered the abdomen, damaging the spleen and left lung. Speaking to KGYN9’s Jennifer Waddell, Hess said “I doubt he would have survived even if paramedics had been let in immediately. There would have had to have been heroic efforts to try and stop the bleeding.” Hess said that no single shot was fatal but that Guerena died from rapid and severe blood loss. The official time of death was set at 1000, about a half hour after Guerena was shot.

Interestingly, the combined total of entry/exit wounds on Guerena’s body was listed as 96. The Coroner’s office attributed this to fragmentation of bullets striking Guerena and possibly shrapnel or flying debris from the walls and other items near Guerna, however, the report apparently did not specify finding such debris in Guerena’s body.

A listing of the entry wounds found:

(1) A graze to the head
(2) Upper right chest
(3) Lower right chest
(4) Left upper abdomen
(5) Three to the right upper arm
(6) Right elbow
(7) Right hand
(8) Left upper arm
(9) Left elbow
(10) Left forearm
(11) Left hand
(12) Two to the right thigh
(13) Right calf
(14) Right foot
(15) Four to the left thigh
(16) Left foot

No drugs were found in Guerena’s system, though a blood alcohol level of 0.024% (a tiny amount) was found, which, according to the Coroner’s report, could have been caused by decomposition after death.

ANALYSIS:

Guerena was shot, literally, from head to foot. Only three of the 22 bullets striking him were in what the police call “center mass,” or that area of the upper center of the body most likely to cause damage that can quickly incapacitate an attacker. This means that of the 71 rounds fired, only about 30% struck Guerena at all, and only about 4% struck him where the police and SWAT teams train to shoot.

The Coroner’s assertion that Guerena would have likely died even if immediately attended to must be considered in light of his setting of the official time of death as 1000, or about a half hour after he was shot. The Coroner may be correct, but Guerena was never given a chance to survive. That fact is beyond dispute.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

The affidavit was, in a real sense, the beginning of the chain of events that peaked, but not ended, with Jose Guerena’s shooting. It now seems clear that the officers involved did not have sufficient probable cause to obtain a warrant. They could not and did not clearly state facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to conclude that specific people committed specific crimes and that the proceeds or evidence of those crimes—which were also not specified—could be found at a specific residence.

Sheriff Dupnik later told reporters that using the SWAT team to serve a high-risk warrant was fully justified, but there is also nothing in the affidavit that establishes the necessity for calling out a SWAT team. Det. Tisch called it a mid-level drug operation, but one that allegedly involved only a handful of people. If Jose Guerena was truly the heavy, the muscle for the drug operation as the police have claimed after his death, the affidavit would have been the logical place to explain that view and provide evidence to support it. The police did not. It has also been suggested that Jose was involved in murder and several SWAT operators apparently claimed that they were so briefed before the raid. If this were true and/or remotely provable, would this too not have been worthy of inclusion in the affidavit? After all, virtually everything else was thrown in, even unrelated incidents of no criminal activity years old.

In addition, the photograph of Jose’s AR-15 speaks volumes, not because it is covered in blood and flesh but because a telescopic sight of what appears to be 4X or slightly greater power was mounted. This is an odd choice indeed for the weapon of a drug gang enforcer as it would be of little or no use at close range or indoors. However, for a former Marine trained to shoot that very weapon accurately at long range, it would certainly provide an afternoon of useful practice at a shooting range. It was also a poor choice for a shootout inside a home. Wouldn’t a drug gang enforcer have handguns or other weapons more appropriate to close quarters battle at hand and ready to shoot?

That said, there is, for the moment, no evidence that any of the SWAT officers involved acted in bad faith in their intention to serve the warrant. They likely believed that the warrant under which they operated was valid, and would have had no known reason to believe otherwise. I would also like to believe that none of them went to the Guerena residence hoping for a chance to fire their weapons, or planning to manufacture a chance. Some would be tempted to say that there is no way to know such a thing, but there is. The operators on the team know. They know who is dangerous in that way. They always know. Of course, ever finding out that kind of information—if it does exist in this case—is another matter.

We now know that after exhausting all of their ammunition, the “team”—if it can be reasonably called that—was paralyzed and merely milled around, not reloading, apparently having no idea what to do next. They failed to immediately enter after the door was breached and emptied their magazines in a panic, even fell down. Instead of regrouping, reloading, and doing what they should have done in the first place, they actually did a Monty Python and, in essence, ran away. I am tempted to call it cowardice, but it was almost certainly a complete failure of training, individual initiative, and leadership.

They could see Jose Guerena, who was for some time, alive and moaning. He was down and no threat, lying in a rapidly expanding pool of his own blood. Unless, of course, they want to admit that they really couldn’t see him before they began firing and as they were firing, and so, couldn’t clearly see him thereafter. Amazingly, after removing Vanessa and their son from the house, they still did not enter the house, but sent in not one, but two robots to poke and prod Jose, and rather than have medical personnel already on the scene assess Jose, they did it over the phone (!) with a physician who would never actually see or touch Jose.

They utterly failed in the basic tactics and duties of any SWAT team under those circumstances. They did not enter and clear the residence. If there were, in fact, other shooters in the house, they could have easily regrouped and picked off officers or bystanders from the windows, or probably even escaped in the utter confusion that obviously reigned.

The detective’s treatment of Vanessa was cruel, stupidly done and unprofessional. Nothing more need, or can, be said about it.

Based on what is currently in the public domain, it seems clear that Jose Guerena was a young man working hard in a copper mine to care for his family. He had some relatives who may have had some involvement in drugs, but there is no evidence that he did, and substantial evidence to suggest that he did his best to avoid it. There are many families where this story is being played out. On the morning of his death he went to bed after a shift at the mine expecting only to sleep. There were no drugs in his system or his home. There was nothing illegal in his home. Vanessa and he did not know that it was the police about to attack his home.

I had, until reading the affidavit, wondered if the police might have had more damning evidence that had not yet been released. Judging from the affidavit, they did not have sufficient evidence to suspect Jose of anything other than having relatives who might have been doing some things that drug criminals sometimes do. Had they used reasonable, professional tactics, such as waiting until Jose was awake and walked out to his mailbox where he could be approached by a couple of officers, his home could have been quickly and easily searched. The affidavit reveals that they knew that he kept regular hours and habits. They could have easily and safely served the warrant. Remember that the affidavit does not identify him as a danger. His neighborhood would not have been ventilated by police bullets, and he would be alive today.

Although Jose Guerena probably did not know that it was the police assaulting his home, he may well have realized it at the last second, and leaving his rifle on safe, gave the last full measure of devotion for his country, devotion taken by those who manifestly did not deserve to demand that sacrifice from him or anyone.

The Case For SWAT Teams

Go here to read my latest article at Pajamas Media. The good folks there have published the article which, using the Jose Guerena shooting as a springboard, explores the advantages and disadvantages of SWAT teams and suggests means for avoiding the kinds of tragedies that poorly staffed, equipped and trained teams can cause.

Weiner "Dumb and Defiant"

Call it partisan if you must, but it seems that most people—including many leading Democrats—would seem to agree with the image and teaser for this Fox New story.

The Blood of Patriots

U.S. Marine veteran Jose Guereña was killed when Pima County Sheriff Dupnik’s poorly trained deputies gunned him down in his home. They fired 71 shots.

This picture of his blood-spattered limited edition AR-15 rifle, with the safety on, comes from a series of news photos (h/t SayUncle) of the Guereña home, that shows police fired uncontrolled volleys of bullets from near ground level to ceiling height in one of the most clear-cut cases of excessive use of force I've ever seen.

Jose Guereña was hit 20 times and was still alive when the police stopped shooting, according to his wife. The cops denied him medical care, refusing to let paramedics enter the home for 1 hour and 14 minutes, by which time Jose Guereña was dead.

While Weiner Cheates, Huma is Pregnant

My word. Just when I think my disgust level for New York Democrat Anthony Weiner has bottomed out, he finds a way to sink to a new level. Yesterday we discovered that a pair of shock jocks had posted a picture of the fully-exposed Congressman to their web site which moves the allegations from the realm of titillation to self-made pornography composed by a sitting member of Congress.

If that wasn't bad enough, we now discover that Weiner's online affairs were going on not just after he was married, but while his wife Huma is pregnant.

Their marriage has become the subject of intense speculation and scrutiny amid an embarrassing online sex scandal.

Now, Representative Anthony D. Weiner and Huma Abedin are about to make news of a different kind: they are expecting their first child.

Ms. Abedin, 35, is in the early stages of pregnancy, according to three people with knowledge of the situation.

The pregnancy, which the couple have disclosed to close friends and family, adds a new dimension to questions about the future of their marriage.

I feel so sorry for the tribulations she is going through as the result of her depraved and perverted husband, a man without honor or the vaguest sense of moral decency. Were she my friend or daughter, I think I would advise her to evict the Congressman and begin divorce proceedings against him, shooting for full custody for the child.

Weiner has proven to be an unfit human being, and would likely be an unfit father as well. Huma and her child deserve what every family should have, in the form of a moral, loving, dedicated and decent father and husband. The kind that doesn't spread photos of his schlong to every woman he meets in cyberspace, or who apparently planned to cheat on them in the physical world with at least one of his online mistresses.

Huma's employer, Hillary Clinton, once said it takes village to raise a child. She wasn't wrong about that broader point. Both Huma and the baby would be better off if they exiled Anthony Weiner from their lives, and their nurture and care was provided by people worthy of their affection.

Quick Takes, June 09, 2011

ITEM: Is This Cool or What? Department: Yes boys and girls, antimatter, that blow-up-the-universe substance of film and sci-fi fable really does exist, and not only that, scientists at CERN have actually captured it in a magnetic “bottle” for almost 17 minutes. Go here for the amazing story.

ITEM: Those Darned Kids These Days: Go here for a short video about a 9-year old girl who saved her family when her uncle had a seizure while driving on the freeway. Note how calm and matter-of-fact she is in recounting the incident. Real girl power!

ITEM: These Are The Allies Our President Can’t Stop Insulting: Go here to the Daily Mail to read the story about Corporal Dipprasad Pun of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, who, by himself, overwhelmed thirty attacking Taliban in Afghanistan, winning the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross. This guy out-ramboed Rambo. Do we truly want a special relationship with such people? If we have an ounce of brains we do. Mr. Obama, sadly, not so much.

