Quick Takes, September 01, 2011

ITEM: I'm All For "Normalizing" Women's Breasts! Just show me how you do that, and I'll lend a hand—or two (cue Groucho eyebrows and mustache)! Sadly, like Lori Giganto at Pajamas Media, I'm not convinced that people consider breasts anything but normal—and pretty darned neat. Oh well. Check out the story anyway; there are links and pictures of, well, normal and pretty darned neat stuff, including a link to an organization called "gotopless.com." whose motto seems to be "FREE YOUR BREASTS." "FREE YOUR MIND." Well hey, as long as it's for freedom! Mom and apple pie, I'm not so sure about.

ITEM: Duty, Honor, Country. Go here for an uplifting and immensely sad video that clearly explains why dogs are known as "man's best friend." If this one doesn't make your heart swell with patriotic pride, you're an Obama supporter. If it doesn't make you want to hug your dog, you don't have a heart.

ITEM: The Future Of Unionism: Over the years, I've been occasionally ambivalent about George Will, but he certainly redeems himself (I'm sure that redeeming himself in my eyes is his number one priority) with this article on the self-degradation of Wisconsin unions. One can only hope that the Wisconsin trend will continue throughout the nation. More and more, Americans are realizing that we can't afford liberalism and never could. Recommended reading.

ITEM: And Ann Coulter Wants This Guy To Run for President? Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, has some real problems. Among them, he's far too squishy on the Second Amendment, and now, has imposed a one-year moratorium on fracking in NJ. Some might consider this a not unreasonable and perhaps necessary political maneuver in a blatantly leftist state, but it is, nonetheless, another little bit of worrisome. Go here for the story.

ITEM: Irony Overdose of The Day, but boy, does it feel good! Professional golfer Paul Azinger beautifully takes Mr. Obama to task, not only on golfing, but on job creation. This sort of zinger doesn't come along every day, gentle readers. Check it out here.

ITEM: And This Guy Is A Republican?! Big Brother in the Big Apple. It seems that lunatic anti-gun Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now planning to put traffic cameras at every NYC intersection. Has he ever seen NYC traffic? Such devices are about revenue, and actually make intersections more dangerous, which in NYC would be an accomplishment akin to Mr. Obama making the French look muscular and manly by comparison—which he did in Libya. Go here.

ITEM: Even The UN Is Afraid Of Chuck Norris! Rightfully so. At Politico, Norris takes the UN to task (here) for their latest stealth gun control scheme, ready to be served up to Mr. Obama just in time for the 2012 election. The Tatler's take on the issue is here.

ITEM: The Evils of Deficit Spending. You absolutely have to see this one, gentle readers. At least George W. Bush had to fight several wars and deal with the economic fallout of 9-11. What's Mr. Obama's excuse? See what The One has to say about it. Deliciously ironic. If the Republicans don't use this to horrific effect for 2012, the idiots deserve to lose (we don't). Discuss.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award of The Millennia: Mr. Obama is a Socialist? I'm shocked, shocked! For those not familiar with Stanley Kurtz's book on Mr. Obama's socialist upbringing, connections and orthodoxy, this Powerline link provides substantial illumination. It's definitely worth your time for the embedded video alone. The "Meeting Young Obama" link is also very revealing. You'll find yourself thinking, "well, that explains a lot."

ITEM: Sub-College English 101. Jack Cashill, for those who don't know him, is a prolific and wide-ranging author who has deconstructed Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father and has concluded that he did not write it as he has claimed. Rather, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers wrote the book. Cashill's definitive video summarizing the evidence in his book on the subject can be found here.

However the subject of this item is something nearly as rare as the Higgs Boson: A letter Barack Obama wrote, while President of the Harvard Law Review, on a matter of law. Cashill concludes that Mr. Obama's writing is far below the standard of that in the book he claims to have written. As a teacher of English, it is, at best, sub-college freshman level writing, to say nothing of the reasoning—such as it is. Go here for the article and a link to the letter itself.

ITEM: ObamaCare Mandates WHAT?! Among the many things we're now finding out is in ObamaCare now that it has been passed is that women will get free birth control, and also, breast pumps. Penny Young Nance, CEO of Concerned Women For America, thinks that a bit--inflated. She has a point (perhaps even two—heh-heh—I'm soooo ashamed of myself)—here.

ITEM: Who'da Thunk It? According to those infamous climate change denying racists at CERN, anthropogenic global warming is not all it's crackpotted up to be. What's CERN? The home of the Large Hadron Collider, the most important high-energy physical lab in the world where one or two smart folks are known to hang out from time to time. Having done real—as opposed to Al Goreish—science, they've discovered that the dominant factors influencing Earth's climate are the Sun and cosmic rays. Who could have imagined that it is the most powerful energy source in our solar system, combined with one of the most powerful energy sources in the known universe, that affects our climate? Sort of explains the Medieval Warm Period, doesn't it? If this be racism, sign me up. Go here to decide whether you want your climate racist badge and secret climate racist decoder ring.

ITEM: Firm, Unchangeable Convictions Department: Having had their collective nether regions repeatedly and soundly kicked and having shot themselves in both feet, Wisconsin Union dysfunctionaries continue to kick themselves in the private parts by vandalizing a Catholic school and via the latest: trying to ban Republicans from a Labor Day parade. The ban was hastily lifted, however, when the Mayor of Wausau made it clear that if Republicans were excluded, the Labor Council would be footing the entire bill for the parade. So much for worker solidarity. Power to the people, right off! Go here for the brave, socialist worker story.

ITEM: Our Brave, Green Future: Mr. Obama gave more than a half billion dollars in loan guarantees from the "Stimulus" to a solar technology company known as Solyndra based in Fremont, CA. At an appearance at Solyndra in May of 2010, Mr. Obama praised the company as the future of green jobs. Yeah. Not so much. The company has now gone, quite abruptly, bankrupt, no doubt in the most environmentally sensitive way. No solar goodies, no green jobs, more than half a billion of taxpayer money down the green commode. Go here to read about the real future of green jobs.

ITEM: Melson Awaaaaay! And the wheels on the Obama bus go kerthumpity thump! Acting ATF director Kenneth Melson is being reassigned to what sounds like a job without actual work or responsibilities. The lovely, charming, and charmingly lovely Michelle Malkin has the story here. As regular readers know, Bob has done most of the heavy lifting on the Gunwalker story, and has added several great posts to the CY site over the last few days. Be sure to scroll down and read them as well.

ITEM: Not Exactly Grizzly Adams. A grizzly bear and her cubs lumber into your backyard and menace your wife and children. So you, sensitive metrosexual that you are, reason with the bear and appeal to its environmental sensitivity and natural respect for inter-species diversity. The bear eats you and your entire family. Messily.

Pity poor Jeremy Hill of Idaho who, when faced with the same situation, decided not to be eaten, shot the bear, and foolishly behaving as a law-abiding citizen, called the authorities. Local authorities declined to charge him. The feds—surprise, surprise, are throwing the book at him. Anyone surprised? Go here, but take your blood pressure meds first.

ITEM: Mr. Obama Is All For Creating Jobs, Honest! Except for the fact that his Administration is promulgating thousands of regulations that will destroy far, far more jobs than any lame job creation idea he can possibly propose, he's a regular job-creatin' machine, that Obama. Go here to National Review Online where Andrew Stiles explicates the problem. Secure breakable items first.

ITEM: That Dumb Rick Perry Never Flew Jets! The Beldar Blog (here) does something liberals rarely do: correct a mistake. Apparently some have been suggesting that because Perry primarily flew the C-130—a four-engined turboprop—he never flew jets. Not so. AF pilots fly the T-38 (and other jet aircraft) as part of their training and as part of getting in required flight hours throughout their careers. It's an interesting story and look at USAF culture.

ITEM: Gibson Rocks On! If you haven't read my piece on the Feds' raid on Gibson, by all means, scroll down a bit. Bryan Preston, at the Tattler, reinforces the idea that the raid was politically motivated. No! Mr. Obama would surely never do anything like that! Not a graduate of the Chicago Political Machine? Yes he would, and don't call me Shirley.

ITEM: Gunwalker Reassignments: Why are all of those federal bureaucrats involved in Gunwalker being reassigned? The Washington Examiner suggests some reasons here.

ITEM: So If We Have Sex With Women, They'll Fall In Love With Us? Well, sort of. Go here to The Frisky (gad, I love that for the name of a website, but I could never pull that one off) for the low down on post-orgasm attraction and temporary insanity.

And while we're still contemplating the infinite ramifications of the last item, I must sincerely thank you for stopping by, and once again encourage you to drop in once again next Thursday for another edition of Quick Takes!

Fast and Furious "Botched?" Hardly.

Botched Probe Into Gun Smuggling Leads to Justice Dept. Shakeup
--FairWarning

ATF Chief Reassigned in Wake of Botched "Gunwalking" Operation
--International Business Times

US agents botch big "sting" operation in Mexico
--The Voice of Russia

These are just a handful of news articles in the past 24 hours after Ken Melson's banishment to the Department of Justice that insist upon calling the Gunwalker scandal a "botched" operation.

Botched? In what way was Operation Fast and Furious botched?

It was designed from the outset to provide federal law enforcement security to straw purchasers of firearms, assuring that neither the purchasers nor the smugglers stood any chance of being arrested by federal, state, or local authorities. What they offered for the entire life of the operation was protection to criminals.

There was never a mechanism to arrest the alleged targets of the operation, which were in Mexico and out of our jurisdiction. The Operation kept Mexican authorities and even their own agents in Mexico purposefully in the dark, trying to make certain that the Mexican police were totally unaware that American law enforcement was facilitating the smuggling of weapons into Mexico that were then used to kill Mexican and U.S. nationals, including police officers and soldiers.

Fast and Furious was only "botched" in that the scheme to arm the Sinaloa cartel by our DOJ, DHS, and White House was eventually ratted out by one of the participants when the plot led to the death of a fellow federal agent.

Fast and Furious did precisely what Obama wanted it to, which was to put American guns in the hands of Mexican criminals in order to justify more gun control in the United States, like the long gun reporting rule celebrated in the ATF.

This was a criminal conspiracy. The only thing that was botched was the cover-up.

C-A-R-S-O-N is Just Another Way of Spelling R-A-C-I-S-T

The Congressional Black Caucus has beclowned itself yet again with ignorant, inflammatory and race-baiting rhetoric with comments like thse.

A top lawmaker in the Congressional Black Caucus says tea partiers on Capitol Hill would like to see African-Americans hanging from trees and accuses the movement of wishing for a return to the Jim Crow era.

Rep. Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana who serves as the CBC's chief vote counter, said at a CBC event in Miami that some in Congress would "love to see us as second-class citizens" and "some of them in Congress right now of this tea party movement would love to see you and me ... hanging on a tree."
Carson also said the tea party is stopping change in Congress, likening it to "the effort that we're seeing of Jim Crow."

Carson's comments—which he refuses to retract—are some of the most vile and volatile levied by members of the CBC as they travel on a national tour that seems to have the express intentions of fanning racial discord so that black voters react emotionally, instead of intellectually.

The caucus is attempting to drive in a psychological wedge and isolate African-Americans from the larger American community, and assert control over their votes by defining acceptable behavior.

According to the Congressional Black Caucus, it isn't acceptable to embrace values that champion small government, or lower rates of taxation, or spur innovation, or take concrete steps that actually create jobs, and it certainly isn't acceptable to think rationally about which political group serves the individual interests of your family and its circumstances.

Instead, the CBC wants each and every African-American beholden to them, and what they deem is acceptable. Who died and made them Massa?

The CBC wants blacks beholden to big government, robbed of the respect and the self-satisfaction that comes from being the master of your own destiny.

Let us state clearly, in no uncertain terms, that Andre Carson and his ilk support nothing less than the mental chaining of African American minds to the Democratic Party.

It is a shameful display of naked bigotry by small-minded zealots that are trying to bully an entire race into voting in a monolithic block so that this handful of bomb-throwers can personally benefit from the polarization and strife they insist on creating.

If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, and he really meant what he said about wanting all Americans judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, he would be appalled at these bigots in the CBC that claim the right to decide what all African-Americans should think and feel.

They are building a prison for those they should be uplifting, and that is anything but leadership.

MIKE ADDS: Q: What do Tea Party activists say when they meet a black person? A: Hello. What is conspicuously missing from Rep. Carson's narrative is anything resembling actual evidence of his projection of racist hatred on unspecified Tea Party supporters. However, evidence to the contrary, in the form of actual black people, can be seen at any and every Tea Party event throughout America. Rep. Carson is counting on two things: The media will slavishly report whatever he says while asking no questions about his complete lack of supporting evidence, and because the Tea Party is a loose federation of Americans of all political parties and walks of life who want smaller government and reduced spending, no unified Tea Party resistance will be raised against his irresponsible and race-baiting rhetoric.

Readers may remember that it was Rep. Carson, who with several other prominent members of the CBC, staged a stroll through a Tea Party gathering accompanied by a legion of video cameras on March 20, 2010. Obviously, they hoped that someone would say or do something they could turn to their political advantage, and when no one did, they did as Rep. Carson has now done: they made it up. Carson and the others claimed that they were pelted with racial epithets and even spat upon. The Lamestream media uncritically parroted their fabrications. A Washington Post account even called Carson "a revered figure on both sides of the aisle."

Unfortunately for Carson and his CBC co-fabricators--several of whom quickly went silent--despite multiple witnesses and multiple video cameras with unobstructed camera angles, not a single racial epithet or molecule of saliva was documented. Andrew Brietbart offered a $100,000 reward for video of such abuse of the tragic legislators. It remains unclaimed to this day.

Rep. Alan West (R, FL), a former Army officer, has informed the CBC that unless they repudiate Carson's comments, he will quit the CBC. That is statesmanship of the kind Rep. Carson cannot imagine. If Carson is indeed a revered figure on both sides of the aisle, those so uncritically bestowing reverence on the race-baiting Congressman might want to reconsider, just like Rep. West. Perhaps it is men like Rep. West who deserve a bit of reverence.

On Public Service: Dick Cheney

Not long ago I finished watched Sean Hannity's most recent interview of Vice President Dick Cheney on the occasion of his second autobiographical book In My Time (go here for Amazon ordering information). Mr. Cheney looks quite thin, if not exactly frail, and I learned that he has had a very rough year, including a five week period in an ICU during which time he was on a ventilator and in a medically induced coma for several weeks. He lost 40 pounds and is kept alive by a mechanical heart pump. These devices, in the past, were appropriate only for keeping very sick people alive long enough to receive a heart transplant, but as Mr. Cheney said, the technology is now sufficiently advanced that he is living quite well with its assistance without the immediate need for a transplant. This is remarkable indeed for a man who suffered his first heart attack at the age of 37.

I'll not go into the specifics of the interview, the content of which is very much in line with the contents of his book. Rather, my purpose is to honor a fellow Wyomingite and American who has for more than 40 years served his country with dignity and courage, despite suffering the kinds of health problems—to say nothing of mindlessly vicious attacks by the media—that would have sidelined a lesser man.

It was refreshing indeed to see a man with such a depth of experience, an experience that served him and America very well indeed during one of its darkest chapters. It was also refreshing to see a man whose experience has served to temper and even humble him, a man who chooses his words with care, yet does not hesitate to speak directly to issues of importance. Of course, Dick Cheney earned my eternal respect when he appropriately told the execrable Democrat Patrick Leahy, on June 22, 2004, what he might do with himself, a service provided for the victims of Leahy's leaks not alive to deliver that message in person.

What also impressed is that Mr. Cheney's life is, and always has been, an open book. We know precisely who he is and how he became that man. We know of his upbringing, his high school years in Casper, WY, his college experiences, and all of the details of his public service. This is not a man who has spent millions hiding his transcripts or birth certificate.

Mr. Cheney also takes, without prevarication or evasion, responsibility for his mistakes, even when they are painful, as was his accidental shooting of a friend. Dick Cheney is not the kind of man who blames others. He has always lived in a world where action—correct action and competence—matter and where words have value only in their service to the truth. He is, clearly, a serious man, a man any American should want on their side. We are, in fact, far better off because he was on our side for so long, because he was willing to come when called when it would have been far easier and more personally profitable to do otherwise.

Ultimately, my greatest portion of respect for Mr. Cheney lies in the fact that no rational person could ever doubt his devotion to America. It is there in his eyes and in the reverent tone of his voice as he speaks of his country and the honor of serving it. He surely believes that America is the one indispensable, exceptional nation. He knows that America is mankind's last, best hope. It is impossible to imagine Dick Cheney groveling to foreign dictators, bowing before foreign dignitaries, or in any way denigrating America, domestically, or particularly, abroad. He has never had any difficulty telling the difference between our allies and our enemies, and clearly understands that the only way to deal with the latter is to make them respect and fear America. He is more than capable of calling a war a war, and has no time for moral fecklessness.

I fear that Mr. Cheney will not be with us much longer, but pray that I am wrong. Still, even now, to paraphrase Shakespeare, nature might stand up and say, "this is a man." Even more, Dick Cheney is unmistakably an American. In this fallen world, to what greater title might one aspire than "American?" Mr. Cheney's advice to the disgraceful Leahy to those who imagine otherwise would be quite fitting.

How tragic, even heartbreaking, that those who now lead us cannot hold a candle to such as Cheney, yet foolishly consider themselves his superior.

God Speed Mr. Cheney. Grateful Americans honor your service.

Meet the New Boss...

Melson is out, only to be replaced by B.Todd Jones.

Jones was appointed to chair the Attorney General's Advisory Committee back in August of 2009, and was briefed in Gunwalker.

According to Senator Charles Grassley's June 15, 2011 congressional testimony attachment 4, the chair of AGAC (Jones) was a member of the Southwest Border Strategy Group and attended at least one briefing on Fast and Furious in October 2009.

He appears to be complicit in the coverup, just like Melson.

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

Thanks to CY reader Josh for the tip.

U.S. Attorney that Ran Fast and Furious Abruptly Resigns as other Players are Reassigned

Dennis Burke, a close confidant and former chief of staff for Janet Napolitano, has resigned, effective immediately, just days after testifying in from of the Congressional Oversight committee about his role in Operation Fast and Furious:

Burke's resignation comes days after he testified before a Congressional committee about his office's role in the ATF gun-smuggling operation known as "Fast and Furious" that has become the center of a growing scandal because some of the weapons federal firearms officials were tracking in the operation ended up used in crimes and many others could not be accounted for.

According to Fox News, Burke became physically ill during his testimony and could not continue.

Burke is the same slimeball that blocked Brian Terry's family from being recognized as crime victims in court after Terry was murdered and two Fast and Furious weapons were recovered at the scene of his death.

The only plausible reason Burke would have done that was an attempt to limit his own legal exposure and that of the government as it relates to investigations about Agent Terry's murder.

Burke's sudden resignation occurs on the same day other players in Gunwalker scandal were reassigned:

In Phoenix, Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, who oversaw Fast and Furious on a day-to-day basis, was reassigned from the criminal to civil division. Also in Phoenix, three out of the four whistleblowers involved in the case have been reassigned to new positions outside Arizona. Two are headed to Florida, one to South Carolina.

Hurley's reassignment came after three ATF supervisors responsible for the operation were promoted. William G. McMahon, a former deputy director of operations, took over the Office of Professional Responsibility. Field supervisors William D. Newell and David Voth also moved up despite heavy criticism.
The moves follow a series of reports by Fox News detailing the face-off between Attorney General Eric Holder, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, whose investigators have recently broadened their probe. It now reportedly shows a deeper involvement of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

One has to wonder whether the government's endgame to silence those involved in the scandal is going to be successful because of this sudden flurry of moves, or if it is a desperate attempt to salvage the conspiracy as it is falling apart for the Obama Administration.

I have a gut feeling that Rep. Issa and Senator's Grassley and Cornyn have the executive branch painted into a corner, and for the first time, I'm really starting to wonder if impeachment is on the table.

LEVERAGE: Melson Out at ATF, Moves to Main Justice. The Gunwalker Cover-Up Continues

Acting ATF Director Ken Melson indicated from the start of the Operation Fast and Furious scandal that he had no intention of being the fall guy for Eric Holder's Justice Department. It appears he still retains enough leverage—he knows who authorized Operation Fast and Furious, which the DOJ, DHS, Treasury and White House still refuse to answer—to ensure that he wasn't fired, and was instead just moved closer where his bought silence can be monitored.

Sources say ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson is being moved out of the top job at the Bureau. It's not yet publicly known where he would go, but sources inside the Justice Department believe one option is a transfer to a position at Department of Justice headquarters. The Justice Department had no immediate comment, and did not confirm the move.

Melson's move would be another in a number of high-level personnel shifts, as the Inspector General continues investigating the so-called gunwalker scandal at the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Thousands of weapons were smuggled to the Sinaloa cartel with U.S. government protection provided by the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, elements of other agencies and the probable involvement if not direction of the Obama White House, and not a soul involved has so much as been fired.

The perps have all be transferred to main Justice, where their silence is all but assured.

This is a blatant cover-up of a RICO-investigation worthy crime perpetrated by the highest levels of government, and it is increasingly obvious that the Obama Administration has every intention of getting away with this without any accountability whatsoever, regardless of the number of lives this operation cost.

Update: Emailed statement from Grassley's office:

"Today's announcement is an admission by the Obama administration that serious mistakes were made in Operation Fast and Furious, and is a step in the right direction that they are continuing to limit any further damage that people involved in this disastrous strategy can do.

"There's a lot of blame to go around. As our investigation moves forward, and we get to the bottom of this policy, I wouldn't be surprised to see more fall out beyond the resignations and new assignments announced today.

"The Justice Department and the ATF have yet to answer a majority of the questions and still must produce many of the documents Congressman Issa and I have asked for. We're looking for a full accounting from the Justice Department as to who knew what and when, so we can be sure that this ill-advised strategy never happens again."

I'd summarize that as "nice try, Barack, but this isn't over yet."

Hey Manmade Global Warming Cultists!

You're still gullible idiots.

That is all.

It's Turned To "11"! Run! BUMPED AND UPDATED

BUMPED AND UPDATED:

While it is certainly reasonable and rational to be outraged at the Obama Administration's recent raid on the Gibson Guitar Company...What? The Gibson Guitar Company?! You haven't heard about that one? Les Paul is surely spinning in his grave.

This week the Feds raided Gibson, seizing what they claim are woods prohibited by various environmental regulations from importation and use. The most bizarre aspect of their raids seems to be that Gibson is not actually, you know, violating any American laws nor are the Feds enforcing any American laws. The Feds now seem to be enforcing Indian--as in the nation, not domestic indian--laws.

One of the truly good and Obamaesque parts of the whole sordid affair is that federal agents at our borders have for some time been seizing guitars if they suspect that portions of them were made--even decades ago--with wood that might, under some obscure treaty or foreign law somewhere, be somehow currently illegal, even if the owner could have had no possible way to know that. Apparently the feds intend to continue this practice as well. Guilty until you prove yourself innocent; it's the Obama way!

All I can say is thank goodness Mr. Obama is now focused on doing away with a handful of unnecessary, idiotic and nationally suicidal regulations--while simultaneously implementing literally thousands of unnecessary, idiotic and nationally suicidal regulations each and every year. And thank goodness someone is now dealing with the horrific societal effects of a bit of imported ebony or other semi-exotic woods, whether it's actually illegal or not. No doubt Gibson is responsible for most of Global Warming. Notify Al Gore!

Wait a minute! I'll bet this is just a part of Mr. Obama's never-ending campaign to save or create jobs! I wonder how much a federal guitar raider makes a year? Do they have groupies? Could be a pretty cool gig!

The best way to attack such totalitarian lunacy is through humor, and the invaluable Ironhawk has done just that to magnificant effect. Go here for the musical mayhem. Who knew this whole mess was related to Gunwalker?

With Barack Obama, we really do have to pick and choose our daily outrages. There are just so many. Rick Perry's promise to make Washington DC as inconsequential in our daily lives as possible is sounding more and more like the new "don't tread on me" every day.

UPDATE: 093011

From Tina Korbe at Hot Air comes proof that some people are beyond parody and irony. It now seems that a prominent member of the Obama Administration is also likely guilty of trafficking in precisely the kinds of woods and instruments crack federal guitar agents seized from Gibson. The environmentally insensitive, anti-globalist, fascist rare wood and forest hooligan is none other than---wait for it---Michelle Obama! That's right! It's the ten million dollar woman and First Lady of the United States. Check your dictionaries students, because when you look under "irony" and "hypocrisy" you'll find her smiling visage.

In 2009 Mrs. Obama gave French First Lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy a shiny new
Gibson (there's the irony) Hummingbird guitar featuring an Indian Rosewood fretboard, which is one of the types of wood seized by the ever vigilant federal coherent fiber agents (that's the hypocrisy). The Hummingbird, long a feature of the Gibson catalog, is a high-dollar acoustic guitar featuring various expensive woods. Mrs. Bruni-Sarkozy is a musician who has produced several albums.

There is, of course, one other possibility: Perhaps Mrs. Obama, acting undercover and in concert with an alphabet soup of federal law enforcement agencies, cleverly funneled that Hummingbird to Mrs. Bruni-Sarkozy in the hope that French rock and roll cartels would use it in their criminal endeavors, thus stirring up the support of the American public for bans on domestically produced "assault guitars" and illegally modified automatic extra-capacity amplifiers that go all the way to "11."

Wait a minute…you don't suppose Nigel Tufnel is in league with them…?

UPDATE #2: 093011

As readers have suggested, there is clear evidence that the raid on Gibson could well be politically motivated. Go here to Hot Air for convincing proof via direct links that the Obama Administration would surely consider Gibson, whose CEO donates to Republic candidates, to be the enemy. C.F. Martin, perhaps Gibson's most direct competitor, is very much aligned with Democrat interests and uses precisely the same kinds of woods from the same sources as Gibson, yet Martin has never been targeted by the Obamites. In fact, there are many guitar makers both large and small, that use the same materials in their instruments and they too remain unmolested.

The question remains: Would the Obama Administration, steeped in the corrupt juices of the Chicago Political Machine, stoop to blatant, thuggish intimidation of political enemies? Would the most partisan and politically corrupted Justice Department in American history abet such overt attacks on the rule of law? Would Barack Obama, the man who even now is hard at work on a speech about how to create jobs, directly attack an American industry that not only gainfully employs many skilled, well-paid (though non-union) workers, and whose products are exported around the world?

The answer lies in each and every bit of "unexpected" horrific economic news. If that's not convincing, ask Boeing, the American oil industry, Texas, and American business, both small and corporate.

Thanks to Junk Science Skeptic for help in documentation before my day job allowed me the time for research.

A Letter From The Teacher #16: Crossing The Line

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Mr. Martinez
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Opinion vs. Behavior

Dear Mr. Martinez:

It was good to hear from you again, and I have heard about the latest development in the case of Jerry Buell, the history teacher in Mount Dora, Florida who was suspended because of his private views on gay marriage. If you'd like to read about the case, go here, but I'll be glad to summarize it, and I'll also try to answer your other questions.

Mr. Buell has been reinstated and the original complaint seems to have been mostly dropped, but the Lake County Schools continue to pursue Mr. Buell, apparently alleging that he has somehow violated the separation of church and state. Considering the media accounts I've been able to find, it's unclear exactly what is going on, but apparently Mr. Buell wrote on his school webpage that he tries to “teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. Schools had hired Jesus Christ himself.” Apparently, he wrote on his syllabus: “I teach God’s truth, I make very few compromises. If you believe you may have a problem with that, get your schedule changed, ’cause I ain’t changing!” On another, unidentified, document, Mr. Buell is said to have written that be believed that his classroom was his "mission field."

At least two of these statements apparently appeared on school controlled and sponsored media. The content of a school website may certainly be regulated by the school, and a teacher's syllabus—a document explaining the teacher's philosophy, expectations and the likely curriculum—may also be subject to school rules and standards. That the Lake County Schools would continue to pursue Mr. Buell is not surprising. They shot themselves in the foot with their ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to Mr. Buell's obviously private, non-school related speech. The national public outcry—to say nothing of the fact that they were surely told they were going to lose that legal battle in spectacular fashion—caused them to hastily retreat, but such people are not prone to admit error, nor are they forgiving. They will likely be tempted to continue to watch Mr. Buell for the remainder of his career.

Sadly, this is all too common in American education. Too often, some promoted to be administrators lack common sense and adult restraint, to say nothing of lacking actual leadership ability. Even teachers like Mr. Buell, last year's Teacher of the Year, a man with a reportedly unblemished record of some 26 years, wear a perpetual target on their backs, and once some administrators recognize such a target, they pursue it to vindicate their egos until it is ultimately destroyed, regardless of the teacher's dedication, loyalty and years of exemplary service. At the moment, what we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty is that Mount Dora administrators over-reacted, suspending an apparently exemplary teacher before all of the facts were in.

That said, if Mr. Buell's statements are accurately reported, and if they were written on school controlled sources. Mr. Buell may have a problem. To understand what's happening, I need to explain a common misconception: prayer and religion have never been removed from American schools. It is not illegal to speak of God, the Bible, or of religious concepts and history. It is impossible to properly teach history, literature, science and other disciplines without mention of religion, and many schools teach Biblical literature classes. Indeed, scripture is so much a part of American culture that it is essentially necessary to refer to it in a great many discussions of literature and culture.

School officials may not proselytize—try to convert students to any faith--and they may not demand that students pray or lead them in prayers. Of course, some schools, even entire states, have instituted a mandatory, periodic "moment of silence" as a thinly veiled subterfuge for prayer. Students certainly may—on their own time and in non-disruptive ways—read the Bible or pray, and they are certainly free to discuss their faith with others, again, so long as they do so on their own time and in a way that does not disrupt the mission of their school.

Students and their families are always free to worship as they please and to attend any church of their choosing. So if all that I've said is true, what's the problem?

The problem is that some people, probably well-intentioned, feel that they are not doing what God wants them to do if their particular vision of how best to honor and worship God is not being mandated in the public schools. These people feel it's their duty to compel school children to worship God—in their preferred way--for the good of the children.

There are many problems with this viewpoint, practical and theological. Christianity is, according the Gospel, an entirely voluntary faith. Forcing it on essentially captive audiences of school children is arguably contrary to the very scripture being forced on them. But practically, if we accept the views of those who wish to impose them on the schools, whose version of Christianity should be taught? Such people would surely feel that their version of Christianity is the one, true way, but so do all of the other sects, Christian or otherwise. Do we impose worship based on the will of the majority? The Christian majority would certainly like that, but the political pendulum never rests and eventually swings against the status quo. What happens when the majority changes? Or do we try to accommodate all faiths with Baptist prayer on Mondays, Catholic prayer on Tuesdays, Muslim prayer on Wednesdays, ad nauseum?

The most significant problem is that there is always limited class time, and time spent in religious devotion easily and freely obtainable outside school hours is time lost to learning. In addition, many parents might reasonably feel that the religious instruction of their children is exclusively their business. They would be right.