ITEM: The British People Love their National Health Service! Not so much. For a look at what we too can have if only we don’t repeal ObamaCare, read this Telegraph article by Brendan O’Neill about why recent staged protests to “save our NHS” virtually define “Astroturf.” Hint: It has to do with the fact that human beings tend to resent huge, wasteful bureaucracies that become power-mad nannies who actually kill them on a regular basis. Whoda’ thunk it? Who wouldn’t want that?

ITEM: Wind, solar, lizard flatulence, all green technologies that will, absent unimaginable scientific breakthroughs, never produce more energy than say, lizard flatulence. Not only will they never produce useable amounts of energy, they won’t do it at truly astronomical costs. But Shell—that evil oil company—has apparently developed a process to turn natural gas into gasoline, or diesel fuel, or…you get the idea. Go here to the PJ Tatler for Charlie Martin’s story about a process that may just be truly significant. Of course, it will produce gasoline, which is evil, so we’ll probably have to ignore it. Oh well. Spread the wealth.

ITEM: Really? The Pentagon has recently concluded that cyber attacks can be acts of war. Mirable dictu (wonderful to tell)! You mean to say that if a foreign power launches an electronic attack designed to seriously degrade or destroy our ability to defend ourselves, we might actually consider that to be a hostile act? And it took us only a bit more than two years of the Age of Obama to figure that out? Go here to the Volokh Conspiracy for more.

ITEM: LOUIS RENAULT AWARD OF THE MILLENNIA! I was shocked, shocked! to learn that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) actually has been “sexting” with multiple women for years, before and after his recent marriage. I was shocked, shocked! to learn that he has been lying about it, accusing innocents of hatching nefarious plots against him and using the Dem. media attack machine to distract attention. I mean, who would have thought that a Congressman of any party was capable of such things? But I was particularly shocked, shocked! to learn that he will not resign. Excuse me. I have to take a shower to wash off all this irony and sarcasm…

ITEM: On a segment of the Ed Schultz show on MSNBC (here) Joan Walsh of Salon.com said:

“JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: The lying is what disturbs me. He implicated a lot of us. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, let's just say that. And, you know, I look kind of stupid. But on the other hand, this was brought to light for political reasons --

ED SCHULTZ, MSNBC: Why do you look stupid? Why do you say that?

WALSH: Oh, because I, you know, gave him the benefit of the doubt publicly and pointed to the motivations of the people who were bringing this to light which was to destroy him.”

No Joan. You look kind of stupid because you reflexively defended a politician known for arrogance and narcissism because of his political affiliation. Not a bright thing to do with a politician of any political affiliation.

ITEM: But How Will They Express Their Ancient, Richly Unique “Everyone Must Experience My Choice Of Underwear” Culture? Some things are beyond parody. Go here to Fox/Dallas to learn that the Ft. Worth, TX transit authority has a dress code for those who wish to ride city busses. They have to wear a shirt and shoes, and can’t let their pants sag. Finally, a blow struck for civilization! One De’Shawn Miller said:

“This is something we grew up into. That’s why they don’t tell us nothing about sagging. We gonna sag regardless. We ain’t disrespectful. That’s how we were raised.”

See what I mean? There’s more at the link.

ITEM: THEY DID WHAT?! Department: Recall, please, gentle readers when we recently informed you about a campaign in San Francisco against circumcision? Recall that we mocked those pushing the law with a bit of punning? No longer. They’ve published a comic book—and as Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up—depicting an evil Jewish Rabbi menacingly holding a scissors over a naked infant while intoning “Time to make your sacrifice to God, Glick.” Hiding nearby, ready to pounce, is blonde, Nordic superhero “Foreskin Man” (no, I’m not kidding: Foreskin Man). There is no way to interpret this as anything other than base, undisguised anti-Semitism. As the article (here) concludes, these people aren’t just over the top: they’re stupidly evil.

UPDATE: From Fox News (here) we find that the Santa Monica resident who was behind the anti-circumcision ballot initiative, Jena Troutman, has withdrawn the measure, but only for Santa Monica, not San Francisco. Troutman who is apparently a “lactation consultant,” said, “I’m tired of it being about religion.” Troutman also noted “bodily integrity and genital autonomy are human rights.” Ah yes, the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution giving full autonomy and human rights to genitals! I can see it now: Law And Order: Special Genital Unit!

Lawyer: “John Smith, your honor, representing the defendant’s genitals.”

Judge: “You may begin your summation, Mr. Smith.”

Smith: “Thank you your Honor. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, as you know, the defendant’s genitals have autonomous human rights. So put him in prison for life if you must, but his genitals must go free…”

Prosecutor: “Objection! Attorney for the genitals is misrepresenting the penile code!” (The courtroom explodes with cries of “bodily integrity,” “genital autonomy,” and keep a stiff upper…”)

Judge: (Pounding gavel) “Order in the court! Order in the court!” Fade to commercial.

Uh, when guys give their genitals autonomy, isn’t that considered, if not a crime, at least bad manners? And what the heck is a “lactation consultant?” What does that pay anyway? Discuss.

ITEM: There are few sharper wits writing today than Mark Steyn. Go here for his most recent column on the dissembling Rep. Weiner. Even though the story is (?) apparently over, you’ll be glad you did.

ITEM: It’s No Fun Protesting When You Can’t Skip Out On Work And Lie About It Later? Visit Ann Althouse (here) to learn about a recently announced protest against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. A tent city was to be constructed and maintained to protest, I don’t know, returning Wisconsin to fiscal sanity? The upshot: Nobody showed up. Now that school is out, I guess it’s no fun for teachers when they can’t flashily abandon classrooms full of kids. No fun being self-righteous when there’s no one around to notice, eh?

ITEM: Living Well Is The Best Revenge! Department: Not long ago, we told you about James Tate, a senior and honor student in Shelton, Connecticut who taped 12” letters to the front of his school asking Sonali Rodrigues to go to the prom with him. She, of course, accepted, but school Headmaster Beth Smith banned Tate from the prom, and in so doing, kicked over an international hornet’s nest. She was eventually overruled by the school Superintendent after several state legislators set to work on legislation that would overturn her decision. Not only did James and Sonali attend the prom in style, he was voted king of the prom by his peers who apparently have a well-developed sense of irony. Good for you James and Sonali! Go here for more on the story.

ITEM: Just Desserts Department: When Attorney Alan Gura and his associates won the McDonald v. Chicago case wherein the US Supreme Court applied the 2nd Amendment to the states, Gura applied for a reasonable attorney’s fee” from the losing side, which he is allowed to do under federal law. Chicago, of course, stiffed Gura, but now, the applicable federal appeals court has order Chicago—and Oak Park, IL—to pay up. Go here for the story and the order of the court.

ITEM: What?! He Didn’t Wait For the All-Wise, All-Beneficent Government To Deal With It?! Go here to read the story of Army Staff Sgt. Eddie Peoples, who, while on vacation, single-handedly foiled—and in spectacular style—an armed bank robbery. Go Army!

ITEM: The Chinese are about to go to sea with their first aircraft carrier (here). The ship, purchased unfinished from the Russians several years ago, might seem to be a game-changer, but careful analysis suggests otherwise. Read the entire article to see why our military isn’t very concerned.

ITEM: So, we know that there are at least 500 million barrels of economically recoverable oil in Texas. Recovering that oil would lower gas prices and provide thousands of real—not rhetorical—jobs. It would help the economy... Whoa! Not so fast there Tex! There is a problem, a tiny reptilian problem that, if the Government has its way, will put a cork in the bottle of Texas oil. Go here to read the story, but take your blood pressure meds first.

ITEM: So, There Is A Jobs Renaissance--in Detroit?! According to Turbo-Tax Timothy Geithner, our serial tax-evading Secretary of the Treasury, the Obama Administration’s manipulations of 2/3 of the American auto industry have sparked a veritable renaissance in jobs in Detroit! Detroit? That rusting urban wasteland? That future movie set for a post-apocalyptic Mad Max sequel? The very one. The problem, however, according to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (here) is that like so much of the rhetoric emanating from DC these days, it’s not remotely true. Read the story, please.

ITEM: It Cost What?! Remember when a billion dollars was real money? According to the Obama Administration, the federal bailout of Mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie cost $130 billion. It’s bad enough that in the current Obamanomics climate, that doesn’t sound like very much money at all. What’s worse is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the actual cost is at least $317 billion and rising. Great. Go here for the whole story. Take deep, regular breaths.

ITEM: That Stupid Sarah Palin! Remember when Sarah Palin said that she could see Russia from her House? Boy, wasn’t that stupid—except that she didn’t say it. It was Tina Fey parodying her on Saturday Night Live. Well, now Palin has done it again. Speaking off the cuff to reporters, Palin claimed that Paul Revere warned the British during his historic ride in 1775. What an idiot! She didn't even go to the right college! The media, as usual where Palin is involved, gleefully piled on. Except, according to actual, noted historians, Palin was exactly right. Go here to see who is and isn’t dumb.

ITEM: Don’t Touch MY Social Security! What’s the old saw? “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.” The same goes for Social Security, which everyone agrees must be reformed, but only reform that doesn’t, you know, actually reform anything. Sorry campers; it’s already happening. Go here to find out how.

ITEM: The Obligatory Weiner Item Of The Week: Author Andrew Klavan is one of finest wits writing today. His “Klavan On The Culture” videos for Pajamas TV are brief masterworks of satire. He has returned to blog on Pajamas Media with a post on the unfortunate Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) here. By all means, acquaint yourself with Mr. Klavan.

ITEM: Is He Actually Trying To Blow Himself Up? Mitt Romney, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, professed his belief in Global Warming and in the necessity of wasting trillions we don’t have to cause no change whatsoever in the global climate. Go here to read the whole thing. Apart for departing from one of the fundamental conservative platforms in an appallingly unnecessary way, Mr. Romney apparently hasn’t heard of Climategate or read any of the most recent literature. And this is the Republican “Front Runner?” Could he play into Mr. Obama’s hands any more effectively if he tried? By the time they’re done agreeing with each other on ObamaCare and Global Warming, will there be anything they can actually debate, in a debate?

ITEM: Louis Renault Award of the Week: From Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (here) we are shocked, shocked! to learn that if ObamaCare is not repealed, enormous numbers of Americans—far more than have previously been predicted—will see their insurance decreased, will see it cost far more, or will lose their insurance entirely. Read the whole thing. Secure breakable items first.

ITEM: “What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan.”

So reads an article from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (here), which explains that virtually everything Mr. Obama recently said in justifying his auto industry takeover is, to put it kindly, fanciful. Read the whole thing and take the link to Glenn Kessler’s Washington Post (a newspaper not known for a uniformly Conservative outlook) article (here). Kessler sums it up nicely:

“If the auto industry bailout is really a success, there should be no need to resort to trumped-up rhetoric and phony accounting to make your case.”