On the other side of the issue, some school officials, uninformed or relentlessly politically correct, try to eradicate the slightest religious inclination, act or reference, punishing students for carrying or reading a Bible or for committing other such offenses against liberal orthodoxy. "Zero tolerance" policies are usually evidence of zero judgment and zero common sense on the part of school officials.

This brings us back to Mr. Buell. If he did in fact write what he is said to have written on school sources, what should be done? What should have been done in the first place?

The school district—by reinstating Mr. Buell--has tacitly admitted that they were wrong to suspend him, and have reportedly placed some sort of "directive" in his formerly pristine personnel file, presumably ordering him not to do whatever they found and find objectionable, but we have no idea, for the moment, what is in that directive. What is clear is that they can reasonably require that teachers not use overtly religious language in their official capacity, on official websites, correspondence or in classroom materials.

Let's examine what Mr. Buell is alleged to have written and see where it might be problematic.

Mr. Buell apparently wrote (on his school website) that he will “teach and lead my students as if Lake Co. Schools had hired Jesus Christ himself.” This is clearly over the line. Is Mr. Buell comparing himself with Jesus Christ or merely saying he intends to follow Christ's example? My students invariably ask me about my faith and I tell them only that I am a Christian, but that I want them to judge me not by the fact that I spend several hours a week in a given building, but by my professionalism, character and treatment of them. This is the best way to "witness" to students: through your daily example. If Christians behave in ways that encourage respect and admiration, their witness is powerful and personal and far more effective than any statement on a website.

Mr. Buell's syllabus reportedly said: “I teach God’s truth, I make very few compromises. If you believe you may have a problem with that, get your schedule changed, ’cause I ain’t changing!” Again, this is over the line. Teachers are within the boundaries of the reasonable exercise of professional discretion when they tell students that they will teach the most up to date and accurate material available, but teaching "God's truth" must be left to ministers and student's parents. "God's truth" suggests sectarian theology rather than the imparting of a professional academic discipline. And as an English teacher, don't get me started on a teacher using "ain't" outside a discussion of dialect in literature or outside of theater.

Finally, Mr. Buell apparently said, in some sort of unspecified forum, that he considered teaching his "mission field." If written in a school forum, this is without question over the line. The primary reason for the existence of missionaries is proselytizing, converting people to their specific faith. The denotation and connotations of the term are unmistakable. I have, over the years, run into teachers who wanted to send me daily devotions, scriptures, or who were forever asking about the status of my faith or salvation. One took to asking me if I was "spirit filled" whenever we met. I stopped that, finally, by telling her that I was not spirit filled, but was happy to be jelly filled. Even as a Christian, I find such things off-putting and inappropriate in the school setting. If these people want to be ministers, no one is restraining them from answering their ministerial calling rather than working in the more worldly realm of public education.

There are other issues in this case, however. Mr. Buell has been employed at Mount Dora High School for many years, and has presumably included the potentially over the line materials in his syllabus and on his website for many years, perhaps decades. Would it be unreasonable for Mr. Dora to conclude that his religiously oriented statements were acceptable to his superiors and to the community at large? Certainly not, and until recently, apparently none of his students or their parents complained about him. It would not be unreasonable to conclude that he has not, despite the limited use of inappropriately religious language, tried to force his religious beliefs on his students.

With this in mind, it's reasonable for the Lake County Schools to require him to remove religious references from official sources. It may also be reasonable for them to place a memorandum—not a reprimand—in his personnel file specifically outlining what is expected of him in the future. But considering the fact that until the Schools overreacted to a complaint, Mr. Buell had no idea he was doing anything wrong, in fact, would reasonably believe that he was doing everything right, it would be excessive and unprofessional to do more than that. A reprimand would be the reasonable next step if he failed to do what his superiors asked of him. What remains to be seen is whether the school officials involved are reasonable professionals or political activists with too much ego invested.

I hope I've answered your questions. If Aracelli wants to talk about theological issues, we can certainly do that—if her questions are reasonably related to what we're studying at the moment. If not, we can certainly talk outside of class. I'm reasonably well read in theology, but I almost certainly know less than the average minister with a degree in theology. Thanks again for getting in touch, and please let me know if I can be of help in the future.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

The Erik Scott Case, Update 15: Metro Pats Itself On The Back

The local Las Vegas media have, upon occasion, reported on the Scott case, but have done relatively little in-depth reporting on the anomalies reported here, and have generally been very respectful of Metro. However, the Las Vegas Tribune has not been reluctant to take Metro on, regarding the Scott case or any other case, and there are many.
Following are links to the articles referenced in this update:

(1) For the LV Tribune story titled "Metro's Top Brass Running For Cover," go here.

(2) For the LV Tribune story titled "Retirees Expose Metro's Dirty Underwear," go here.

(3) For the August 15 Las Vegas Review-Journal story on Metro's accreditation honors, go here.

(4) For the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement's website, go here.

LV TRIBUNE NEWS:

According to the LVT, all of the assistant Sheriffs on the force will soon be retiring and will not be replaced. Apparently Metro is not denying this report, nor is it supplying any reason why this is occurring at this particular point in time. Suffice it to say that it is highly unusual for any police force to lose any group of its highest-ranking officers at the same time for any reason. For none of them to be replaced is equally unusual. The LVT speculates that the assistant Sheriffs may, seeing the handwriting on the wall, be deserting what they see as a sinking ship, and lists a wide variety of scandals and cover ups—the Scott case being one—as potential reasons. If this report turns out to be accurate, it would be worthwhile for Las Vegas citizens to ask what such highly-paid officers did for so many years, and why their duties were apparently so ephemeral that no replacements were required.

Also according to the LVT, " Retirees and soon-to-be retirees have contacted the Tribune to reveal and expose some of the 'dirty secrets' that have plagued Metro Police Administration for years." While the article does not go into specifics of individual cases, it provides an extensive list of the kinds of corruption that these retirees and soon-to-be retirees have apparently revealed. Suffice it to say that the list suggests not only corruption, but serial felony crimes potentially sufficient to devastate the ranks of Metro and bankrupt Las Vegas (in the lawsuits that would surely result) should they be investigated and prosecuted by outside agencies.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these reports, and certainly don't know the specifics of what the LVT has, but their articles make for interesting reading and certainly support at least some of the information I've been collecting in investigating the Scott case. Take the links and see for yourself.

FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT:

Readers and others have speculated on the involvement, or non-involvement of federal law enforcement agencies in the Scott case and other potential cases of Metro corruption. It should be remembered that an apparent lack of federal involvement does not mean that agencies such as the FBI are not involved. The FBI and most other federal agencies, by policy, do not reveal ongoing investigations unless they are ready to make arrests and begin prosecution. In the investigation process, they often prefer to be very much under the radar. In the case of Metro, such investigation—if it has begun—will almost certainly take months, perhaps years, and involve a great many potential targets.

It is possible that no federal agencies are involved. I've noted before that Mr. Obama would be unlikely to want to embarrass Senator Harry Reid. However, I would not be in the least surprised to learn that they are, and have been watching the Scott—and other cases—for some time.

ACCREDITATION: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
According to the Review-Journal, on August 12, Metro announced that it had been awarded "Accreditation with Excellence" honors by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement. "A department press release said the organization looks at several categories, including whether an agency is forward-thinking, addresses crime problems before they occur, uses the best hiring practices and police tactics, and routinely does self-assessments," noted the RJ.
It is unsurprising that Sheriff Gillespie would use this ploy, which is superficially impressive to those unaware of the reality of law enforcement accreditation. No doubt, Sheriff Gillespie's self assessments of Sheriff Gillespie reveal that Sheriff Gillespie is excellent. I worked in an accredited LEA for many years, and apart from the dubious benefit of a CALEA emblem on our nametags and patrol vehicles, saw no benefit whatsoever for working cops.

The CALEA website markets their services under the heading "Accreditation Works," as follows:

"* Agencies can realize the following rewards of CALEA Accreditation:

* Comprehensive, well thought-out written directives,

* Reports and analyses to make informed management decisions,

* Preparedness Program in place,

* Improved relationship with the community,

* Strengthen agency’s accountability,

* Limit liability and risk exposure, and

* Assists in agency’s pursuit of excellence.

AccreditationWorks! is a compilation of articles that appear regularly in the CALEA® Update magazine, which is published three times a year. These accounts are first-hand testimonies of how CALEA Accreditation has benefited these agencies and their communities. The articles provide insight into the impact of accreditation and offer examples that may be useful to anyone interested in the accreditation process or wants to know, 'What will Accreditation do for me?'”

The CALEA is a private, for profit organization accountable only to itself, and its services are not cheap. On the surface, any law enforcement agency wishing to become accredited must participate in a rigorous, five step review process, which includes:

"* Enrollment

* Self-Assessment

* On-Site Assessment

* Commission Review and Decision

* Maintaining Compliance and Reaccreditation"

Ostensibly, agencies, once accredited, have attained highly professional status, status that will not only make lawsuits unlikely, but will make it much easier for an agency to defend such suits. These supposed benefits do not come cheaply, nor do the payments ever end.

In essence, Accreditation is a paperwork review process. Accredited agencies must have certain minimum written procedures and policies in place. During the self-assessment phase, an applying agency receives the specifics of what is necessary and works to alter—or in some cases adopt for the first time—the policies and rules CALEA mandates. These range from rules for the maintenance of records, the use of force, diversity standards, hiring practices, and everything else relating to running a law enforcement agency.

When the agency believes it is ready, a team of CALEA officials, usually police executives and academics from around the nation, comes to their community for an on-site review. Among the things these teams do is to interview officers and hold community meetings to hear complaints and congratulations. In the accredited agency where I worked, only hand-picked officers were interviewed, and everyone knew that the slightest negative comment would result in consequences. The police administration went to great lengths to pack public hearings with favorable tales from grateful citizens.

The report of the on-site team is considered by the Commission, and if accreditation is granted, it is granted for three years, during which the update and reaccreditation process—accompanied by significant fees to the CALEA—continues for another three year accreditation cycle. Regarding this cycle, the CALEA website notes:

"Maintaining Compliance and Reaccreditation:

During its three-year accreditation award cycle, the agency must maintain compliance with applicable standards, keep its proofs of compliance up-to-date, and live by the letter and spirit of those standards. To retain its accredited status, the agency is required to submit to CALEA their appropriate accreditation continuation fees, as well as an annual report. Reaccreditation occurs at the end of the three years, following another successful on-site assessment and hearing before the Commission."

On one hand, if an agency is already professional and honest, and determined to live by those values, Accreditation might be considered to be a feather in its cap, an expensive feather, but a feather nonetheless. Theoretically, the process might improve, in at least some subtle ways, the agency's policies and procedures, and it is at least possible that a side benefit of this might be making it easier to defend against lawsuits. However, if the agency is professional and honest, such effect, to whatever degree it might exist, will likely exist whether the agency is accredited or not, and at much less cost in cash and the man hours necessary to comply with all of the paperwork required by the CALEA.

The problem with accreditation is that it is primarily a paperwork certification, and while the CALEA says that agencies must live by the "letter and spirit" of its standards, it is not difficult for a corrupt agency to keep evidence of failing to meet such standards in practice—rather than on paper—from the CALEA. There is, in addition, a very real financial incentive for the CALEA not to be, should we say, excessively aggressive in their investigations, to whatever degree they are done.

Am I saying that the CALEA would knowingly certify agencies they know are ineligible under their standards? I have no such knowledge and make no such specific assertion. I suggest only that because the CALEA is a private, for profit organization, that it is in its best interests to keep long time clients on the accreditation list, for their fees pay the salaries of all involved and allow various law enforcement administrators and others to travel at CALEA's expense as "experts."

From what is commonly known about Metro and its operations, it would seem that it is easy indeed for a corrupt agency to comply with the CALEA, indeed, even to achieve, according to Metro, its highest honors. So while Metro might appear to be hell on wheels on paper, the incompetence, abuse and lack of professionalism so apparent in the Scott case is day to day reality, and this reality apparently means little to the CALEA. The alternative is that the CALEA is simply not set up to discover and investigate such things, which is likely the case.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

While accreditation might be a worthwhile option for an agency flush with cash seeking help in updating its policies and procedures, it is not by itself an absolute indicator of honor, honesty and professionalism in practice. The day-to-day reality of Metro would seem a convincing proof of that assertion. In the matter of police tactics and hiring practices alone, I suspect relatively few knowledgeable citizens of Las Vegas would consider Metro to be a model of professionalism. The CALEA provides, as noted earlier, a periodical designed to prove the value of accreditation to those already accredited, essentially preaching to the choir.

Once a police executive has convinced his city council or county commissioners to fork over the substantial, continuing sums of money necessary for accreditation, it is unlikely that he will be anxious to simply say "oops! I guess I was wrong about the whole thing. Sorry about wasting all that time and money!" I'm not suggesting evil intent on anyone's part, merely making pertinent notes about human nature and its workings in law enforcement agencies.

It is also quite possible for non-accredited agencies to be entirely professional and to never experience the kinds of abuses that seem to be the rule rather than the exception at Metro. I know many such agencies. As I mentioned in the beginning of this section, my experience with accreditation revealed no obvious benefit whatever for working cops or for the community. My chief labored mightily to convince officers and the public of the wonders and never-ending benefits of accreditation. To this day, having seen no tangible benefits, I remain unconvinced and I suspect the community I served does as well.

IN COMING UPDATES:

The next update--perhaps series of updates—will focus on the statements, written and recorded, of citizen witnesses to the Scott shooting. I hope to have it completed in the near future; there are a great many documents and much to analyze.

As always, I very much appreciate our readers and their comments relating to this ongoing case.

Substance vs. Appearance

This is an interesting photo comparison I came across in the last few days. Trying to trace it back to its origin has been a bit like running a maze. It may have been originally posted by David Limbaugh, but apparently Limbaugh didn't know its origin and it has been posted in multiple other places. From what I can tell, Texas Gov. Rick Perry would have been about 22 years old in the photo, but I suspect that Barack Obama looks a bit younger than that. There's just no way to know for sure. If anyone has a solid lead on the origin of the photo, please let me know and I'll be glad to give proper credit.

What is fascinating is that in some cases, a picture really is worth a thousand words. On one hand, we have future Texas Governor Rick Perry, a young man with the right stuff. The Air Force does not allow just anyone to fly its jets. Being selected for pilot training says a very great deal about one's judgment, intellect, grace under pressure, courage and leadership ability. Completing pilot training says even more. Perry eventually flew C-130's--four engine cargo aircraft with amazing capabilities--all over the world. Not bad for a small town Texas kid raised on a ranch that graduated from a no-name, non-Ivy League school. Oh yes, and anyone involved in military aviation, despite its overarching emphasis on safety, is risking their life on every flight.

On the other hand, we have the young Barack Obama, future President of the United States. Virtually nothing is known about his college years. We have no idea which classes he took or his grades in those classes. All of this information is carefully hidden. By his own admission, he spent his time hanging out with Marxists and consumed at least his fair share of marijuana and cocaine. Judgment? Intellect? Grace under pressure? Courage? Risking his life? At least we know that his idea of leadership is "leading from behind," which in the real world, the world inhabited by Rick Perry (yes, and even George W. Bush) from a young age is the epitome of lack of judgment, lack of intellect, no grace under pressure, cowardice, no risks and of course, no leadership.

It is a sad commentary on contemporary America that anyone, let alone a substantial portion of the citizenry, viewing this post will almost certainly sneer at a young Air Force pilot, minimizing and denigrating his service, while simultaneously lionizing a young, Marxist doper unwilling to release most pertinent details of his past.

But Barack Obama was an Illinois State Senator and a US Senator! Indeed he was, and what were his accomplishments in those positions? I mean, apart from voting present some 130 times, including on bills he sponsored, as a means of leaving no political footprints? Apart from earning the title of the most leftist man in the US Senate, more left even than the only avowed Socialist? Apart from running for president most of his time in the Senate?

But he's the President of the United States! Indeed he is, and every one of his "accomplishments" has, in only 2.5 years, caused substantial harm to the nation. Those not yet fully implemented, like Obamacare, have been revealed to be lies and will surely bankrupt us.

But he got Bin Laden! He deserves credit for the absolute minimum any president should do? He dithered for a day on even that decision, causing an unnecessary two-day delay that could easily have allowed Bin Laden to slip through our fingers and endangered our troops. But he won in Libya! Well, if you consider constant hesitation and a complete lack of any policy for pursuing what he denied was a war or anything like a war, and having no idea who we were supporting winning, perhaps. But he has played more golf in 2.5 years than any other president in eight! Well, you got me there.

One can only hope that the Republicans use this, or something like it, in the campaign. But considering how often Republicans have pulled defeat from the jaws of victory, I'm less then encouraged.

Certainly, people change with time, and dissolution in youth doesn't automatically mean failure in adulthood. But sometimes, youth foreshadows the future. In the cases of Rick Perry and Barack Obama, this would appear to be very much the case. It's a matter of substance vs. appearance.

Obama's Illegal Alien Relative Gets Drunk, Nearly Hits Cop Car, Is Arrested. No, Not That Illegal Alien Relative. Another One.

The President's illegal alien aunt continues to suck off the public teat (and blames the system for it), but it looks like his uncle may be headed back to Kenya.

A number of media outlets have already reported that an illegal immigrant from Kenya by the name of Onyango Obama, 67, was arrested last week on Wednesday after he nearly rammed his SUV into a police car in Framingham, Massachusetts.

He was later charged with DUI among other violations. I spoke to Framingham Public Information Officer Lieutenant Delaney who told me that when Onyango Obama was asked at booking if he wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for bail, the Kenyan immigrant replied: "I think I will call the White House."

...

According to article, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement has warrant for his arrest and ICE previously ordered him to be deported back to Kenya. In the meantime, a judge has not set bail on the driving charges but ordered that he be held on the ICE warrant.

Oh, who am I kidding?

Aunt Zeituni is a welfare leech that thinks we owe her citizenship, and the government ha decided to let her stay in the country because of her relationship to the President, despite the fact she is nothing more than a drain upon the economy.

Uncle Omar will no doubt get the same sort of waiver—the Obama family exemption—and be allowed to stay, suck up money meant for citizens, and increase the national debt.

It is, after all, what all Obamas due, regardless of their citizenship.

"Scientist" Rejects Scientific Method to Mock Irene; Justifiably Mocked By World, Inexplicably Linked by Drudge

A man named Stephen Goddard running a web site he calls "Real Science" has certainly made an ass out of himself today, and ruined any credibility that he may have had as a scientist.

Goddard claims that Hurricane Irene is nothing of the sort, and that the mid-strength category 1 hurricane came on-shore in North Carolina this morning with winds no higher than 33MPH.

His "evidence" of a grand conspiracy of a massively over-hyped storm? Screen captures on his computer of Weather Underground information for Beaufort, Buxton, Wilmington, Jacksonville, and Greenville, NC, plus Norfolk, VA.

That's it.

Screen captures.

Ignore NOAA's Hurricane Hunters, Weather.com, and Wunderground's own experts. Ignore what every local meteorologist is telling you, and ignore the live video of the pounding winds and rains being broadcast on ever local, national, and cable channel.

Ignore the tens or hundreds of thousands of people posting real-time pictures and first-hand accounts on Twitter, Facebook, blogs, social media sites, and the photo evidence being shared to their local media. Ignore the actual storm damage and surge levels utterly consistent with a large category 1 hurricane.

Weather truther Stephen Goddard looked at a couple of web pages and didn't like what he saw.

Conspiracy!

This is up there with the PrisonPlanet crap Drudge has taken a fancy to linking lately.

He's well on his way to becoming Alex Jones.

It's Turned To "11"! Run!

While it is certainly reasonable and rational to be outraged at the Obama Administration's recent raid on the Gibson Guitar Company...What? The Gibson Guitar Company?! You haven't heard about that one? Les Paul is surely spinning in his grave.

This week the Feds raided Gibson, seizing what they claim are woods prohibited by various environmental regulations from importation and use. The most bizarre aspect of their raids seems to be that Gibson is not actually, you know, violating any American laws nor are the Feds enforcing any American laws. The Feds now seem to be enforcing Indian--as in the nation, not domestic indian--laws. Go here for the story.

One of the truly good and Obamaesque parts of the whole sordid affair is that federal agents at our borders have for some time been seizing guitars if they suspect that portions of them were made--even decades ago--with wood that might, under some obscure treaty or foreign law somewhere, be somehow currently illegal, even if the owner could have had no possible way to know that. Apparently the feds intend to continue this practice as well. Guilty until you prove yourself innocent; it's the Obama way!

All I can say is thank goodness Mr. Obama is now focused on doing away with a handful of unnecessary, idiotic and nationally suicidal regulations--while simultaneously implementing literally thousands of unnecessary, idiotic and nationally suicidal regulations each and every year. And thank goodness someone is now dealing with the horrific societal effects of a bit of imported ebony or other semi-exotic woods, whether it's actually illegal or not. No doubt Gibson is responsible for most of Global Warming. Notify Al Gore!

Wait a minute! I'll bet this is just a part of Mr. Obama's never-ending campaign to save or create jobs! I wonder how much a federal guitar raider makes a year? Do they have groupies? Could be a pretty cool gig!

The best way to attack such totalitarian lunacy is through humor, and the invaluable Ironhawk has done just that to magnificant effect. Go here for the musical mayhem. Who knew this whole mess was related to Gunwalker?

With Barack Obama, we really do have to pick and choose our daily outrages. There are just so many. Rick Perry's promise to make Washington DC as inconsequential in our daily lives as possible is sounding more and more like the new "don't tread on me" every day.

The Literature Corner: Home Run!

This edition of The Literature Corner is a charming true tale of alcoholism, stupidity, love gone wrong, drooling and baseball, not necessarily in that order. Featuring an abused woman, the police do their best to be knights in shining armor. Unfortunately, in the real world, not every damsel wants to be rescued, and the armor is always a bit tarnished.

Home Run!

The neighbors called the fight in. Considering the neighborhood, it must have been really good. The average fight wouldn’t have drawn a glance and certainly not a call to the police.

My back up arrived just as I pulled up, several houses down the street. TV cops drive around with a partner--two cops in a single car--but in reality, most cops patrol alone. It doesn’t offer many possibilities for dramatic, dysfunctional interpersonal relationships and snappy dialogue, but it’s more efficient in a real world of strained budgets and insufficient manpower.

We hopped out on foot and carefully maneuvered toward the house. It was a run down shack built into the side of a hill with a ground floor and a basement. The lights blazed from every window, but it didn’t look like anyone was moving.

As we drew nearer the back, basement door, I noticed that it was half open, light streaming into the trash-strewn backyard. Just as Steve and I took up positions on both sides of the door, it banged open and someone stumbled out, scaring the spit out of both of us. Fortunately, he couldn’t see us--coming out of a brightly lit house into a dark backyard his night vision was shot--and he wasn’t looking for us anyway. He stumbled several steps into the yard, clumsily unzipped his fly and with a big sigh, began to water the lawn. Steve looked at me and grinned as we both relaxed. He had no idea we were there; we had the tactical advantage.

After a very long and noisy hosing--he must have had plenty to drink--he started to zip up and suddenly screamed, a long, wailing, high-pitched little girl scream. He was caught in the zipper! He started hopping around, yelping and gyrating wildly as though he was on fire, and I suppose at least one part of him was. With considerable difficulty, Steve and I stifled laughter. We didn’t want him to spot us quite yet.

With a loud sigh of relief, he abruptly stopped hopping around. He spent a few minutes examining and petting the subject of his concerns and when, after putting things away, he finally turned around, we were standing between him and the open door. He let out another girly scream and jumped about five feet straight up into the air. Gotcha! Heh-heh!

“Wha, wha, wha?” he exclaimed as he touched down, his eyes wide open and unfocused, his chin on his chest.

“Hi there. Police Department. We got a call about a problem. What’s up?” I spoke slowly. He was amazingly drunk.

“Up? Whas up?”

“Yeah, what’s up? Do you live here?”

“Here?” He wasn’t getting any smarter.

“Hey, this is Tony--Tony Carter, isn’t it?” My partner said. Tony smiled stupidly.

“OK,” I said, “Tony’s not gonna be much help. Let’s knock and see what happens.” My partner nodded and knocked loudly on the back door.

Someone inside yelled “C’mon in.” That almost always happens, and provides a convenient--and legitimate--excuse for the police to come into a house. “Well your Honor, we knocked at the door and hearing someone inside ask us to enter, we did.” The police have no more restriction in that than an average citizen. If Joe Average can legally walk up to a given door, knock, and be invited inside, so can the Police.

We smiled at each other, and guiding Tony in front of us, walked in. The back door opened into a sort of utility room, with a trashed washing machine and a possibly functional dryer against one wall and a badly rusted and obviously leaky water heater against the other. The floor of the room was actually ankle deep in various kinds of trash: old clothes, fast food wrappers, beer bottles, you name it, it was there, and so was the smell. Nothing like decaying goodies of all kinds to add to the ambiance.

We walked into the main basement room. There was a sofa against one wall, and a love seat against the other. Both pieces of furniture were so ragged and threadbare, with so many cigarette burns and other holes in the fabric it was hard to tell what color they were, or might have originally been. I didn’t want to even think about what the various stains might be. On the unpainted concrete floor a torn and equally threadbare rug was bunched.

Asleep on the sofa was Susan Taylor. Susan was a stone alcoholic. She was in her early 40’s but looked 70. She was so skinny she was almost skeletal. Sprawled on the love seat--actually, it was more of a lust seat those days--was Tom Sobinski, another member of the local alcoholic set. Only 26, Tom looked at least twenty years older. Empty beer bottles surrounded him. Though he was at least semiconscious, he was drooling like mad and making no attempt to stop.

But what really caught my attention was the huge, red and rapidly swelling knot on the forehead of Vicki Campbell, who was sitting on the floor, her filthy and torn jeans-clad legs spread wide, her arms hanging limp, her back against the couch. If we were in a cartoon, stars and little chirping birdies would have been rapidly circling her head. She quietly muttered “uh, uh, uh,” and tried--unsuccessfully--to focus her eyes on me.

I knelt down and spoke to her. “Vicki. Vicki! Can you hear me? Do you know where you are?”

She just kept grunting, though she did make an effort to turn her face toward my voice. She was incredibly drunk, just like the rest of them. There must have been at least 50 freshly emptied beer cans and bottles littering the tiny basement room. I flashed the beam of my flashlight across her eyes. Her pupils, which were the same size, constricted--rather slowly--but they constricted. That was a good sign. Pupils that aren’t the same size and that don’t react to light are usually a sign of a serious concussion, maybe even brain damage.

“Vicki, do you want an ambulance? Should I call an ambulance? Do you want to see a doctor?”

“NO!” Vicki suddenly came to life. “No docker,” she mumbled.

That took care of that. We don’t call ambulances for people like Vicki unless they have an obviously life threatening injury, and even so, they can refuse to be treated. You can’t force people to accept medical treatment. In any case, she wasn’t going to pay for treatment. I decided to make one more try. “Vicki, are you sure? That looks pretty bad. We can call an ambulance.”

“No docker, she slurred.”

“Yeah, no docker,” Tom added from the lust seat.

“Vicki, how’d you get that knot on your forehead? What happened?” I asked.

“Got hit,” she slurred, and passed out.

“Why don’t you take Tom and Susan upstairs and see what they can tell you. I’m going to have a little chat with Tony,” I said to my partner. We both understood that he was the most likely suspect.

“Right,” he said and helped them stumble up the stairs.

By then, Tony had slumped on the lust seat and was grinning like an idiot. “OK Tony, have you been here all night?”

Still grinning, Tony replied, “yeah, dude!”

“OK then. What happened to Vicki?”

Tony swung his arms as though he was knocking a ball over the fence, made a pretty good impression of the “ping” sound an aluminum softball bat nailing a ball makes, and exclaimed “home run, dude!”

“Home run? You mean she got hit in the head with a bat?”

He nodded happily. “That’s it Dude! Home run!” Tony giggled in a high-pitched little-girl voice choked off by a Great Dane sized hacking fit.

“OK Tony,” I said, “who hit her?”

“I did, dude! Best homer I every hit!” He was really pleased with himself.

“What's that again, Tony?” I asked. This was great! He was confessing to aggravated assault, maybe even attempted murder. He began to ramble on incoherently about Vicki making him mad. After about five minutes, I came away with the impression that he hit her because she didn’t like parakeets, or maybe Pabst beer, possibly underwear or aliens or aliens in somebody's underwear, or she was just ticking him off in general, but it was hard to tell. “OK Tony, where’s the bat?”

“Out back, dude.”

“You threw it out there after you hit her?”

“Thas it, dude!”

“Why did you throw it out back?”

“Home run, dude!” He replied grinning like the village idiot. I just looked at him, impassively, waiting. People tend to fill empty air with talk, so after a brief pause he added “I didn’ want her hittin’ me with it, dude.”

Just then, Steve came back downstairs. “What did you get?” I asked.

“Well, according to Tom, Vicki and Tony are kind of a couple--at least for tonight--and were going at each other over something. Tom said he thinks Tony hit Vicki with something.”

“How about Susan?”

“Nah. She passed out as soon as we got upstairs. She’s not going to add anything tonight. Oh yeah; Tom said he was glad Tony shut Vicki up because she was gettin’ on his nerves.”

“Swell. Tony said he hit her with a bat and tossed it out back. Would you go check on that?”

“No sweat,” Steve said and headed out the door. I kept an eye on Tony, who was muttering some kind of melody to himself and still grinning and drooling. Steve came back a few minutes later holding an aluminum baseball bat.

“Take a look at this,” He said, handing me the bat.

“Oh man,” I said. There was a significant dent in the sweet spot. “Where was it?

“About 20 feet straight out the back door,” Steve replied.

I held up the bat. “Is this the bat, Tony?”

“That’s the one, dude. Home Run!” he happily exclaimed, making another batting motion.

I nodded and made a slight cuffing gesture with my right hand, indicating that I was going to handcuff Tony. Steve nodded and took the bat and we took up positions on either side of him.

“OK Tony, stand up,” I said.

He shakily got to his feet, and I spun him around and cuffed him. “You’re under arrest, Tony.”

“Oh man, dude. I knew you wuz gonna do that!”

“Tony, you could have killed her. You shouldn’t do that.”

“Hey, she deserved it dude. Besides, ‘was the best hit I ever made! Home run!”

Vicki wasn’t responding to any of it. She was still asleep. Steve took Tony to his car and I checked on her again. Her eyes were still OK, and she was breathing regularly. I made a note to have the next shift check in on her, stuck around long enough to do a set of photos of the crime scene and the back yard, and headed in to tell Steve the charges for Tony.

The prosecutor settled on aggravated assault. It’s a felony, but not as serious as attempted murder. Tony couldn’t bond out, so he ended up sitting in jail until the preliminary hearing a month later. That isn’t as bad as it sounds. He sobered up and got decent food and regular showers for the first time in years.