Indeed.

ITEM: They Did What? By all means, go here to discover that the Department of Health and Human Services really is making it up as they go along. Remember all of those ObamaCare waivers HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has been granting to unions, cronies and the occasional state? The ObamaCare law did not give her the authority to do that. Where did she get it? HHS made up a regulation giving itself the power! Well OK then. I hereby give myself the power to never again pay income taxes and to run out of office any federal weasel I choose! So there! Discuss.

ITEM: Those Awful Machineguns Are Everywhere! Go here to National Review Online where Kevin Williamson has written a concise article in response to recent Media Matters lies (do they do anything else?) about the availability of machinegun parts and the ease with which a semiautomatic rifle may be converted to fully automatic fire. Williams debunks this never-ending tripe convincingly. Fully automatic weapons are available on the market, but can be sold only by dealers specifically licensed to sell them, they require major local, state and federal paperwork including fingerprinting, records checks, and a $200 fee. The process commonly takes up to six months before one can take possession of the weapon, and there are substantial regulations thereafter. Federal law treats mere conversion parts as an actual gun, and no commonly available rifle, such as the AR-15 can be converted without highly specific knowledge and specific and expensive machining tools. By all means, read the article for future reference the next time someone brings up this sort of silliness within earshot.

ITEM: He Said What?! Department: And now a question for all of the bonus points and the championship: Who said that the federal gasoline tax should be raised by as much as $1 per gallon to force people to buy more fuel-efficient cars? Ding, ding ding! That’s right, it was the CEO of General Motors. He also thinks that maybe GM will get rid of the government’s remaining 26% share of the company, you know, like soon or something. Go here to Hot Air for the whole story. Hey, you know, he sounds very much like Mr. Obama and his bureaucrats, doesn’t he? How do you suppose that happened? Could it be that he’s trying to force people to buy Chevy Volts? Speaking of which, you may wish to visit my most recent article on that very topic (here). Perhaps there’s a reason some call it “Government Motors” after all. Discuss.

ITEM: Go here to Michelle Malkin where Doug Powers writes about the Obama Administration’s “Green Ribbon Schools” program, whereby selected schools will be honored for “creating healthy and sustainable learning environments” and for “teaching environmental literacy.” According to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson “…Green Ribbon Schools will prepare our children to win the future by leading our global green energy economy.” Read the story. Powers concludes: “If the Department of Labor’s stimulus-driven Green Jobs Training Program’ results are any indication, there’s a good chance that the only thing ‘Green Ribbons Schools’ will prepare students for is the unemployment line.” Just so.

ITEM: What’s going on with our national energy policy? Nothing good. Go here to read a brief but informative article by the invaluable Michael Barone.

ITEM: Massive federal spending cuts are going to have to happen, but congress critters, particularly the Democrat species, can’t accept that necessity just now. So what would they prefer? How about cutting pay and benefits for our military? Isn’t that a great idea? Cut the pay and benefits for the people who risk their lives to ensure that, as Abraham Lincoln said it in the Gettysburg Address: “government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.”
Go here to read the story by Rob at PACNW Righty.

ITEM: They Did What?! Let’s say you’re a Wisconsin Liberal and you want to get good publicity in your continuing protests against the evil Republican Governor, Scott Walker, who is cruelly and irrationally trying to keep Wisconsin from going bankrupt. You’re sitting around the union hall brainstorming about the best place to stage a protest. What’s the first thing that would come to mind? That’s right! A Special Olympics Event! Go here for the story. Be glad you don’t think like those people.

ITEM: Feel Good Story of the Week: Go here for the heart-warming story of a Florida couple served a foreclosure notice by a bank. Not only was the bank wrong—the couple paid cash for the home in the first place; there was never a mortgage to foreclose—but the bank drug them into court anyway. The judge threw out the case and ordered the bank to reimburse them for their considerable legal costs. For months, the bank drug its feet and did nothing, until the couple’s attorney showed up with the Sheriff and foreclosed—on the bank! Talk about guilty pleasure!

And with that warm and fuzzy feeling in our respective hearts, I must thank you, once again, for stopping by and bid you return next Thursday for another edition of Quick Takes.

Weiner's Downfall

It was inevitable.

Update: Radio shock jocks Opie and Anthony have posted a X-rated photo sent by Anthony Weiner to one of the young women. I will not post it here nor link to it, but you can rest assured that the Congressman is completely compromised.

The House Democratic leader has to force Weiner out over this, or lose the few shreds of ethical credibility that have left. Former DNC Head Tim Kaine has already called for Weiner's resignation.

Weiner, like Hitler, seems to have been undone at the Battle of the Bulge.

Chevy Volt Update for June 8, 2011

As regular readers know, I’ve been following the convoluted path of the Chevy Volt since before the first car rolled off a diesel-powered transporter (there’s irony for you) onto a dealer display floor. My original intention was merely to point out the less-than-stunning reality of the Volt’s “revolutionary” technology compared to the ever-changing claims of GM and the Volt’s many fans. As time has passed, all of the usual elements of governmental corruption and cronyism have attached to the story, and it has taken on something of a zombie-like life of its own.

Even though real world experience with the Volt has confirmed the limitations and potential problems many have identified, the Volt continues to be sold, albeit in limited numbers. It is not at all unusual for a major American manufacturer to produce a car that sells poorly, but never before has such a car come with such obvious limitations and at such a high MSRP ($41,000). In the usual workings of the marketplace, automotive turkeys die a quick and merciful death, but what is the lifespan of a vehicle born of environmentalist fantasies and political pandering? That remains to be seen.

For those curious about my past posts, merely type in “Chevy Volt” in the site search feature of the site and you’ll find what you seek. You might also want to visit:

(1) My recent Pajamas Media article on the Volt and its political entanglements (here).

(2) An article by Ed Morrissey (here) that touches on many of the issues I’ve already raised, but adds some new facts.

(3) An article on the Green Auto Blog (here) with generally bad—but perfectly predictable—news about electric vehicles in general.

WHAT’S NEW:

A growing number of GM dealers are selling Volts with only 100 or fewer miles on the odometer as “used” cars. In some cases, they’re reducing the purchase price a few thousand dollars, but reliable reports indicate that the “used” Volts still have that distinctive new car smell. What’s going on?

Simple. Remember the $7500 government rebate available to the proud owners of electric cars, the rebate that reduces the purchase price of a Volt to a mere $33,500? It appears that some dealers, stuck with a car that is not fast moving in any sense of the term, are claiming the rebate for themselves, thus making far more profit on Volts than would be normally possible.

It’s likely that the green cache’ has worn off the Volt and virtually no one is willing to buy one for the premium prices—reportedly up to $65,000!—that some canny dealers charged when the cars first began appearing in even more limited numbers on showroom floors. Apparently environmental virtue and bragging rights have limitations. Regardless of the unicorn horn and fairy dust assumptions of DC politicians and their GM allies, auto dealerships have to pay strict attention to the financial bottom line, and with windfall profits no longer possible, are taking advantage of a car that is never going to be a significant money maker for them while the taking is good.

So how are those sales going? In January, GM sold 321 Volts. That’s 321 in the entire nation. If they were sold in every state—they aren’t—that would be six vehicles per state (Bonus Fact: In Mr. Obama’s America of at least 57 states, that’s 5.6). In February, GM sold 281. In January, Nissan sold 87 of its all-electric Leaf, a number that plummeted, so to speak, to only 67 in February. GM has apparently not published more recent sales numbers. It is unlikely that such reluctance is due to booming sales. If you’ve never actually seen a Volt or Leaf in the wild, now you know why.

I’ve written on the difficulties inherent in the Volt’s lithium-ion battery, but for a quick review, here are most of the salient issues:

(1) Average battery life is currently unknown, but likely will be shorter than the 8-10 years claimed by GM. Paradoxically, the more frequently rechargeable batteries are charged, the shorter the life span. They cannot be perpetually recharged. GM is currently quoting battery replacement costs of some $8000 and is promising a full replacement warranty for about the same period to the original owner. Therein lies the next, likely insurmountable, problem.

(2) What happens when Volts begin to appear on the used car market? I mean the real used car market. Who is going to knowingly buy a car that might need a more or less immediate battery replacement that is more expensive than the car is worth? Can used car dealers possibly lower their prices enough to overcome this problem? The alternative is to charge far more for a used Volt than for comparable cars in its class, which also makes it unlikely that anyone will buy such a high-priced used vehicle only to have to throw $8000 to $10,000 more into a battery.

(3) Volt batteries produce sufficient current to seriously injure or kill inexperienced or unwary mechanics or first responders who lack the knowledge or specialized tools to deal with them.

(4) Lithium-ion batteries contain substances that must be kept apart. If allowed to combine though as much as a pinhole, they have the immediate and unfortunate tendency to burst into flame or even explode. Such explosions are apparently a low-order affair as explosions go, but would certainly rival the worst bad hair day in sheer bummer factor.

(5) The batteries pose unique mining, manufacturing, disposal and recycling problems.

(6) Most of the world’s Lithium supplies (some 85%) are in China, Bolivia and Chile. Large flake graphite is also a necessary component, and China is in control of some 80% of that market. China is not exactly our pal, and Mr. Obama is allowing and even embracing Islamist and Marxist incursions in our hemisphere. If that’s not bad enough, the Argonne National Laboratory thinks that there may not be enough Lithium in the world for manufacturing car batteries by 2050, and substantial shortages much sooner. So much for the brave, green Lithium-ion powered automotive future and all of the green jobs it will save or create.

(7) Real-world all-battery range under real-world driving conditions is turning out to be about 25 miles, substantially reduced from GM’s original 50 mile, then 40 mile, hype.

The news does not get better. According to a USA Today-Gallup poll, 57% of Americans will not buy an electric car under any circumstance. Though 12% might consider it if gas rises above $5 per gallon and 9% if gas rises above $8 per gallon as Mr. Chu and Mr. Obama have so fervently hoped.

All of this is, of course, inevitable. Building a car with no clear buyer demographic, with no real advantage over vehicles costing half its price, a vehicle that will depend on a non-existent charging infrastructure (Quickly: name a single EV charging station near you) is not exactly a recipe for economic success. But then again, considering the totality of Mr. Obama’s economic acumen and execution, it is amazing GM has sold any. Apparently hope and change are still not a replacement for an understanding of market forces obtainable in any non-Marxist college economics 101 survey class. There may be hope for change after all.