There’s always a preliminary hearing for felony charges. A preliminary is sort of a mini-trial where the judge determines whether there is enough evidence to warrant a complete trial. Of course the defendant--Tony in this case--can always waive the preliminary and even plead guilty at any time, but his public defender decided to go the whole route this time. It was a good strategy that paid off.

Why did it pay off? He was counting on Vicki being drunk, or just not caring, and not showing up. He was right. She didn’t.

And unlike in the movies or on TV, that was the end of that case. The judge dismissed the charges and freed Tony. There was no point in trying to round up Vicki. Even if we did arrest her and drag her into court, no jury would convict on the word of an alcoholic who had to be arrested to get her to come to court. After all, if she cared so little about it, why should they? Also unlike TV or the movies, it happened all the time.

For the public defender--and Tony--I guess it really was a home run.

The Incredible Insensitivity of the Vacationer-In-Chief

The narcissism of our 44th President continues unabated.

A sun-soaked relaxer-in-chief spent close to five hours at a private Edgartown beach with the first family yesterday — still with no plans to cut the presidential vacation short while other islanders heeding the threat of Hurricane Irene packed up paradise and high-tailed it to the mainland.

...

Vineyard hotel managers urged guests to plan their exits as soon as possible, and emergency officials told locals to stock up on four days of food and water.

The Obamas, meanwhile, enjoyed a low-key day amid the white sands and tall waves of the private Pohogonot beach. The president did convene a conference call with emergency officials for an Irene update earlier in the day.

He had no plans to leave Martha's Vineyard early — even as emergency crews mobilized around him.

As local citizens and emergency management officials work frantically to secure homes and businesses against approaching Hurricane Irene, the Obama family continues to frolic in the sun and obstruct emergency preparation efforts.

Are they completely immune to the needs of others? The longer Michelle and Barack soak up the sun, the less time the private property owner has to prepare for a storm that is described as an "extraordinary threat" to the Northeast and New England. If the Obama's do decide to leave, it will be at the last possible moment.

In doing so, they increase the danger to their drivers and Secret Service details, their jet and helicopter crews, the White House support staff that must travel with the President.

They increase the danger to local employees who must come in behind the dallying President and his $10 million wife , who must try to secure the property against gale-force winds and driving rain and storm surge, and then somehow scamper themselves to safety as Irene roars up the coast.

The lives of average Americans they put in harm's way are but an afterthought to the Michelle Antoinette and our golf-mad President.

May history remember them as the failures they are.

Update: Obama's planning to leave tonight. God forbid they give the people who must stormproof the property much daylight in which to do it.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

Irene is starting to lash the NC coast with wind and waves, and if I don't miss my guess, some of the guys I went to high school with (I'm looking at you, Jon and Grady) are now on surfboards.

The good news is that Irene has decreased a little in power, with sustained winds of 105 MPH and gusts of up to 125 MPH. That won't make a whole lot of difference when hit hits land between Atlantic Beach and Cape Hatteras as it will still deliver punishing winds and a dangerous storm surge, but it may translate into a little less damage in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states.

The best news so far is that the majority of the computer models show Irene avoiding a direct hit on major cities in the northeast. This means the maximum storm surge threat may be lowered a bit around New York City, though high winds, torrential rains, and the inevitable threat of tornadoes spinning off from the hurricane still insures it is a very lethal threat.

Sadly, I can just about promise that a dozen or more people will die in this hurricane as they do in every hurricane, mostly by ignoring common sense guidelines that would keep them safe.

Some idiot tourist is going to drown in the waves. Several somebodies are going to drive into flood waters during the storm itself and drown.

These deaths always happen.

Odds are that someone is going to be outside when they shouldn't and be struck with flying debris, and odds are that someone will electrocute themselves, die in a fire cause by candles, or succumb to carbon monoxide from using a grill indoors. You can post all the warnings you want, but there are always idiots and know-it-alls that refuse to respect the power of nature, or are simply dense. Darwin has no mercy on the stupid.

Aside from the deaths of idiots (which cannot be helped), the greatest threat we face from Irene is the economic damage, which is impossible to predict at this point. Our economy is so fragile at this point that it takes very little to plunge us into a deeper depression.

Keep your fingers crossed, folks. Irene may be hundreds or thousands of miles from your home, but it will still impact you in ways we don't fully understand or have the ability to predict.

Martin Luther King: Spinning Like A Lathe

Much has been written—at least in the conservative blogosphere—about the images of Mr. Obama produced by his eternal campaign and his slobbering worshipers. But for those not familiar with the issue, merely google "obama posters" and you'll see what I mean. Conservatives, and those who lived through the Cold War, have been rightfully appalled by the iconographic, fawning images because they are very much in the style of Cold War Communist propaganda iconography, imagery that reflected the hero worship of some of the most vile monsters humanity has ever produced, men like Stalin, Lenin, Mao and the lesser monster in terms of numbers of victims, Che Guevera. Equally appalling has been the starry-eyed worship of these images by Mr. Obama's leftist followers, people who are apparently unaware of the horrific parallels, don't care about them, or see in those parallels the kind of virtue and power sought only by the deranged and tyrannical.

It is with this in mind that I write about the recently unveiled Martin Luther King Memorial on the Mall in Washington DC. The centerpiece of the four-acre memorial is a massive, 30 foot tall statute of Dr. King, a work some eleven feet taller than the statutes of Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. The Memorial is the only such shrine on the Mall not dedicated to a former President. The statue is of a piece with Communist propaganda and rather than being rendered in the classical (ancient Greek/Renaissance) style as the majority of other monuments in DC, it resembles nothing so much as the massive, triumphal statutes of Chairman Mao (a dictator beloved of Obama appointees), arguably the most depraved—in terms of sheer body count—mass murderer and despot in the history of mankind.

The statute--amazingly--was carved by Chinese artist Lei Yixin who prior to carving the MLK statute, was best known—imagine this—for massive statues of Mao. Or perhaps I should observe that it is amazing only to those who consider America to be an exceptional nation and the beacon of freedom and liberty in the world, a nation that expended considerable blood and treasure during the Korean War fighting the Chinese and North Koreans that South Korea would not experience the kind of oppression and mass murder the Chinese—and later the North Koreans--visited on their own people.

By all means, go here and here for an American and a British take on the Monument.

Interestingly, this is not the first time an Asian was involved in controversy roiling around a Washington memorial. Maya Lin, at the age of 20, won the design competition for the Vietnam Memorial. Lin is a natural born American. In fact her parents fled China for America in 1949 when Mao came to power.

With emotions about the war still raw, opposition to her concept was angry and fierce, with some referring to it as "a black gash of shame." Others were upset that the monument contained no statuary reflecting the soldiers who served, nor was an American flag on display. Still, the monument was completed and dedicated on November 13, 1982

Over time, a flagpole was added, and finally, by Nov 11, 1984, a statue by Washington sculptor Fredric Hart entitled "Three Servicemen," was added. The statute depicts three Vietnam-era soldiers with correct uniforms and equipment as though emerging from the forest after a mission. These additions did much to silence opposition, and Lin's vision has been vindicated. The Vietnam Memorial is the most visited in Washington, and is renowned for its solemnity, dignity and emotional power.

Sadly, it is unlikely that the MLK Monument will ever attain similar status. The statue is clearly rendered in the Soviet/Mao propaganda style. King stands, his massive, stiff arms crossed, his visage not impassive and noble as in classical sculpture, but rather, stern, even angry and menacing. Unlike the graceful, lifelike fluidity of the statues of Jefferson and Lincoln, King—rendered in coarse, abrasive texture--appears more rock than man, more state-conjured goblin than human being, more stiff, grim, and threateningly stylized in the blatantly intimidating Marxist style, a style that does not inspire awe and reverence, but inescapably reminds the unwilling viewer of the consequences of failing to demonstrate sufficiently worshipful public deference. This is no idle threat even today in China where dissidents are often shot in the back of the head and their surviving relatives billed for the bullet. Most bizarre is the inescapable observation that Lei Yixin has carved Dr. King with unmistakably Asian features.

I suspect that as with so much else in contemporary America, some 25% of Americans—leftists all—will be thrilled with the statute, for it directly reflects their policy and political preferences. It symbolizes the strength, rigidity and inflexibility of the idealized leftist state, ostensibly caring for "the people" with appropriately soaring rhetoric, but in reality, more than willing to wield the iron fist of power, to crush any individual or disfavored group to achieve its ends, the Constitution and freedom be damned.

The rest of America will be, at best, ambivalent about it. Many will be as appalled as was I to see the monstrosity. But I suspect none would be as appalled as Dr. King himself, who was far from an admirer of Communist doctrine and its propaganda manifestations.

Yet another triumph for the Obama Administration. Yet another disgrace for America.

Prepping for Irene

I've been there and done that. Here's what you can do to prepare for Hurricane Irene.

This especially applies to those in the northeast, most of whom have never been through anything like this.

Good luck to you all.

North Carolina Governor Declares Every Concealed Carry Permit in eastern NC Invalid Due to Hurricane Irene

Thanks to a brain-dead state law foisted upon us by a Democratic state legislature (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.7), every time the governor—in this instance, Democrat Beverly Perdue—declares a state of emergency, it is illegal from that moment onward to carry a concealed weapon until the state of emergency has been declared over.

14-288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:

(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or

(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.

(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties.

(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

We've dealt with this bit of Democrat-generated stupidity before.

Governor Purdue made this declaration while the state was at work, meaning everyone who has a carry permit and lives east of Interstate 95 who was away from home instantly became a criminal by proclamation.

If we look at Google Maps, that means that a carry permit holder in Wilson dining at the Cracker Barrel is perfectly legal, but the permit holder a block to the east filling up on gas at the Kangaroo Express is now a criminal.

Ridiculous.

Update: I'd forgotten we were stuck with this crap last year as well.

Update: Looks like I was wrong about the I-95 cutoff. It includes those entire counties.

John Richardson notes that Perdue issued a statement with her executive order that gun provisions would not take effect, but as South Carolina's Joe Wilson might say, Bev Perdue, you lie.

Bev Perdue is incorrect in her assertions that the declaration of the State of Emergency does not trigger firearm restrictions. As I noted last year when she invoked a State of Emergency in the face of Hurricane Earl, if she uses Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes, it invokes G.S. § 14-288.7 which states in part, "it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area" if a state of emergency is declared. Just because she is the governor does not give Bev Perdue the authority to ignore plainly written state laws when it is politically inconvenient for her.

In other words, Perdue does not have the authority to declare the ban null and void, anymore than the governor can arbitrarily decide than any other law no longer applies.

While a state of emergency is in effect in North Carolina, taking guns of your property is illegal, whether concealed or openly carried. We need to address this flaw in our gun laws as soon as the NC Legislature returns to Raleigh.

Quick Takes, August 25, 2011

ITEM: "Yeah, Well Texas Isn't Doing So Great On Jobs Either!" Really? Not so much. As the sliming of Texas Gov. Rick Perry ramps up to "Ludicrous Speed" levels you might want to take a quick peek at—of all places—Reuters for a little dose of reality. Turns out this might not be such a good avenue of attack for Obamites, not that they care. After all, Texas isn't going to vote for Obama no matter what—the bastards. Amazing how the Obamites don't hesitate for a moment at attacking one of the most prosperous and populous states. Is there any precedence for this? Discuss.

ITEM: On The debt Side! Chris Muir is the talented cartoonist and conservative political commentator who pens the wonderful Day By Day strip on the net (here). His recent fundraising campaign for the coming year met and exceeded its goals in record time, an indicator of the political mood as we approach the 2012 election season. Chris stops by to read Quick Takes, and DBD should be on your daily reading list. By all means, stop in and scroll back a bit to get a sense of what insightful political and social commentary looks like.

ITEM: Haven't Had A Good Heartwarming For Awhile? Sadly, much of the news, and even much of what we report on QTs and on the CY site is discouraging, but fortunately, not all. Go here for one of the more heartwarming moments I've seen in awhile, and it involves one of our soldiers. Very cool. Get out the hankies.

ITEM: Look For The–Canadian?!--Union Label! Disgusted readers will recall that Mr. Obama was on a "jobs tour" of the Midwest, but did not think far enough ahead to actually have a jobs plan along for the ride. The best part, however, is the two mega-luxurious Darth Vader styled busses (The Debt Star?) paid for by taxpayer money he is using. What's good about that? They cost $1.1 million each, and were specially ordered and made in…wait for it…Canada! That's right, Canada. It's well known that the US has no bus manufacturing capacity… he already wiped out that industry too…? He hasn't? Oh well. Go here for the story. Take your blood pressure meds first.

PS: Oh yes, you're also paying megabucks for lodging and goodies for White House Staff, Secret Service agents, etc. for Mr. Obama's vacation on Martha's Vineyard. You know, the place where a week's lodging costs more than many American's yearly salaries. As Mel Brooks said, "It's good to be da king!"

ITEM: Look Out For The Union Ambushes: Go here to Hot Air to see how the noble guardians of the workingman actually behave. It's amazing that Unions still control even about 7% of the national work force. Interesting that Union goons only tend to attack people in places where concealed carry is prohibited or uncommon. Discuss.

ITEM: Well, If The Guy With The Tongue Said It…: Go here for the 2012 presidential prediction of Gene Simmons of Kiss. Well, he did propose to Shannon Tweed, who is major league classy and beautiful. He obviously has some brains—and the tongue.

ITEM: What Happened To The One? People everywhere are wailing this or something like it. I've often said that Mr. Obama is simply what he has always been: A Marxist. As such, he despises America and Americans. Norman Podhoretz, a man older and wiser than such as I, generally agrees. Go here. It would seem that Icarus may, once again, have flown too close to the sun.

ITEM: So, You Think You're Accurate, Eh? Go here for an interesting article, completely with photos, about what may well be the most accurate .338 Lapua sniper rifle in the world. Very cool.

ITEM: What?! Twenty Six Percent Think He's Doing A Good Job?! That's right, according to Gallup, 26% of Americans think Mr. Obama is doing a good job on the economy! I must find out what anti-reality drugs they're taking so I can avoid them. But for the up side, go here to discover why Mr. Obama will almost certainly lose—and America win—in 2012.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Education Division: I was shocked, shocked! to learn that Education Secretary Arne Duncan attacked Gov. Rick Perry and Texas, claiming that Texas was failing all of its students. Now it turns out that Chicago does worse than Texas and Texas doesn't do badly at all. The best part is that it was Time Magazine (here) that pointed this out. Time is not exactly known as a supporter of conservatives and conservative issues. This is known as irony. Another best part is that Duncan ran Chicago's schools before becoming Education Secretary. This too is ironic.

ITEM: Ruh-Row Shaggy! When even Canadians are saying the global warming scam is over, perhaps it's time to listen (here). Why anyone would listen to Al Gore about anything is beyond me, particularly when one considers his AGW bona fides are less than stellar. He owns a 100 foot houseboat. A 100 foot long houseboat, you know, the kind that tools around on a lake? Before you read another line, trot outside and measure the length of your house—you'll get the picture. He owns a mansion that uses more electricity in a week than most American homes use in a year. He jets around the globe to hector all about their carbon footprint. No doubt economic reality has something to do with it too. People around the world are beginning to realize that we can no longer afford liberalism, in fact, we never really could. As I mentioned in QTs last week, get over it enviro-weenies. AGW is over. You'll have to think up some other way to destroy western civilization.

ITEM: Oh, The Majesty Of The Law: For those who haven't been keeping up on the doings at the Widener Law School, this post will help to bring you up to date (take the link in the first sentence). Liberalism isn't sustainable, it never was, but that doesn't mean the leftists will go calmly in to that good night. Here's my favorite Clintonesque legal/weasel speak from the post:

"That is not accurate [that two University trustees resigned]. No trustees have resigned. A member of the Board of Overseers for the School of Law and a member of the School of Law Campaign Subcommittee have stepped down from those roles for reasons that they have personally conveyed to President Harris and Dean Ammons."

Oh, I see. They haven't resigned, they've "stepped down." Well. That makes all the difference, doesn't it? Gentle readers, people like this really do think the rest of us are morons. Time wounds all heels.

ITEM: Green Jobs Will Stop The Rise of The Oceans And Heal The Planet, and cure acne, flatulence, the common cold, and most amazingly, make Mr. Obama's economic policies look sane. Well, OK, nothing could make his policies look sane; you got me there. Go here to the invaluable Walter Russell Mead to discover the reality of the Green Jobs boondoggle. It would seem that the laws of economics and physics have something to say about this, and unlike home on the range, always is heard a discouraging word and the skies are cloudy all day.

ITEM: Rational Persuasion Can Actually Work—on all but the most committed leftists, that is. Go here for an interesting article about using logic and kindness to overcome antigun policies. Encouraging.

ITEM: OK. So the Obama Administration is Economically Incoherent, But They Make Up For It By Being Overwhelmingly Incompetent. Can you imagine throwing away a global competitive advantage that will damage every American wheat farmer? Can you imagine throwing it away for no reason at all? The Obama Administration can. Go here to read the sad tale. It's hard not to believe that Mr. Obama is actually trying to destroy America as hard as his little Marxist brain will allow. Frankly, I don't resist it anymore; there is no other logical explanation.

ITEM: "Dude, My Boss Is Just Going To Have To Get Over It If He Doesn't Like My Tats!" Go here for an interesting article about the essentials and difficulties of job hunting in the Obama economy. Any guesses on the employability of tat boy? Like, bummer Dude!

ITEM: We're Makin' It Up As We Go Along. Congress, the Courts, The Law, pshaw! The Obama Administration just imposes whatever policy it likes through executive orders and regulations. It's the rule of whim instead of the rule of law. And now, the Obamites have overturned our immigration laws and will grant legal status to whomever they please using whichever criteria—or none at all—they please. The Christian Science Moniter (here) points out a few potential pitfalls.

ITEM: The Glories Of Socialism, Continued: Go here to Steven Hayward at Powerline who links to an interview of Mikhail Gorbachev in Der Speigel. Mr. Gorbachev knew that Communism was rotten to the core and that it must be thrown out, but was so indoctrinated that he was severally hampered. Hmm. There may be something to learn there for our home-grown Communist wannabes, or at least for anyone tempted to vote for them.

ITEM: The Debt Star and the Power Of The Debt Side! The Debt Star seems a good name for Mr. Obama's Darth Vader black $1.1 million dollar Canadian bus. I was not amused by Mr. Obama's recent ostentatious display among the common folk. Neither was the invaluable Mark Steyn (here).

ITEM: People Who Live In Glass Houses…Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan, the former head of the Chicago School system, recently slimed Texas Gov. Rick Perry, claiming that Texas students are virtually victims of child abuse, so poor is the quality of Texas schools. Duncan oozed that he felt "very very badly for the children there." Even Louis Renault would be shocked to hear the head of one of the worst school systems on the planet—Chicago—so blatantly lie. Go here for an appropriate smackdown of yet another Obama Administration liar and corruptocrat.

ITEM: The Immutable Laws of Physics: Not long ago, I did a five-part series on gun ownership. A good starting point for that series is here. In it, I explained that some of the problems with .357 revolvers are substantial recoil, violent muzzle up-flip and truly spectacular muzzle flash, and I was talking about full-sized, heavy duty revolvers with 4" barrels. Go here for a visually stunning example of what I was talking about. The donut-shaped fireball is unburned powder igniting forward of the muzzle. This is worsened in shorter barrels. You can also see the recoil effect, and note, gentle readers, that the shooter is not a 98 pound woman. Lightweight, short barreled .357 revolvers are weapons for experts, and massive experts at that. The plus side is that even if he missed, the bad guy was probably incinerated!

ITEM: If We Can Just Ram Through Another Stimulus: How's that hope and change workin' out for yuh? If you live in Baltimore, not so much. Homes are selling for less then $10,000 there. Go here for the story.

ITEM: "Breasts Make Men Stupid," said Steve Martin. Here's proof. Why doesn't anyone ever hold this sort of "gathering" in my neighborhood?

And with that double-barreled observation, I must thank you for stopping by, and urge you to drop in once again next Thursday for another stimulating--and stupefying--edition of Quick Takes!

These Guys Won?

Look closely at the following photograph currently on the Fox News home page, showing Libyan rebel fighters.

Now look even more closely at the dufus on the right.

I've never been in the military (or even played a soldier on television), but even I know that a rocket-propelled grenade loaded in the ass-end of a launcher isn't a threat to anyone.

Seriously... these guys beat Qaddafi?

Aggravated Analogies

As a teacher of the mother tongue, one of the more difficult and sometimes torturous things I do is teaching students how to enliven their writing with insightful, intellectually pleasing analogies. I have, for many years, kept the inadvertently funny things my students have written and often share them with you.

This list of aggravated analogies came to me from a colleague who was not sure from whence they came. Apparently, they are a conglomeration of beatings suffered by the language at the hands of students everywhere and anywhere. Should anyone wish to claim authorship of the list, by all means, let me know and I'll be delighted to properly apportion credit (or blame).

In the meantime, I can certify that these syntactic train wrecks are precisely the sorts of thing my students often produce. And no, these are not evidence of the horrors of the public schools, for such mangled contrivances are often produced by the brightest and most capable students who unlike their less daring peers are willing to inch as far out on the linguistic limb as possible before inadvertently sawing it off like an inadvertent linguistic limb sawer-offer or something. Stop me before I analogize again!

In any case, may the chagrin experienced by those students who couldn't see what they had written, nor understand its horror, until it was pointed out to them by English teachers shaking with helpless laughter, pass you by as you enjoy the fruits of their…labors?

1) She grew on him like she was a colony of E. Coli, and he was room-temperature Canadian beef.

2) She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up.

3) Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.

4) Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a ThighMaster.

5) His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free.

6) He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it.

7) He was as tall as a six-foot, three-inch tree.

8) The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife’s infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM machine.

9) The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn’t.

10) McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup.

11) Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19 p.m. at a speed of 35 mph.

12) They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan’s teeth.

13) John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met.

14) He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant, and she was the East River.

15) From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you’re on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30.

16) Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze.

17) The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease.

18) Even in his last years, Granddad had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long it had rusted shut.

19) Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do.

20) The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work.

21. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for awhile.

22) He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up.

23) He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame, maybe from stepping on a land mine or something.

24) The ballerina rose gracefully en Pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant.

25) It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools. [And who hasn't done that?!]

Wanna Know What I Really Think of Holder, Napolitano, Obama, and Gunwalker?

Ask me... I'll tell you.

Becuase Ideological Conformity is More Important than Solutions

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) is the latest member of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) to try to blame the problems of her constituents on anything but the policies she champions.

"When you look at African American males, 40% of them are unemployed, those under 30 years of age. I understand exactly the entire nation must be involved in this recovery but the black community is experiencing a great recession. That's what we're experiencing," Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) told MSNBC.

First, criminals are all but unemployable, and while blacks comprise just 12.6% of the U.S population, they make up 39.4% of the prison inmates in 2009 according to Wikipedia.

A Guardian post claims that 30-percent of black men will go to jail.

So who is really to blame, the business community for not wanting to hire convicted criminals, or the culture and communities that allow such a high percentage of their young men to turn to a lives of crime and celebrate a popular culture of "thug life" that glorifies gang activity, violence, and misogyny?

The Great Society brought about by liberalism destroyed the black family unit, and Planned Parenthood is nothing more than slow-motion genocide being waged against African-Americans by white liberal cultural elites.

If black Democratic legislators were something other than Stepin Fetchits "out to get me mine's'" and cash in on the misery of their peers, they are a substantial enough force within Congress to effect positive change for their communities.

But they aren't there to enrich their communities.

Corruptocrats like Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson Jr., Charles Rangel and others are there to personally profit at the expense of their communities, and instead of providing a way out, merely reinforce the broken system that that caused so many parts of what was once a thriving African-American middle class to implode.

From their perspective, it makes sadly perfect sense.

The unemployable and destitute will reliably keep voting for Democrats to ensure the table scraps offered by the Democratic party continue to come their way.

A thriving black middle class would turn their attention to matters of business and culture would break the Democratic stranglehold on the nearly monolithic black vote, and put shameless race-baiters out of work.

Wilson, et al find a wonderful scapegoat in vague claims of racism. It excuses the fact they've done nothing for their constituents, and serves to reinforce the low expectations that keep them chained to servant and victim mentality.

It's loathsome that a sitting Congresswoman is allowed to make such claims unchallenged, and sadly, completed expected.

Libyan Rebels Claim Qaddafi Compound Breached

I'll believe it when we have confirmation, but it seems plausible.

[Updated 11:39 a.m. ET, 5:39 p.m. in Libya] Rebels are saying they have made it into Gadhafi's Bab Al Aziza compound, CNN's Sara Sidner reported.

"They have been able to take some of the weapons off of the Gadhafi forces," she said.

Rebels are telling Sidner "Gadhafi is nearly finished."

Sidner said that rebels said they are still inside trying to secure the area, but are celebrating as fighting continues.

“Now they’re going to try and clear the compound," Sidner said rebels told her.

Sidner said that she is less than half a kilometer from the compound and can see more smoke coming from the area.

Sidner said rebels are hugging each other and crying on the streets. Loud chants can be heard in the background.

Rebels shouted "God is great, God is great" in celebration Tuesday.

The compound is symbol of the regime, and an important one, but only a symbol. Until they capture or kill Qaddafi and his sons, the fighting will likely continue.

The Fife Element

"I believe the primary purpose of Gunrunner was so the the administration could be shocked, shocked! that American guns were being used by drug runners in Mexico and thus have an excuse for ever more draconian gun laws in the US.

"It's as though Barney Fife sold his only bullet to the bad guys, hoping to arrest them after they'd shot someone."

That droll summary by a commenter to a post on the blog Wizbang! over the weekend sums up the opinion of a growing number of Americans that are learning of the "Gunwalker" scandal and the apparent cover-up of the botched program by elements of the Executive branch.

Operation Fast and Furious was a poorly conceived and ineptly executed multi-agency scheme that Obama Administration officials claim was a attempt to catch trafficking rings supplying Mexican drug cartels with weapons from U.S. gun shops.

What actually transpired is that a multiple-agency federal anti-crime task force composed of agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) watched and effectively provided a law enforcement shield so that a relative handful of low-level gun runners without any ties to cartel leaders were allowed to traffic 2,020 firearms to the foot soldiers of the Sinaloa drug cartel.

The strike force placed tracers (GPS "bugs") on just two of 2020 weapons; there was no possible way of tracking them. Nor was there a possible mechanism of affecting arrests of cartel leaders in Mexico. Worse, they purposefully kept Mexican officials in the dark about the operation.

The weapons seem to have been sent to Mexico for one reason only; to be used in crimes. When the weapons were discarded at crimes scenes--which gunmen frequently did to avoid to being tied to specific murders via ballistic forensics--the recovered weapons were traced by the BATF and used to manufacture evidence to support President Obama's dishonest claim that U.S. guns stores were the primary supplier of cartel weapons. The President and federal law enforcement agencies reporting to him seemed to be working on gun control "under the radar," indeed.

The gun-running operation came to an end only after a U.S. border Patrol Agent was gunned down in a firefight, and two of the weapons were traced back to the operation, at which point whistleblowers within the BATF came forward to expose the plot.

It has been more than six months since Operation Fast and Furious was exposed, and during that time the federal law enforcement agencies involved in the scandal have participated in what appears to be a high-level cover-up of the operation, and one that the Obama Administration and their allies in the media are desperately trying to contain. They are using a number of methods, including attacking congressional investigators, stonewalling requests for information, and controlling individual employees inside the operation by recalling them to Washington and putting them in desk jobs where they can be more easily monitored.

Despite the stonewalling attempts of the Administration, it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold up the preferred narrative of a localized law enforcement operation gone horribly wrong.

The mainstream media and the White House are eager to portray Operation Fast and Furious as a solitary and limited operation that was the responsibility of a small band of BATF misfits in Arizona, backed by an overzealous U.S. District Attorney.

While the Administration has continued to push that story, emails confirm that every director of a law enforcement agency within the Department of Justice was briefed on the scheme from the beginning, and that FBI criminal informants were part of the plot.

Dennis Burke, the U.S. Attorney that holds at significant responsibly for this debacle is a close confidant of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano; he was her Chief of Staff when she was the governor of Arizona and their relationship no doubt played a role is his appointment as a U.S. attorney, one of dozens of politicized hirings in the Department of Justice that other PJMedia reporters have been following. Despite these close ties between Burke Napolitano, the media and White House are doing their best to try to pretend that this was a BATF operation, with minimal contacts with other elements of the DOJ or from other branches of government.

We must ask ourselves as rational people, "How likely is it that someone as deeply connected to law enforcement in Arizona as Janet Napolitano as former governor and state attorney general, who is now the Secretary of Homeland Security with a huge stake in the events occurring along the southern border, has a close confident and former staffer as the U.S. Attorney running Operation Fast and Furious, and she knew nothing about the operation?" It is almost inconceivable that Napolitano wasn't directly involved in briefings regarding Operation Fast and Furious from the very beginning; one could and perhaps should make the argument that she has even more reason to be aware of and involved with Operation than any of the other directors or cabinet level officials that had a role in the plot. You won't see her name mentioned in the narrative however; it simply won't do to have another Cabinet level official facing fire in editorials and from Congressional investigators.

The mainstream media not pursuing this line of questioning because they've invested their own "single bullet" on the claim that Operation Fast and Furious was a horrible, but isolated mistake. But emerging evidence suggests that Fast and Furious was just one element of a scandal we know as "Gunwalker," with allegations of operations in two Texas field operations areas and one in Florida already on congressional radar and subject to inquires by Senators and Congresspersons alike.

And some media outlets are becoming tired of the obedient elitist press corps.

As the Dallas Morning News vents, "details only get worse" in regards to the Gunwalker conspiracy. CNS News pointedly notes that the Justice Department is being as vague as possible, dancing around the question of, "What did Attorney General Eric Holder know, and when did he know it?"

In an interview with Human Events, House Oversight and Government Reform committee member Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona's 1st District admits that the President himself is a potential target of the investigation.

Goser indicates that Operation Fast and Furious is the focus of the current investigation, but notes that they are aware of other allegations, including plots to supply both the Sinaloa cartel and the Zetas with weapons, which could be the basis for even wider investigations of the Obama Administration's role is supply drug cartels with advanced weaponry.

Those close to the investigation seem to think that evidence of corruption and criminality in Operation Fast and Furious may be enough not to bring down just U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, but his peers and perhaps even the Obama Administration.

Barney seems to have fired his only bullet, and shot himself in the foot in the process.

A Letter From The Teacher #15: Opinion vs. Behavior

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Mr. Martinez
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Opinion vs. Behavior

Dear Mr. Martinez:

Thanks for your e-mail. Your niece Aracelli is doing well and if you help her with her weekly vocabulary, I'm sure her English skills will rapidly improve. As you suggested, the more she speaks and reads English, the faster she'll improve, and I'll be happy to loan her books that will help. She's a bright girl and I'm glad to have her in class.