Leftist "Comic" Says He Would Assassinate Palin

Obama mentor Bill Ayers, himself an advocate for executing up to 25 million Americans in "reeducation camps, would no doubt approve.

In responding to a question about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's appearance on "Fox News Sunday," in which Palin defended her interpretation of what happened during Paul Revere's pre-Revolutionary War famous ride, Titus launched into a description of what he would do if Palin were elected.

"You know what man?" Titus said. "I am going to literally — if she gets elected president, I am going to hang out on the grassy knoll all the time, just loaded and ready — because you know what? It's for my country. It's for my country. If I got to sacrifice myself, it's for my country."

It's not for your country, Chris. It's for your lock-step, childish, and violent ideology.

Letter From The Teacher #4: What's Wrong With Those High School Teachers?

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Mr. And Mrs. Johnson
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Your Question

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson:

I’m glad I had the chance to meet you at WalMart yesterday. I’m sorry we didn’t have the time to complete our conversation about college, but I thought I’d take this opportunity to see if I can more completely answer your questions.

Even though John is only a junior, it is certainly not too early for you to start making admission and scholarship applications at the colleges of your choice. John’s SAT score puts him in the top 10% of all students in the nation, and I have no doubt that he will be successful in college. Please let me know if you need letters of recommendation.

I understand your concerns about the quality and value of a college education. Like you, I’ve been reading articles on all of the difficulties in higher education. Perhaps I can explain some of them, or at least those that involve high school. It may also interest you to know that I have actually taught college as an adjunct instructor in the past.

We often hear of college teachers complaining about the quality of students entering college. They claim that many can’t write college level work. They say that they’re unprepared for the responsibility and academic rigor of college. They lament the fact that they have to establish entire departments to provide remedial classes for these kids. And the sad fact is, they’re absolutely right, but not entirely for the reasons one might think. Part of the problem is outlined in an article by Mona Charen (available here).

The simple truth is that Lake Woebegon, where all the kids are above average (and all the women are strong and the men are good looking), does not exist. In the real world, some people are going to excel in academics, most will do at least acceptably well, and some will not do well at all. Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute has written an interesting article (available here in pdf form) that suggests that there is a minimum level of intelligence necessary for any student to do well, to be able to do genuine college-level academic work successfully. He sets that level at an IQ of 125, which means that only about 15% of the population will meet or exceed that standard.

Murray is certainly onto something. Of course, some people with an IQ lower than 125 can do well in college through hard work and sheer determination. I know a great many of those people, and I have many such kids in my classes. Understanding this, we should not discourage people from trying college, but they should embark on their college adventures well informed and with their eyes wide open. I can certainly make a reasonable argument for the value of college in potentially producing more well-rounded and wise people, but even that depends on the individual. I know more than a few people who eventually graduated from college with a major in partying and a minor in waking up in unfamiliar surroundings in a pool of their own vomit. In truth, college isn’t for everyone. Many people don’t need it to live very satisfying, economically comfortable lives.

In high school, we must deal with a wide range of competing interests. Some people would like to do away with “advanced placement” or “gifted and talented” classes because, they say, such programs make students who are not in these classes feel inferior. Some people want to do away with traditional grades so that no one need feel badly about failing. Some try to prevent score keeping in sports so that there will be no winners and losers. It seems that some simply can’t accept that some people will always be smarter than others. They have no trouble at all buying the idea that some kids will never win a spot on the varsity football team, and that some won’t ever be a first chair musician in the school band. They don’t waste a moment’s concern or a tear for those kids, but suggest that some people are simply smarter than others, or that some will have a genetic endowment that allows them academic success with relative ease, and many people have great difficulty accepting what is self-evident.

When college instructors blame high schools for the problems they see, I must disagree, at least partially. I teach mostly sophomores, as you know, but some juniors and seniors. When my new classes arrive each fall, and I find some who can barely write, I don’t rhetorically ask “what’s wrong with those 9th grade teachers?” Instead, I marvel at how far those 9th grade teachers were able to bring those kids in a single year, compared with how academically deficient they must have been at the beginning of their 9th grade year. Remember, please, that social promotion is the norm and has been for decades. It is, in most American communities, rare for any elementary student to be retained for a year, so we tend to pass such students up the chain and when they reach high school, their lack of academic ability becomes particularly, painfully obvious.

Some of these kids have undiagnosed learning disabilities, some are just lazy, some have chosen not to do very much work in school and their parents have allowed them to get away with it. Some few are simply not very smart and/or academically capable. They just didn’t get the genes, for whatever reason.

One of the biggest problems all teachers have is that relatively few kids are readers. The negative effects of this simple fact are surprisingly wide-spread and stunning, but that’s a topic for another time.

In the not-so-distant past, most kids did not plan to attend college. In fact, most colleges did not want most kids because they knew, like Murray, that most people aren’t going to be successful with actual college-level studies. They still had a sense of honor and decency and felt that enrolling people in an expensive college program they would be almost certain to fail was abhorrent. They probably didn’t quantify it, but they knew through experience that in a traditional, rigorous college setting, it would be impossible for most people to succeed. They were, and still are, correct.

Over time, more and more colleges watered down their curriculums, and today, many don’t require American history or the history of western civilization, for example, substituting instead trendy “studies” classes. Did you know that some colleges offer classes on zombies in literature and cinema? That many offer classes in the kinds of sexual behaviors and trends that would have been illegal in past generations? If you haven’t already visited Mona Charen’s article, you might want to do that to see what I mean.

The traditional collegiate mission of educating the most capable scholars, teachers, scientists and leaders has been replaced, in large part, by encouraging as many people as possible to attend college for any period of time. Why? Money. If you enroll in any college, after a very short time at the beginning of each semester, there are no refunds. It’s cynical, I know, that many colleges are more concerned with getting those funds than with the academic success of their students. In encouraging more and more people to attend college, it is only reasonable to believe that more and more will fail, because only a relatively small portion of the population is truly capable of collegiate academic success. Still, far more people attempt college than ever before.

If this is true, and I submit that it is, what have colleges done about it? They’ve dumbed down the curriculum. They’re reduced the requirements for many college degrees to nothing more than what is required for success in high school. Why else would colleges establish remedial writing and math programs? Shouldn’t people arriving on a college campus be prepared to write on a college level? Of course they should, but not everyone can do that.

Our leaders often don’t help either. Mr. Obama has federalized the entire student loan industry and has often stated his goal that every American should go to college. He is apparently willing to spend any amount of taxpayer money to ensure that happens. This is, of course, nonsense. Not everyone is capable of being a successful plumber or electrician. To believe that everyone can successfully earn a college degree is wishful thinking. But if you lower the standards for college, far more can not only attend, but eventually earn a degree. Of course, it’s reasonable to ask what such a degree is worth.

Many states—including ours—are demanding that we implement “college readiness standards” across the board for all students. They seem to think that merely by establishing hopelessly optimistic standards in academic disciplines, that we’ll have the time to teach them all and that students will learn them all to the same level of performance, a level that will ensure universal success in college. We often hear from colleges who want to send out recruiters and/or teachers who will encourage students to go to college. Aren’t people smart enough to know if they want to go to college? Are people truly unaware that colleges exist? Do we really need the President of the United States to make our college decisions for us?

Hopefully, some reality is being injected into the situation. We’re beginning to realize that a college degree, for a great many careers, is not a guarantee of employment or high salaries. We’re starting to understand that leaving college with enormous student loan debt isn’t very smart after all. Many predict that the higher education bubble is going to burst and that colleges may have to return to actually teaching college to those actually capable of doing college level work.

Where does that leave us in high school teaching? Where we’ve always been. I take kids as I find them when they first enter my room each year and do my best to take them as far down the road to what they need to know to be successful in the future as possible. Some won’t get as far as others, but every one of them will make at least some progress, every one that is, except those who choose not to make progress. Some always make that choice.

As I said, John is going to do very well in college. I know that he plans to study engineering, and in that discipline, the kind of curricular silliness that is common in other disciplines tends not to be present. There is not a lot of nuance in calculating stress factors in bridges. You either have it right or you have disaster. You can help by encouraging him to take more serious electives and to avoid any class with “studies” in the title. I suspect that John will do all of that for you.

I hope I’ve provided some useful information. Please let me know if I can help with anything in the future.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

The Unbearable Lightness of Weiner

“I don’t believe that I did anything that violates any law or any rule.”

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has finally come clean and admitted, albeit vaguely, that he engaged in what is commonly known as “sexting” for years, prior to and after his recent marriage, with multiple young women, apparently around the nation. In the furtherance of his “social intercourse,” Weiner sent multiple photographs of himself, including various body parts, to these women. However, unlike former Rep. Christopher Lee (R-NY), who was recently caught up in a similarly self-generated predicament, Weiner will not resign. Note his quote, which appeared on the June 6th edition of The O’Reilly Factor. While by the standards of DC sex scandals, Weiner’s serial transgressions are relatively tame, the situation does raise many interesting questions about not just Rep. Weiner, but us.

Just as they were anxious to defend and absolve Weiner of any and all guilt, many—including elements of the Lamestream Media—are equally anxious to put the affair behind them. Some have already observed that he did apologize and admit wrongdoing. He said that he took responsibility for his acts. Indeed, we all sin. We all behave foolishly from time to time. Americans do tend to be a forgiving people, particularly when those seeking forgiveness do so sincerely and with genuine contrition.

Unfortunately, Rep. Weiner, for more than a week, lied to the nation, his wife, his constituents and his Congressional colleagues. For more than a week, he not only attacked Andrew Brietbart, actually accusing him of nefarious deeds and lying, but he encouraged others—by his example--to do the same. As it turns out, Mr. Brietbart reported only the facts. Everything he reported has been proven true, and he actually withheld particularly damaging and sexually graphic photos that Rep. Weiner sent to women. Yes, he did apologize to Mr. Brietbart, but was it sincere? Did he show contrition? What responsibility, exactly, did he take?

Rep. Weiner apologized because he had no choice. The story expanded far beyond a single college girl in Seattle and a vague photograph of a semi-erect Congressional “member” in nondescript gray undies. It was going to expand—explosively--even further. Even ABC News was about to run an interview with one of the women involved. If Rep. Weiner admitted his wrongdoing and apologized as soon as the matter became public, he would have a reasonable claim to sincerity. So much for sincerity; how about contrition?