I'll do my best to address your other question, but please bear with me, as I make sure we're talking about the same case. I believe you're talking about the Florida teacher, Mr. Jerry Buell, who was recently suspended when he expressed his opinion about gay marriage on his Facebook page. Here's a link to the story in case you missed this particularly account.

Let's keep in mind that neither of us knows all the facts, but as I understand it, the man is an excellent, experienced teacher who was the Mount Dora (FL) High School teacher of the year last year. Apparently his record is unblemished and he is well liked and respected.

The trouble apparently began when someone complained about his Biblically-based, internet-posted disapproval of gay marriage. School officials contend that his opinion is "disturbing" and that students might be frightened or intimidated by that opinion. Keep in mind that Mr. Buell is not accused of any actual intimidation or improper behavior, but is suspended because school officials worry that unnamed students might possibly, at some point in the future, be intimidated by Mr. Buell's opinion expressed on a Facebook page in July. The Mount Dora School District obviously intends to fire Mr. Buell, or at the least, to humiliate or figuratively speaking, beat him into line.

In this case, the school district is completely wrong. Their behavior is ill-considered and excessive and damaging not only to Mr. Buell, but to the reputation of the entire school district. It seems clear that Mr. Buell wrote his opinion on his own time, using his own resources. It is equally clear that he did not represent his opinion as the official policy of the Mount Dora School District. It was written on his personal Facebook page, not in any school forum.

Some may claim that because the internet potentially reaches millions, one may not express their opinions there, and the Mount Dora SD is taking just this position, that despite posting his opinion on his personal Facebook page, it was not private, but they miss the point. It is principle that matters, not the means by which Mr. Buell's opinion was disseminated or the size of his audience. If freedom of speech exists, it matters not whether the audience for such speech is five people in a teacher's lounge or the most heavily trafficked website on the Internet. The principle is the same.

The actions of the Mount Dora SD are politically correct idiocy. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are acting in what they believe to be the best interests of students rather than the purity and power of their obviously leftist politics, they are no less wrong and no less foolish. One does not protect students by teaching them that the First Amendment may be suspended at the whim of school administrators.

Their fundamental mistake is in conflating opinion with behavior. Mr. Buell may hold any opinion about any topic he pleases no matter how horrifying some people might find any of his opinions should they somehow become known to them. It is not only possible, it is common for professional teachers to disapprove of gay marriage or even homosexuality in general while still treating homosexual students, parents and others with kindness and respect.

In this case, there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Buell is anything but a professional teacher that understands and universally respects the boundary between personal opinion and professional practice. In fact, Mr. Buell has a 22-year record of doing just that. Presumably he has held this opinion for most, if not all of those 22 years, yet has obviously been a very effective teacher. Considering this, it would appear that the people who have no idea of the boundary between personal opinion and professional practice are Mr. Buell's employers.

School officials may not demand uniformity of thought. They may not establish thought crimes and appoint themselves the thought police. They can legitimately expect that teachers treat everyone professionally. It's impossible and insane to believe that one may regulate the very thoughts and beliefs of others—particularly when such thoughts and beliefs have not even a tenuous connection to school facilities, publications or business--yet that's what Mount Dora school officials are doing. They are elevating one group of people—homosexuals—above all others and awarding them special, protected status, but protection against what?

The Mount Dora SD wishes to provide homosexuals with protection against experiencing any possible—as opposed to real—offense. One of the most ephemeral foundations upon which political correctness shakily stands is the bizarre idea that there is such as thing as a right never to be annoyed or offended. Thankfully, no such right exists (although many of America's universities are doing their best to establish one).

We are all subject to the disapproval and criticism of others, express or implied, real or imagined, in hundreds of ways and for hundreds of reasons. Learning to deal with disapproval, without being annoyed or offended, without lapsing into quivering victimhood which requires the full force of the state for protection and relief, is an essential life skill, a skill without which one is singularly unsuited to survival in the real world where the overly tender sensibilities of any individual tend to be unimportant, to say the least. The state may be legitimately involved only when opinion is manifested in actual behavior that rises to the level of a crime such as a breach of the peace or an assault. This is so because most Americans realize that attempting to regulate or punish the thoughts and opinions of others is practically impossible, constitutionally impermissible and morally repugnant.

We must judge others, as Dr. Martin Luther King suggested, on the content of their character, which we can know primarily through their behavior, through the way they treat others, and secondarily through their record of accomplishments. In this case, Mount Dora school officials are punishing an exemplary teacher for the potential—not the real—discomfort of some potential homosexual students—which might occur at some point in the future, not which has actually occurred. To them, apparently the mere possibility that a homosexual might—at some future date, in some way—be offended, is sufficient justification to destroy the career of what appears to be a loyal and effective public servant. This is the stuff of totalitarian thought crime, not of professional, rational management.

I would hope that that logic would prevail and that Mount Dora school officials could calmly and dispassionately examine their actions and correct their errors, but understanding human nature and Leftist thinking—such as it is—that is unlikely. Political correctness has a deranged, self-propelling logic all its own. Mr. Buell will almost certainly have to fight a protracted legal battle, and the students of Mount Dora High School will be deprived of an excellent teacher until Mr. Buell eventually wins, as he surely will, if the Constitution and common sense still exist in Mount Dora, Florida.

Mr. Buell and his attorneys also have a strong case based on his related First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The Bible clearly disapproves of homosexuality, and Mr. Buell reportedly made reference to the Bible in his Facebook writings. Should Mr. Buell choose this path as well as the freedom of speech path, his case will be strengthened in that Christian tradition and practice is to disapprove of sin, but to love human beings, all of whom sin. Again, Mr. Buell appears to have practiced just this for 22 years at Mount Dora High School, while Mount Dora school officials seem to worship at the alter of political correctness and victimization.

I hope I've answered your question satisfactorily. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you, or for Aracelli.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

Lee Booth Properties Being Searched By U.S. Marshals

My favorite gun company-acquiring felon still isn't of interest to a corrupt North Carolina BATF, but he has at least drawn the attention of lawyers who believe Booth may have parts and equipment belonging to Pace Airlines.

His properties are being searched today by U.S. Marshals acting on behalf of the Pace bankruptcy trustee.

As I understand it, they are searching for parts that Booth claims he does not have that belong to the bankrupt airline. I suspect that one or two small parts would not be a big deal and could be written off as a legitimate accident, but if the Marshals discover substantial Pace materials, then he could be in a bit of trouble.

I'll update when I find out more.

Libyan Regime Goes Dead Parrot

Rebels control most of Tripoli and have captured his two oldest sons, and it seems a foregone conclusion that the 42-year dictatorship of Moammar Qaddafi is finished, despite the Baghdad Bob protests of his few remaining supporters who hope against hope that the regime is just "pining for the fjords."

The location of the ex-dictator (I think it safe to call him an "ex" when he controls less than 20% of his own capitol) is anyone's guess, and it appears everyone is guessing, from supposing his death (inaccurately, so far), to thinking he's holed up in a strongpoint in Tripoli, to those who feel he has fled to neighboring Algeria, or even to South America.

Predictably, President Obama's supporters are crowing that Qaddafi's downfall is a victory and a feather in the cap of the President.

I say give Obama all the credit possible for what he actually did.

He pledged military and intelligence support to a popular preexisting coalition of primarily Western European forces.

He authorized the U.S. military to use air power, and then reined them in so that their effectiveness was diminished, prolonging the conflict.

Obama joined a victorious coalition, but certainly did not lead it. Give him the credit he deserves for putting a finger in the wind and following popular opinion. Just don't dare claim it amounts to anything remotely like leadership.

Beyond that, let us hope that the various rebel forces that will be vying for control of Libya are a bit less extremist than the dictator they replace. The Libyan people deserve better.

I'm Takin' A Vacation!

What to make of Mr. Obama's Martha's Vineyard vacation? Some have suggested that considering the horrendous economic situation for which Mr. Obama bears primary responsibility, it is, as the trendy saying goes: "bad optics." Indeed it is. Others claim that Presidents are due their vacations, which also has the ring of truth. Others bewail the extravagance of the Obama family's choice of vacation spots and of the expense involved. The Obama's will be staying in digs reportedly costing some $50,000 per week, which is more than a great many Americans make in a year. There is indeed a case to be made for unthinking, uncaring extravagance.

All of this is disturbing too because the Martha's Vineyard excursion is hardly an isolated event. Combined with Mr. Obama's plethora of golf outings and his many command performance White House parties starring himself with a supporting cast of various celebrities, to say nothing of jetting on Air Force One on various "date nights," Mr. Obama has succeeded in creating a particularly unfortunate stereotype: The low roller suddenly come into money who lives large and fast and blows it all in an ostentatious display of greed and carelessness.

In Julius Caesar (Act. II, Scene I), Brutus speaks of those who climb the ladder of power too fast, and reaching its upper rungs, forget how they got there and the people they used and tend to abuse power. One might be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Obama didn't learn that lesson from Shakespeare, or the most important lesson: When the mighty allow themselves Hubris—excessive pride--they fall.

Yet this is far from the only evidence of Hubris. Mr. Obama recently went on a "jobs" bus tour of the middle states of flyover country. The two busses specially ordered and manufactured for this transparent campaign junket were painted Darth Vader black, which is as far as I'll go into the symbolism of that odd choice, except to wonder if perhaps some little bit of color, such as an American flag, might not be appropriate for Mr. Obama, who when last I checked was the President of the United States. Symbolism, you know.

What is most interesting is that prior to embarking on a bus tour to reassure America of his serially renewed, laser-like focus on creating American jobs, Mr. Obama chose a Canadian company to build his conveyances. Costing the American taxpayer $1.1 million each, the busses are among the most luxurious manufactured by Prevost of Quebec. Why so much? Armor, various conveniences, and of course the electronic and other support gear required by the Secret Service. The costs of housing, feeding and otherwise maintaining all of the minions of the Obama campaign machine on this trek are not yet available, but surely are not, as Dr. Evil suggested about the details of his life, "quite inconsequential."

Remarkable is that even as Mr. Obama ventures into the lands of those bitter clingers to God and guns who have antipathy for those not like themselves—which presumably includes Mr. Obama (such Olympian bravery!)—he hasn't the faintest notion of a plan to produce that about which he now, yet again, claims to most concern him: jobs. He has, however, announced that after Labor Day, when his Martha's Vineyard labors are done, he will deliver—a speech! Praise be! If I can only hang on until then! This particular speech, it is said, will reveal Mr. Obama's plan to produce jobs and to rescue the economy. It is even rumored that he will propose spending cuts far in excess of anything seen to date. However, considering that to date, nothing at all has actually been cut, two cents might qualify.

And here I have my quandary. I have often criticized Mr. Obama's class warfare and his Socialistic fixation on taking money from the rich and giving it, if not exactly to the poor, to those Mr. Obama feels more worthy such as starving labor unions, waifish community organizers, down on their luck car manufacturers, pitiful Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and similar down on their luck victims of Mr. Obama's policies. Such class warfare is indicative of bad breeding, of envy and of coveting a neighbor's possessions. It is a repudiation of the American values of hard work and industry, of self-reliance and pride. It ignores the fact that the creation and accumulation of wealth in America is not a zero-sum game. A dollar my neighbor makes is not a dollar that I can no longer make—at least not until Mr. Obama completes his dissolution of the economy.

It's rather hard to teach our children to take sincere pleasure in the good fortune and honest accomplishments of others, and to encourage them to engage in the character building and hard work necessary to do the same while supporting those who paint the industrious and prosperous as somehow indecent, heartless and even evil.

So bless his heart, may Mr. Obama and his family enjoy themselves on their vacation and on all the vacations, golf outings, date nights, White House command performances, campaign tours, and other frolics they can afford. The Obamas are apparently paying for their lodging on this particular trip, which is only right and I salute them. If I am to be consistent I must; we all must.

But we are completely justified in our disgust, perhaps even outrage, about $1.1 million dollar busses made in Canada. When last I checked, there were one or two firms in America capable of producing luxurious busses, perhaps for a bit less than $1.1 million. Some of these firms might even employ union employees. Look for the union label—in Canada? Of course I could ask whether it was really necessary to buy the busses at all, but that might make too much sense. No doubt future presidents can conduct their own Star Wars tours when possessed, as Chris Muir's Day By Day cartoon on August 17, 2011 suggested, by the power of the "Debt Side," which fits well when one is traveling in one's own personal "Debt Star."

Our annoyance entitlement also extends to all of the other ostentatious displays of wealth, power and excess in which Mr. Obama seems to revel, particularly since we are footing a substantial portion of the not inconsequential bills for these quaint and frequent gatherings of the self-imagined elite. We are on solid ground as well when we observe that the "optics" of much, if not all, of this seem particularly wretched, for they do make Mr. Obama appear to be a man who considers himself to be superior to the little people with whom he occasionally condescends to mix. At the very least, his leisure choices would seem to indicate a sense of entitlement far beyond what reasonable people would consider justified or wise. True believers would observe that the Scientific Socialists leading the masses on the path to socialist utopia deserve certain perks as a reward for all they have done for those incapable of understanding and appreciating their altruistic revolutionary labors. Fortunately, for the moment, Americans seem of a mind to boot them—and America—off the path.

So we begrudge not Mr. Obama's vacations. He is free to use his wealth as he pleases, for if he is not, one of the foundations of America, one of the cornerstones of good manners and character is illegitimate. But it does not violate the principles of good manners, or even the Ten Commandments, to consider any man's character as revealed by his choices and actions. Americans are rather good at those kinds of considerations, and they tend not to make the same mistakes twice. In 2012, they'll have the chance to rectify a very expensive mistake.

Qadaffi Dead (or not?)... But what next?

Allahpundit is updating so fast I can't keep up with it but the gist of it is that instead of a siege of Tripoli, the various rebel grouping surging into the city are finding that regime loyalists have simply melted away.

As noted in the headline various voices on Twitter are claiming the strongman is dead. If he isn't, and he's in Tripoli, he most likely will be soon if he isn't now.

It is amazing how a bunch of ragtag rebels with no discernible organization can overthrown a firmly entrenched tyrant that started this war with total control of the government and military. Other dictators should look upon Libya with fear in their hearts.

Of course, this doesn't mean rainbows and sunshine for Libyans. We don't know who is going to take power in the suddenly leaderless state, or what their intentions are. The old dictator has fallen.

But what will we face now?

Self Defense Or Socialism?

Do you have an inalienable right to self-defense, or is the value of your life measured only in its utility to the state? Is your right to continued existence contingent on the whims of Socialistic politicians and their allies in the permanent bureaucratic class? Who is more valuable to society, a member of the producer class or a member of the parasite class? And how does the Gunwalker scandal relate to this?

My latest article, published by the good folks at Pajamas Media, brings it all together. My thanks to Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit for linking to it.

The Literature Corner: I Ain't No Crim'nul...

For this edition of the Literature Corner, I present a tale shamelessly modeled on Thurber's "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty." This particular true story took place during the years that I worked as a division commander in charge of just about everything no one else wanted to do, including evidence, vehicle maintenance, animal control, radio maintenance, a variety of other tasks, and also managed a small jail used primarily for short term incarceration. One night, a very drunk, very lonesome all hat and no cattle cowboy was a guest in my establishment…

I Ain't No Crim'nul…

“No!” The rodeo clown cried. “Don’t do it Billy Bob! The Crusher killed the last 20 cowboys tried to ride him! You’re doomed, doomed I tell yuh! Get off ‘fore it’s too late!”