There is little doubt that Rep. Weiner feels sincerely badly that he was caught. Who wouldn’t have such feelings in his place? But his press conference seemed less an act of contrition than an act of justification and lawyerly weaseling around the rules and the Law. Rep. Weiner observed that he didn’t violate his oath to uphold the Constitution and that he didn’t violate any rule of the House of Representatives. What about the trust of the people? What about the trust of his colleagues? What about upholding the honor of the Institution? What about setting an example of rectitude and dignity for the nation and the world? As a member of the party of the President determined to make America liked and respected around the world above all else--even our relationships with our allies--doesn’t this sort of thing make American look just a bit smaller, less dignified and worthy of respect?

What responsibility did Rep. Weiner take? Is he planning to volunteer at the Nubile Twitter-Addicted Home For Easily Visually Stimulated Girls? Has he promised not to do it again, or to at least send pictures of himself in better taste? Former Rep. Christopher Lee actually took responsibility. He recognized the damage he did to the Institution, to those he loved, to those who supported him, to the public’s respect for Congressmen, and to his party, which lost his seat because of his lack of self-control. As far as we know, he engaged in a single incident rather than many incidents involving many women over several years. He resigned, and by so doing, limited the damage to everyone involved, and demonstrated real sincerity and contrition. He demonstrated that he understood that it really wasn’t all about him, that politics does not, cannot, take precedence over honor and genuine personal responsibility.

Some are also suggesting—as some will in such situations—that it’s all a matter of Rep. Weiner’s personal life, and as such, it’s not the public’s business. Bill and Hillary Clinton used this tactic with notable success on “60 Minutes,” and the public bought it. But Mr. Clinton, by himself, burned out a great many such tactics, tactics no longer available to politicians. Not, that is, unless character and sound judgment in our elected federal representatives matters not at all.

Without a doubt, there are many areas of a politician’s life that should always remain out of bounds. The sexual thoughts or private—as in within the walls of their own homes with their consenting spouse—behaviors of any of our representatives (or co-workers, for that matter) might well shock at least some portion of the population, but unless there is a clearly demonstrable harmful link between them and that person’s official actions, it really isn’t the business of the public. That is not the case here.

Wouldn’t any reasonably intelligent person know that putting multiple photographs of themselves and their body parts out on the Internet—over years—to women he did not really know, would inevitably be exposed? Imagine further that the reasonably intelligent person was a Congressman, and not just any one of hundreds of Congressman, but an abrasive mouthpiece used on a regular basis to attack anyone and anything opposing the Democrat agenda, an image regularly plastered across American TV screens. Wouldn’t that reasonably intelligent person understand that as a Congressman, his life and behavior were under a powerful and omnipresent microscope? Wouldn’t he understand that he not only would be held to a higher standard, but that he should be held to a higher standard? Or, like all too many politicians of all political affiliations, would he serve as yet another pedestrian, sordid proof of Lord Acton’s aphorism that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Rep. Weiner’s judgment was, to put it kindly, faulty. There is also a kind of cruel irony in this situation in that he married, and not long ago, an aide to Hillary Clinton. She and Mrs. Clinton will certainly not lack for topics of mutual concern and sympathy in their future conversations. I bring this up not to be cruel, but to point out the wreckage Mr. Weiner’s actions has caused.

Rep. Weiner, like far too many before him, has trivialized the Congress, if such a thing is any longer possible. He has confirmed, if any confirmation was required, that a moral double standard exists. Republicans doing what he has done are through, and justly so. But it would appear that no one expects Democrats to behave with dignity and honor. I wish that were not true, for what it says about us all—not just Democrats—bodes ill for our survival as a people and a nation. I have little doubt that, like Charles Rangel and other Democrats before him, Rep. Weiner will be re-elected by his very liberal New York Congressional District. Most will not waste a second reflecting on what that says about them.

Absent new revelations, it does appear that Rep. Weiner did not violate the law or the rules of the House of Representatives, but that’s not the most important consideration. A mere lack of rule or law breaking are not what define us as individuals or as a nation. Ultimately, we all, Conservative and Liberal alike, might want to reflect on the perilous times that surround us, times that might very well see an end to the America and the American ideals so many have bled to build and maintain. And in reflecting on them, we might want to honestly ask, is Anthony Weiner—or anyone like him--the best we can do?

Breitbart Takes Over Weiner Press Conference, Stuns MSM

I would not have believed it if i wasn't watching it with my own two eyes.

Embattled Democrat Anthony Weiner was expected to take the stage at a 4:00 PM press conference, when Andrew Breitbart took over the stage and the message.

After providing his version of events reading the media the riot act for their biased coverage, Breitbart left the stunned journalists almost speechless in his wake as he strode off stage.

Update: Weiner joins his press conference a half hour later makes half-admissions of his guilt before and after his marriage.

"I haven't told the truth, and I've done things i deeply regret."

Admits his guilt, will not resign at this time.

Anthony Weiner to Resign For Sexting Young Women

The only question now is whether or not he knows it. What an arrogant, duplicitous, cheating little jerk.

I hate to point out the obvious, but all the leftists that have been shrieking that Weiner was hacked now look like fools, and poor souls like Kossack "Stranded Wind" have destroyed their credibility for a lifetime.

Confirmed: Lee Franklin Booth is a Confidential Informant For the Feds

I mentioned on the 23rd of last month that I thought felon Lee Booth may be getting high-level federal protection that has kept local, state, and federal agencies investigating him at bay.

I can now confirm not only that Booth was a confidential informant that appears to have abused the system protecting him, but I can also name the federal agency that was sheltering him. I won't name the agency, however, to protect any agents or investigations that they may have underway.

Booth's CI status is under review, apparently due in no small part to his high-profile flouting of the law.

Now that his status is apparently about to be revoked, it seems that indictments could begin raining down upon him almost immediately after federal protection is lifted.

Justice may come slowly, but it does appear to be on the way.

Update: Further thoughts here.

Whine on You Lazy Diamond

Boo-freaking hoo:

LAST October, I won the Nobel Prize in economics for my work on unemployment and the labor market. But I am unqualified to serve on the board of the Federal Reserve — at least according to the Republican senators who have blocked my nomination. How can this be?

In case you haven't been paying attention for the past half-decade, the Nobel Prize has been reduced to absurdity. Even Paul Krugman has one. ManBearPig got on for junk science that was debunked. Our current war-monger President, who is fighting what the left used to call "an illegal war" in Libya, and which is supplying drug cartels with heavy weapons in Mexico via his BATF, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize before he even finished moving into the White House.

A Nobel means nothing.

The reason you were blocked Mr. Diamond, is that you are a Keynsian hack, with no understanding of real markets. The idiocy you espouse has led us into the largest recession on this side of the Second World War.

You weren't hired, because you aren't up to the job.

Let Them Eat (Even Less ) Cake!

It is an article of faith among Socialists that Socialism cannot possibly be wrong. When any socialistic policy is failing, the only possible explanation must be that socialism has not had sufficient time to work its magic, that insufficient socialism has been applied, or that evil capitalists are hindering ultimate, inevitable success, often by their mere existence.

Economic news has been so bad of late that the Lamestream Media has, for the most part, dropped the modifier “unexpected”—as in “Huge Drop in Home Values Unexpected,” or “Unexpected Record High Unemployment Surprises Obama Administration”--from its coverage of the death spiral of Mr. Obama’s socialistic economic policies. Even so, Mr. Obama and his minions continue to claim that it’s only a “bump” on that glorious revolutionary highway to complete recovery. They claim that they “saved or created” this or that number of jobs, and that without their brilliant socialistic manipulations, things would be much worse. That we are already broke and borrowing at the rate of billions per hour means nothing to the determined Socialist, for there is no possibility but the ultimate triumph of Socialism.

This pathology—for it is nothing less—is individually debilitating. Combined with a pathological narcissism the likes of which America has, prior to the advent of Mr. Obama, never experienced, it is likely to debilitate the nation.

A recent rare accidental Administration truth-telling (here) illustrates the degree to which one may become so impaired that reality becomes a nothing more than an infinitely changeable concept, which may transmogrify into whatever shape is politically useful from moment to moment. Socialism rejects conventional reality and constructs its own. Spending far more money than you have therefore becomes merely an opportunity to print and borrow money and to endlessly spend the money that isn’t real.

Consider the case of the “let them eat cake” attorney. Obama Solicitor General Neal Katyal appeared before the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 1 to defend the ObamaCare Individual Mandate. The mandate requires every American to buy government approved insurance or be fined by the IRS. Never before in American history has the federal government tried to assume the power to force Americans to buy a consumer product against their will. The Obama Administration seeks to justify it under the Commerce Clause. The law does have a very limited “poverty” exception, which exempts some from buying insurance.

Under questioning from the court Katyal said that the justices were playing a “game” which he could also play, and said that people could avoid the mandate simply by choosing to make less money.

People can choose to make less money. It is now well known that Mr. Obama’s claim that those who like their current insurance can keep it is, and always was, a lie. For most Americans, ObamaCare means that their insurance rates will go up, substantially up, because they must buy policies mandated by the government which will inevitably include coverage they neither want nor need.

The magic Socialistic “Stimulus” package that was guaranteed to keep unemployment below 8% is universally acknowledged as a complete failure. Official unemployment is now at 9.1%, but in reality, it’s nearly 16%. People are struggling to find any work. More Americans are on food stamps than at any time in American history. Gas and food prices are skyrocketing—just as Mr. Obama promised during the campaign—and the dollar is being seriously devalued by mass printings of greenbacks (Quantitative Easing). We’ve already had QE1 and QE2 and our tax-avoiding Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, is planning QE3.

The private sector needs to create a huge number of good paying jobs—people making more, not less money—but Mr. Obama’s lunatic socialistic policies prevent it. And against this backdrop, the Solicitor General of the United States argues that Americans can avoid having to pay far more of their rapidly deflating incomes in unwanted and unnecessary insurance by voluntarily choosing to make less money.

It is possible that Mr. Katyal, as a lawyer, is merely employing whatever outlandish argument popped into his head at the moment in the service of defending the indefensible. Lawyers do have to do that upon occasion. However, it is more likely that for Mr. Katyal, as a good Socialist, “The People” exist only as an abstraction in service to the State. It may not occur to him that people simply cannot, indeed will not, choose to lower their incomes. They certainly do not consider our economic situation a game, individually or collectively. For most Americans, less income would mean the loss of their homes, cars, and a descent into genuine poverty and misery. Considering the times, it is amazing that any rational, humane Administration official would even think such a thing, to say nothing of saying it. However, Socialism is neither humane nor rational.

But I’m sure that if a sufficient number of Americans voluntarily lower their income, the economy, which is experiencing momentary “bumps,” will be greatly stimulated. All you have to do is believe in the ultimate triumph of Socialism—unless of course, you’re one of those Capitalists who actually believe in object reality. But who does that anymore in this brave new Age of Obama?

Obama vs. Palin: Who'd You Rather...

... balance a checkbook, or a budget

... stand beside you in a fight

... plead a case defending your Constitutional rights

... speak to the family of a fallen soldier

... represent your best interests in a negotiation

When the Nazis Come, They'll Sport Chaps

...and they'll come from San Francisco.

Oops, He Did It Again

Anthony Weiner may have sexted lewd photos of himself before:

Of course, the simplest explanation of the scenario is that he had, in fact, tried to send a picture of his genitals to a 21-year-old Washington state college student. Weiner has denied that in public and in private. Two people who spoke to him privately said he had suggested that, as one said, "he took or sent a photo or photos like this at some point — but in this case actually was hacked/set up, perhaps with a posting of one of his own photos or something very similar."

"If that is the reality, there is no magic, good way to handle it," Dezenhall said. "You have what lawyers call a 'bad fact.'"

Note this is one of his protectors trying to help Weiner (therefore pushing the improbable hacking angle) that states the Congressman has a history of this kind of behavior.

Oh well, At least his real name works for a stage name once he finally resigns and begins his new career doing porn full time.

The Guerena Shooting: Analysis 2

A YouTube video of a memorial service at the home of Jose Guerena has been posted (here). It is more than ten minutes long, what is of greatest interest is the final few minutes shot by someone attending the service. The video focuses on the back wall of the Guerena home, the backyard fence and the wall of the home behind. Both homes are obviously frame homes covered in stucco, apparently reasonably thick. The fence is made of solid concrete blocks, somewhat narrower than common cinder blocks. Keep in mind that the camera is more or less constantly moving, the framing imperfect, and lens reflectivity—it was shot in bright sunlight—occasionally interferes. There were a few close-ups, but they were brief, shot from a distance, and there was nothing nearby from which to make accurate scale comparisons. Even so, a few reasonable conclusions can be drawn.

OBSERVATIONS:

(1) I could make out at least 11 apparent exit holes in the back wall of the Guerena home, at least two through a window, and nine through the wall. The lowest hole in the stucco wall appears to be approximately 2’ above ground level and the highest, approximately 7’ above ground level. The exit holes have approximately a 5’ horizontal spread. It is possible—perhaps likely--that there are more holes that I could not see.

(2) The AR-15 platform is popular with SWAT teams because the weapons have excellent ergonomics, light weight, low muzzle blast and recoil, are readily available at reasonable prices, have a very wide range of available accessories, and fire the .223 cartridge, which, if the proper ammunition is used, is a very accurate and effective stopper while also being relatively safe in an urban environment. From this video, it seems likely that the proper ammunition was not used.

One of the disadvantages of the .223 in military use is that it fires a relatively lightweight bullet at high velocity, thus it tends to have poor penetrating capabilities. In Vietnam, where the rifle/cartridge combination was first used in any numbers, bullets could easily be deflected by foliage. However, when they hit a human being, would tend to immediately become unstable, yawing, tumbling and fragmenting, causing enormous damage. Over time, the military developed much more effective bullets that would tend to penetrate well in a wide range of situations.

For civilian police use, an entirely different dynamic is at play. The ideal police .223 round is one with a bullet that expands or fragments upon contact, minimizing the risk of ricochet in case of a miss, or over-penetration of walls or other things. To put it in stark terms, the police want bullets that will cause substantial damage upon impact, but that won’t completely penetrate the people they shoot, or if they miss, that won’t penetrate walls and keep going for miles. To that end, hollow or soft point ammunition is commonly used.

Military ammunition, commonly known as full metal jacket (FMJ) or “penetrator” ammunition, should not be used in the weapons of a SWAT team. Keep in mind that there are a few highly specialized applications for such ammunition, even in the civilian context, but virtually never for an entry team.

(3) The exit points on the back wall of the Guerena home indicate that fully metal jacketed ammunition, perhaps even military penetrator ammunition (possibly even bullets with steel inserts) was likely used. Proper .223 ammunition striking a wall will fragment and/or begin to yaw or even tumble, and if a round fully penetrates, will tend to tear out a fist-sized chunk of wall, thereby exhausting all of its energy. The exit holes I saw on the video are of approximately .22 caliber surrounded by a silver dollar sized—perhaps a bit smaller—circular dish of stucco exploded outward. One would not expect to see this unless the rounds penetrating were not fragmented or tumbling upon penetrating the wall. Remember, these rounds would have had to, at the least, penetrate at least one inner wall of dry wall, one exterior cladding board and the stucco finish of the home. It is also possible that at least some could have also penetrated one or more 2” X 4” studs, and possibly even Jose Guerena.

(4) I could make out at least two holes in the 5’ tall brick fence in the backyard. The rounds appear to have penetrated the inward face of the bricks, and possibly have lodged inside. The camera angle and brief viewing would not allow me to tell if the rounds fully penetrated the fence, or if the police had actually dug the rounds out of the fence. It they were competent, this would be expected. These holes were widely spaced, one relatively high on the fence, one relatively low.

(5) Beyond the fence I could make out what appeared to be two bullet holes on the wall of a neighboring home. One appeared to be at about a 7’ level and the other, about a 4’ level. Again, it was not possible to determine the depth of penetration, or whether the rounds were recovered by the police.

ANALYSIS:

The Guerena property appeared to be relatively new, neat and clean. The pattern of apparent exit holes seems to indicate the inevitable results of the panicky, uncontrolled fire the SWAT team unleashed. The video does not allow an accurate assessment of the interior layout of the home, but if Guerena was crouching in a hallway, as many accounts suggest, the police fire apparently flew down that hallway and out the back wall of the home. The width and height of the pattern indicates, again, panicky, uncontrolled fire. Fully automatic carbines fired by untrained people do tend to experience substantial muzzle rise, which would be reflected by hits very high--and quite wide--on the wall, particularly if Guerena was kneeling when shot.

If these rounds did not fly more or less down a straight hallway and out the back wall of the home, if they had to penetrate intermediate walls in their path, it is a virtual certainty that fully metal jacketed, over-penetrating ammunition was uniformly used. This is particularly so when the hits in the back fence and the wall of the neighbor’s stucco home are considered. Properly frangible ammunition would have been unlikely to penetrate the outer wall of the home, and those few rounds that did would have almost certainly been so fragmented as to have been unable to do more than bounce off the fence or neighboring homes. The holes visible in the video were made by bullets flying straight paths and retaining considerable energy—energy sufficient to seriously injure or kill--even after fully penetrating the Guerena home.

It is unlikely that some of the rounds fired will ever be recovered. Keep in mind that in any police shooting, the police have an obligation to be able to reconstruct precisely who fired each shot, from precisely which position, the flight path of each bullet and its final resting place. They should be able to tell which weapon ejected each piece of expended brass, and where each came to rest in respect to the weapon firing it. Due to the sheer volume of fire alone, this case would be an absolute nightmare for the evidence technicians trying to reconstruct events. In fact, there may be powerful institutional pressure to be inexact.

Also keep in mind that even with SWAT teams (professional teams), officers are issued a basic load of ammunition and every round must be accounted for. Every police officer is directly and absolutely responsible for each and every bullet they fire. After this shooting, every officer’s weapon(s) should have been immediately impounded, every magazine carefully checked and every issued round fired recorded. If this was not done, it would tend to indicate unprofessional conduct at best, and corruption at worst.

FMJ ammunition is commonly used for police training because it is substantially less expensive than hollow point or soft point ammunition. With SWAT teams, which should shoot a great deal more than a normal patrol force, this is a significant issue. However, professional teams understand the characteristics of the ammunition types I’ve outlined here and take great pains to keep their practice and call-out ammunition separate to avoid precisely what the video seems to indicate. Ideally, team leaders issue ammunition and check magazines before final deployment to ensure no mistakes are made. Even so police lore is full of stories of officers who accidently loaded their weapons with practice ammunition, often with comical results, but sometimes with tragic results.

In this case, it’s simply not possible to know, given the information from which I am working, what happened. Were the police unaware of the characteristics of the ammunition they were using? Did they know, but lack proper procedures to avoid mistakes? Virtually everything visible in the original 54-second video suggests a remarkably poorly trained, poorly led, uncoordinated and casual group of officers. If this is indeed the case, it would not be unreasonable to expect that a detail such as the proper kind of ammunition would be likely to escape their notice. SWAT teams are supposed to be very detail-oriented.

I’ve often said, particularly on those occasions when I narrowly escaped injury during my police days, that God protects cops and idiots. That was surely the case here. It is absolutely amazing that Mrs. Guerena and her child and neighbors were not injured or killed. It is equally surprising that the police did not shoot themselves. It would be interesting, by the way, for the local media to confirm that assumption by checking local hospital treatment records for the day of the shooting. While I have no concrete evidence that any officer was injured, I would not be at all surprised.

It is also now known that the SWAT team that raided the Guerena home is comprised of officers from at least four local Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs). As I mentioned in the initial analysis, this can save money, but potentially creates a great number of problems as those officers selected may be selected for reasons other than their tactical abilities. The administrators of many agencies can tend to work at cross-purposes, interfering with, rather than smoothing the path for, their officers. Mrs. Guerena’s attorneys will certainly want to have all of the records of the SWAT team members and their individual and group training. Remember that with four LEOs involved, there are four rather than one sets of deep pockets. This knowledge may affect the quality of the follow-up investigation, which according to Sheriff Dupnik will be done by representatives of the involved agencies. That is never a good procedure or sign.

What should have been visible in a professional operation? Because only a few rounds would have been fired—only if absolutely necessary—and there would have been no misses, the home—and the neighborhood—would show not the slightest external evidence that police gunfire occurred.

Many people—including those hapless officers--are lucky to be alive today. Hopefully, they realize that.

Goin' Up Around the Bend

It's dead simple.

Anthony Weiner took a dick pic and wanted to send it to a young woman who is not his wife. Instead of hitting "D" (to direct and privately message) the young lady, he hit "@," posting his pecker to the world, or at least the 40,000 or so people that were following the congressman at the time.

He realized his mistake and erased it quickly, but not quickly enough. He was caught, literally, with his pants down. From there, it has only gotten worse as the arrogant New Yorker has fanned the flames of scandal in one of the most disastrous political damage control campaigns in recent memory.

It has now gotten so bad that Weiner has even been forced to admit that there are other pictures of his package.

"I have photographs. I don't know what photographs are out there in the world of me," he said in one cable news interview, asked whether he'd ever snapped a photo like that of himself.

In another interview, Weiner acknowledged "it could be" the case that one of his private photos spilled onto the Internet.

Taking his own words at face value, the only rational conclusion is that Weiner did exactly what he is accused of doing.

And then there is something called a "Stranded Wind," which has created increasing more elaborate and fanciful conspiracy theories in an attempt to scapegoat conservatives for Weiner's transgressions.

Stranded Wind's latest claim is that Andrew Brietbart is behind a nafarious scheme to frame Weiner in order to protect Supreme Court Justice from (left-wing) allegations of tax evasion for not complying with disclosure requirements on financial forms. Like significant players in Obama's cabinet, Thomas made amends when the discrepancy was pointed out. I'd note that this even less than it appears to be, Thomas merely failed to disclose his wife's source of income, he wasn't a tax cheat like, say, the Treasury Secretary.

So how does a picture of a New York Congressman's erect member keep Clarence and Ginny Thomas out of jail for "corruption" in Stranded Wind's fantasy?

It's like this:

1. Breitbart frames Weiner with dick pic
2. ?
3. Thomas doesn't face charges for his non-crime

If you think it sounds familiar, well, it does.

Stranded Wind apparently thinks that Andrew Breitbart is MacGyver enough to use Weiner's wiener to pick Thomas' cell lock even though, uh, Thomas isn't under investigation—or even the suspicion of wrong-doing—outside the wild and loopy world of Stranded Wind's fantasy land, where Karl Rove was frog-marched to jail and George Bush was executed for war crimes.

There is crazy, and there is weapons-grade crazy. All I can say about Stranded Wind is that national security demands that we make sure the Iranians don't put this Kossack in a centrifuge.

5 Dead, 1 Injured in Yuma Shooting

Scattered reports are coming in, and it looks now like a shooter has killed at least 4people and seriously injured another before taking his or her own life in a series of shootings in and around Yuma, AZ.

The shootings took place at 3 or more locations, which would seem to indicate a methodical elimination of specific individuals and not a random spree-type killing. One of those killed was a divorce attorney, though there is no word about who the other victims are at this time.

More updates as this develops.

A Holmes Twist for Weiner

And by Holmes, I mean Sherlock.

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

This is one of the most recognized quotes attributed to the fictional detective, but perhaps we need to go one better as we look at the continual, improbable, and ever more conspiratorial fantasy excuses that progressive bloggers are offering up to explain how a picture of a man's package was sent from New York Democrat Rep. Anothony Weiner Twitter account to a comely co-ed when his wife wasn't around.

The old saying that "truth is stranger than fiction" is indeed true often enough to make it a maxim, but the fact remains that reality is far more often boring and rote. Those events that break from the tedium of normalcy are sadly more likely the result of stupidity than brilliance, and Weiner's scandal is no different.

While it isn't appropriate for Holmes' fictional character, a real detective in this world is more likely to agree with the following.

"When you have eliminated the improbable, whatever remains, however straightforward and anticlimactic, must be the truth."

By far, the mostly likely scenario is precisely what appears to have occurred: Anthony Weiner tried to direct message (DM) a picture of his "package" to a co-ed, but mistakenly posted it to the public-facing side Twitter of instead.

That's it.

No grand conspiracy. No technological wizardry. Just a horny Congressman with loose morals and bad judgement.

Weiner is trying to save his marriage and his Congressional seat, so he has every reason to lie. Progressive bloggers want to protect one of their champions, and they have every reason to muddy the waters and offer a string of ever-more-fanciful excuses to try to get him off the hook.

But the most likely truth is simple.

Weiner did it.

Quick Takes, June 02, 2011

ITEM: Don’t These Guys Have Copy Editors? Department: An AP headline (here): “French Minister Probed on Sex Allegations Resigns.” Well no wonder he resigned if they did THAT to him!

ITEM: Is This Cool Or What?! Department: A team at the University of Maryland recently succeeded in actually flying a human powered helicopter for ten seconds. So what? The pilot was a woman: Judy Wexler, a biology graduate student. Go here for the story and video. You’ll see why Judy could pull it off. You go, girl!

ITEM: Is it possible that conjoined twins could actually share not only certain brain structures, but a mind as well. Can they feel each other’s sensations? Know each other’s thoughts? Research on Krista and Tatiana Hogan raises those—and more--fascinating possibilities. Do read this story (here).

ITEM: Well, it’s official; the Senate voted 97-0 against Barack Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget. Not a single Democrat supported it. But on the other hand, not a single Democrat has actually proposed a budget either, proving conclusively that something is not better than nothing, particularly when it’s dreamed up by Mr. Obama. Visit The Hill (here) for the entire mess.

ITEM: AG Eric Holder continues to investigate CIA personnel, who, acting on the specific advise of the Department of Justice, protected American lives during the Bush Administration. John Hindearaker at PowerLine (here) suggests that the only reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Obama is at war with America’s intelligence community. I agree. See if you do.

ITEM: Even while pretending to support full energy development, including nuclear power, Mr. Obama’s actions reveal him to be at war with American energy producers and workers. John Hinderaker provides revealing video here. Once again, I agree. You?

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Illinois Division: Does anyone remember Rod Blagojevich? You remember? Former, disgraced governor of Illinois, currently on trial for corruption? I didn’t think so. He’s been very much out of sight and out of mind, likely because his trial could be very, very embarrassing to Mr. Obama who ran in the same circles and used at least some of the same money men, such as Tony Rezko, who, strangely, has not been put on the stand by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Visit Newsalert (here) which surmises that this state of affairs is an attempt by Mr. Fitzpatrick to protect Mr. Obama and various Chicago cronies. I’m shocked, shocked! to even contemplate such a thing. How could this be true, in Chicago, of all places?!

ITEM: One of the Obama Administrations tactics in delaying and denying oil exploration and drilling has been hysteria about alleged danger to groundwater by the hydraulic “fraccing” process, which makes recovering previously unobtainable oil economical and safe. Visit Hot Air (here) for one of those “oops!” moments when Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator admits under Congressional questioning that there is no evidence whatever to indicate any such groundwater contamination through fraccing. Well, at least Mr. Obama has put science back in its proper place: to be used in furthering environmentalist hyperbole and the destruction of the American economy.

PS: There is some debate among grammarians on precisely how to spell “fraccing.” As “frack” has entered the popular lexicon as a euphemism for the shorter slang version of “fornicate,” I’ll stick with “frac” and “fraccing.”

Bonus: One of the fastest ways to end any conversation is to suddenly and excitedly observe “You know, what you just said has fascinating grammatical possibilities!”

ITEM: He’s Out! Leftist Berkely law professor Goodwin Liu, nominated by President Obama for a position on the most leftist appeals court in the nation, the 9th Circuit, recently saw his nomination fail in the Senate. Liu has now formally withdrawn. Despite having none of the qualifications the American Bar Association requires, such as experience as a judge or having actually practiced law—Liu has done neither—he received its highest rating. This is a small, but decisive victory for the rule of law and the Constitution. See Fox News (here) for the story.

ITEM: So That’s The Problem! House Assistant Democratic leader James Clyburn, who happens to be black, on Mr. Obama’s problems:

“And I can tell you; people don’t like to deal with it, but the fact of the matter is, the president’s problems are in large measure because of the color of his skin…”

Uh, sorry Rep. Clyburn, but the problem is that many people consider him to be an incompetent Marxist. The overwhelming majority of Americans are proud that a black man could be elected president. They want their presidents, of any color and gender, to be successful, to be someone they and their children can respect. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama, by race-baiting, narcissism, arrogance, refusal to listen to the people and sheer lack of ability and insight has manufactured his own problems. Go here for the whole story.

ITEM: Well, At Least He’s Consistent! Barack Obama, the President who has made something of a career of insulting the British, fresh from his latest diplomatic debacle of badly botching a toast to the Queen, has once again behaved like, well, like himself. Rather than attend a Royal Society banquet in his honor where England’s most eminent scientists planned to honor him with a prestigious medal, Mr. Obama, the man who swore he would restore science to its rightful place in government—by, for instance, changing scientist’s views 180° to support his anti-oil policies in the gulf of Mexico—couldn’t be bothered. Go here for the story of our continuing “special relationship” with the British. One can’t help be suspect that Mr. Obama has a rather different definition of “special” than the British, or any of our other allies, for that matter.

ITEM: Snit Fits To Remember: I can just imagine the snit fit AG Eric Holder is having today. The US Supreme Court (story here) affirmed Arizona’s law that imposes sanctions on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. While this decision does not have a direct bearing on the ongoing suit brought against Arizona by the DOJ, it does suggest that the Supreme Court recognizes that immigration enforcement is not the exclusive province of the Federal Government. Take a stress pill Mr. Holder. Perhaps a change of career would be more relaxing?

ITEM: Female SEALS? It seems that in the aftermath of the takedown of Osama Bin Laden, some feminists believe that the Navy is discriminating against women because there are no female SEALs, except Demi Moore, of course, but I’m still harboring a vague suspicion that was only a movie and not a documentary. It’s so hard to tell these days. Visit the always interesting Heather McDonald at City Journal (here) for a story of Yale women who cannot be successful in college because some college boys were behaving, like, well, like college boys. McDonald suggests that this kind of whining hypersensitivity demonstrates that women—particularly of the feminist bent—may not, in fact, have the psychological wherewithal to function as SEALs. Indeed.

ITEM: Cass Sunstein to the Rescue! Sounds like a Jewish cowboy hero from the 50s, doesn’t it? Not quite. Sunstein is a leftist academic attorney who accepted a position as the czar of the “Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.” The brilliant Mark Steyn (here) exposes Sunstein and government regulatory excess generally. It has to do with the fact that the federal government has classified spilled cow’s milk as oil to be treated as any petroleum spill. I’m not kidding. Read the whole article. Git along little doggies!

ITEM: How much does the average family spend on gasoline per month? Last month it was $369, compared with $201 in April, 2009. And gentle readers it’s not Mr. Obama’s fault and he can’t do anything about it, but he really, really supports drilling and exploration and nuclear power. Really. He said so. Go here for more discouraging details. Question: Why haven’t Americans already run every Washington Democrat and environmental weenie out of DC? How high will gas prices have to rise to get a rise out of them? $5.00? $10.00? Discuss.

ITEM: Uh, Doesn’t That Actually Mean “illegal?” Go to Michelle Malkin (here) where Doug Powers comments on a recent talk by DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Wasserman Schultz is apparently upset that those nasty Republicans actually want to enforce federal immigration laws, you know, the kind that apply to “undocumented immigrants?”

ITEM: Basic Economics 101: Let’s review, gentle readers. If you make $5000 per month, and spend $100,000 per month, you are in…? Economic deep doo-doo! That’s right! Good job! Would it be a surprise that you would be in economic trouble now and well into the future? According to Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner (here) this sort of utterly predictable consequence of lunatic spending and destructive economic policies is a continual source of amazement to Mr. Obama’s base, the Lamestream Media. Do read the article for a glimpse into campaign 2012 where Mr. Obama’s base will leave no ethical wall standing in an attempt to ensure his reelection.

ITEM: Remember when GM announced that it had paid off its government loans? Remember that it turned out that GM actually used money from a government line of credit—another loan-- to “pay off” the first loan? Remember how you realized that GM was engaging in what is commonly called “lying” because they did not actually reduce their debt to the taxpayers at all? Well, now it’s Chrysler’s turn. Hot Air (here) sums up their loan pay-off shenanigans:

“So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company [Fiat, Chrysler’s partner] $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company [Chrysler] that is currently only worth $5 billion.”

Read the whole thing—if you have the stomach for it.

ITEM: Payback Comes in Unexpected Ways: Remember that shortly after becoming President, Mr. Obama reneged on our agreement to provide an anti-missile shield that would have protected Poland, among other Eastern European nations. Remember that he pulled the rug out from under the Poles on the anniversary of the very day that the Poles were invaded and conquered by the Russians? Unsurprisingly, the Poles were not impressed and inexplicably came to feel that America under Obama would be, at best, an unreliable ally. Enter Lech Walesa (here), Nobel Prize winner and George Washington-like figure in Polish history, who given the opportunity to meet with Mr. Obama, declined, noting that he really didn’t want to be used as a prop in a photo op. That’s statesmanship and common sense. Such are the results of alienating your allies while trying to appease your enemies. Desperately trying to be liked should be reserved for adolescents. It has no place in a dangerous world. Be sure you visit Chris Muir’s excellent Day By Day cartoon on this issue (here).

ITEM: Via Fox News (here) Mr. Obama has announced his new pick to lead the Commerce Department: John Bryson, former CEO of Edison International, which is billed as “a California-based energy company.” Bryson co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council and “served on a United Nations advisory group on energy and climate change.” Uh, right. Correct me if I’m missing something, but isn’t promoting climate change—on behalf of the UN, for Pete’s sake!-- and co-founding a rabid environmental group pretty much diametrically opposed to promoting commerce in every way? Would we expect anything else from Mr. Obama? The more we hope for change, the more things stay the same.

ITEM: Continuing News From The Religion of Peace: Iranian Ayatollah Mohammed Taghi Mesbah has issued a Fatwa—religious edict—authorizing the killing of enemies of Islam, particularly Israelis of all ages. Go here for the peaceful, diverse and tolerant story.

ITEM: Even More News From The Religion of Peace: An Egyptian General has admitted (here) that during recent democracy demonstrations in Egypt, women were beaten, tortured and subjected to “virginity tests,” ostensibly so that they couldn’t claim they were raped. Apparently worried about claims of beatings and torture weren’t considered as important. Remember, gentle readers, these, and people like them, are reflexively supported by our current President and his administration.

ITEM: More News From the Religion of Peace. It is difficult for Americans to realize that in Islam, there is no separation of Church and State. Many Muslims, regardless of where they live, identify, first last and always, as Muslims. They may or may not claim any national identity, but even if they do, it will be at best a distant second to their status as a Muslim. For such people, there is no such thing as secular law or religious tolerance. An example is the tragic tale of Katya Koren, a 19 year old Muslim living in the Ukraine who dared to enter a beauty contest. It cost her life; she was stoned to death. Go here to read the entire story.

ITEM: Wisconsin’s Long, National Nightmare Is Finally Over…whoops! I was thinking about Nixon. Periodic flashbacks, you know. “I am not a crook!” Horrifying! Sorry. What has actually happened is that JoAnn Kloppenburg has finally conceded the Wisconsin Supreme Court election to Incumbent Justice David Prosser. After the recount netted her only an additional 300 votes, still leaving Prosser with a margin of more than 7000 votes, Kloppenberg still had the option of filing an additional legal challenge, but finally bowed out. Presumably, a slam- dunk Wisconsin Supreme Court decision against Governor Walker’s union reforms is no longer in the cards, but the union war continues (here).

ITEM: Could the Dems who run California actually do anything fiscally responsible? Well, sort of. Maybe. At Hot Air (here) we learn that CA authorities petitioned the Obama Department of transportation for some flexibility in the way that they implement a HS rail project beloved by the Obamites. Is anyone surprised that the answer was not only no, but hell no? It seems that the CA Dems might actually be realizing that the project might stick them with untold billions in continuing debt into eternity. Hmm. Does this mean they might actually do something affirmative to avoid running off the the bankruptcy cliff? I doubt it, but…Discuss.

ITEM: Nominations For the Most Ironic Use of The Suffix “Gate” for 2011 Are Officially Closed! WEINERGATE, WEINERGATE, WEINERGATE! Go here for the latest. You know, some bloggers would use this prominent scandal to get a cheap rise out of their readers. Yes, they’d whip a flaccid story into something of real prominence, filled with turgid, throbbing prose and gratuitous references to flag poles, obelisks and sausages. And that’s not the wurst, no! Some bloggers, bulging with self-righteousness, would erect virtual Washington Monuments to the rigid symbolism inherent in this flagging tale, or, the other side, as it may be. They’d mix metaphors and throw their organs into the ring before the fat lady sings and breaks the camel’s back. But not here at CY, no sir! Still, I can’t seem to get the Oscar Meyer Wiener Song out of my mind…

And on that spine and other part-stiffening note, I must, once again, thank you for stopping by and urge you, yet again, to visit us next Thursday for another edition of Quick Takes, where we leave no wiener unsung!

Weiner Claims "System was Hacked" Which Makes FBI Investigation Imperative

Let's just play this through.

The Congressman asserts, "My system was hacked. Pictures can be manipulated. Pictures can be dropped in and inserted."

So he wants to now change his story for the third time (from twitter account hack, to "prank," to "system hack"), implying that someone was able to take control of his personal computer, scrape data from the hard drive, and then use that high level of access and control of his system to post Weiner's wiener on Twitter at roughly the same time the Congressman was, shockingly, online and using twitter.

We are now asked to believe that Weiner's PC was compromised, but that since it was his personal computer and not his government computer, cyber-crimes units of the federal government should not be brought in to investigate.

I beg to differ.

Federal computer systems or private, Congresspersons are privy to classified information, information that can mean millions of dollars in the event of industrial or commercial espionage, or the lives of our soldiers and citizens if the information compromised involves infrastructure or military secrets.

Further, it is reasonable to believe that if his private system was indeed hacked as he asserts, then the information on that computer could provide evidence of who hacked it, information that federal cyber-crimes units must have to catch the hacker or hacker responsible before they penetrate more sensitive systems.

After all, an embarrassing wiener picture stolen today could be nuclear secrets stolen tomorrow.

New York Congressional Representative Anthony Weiner simply has every obligation to turn his computer over to the FBI for investigation. It is simply a matter of national security.

Either that, or a lying crap-weasel meant to DM one of his little tarts with a tawdry photo, but because of his innate stupidity, posted it for all the world to see instead.

Yeah... Like you, I think the FBI should investigate, just to be sure.

Pareene Furious with Drudge for Exposing "The Wrecked Society""

Alex Pareene is wetting himself because—he claims—Matt Drudge is trying to incite a race war by reporting crimes that actually occurred:

It all came to a head, as John Cook noted, this Memorial Day weekend when Drudge posted 10 separate headlines -- including the massive, above-the-logo one -- related to violent incidents involving "urban" people at venues like "Black Bike Week" in Miami and "Rib Fest" in Rochester, N.Y. There was an "Urban Melee in Charlotte," for example. Do you know what makes an "urban melee" different from a regular "melee"? It's not that it takes place within the city limits of a major metropolitan area. It's that it involves the world's most obvious code term for "scary black people."

Drudge does not collect and attempt to tie together disparate, unrelated stories of crimes committed by drunk, rowdy white kids. And for the record, drunk, rowdy white kids commit a lot of crimes, in a lot of places!

Drudge exists because he posts sensational headlines, like every other infotainment site on the Internet... including Salon and Gawker.

What pisses Pareene off is the massive influence Drudge has in pushing his infotainment and his views, while Pareene's are viewed on a much lower scale.

Pareene is a far left liberal that would like to embrace the childish fiction that all races and cultures are essentially the same. It's a wonderful view to have when you're ten.

While individuals within these cultures can be anyone and achieve anything, it is a statistical fact that African-Americans are disproportionately responsible for crimes in this nation compared to any other ethnic group. They are also more likely to commit some of the more sensational crimes, such as the near riots and wildings that are the prime headline fodder that are Drudge's bread and butter.

If Pareene really wanted to make an impact, he'd spend his time and resources trying to find the reason for the statistical discrepancy that shows African-Americans are more prone to be criminals and victims of violent crime.

Of course, he already knows the reason. It started with LBJ's "Great Society," and continued with the rise of Planned Parenthood and the destruction of the African-American family unit due to "progressive" social reforms.

Pareene has no interest in helping African-Americans.

He just doesn't want Drudge's exposure of the "Wrecked Society" dismantling what his progressive ideology has created in 50 years of incompetence, corruption, eugenics, and greed.

Weiner Lovers are Insane

New york Democratic rep. Anthony Weiner could have easily stopped the burgeoning "Weinergate" scandal in its tracks with a simple statement:

"I did not send that tweet. It is not a picture of me. Law enforcement has been notified and we will prosecute the person who sent this photo to the fullest extent of the law."

But as we all know, Wiener had the opportunity to say those things and instead imploded. He refused no less than four direct appeals by the media to deny that the erect member in the photo belonged to the belligerent member of Congress. Instead he evaded, hemmed and hawed, looking all the more guilty with each and every second.

Miraculously, there are still hardcore progressive zealots on the interwebs still insisting that Weiner is absolutely innocent, and that conservative firebrand Andrew Breitbart is somehow to blame.

Really, folks?

We've referred to the far left as the "community-based reality" (a play on their claim to be a "reality-based community") for a long time because of their penchant for concocting and then following conspiracy theories with religious fanaticism. Their contortions to blame right wing "hackers" for Weiner's unseemly tweet and spiraling collapse of evasions and non-denials, however, really drives home the fact that some are simply insane.