Billy Bob snarled in defiance and swung his leg over the enormous back of the black bull. He could feel the incredible, animal power rumbling beneath the coarse hide as the Crusher snorted and fiercely pawed the loosely packed Earth. He wrapped the leather strap tightly around his right hand, locking himself in place. “Get out of the way, you fool!” he snapped.

“I’m tellin’ yuh, don’t do it. Ain’t nobody kin ride the Crusher!”

“I can,” Billy Bob spat, a confident smile playing across his weathered, yet ruggedly handsome face as he glanced toward the stands and saw Sally Mae Roughrider, the Rodeo Queen, bouncing up and down in nervous anticipation, concern furrowing her pretty brow, her wavy, long blonde hair shining in the high noon sun. Billy Bob touched the tips of the fingers of his left hand to the brim of his hat in a jaunty, fearless salute. She nearly dissolved, so taken was she by his attentions, by the slight gesture of recognition.

“Billy Bob! No...”

The buzzer blared and the gate exploded outward...

“...no more cowboy. You’ve had enough. Why don’t you head on home?”

The bartender stood, wiping a glass, looking down into the puffy, reddened face of the young oil field roughneck in a complete cowboy outfit: Shiny boots, freshly pressed, skin tight boot cut jeans--razor sharp creases down the legs, a belt with his name on the back complete with a buckle big enough to serve as a dinner plate. A neatly pressed western shirt and a black Stetson completed his ensemble. He looked the part.

“’Nuff? Nuff? I ain’t started yet!” The cowboy waved his arms wildly and looked around, his eyes unfocused and empty. “I ain’t...started...” his voice trailed off and his head slowly sagged onto the top of the bar.

“I ain’t started yet,” the sheriff said coldly to the cowardly Mayor of the little cow town.

“But Sheriff,” the Mayor whined, “you’ve already arrested every outlaw in the territory, and killed twenty more just last week. Nobody will think the less of you if you don’t face down Johnny Dingo and his gang!”

“Like I said: I ain’t started yet.”

“Sheriff, it’s five ‘till high noon. There’s still time. You can just ride out. The train won’t be here for five more minutes. Save yourself!”

The sheriff spun the cylinder of his Colt .45 revolver, listening to the metallic clicking. Six cartridges; six outlaws. He snapped the loading gate shut and twirled the glistening handgun expertly into its low slung holster. “There’s some things a man’s gotta do, Mayor,” the Sheriff drawled. He plucked the silver star from his chest and polished it, rubbing it on his shirt. As he pinned it back into place, the door burst open.

“Oh Bart, Bart, don’t do it!” It was Betsy Sue, the young and beautiful owner of the saloon. She rushed, weeping, into the Sheriff’s manly arms. “I don’t know what I’d do without you! You can’t win Bart; you can’t win!” She dissolved into a torrent of tears, staining her pale, white cheeks.

“A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do,” the Sheriff muttered quietly. He picked Betsy Sue up and placed her gently in the chair behind his desk as she wept convulsively and clutched at him. In the distance, he heard the shrill wail of the rapidly approaching train whistle.

The door burst open again. It was little Billy, the orphaned shoeshine boy. “Bart, don’t go Bart! What will I do without you?” Billy wrapped his scrawny arms around Bart’s leg.

“Some day you’ll understand, Billy,” Bart drawled. The Mayor pulled Billy from Bart and held him as he struggled to grasp the stalwart lawman, tears running down his narrow face.

“Woof! Woof!” barked Bart’s faithful dog Lightning, his tail wagging nervously.

Bart pulled open the door, a steely glint in his pale blue eyes, his gun hand rock steady...

“Bart!” Billy cried, “ Come back Bart, come back...”

“Yeah, he’s comin’ back now,” the bartender said, pointing toward the cowboy whose left cheek was covered with beer from the puddle on the bar top.

“OK, we got him,” the police officers said.

“Thanks for comin’ so quickly.”

“No problem. We were only a few blocks away when we got the call. Do you know this guy’s name?”

“Nah. I’ve seen him in here once before I think, but I don’t know him.”

“OK. Hey fella, Police Department. Police officers.” The officers each took an arm and stood him up. He struggled back to full consciousness, his eyes heavy lidded, beer dripping off his face onto his new western shirt.

“Police? I ain’t no crim’nul; turrrrrrrrrrrn me loose!” he muttered, slurring badly as he stumbled and nearly fell.

The officers caught his falling, urban-cowboyed bulk and pulled him back to his feet. “I know, but you’re drunk. You’re comin’ with us. We’re going to take you somewhere where you can sleep it off. C’mon.” The officers led him toward the door. Falling asleep, he stumbled and tripped, but just before he passed out completely, he mumbled, “I ain’t no crim’nul...”

“I know Tex. I wish I could turn you loose… “ The Warden stood with the Preacher at the door of the cell at the end of death row, “…but it’s time.”

“The Governor?” Tex asked.

“I’m sorry Tex. No word,” the Warden whispered, brushing a tear from his eye.

Tex nodded and rose from the cot. He squared his shoulders and cleared his throat. He walked purposefully out of the cell and began his final walk down that long hallway. Nobody would ever say that he, Tex McCorkle, cowboy, didn’t face his fate with courage and grit. Why, Tex McCorkle laughed in the face of death!

“It’s time to make your peace, Tex,” the preacher said.

“Too late for that, preacher,” Tex said defiantly. “I’ll see you in Hell!”

“Do you have any last words, Tex?” the Warden asked.

“I didn’t do it. I ain’t no crim’nul,” Tex said simply, without sorrow or regret.

“I know it, Tex. I know it,” the warden said, shaking his head sadly. “The trial was a farce. You wuz railroaded. But I’m bound by law to carry out my duty.”

“Ain’t yer fault Warden,” Tex said. Beyond the door at the end of the hall, the crack of the trap door flapping open and the sandbag snapping the rope taut as it fell through echoed in the narrow hallway. “I ain’t no crim’nul...”

“Has he been doing that all night?” The morning shift Sergeant asked as he put his briefcase down on the desktop.

“...turrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn me loose!”

The midnight shift Sergeant chuckled. “Yeah, all night, about every 30 seconds like clockwork. Kind of mournful, isn’t it?”

“I’d say so. It’s a wonder anybody else in the jail got any sleep.”

“We lucked out there. Midnight shift snagged two more, but they bonded out shortly after they were processed. He’s been by himself for the last five hours.”

“OK then.” The morning Sergeant glanced at the booking sheet. “He’s in just for being drunk. He’s a roughneck for Halliburton, huh? Anything else I should know about?”

“Nah. It was pretty quiet last night. If you’re ready, I think I’ll head home.”

“No sweat. You Sir, are relieved.”

“Thanks. See you tomorrow.”

“Sounds good.”

And as the night shift supervisor pushed open the door, down that long hallway, from the depths of death row, came Tex McCorkle, cowboy’s, lonely, plaintive moan: “I ain’t no crim’nul; turrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn me loose!”

The Erik Scott Case, 14.3: The Officers Speak--Sort Of (Concluded)

Date/Time: 07-10-10, 1835-1845
Duration of Interview: 10 minutes
Officer THOMAS MENDIOLA
Interviewed By: Det. Jensen and Det. Wildemann
Also Present: Sgt. Chris Halbert and Police Protective Association General Counsel Kathy Werner-Collins
Date/Time: 07-10-10, 1835-1845
Duration of Interview: 10 minutes

SUMMARY:

The detectives begin by establishing that Mendiola carries a Glock 17C in 9mm with 17 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. The "C" designation for Glocks indicates an integral compensator (slots in the top of the barrel and slide that direct gasses upward, helping to attenuate recoil). They said that Mendiola only carried 15 rounds on that particular day, but do not address that strange and highly relevant anomaly again.

Mendiola said that Scott was "brandishing" his handgun in the Costco, that he was "being loud," and "knocking things off the shelf." He also said that Scott was "ED," an that he told people "…he was Green Beret…"

Mendiola said that he told Costco employees—he could not identify who he was speaking with—to evacuate the store and spoke to Costco employees with radios to try to find out where Scott was and asked them to look on cameras and eventually was told that Scott was in the center of the store.

Mendiola said that he was the first to arrive and that a Sgt. was telling him where to park and what to do, but he doesn't explain further (who was that Sgt.? What role did he play? What did he see or hear?) and the detectives don't ask. In response to questions, he can only say that he heard that Scott was a white male, mid 30s with a black handgun in his waistband. Seconds later the detectives asked him where Scott was carrying his gun and Mendiola had no idea, yet the Detectives do not clarify this.

Mendiola said that he was at the entrance doors and Mosher was at the exit doors and people were leaving. He described them as "masses of people." Mendiola said that he heard Mosher "…yell out, 'Show me your hands.'" He said that he then realized that Mosher was talking to someone who resembled the description of the suspect and "Uh, at that time I also observed him pull a gun out." Mendiola said that when he noticed Scott, he was already facing Mosher. His description of what happened is confused (the detectives do no better):

Mendiola: "He had, ah, turned at his hips, by—at his hips, ah, reached over, like underneath his shirt, he had a baggy shirt on, and, ah, that's when the gun came out."

Q: "Did he reach over with his right or left hand?"

Mendiola: "Uh, it was both hands. He was playing with his shirt."

Q: "Okay. And, and how does the gun come out?"

Mendiola: "The gun comes out at a, a low ready, ah, at waist level."

The Detectives prompt Mendiola to say that the gun was in Scott's right hand and ask: "Okay. And does, does he, does the suspect point his gun at Bill Mosher?"

Mendiola: "Yes, it was pointed soon as I seen it."

Q: "Okay. From the time you turned around, um how long had Officer Mosher and the suspect been—how long were they, ah, having words, so to speak, or how long had Mosher been giving him commands?"

Mendiola: "At least a couple seconds. He got a lot of commands out, the only commands—"cause I heard him yelling, I just didn't hear the exact words."

The Detectives prompt Mendiola about his shooting backdrop and he describes one of the pillar/ricochet generators and said that there was no one in his backdrop. He continued: "At that time, uh, I heard Officer Mosher's gun discharge (how did he know it was Mosher's? The detectives don't ask). He fired a round. I only heard one. Ah, then I fired when the suspect didn't, he didn't move, he didn't, he didn't stop, and I was worried about the other people around, "cause there were more people."

Mendiola believed he fired three rounds, but Scott didn't immediately fall. The Detectives prompted: "If—as he was still standing, did you consider him a threat?"

Mendiola: "Yes sir, I did."

Mendiola had no idea whether anyone else fired, but agreed that Scott eventually fell down and that Mosher handcuffed him.

The Detectives prompted Mendiola to describe Sterner (he apparently did not know her name). He said: "Ah, she was telling us that he was Army, Green Beret. He has a CCW. We don't have the right to be shooting him. She was screaming those things over and over again." Mendiola said that another officer eventually took her away.

According to Mendiola, he, Mosher and a Sgt. (who?) called for paramedics who arrived quickly, but again, the Detectives did not press for any details. They did ask Mendiola to speculate what would have happened if Scott "…would of obeyed Off. Mosher's commands?"

Mendiola replied: "He would have been taken into custody and questioned."

The Detective questioned Mendiola about whether Scott said anything and Mendiola said that he was in a position to hear and that Scott did not, yet also said that he never saw Scott's face because he was "…turning at the time."

Det. Wildemann tried to clarify that Scott was in low ready, but eventually pointed the gun at Mosher and Mendiola went along. The interview was ended with Mendiola saying that there were a great many people "surrounding that area," including "It was kids and elderly people, and a lot of people."

The Detectives added: "So that you're thinking that they were all at risk, ah, if this guy pulled his gun?"

Mendiola: " I believe absolutely they're at one hundred percent risk."

Q: "Okay."

Mendiola: "Including my fellow officers."

ANALYSIS:

Again, the Detectives have a remarkable lack of curiosity about details, other than those what would allow them to check off the primary narrative points:

(1) Dispatch said Scott dangerous/drugged, possibly involved in crimes? Mostly check; drugged/dangerous.

(1) Scott drugged? Check.

(2) Officers forced to act in middle of huge crowd because Scott so dangerous (by walking normally toward the parking lot)? Check.

(3) Scott ignored officer's clear commands? Check.

(4) Scott pulled, pointed gun at officers? Check.

(5) Officers heroically shot to protect themselves, public? Check.

(6) Gun on pavement by Scott's body? Check.

(7) Handcuffed Scott? Check: Mosher did it.

(8) Searched Scott (sort of and didn't find anything, especially not a gun which we can't mention right now anyway)? Never volunteered or asked.

(9) Didn't see Sterner (who was feet away, screaming at you not to kill Scott) until after you killed Scott? No real idea; saw someone screaming.

Mendiola fired more rounds than any other officer, yet his interview is only ten minutes long and does not in any way account for those rounds.

Officers are required to carry Department approved and issued ammunition. They are given only enough rounds to fill their magazines, plus one round for the chamber. When an officer fires a round—even to dispatch an injured animal--or loses a round, it must be strictly accounted for in writing, usually by means of an official, uniquely numbered police report. When an officer is involved in a shooting, his weapon and all magazines must be taken into evidence as soon as possible, and all rounds and empty (fired) brass accounted for. This is particularly true when multiple officers have fired and their brass is intermingled on the ground. Any discrepancies are matters of enormous importance and must be completely and convincingly documented and explained.

The Detectives begin Mendiola's interview with the announcement that Mendiola was carrying two fewer rounds in his handgun than its capacity. This alone should require a precise and exhaustive explanation, yet the Detectives don't touch the topic. What happened to those two rounds? Did he just forget? Did they fall out of his gun when he wasn't watching? Did the Bullet Fairy take them? Or did those two rounds end up somewhere the police would rather not account for? Did now ex-officer Mendiola actually fire six rather than four rounds? Leaving these essential questions unasked leads to all manner of mischief.

Mendiola apparently did not see Scott until Mosher challenged him, and saw Scott turning, but the Detectives asked no questions about relative positions and movements, and Mendiola's account was confusing at best. Mendiola says that Scott pointed a gun at Mosher, but there is no description at all, and the gun is at "low ready," which is not a threatening posture, yet he is also pointing it directly at Mosher simultaneously, which is no doubt why the Detectives put words into Mendiola's mouth at the end of the interview on this point.

The time frame of the confrontation is essentially the same as that provided by the other officers. Mendiola can't hear what Mosher is saying, though he's sure Mosher is giving commands, and he's sure Scott didn't say anything, but he never sees Scott's face. Again, if he couldn't hear Mosher, why does he assume that Scott could? The detectives don't pursue this because it would not be helpful to the narrative. He heard a gun discharge, and knew it was Mosher's, but he did not see the discharge, or if he did, said nothing about it, and of course, the Detective's don't ask. Like Stark, we have no idea how Mendiola could have seen all of this despite hundreds of people moving all around them, and likely between Mendiola and Scott, at all times.

With this information, Mendiola, who within a few seconds sees all of this, like his fellow officers meticulously checks his backdrop, and fires at Scott because he didn't move, or he didn't stop, or because he was still standing, and he didn't stop shooting until Scott fell.

The Detectives did not ask if Mendiola saw a gun on the ground, they did not ask him to describe the gun he saw Scott point at Mosher, they did not ask him about a search of Scott, or about the Ruger, or almost any other necessary, basic, competent question, however Mendiola felt it important to add that after the shooting, suddenly there were many people "surrounding the area." No kidding.

What is also amazing is the mystery Sergeant. Who was he? What did he see? What did he hear? What did he do? Mendiola mentions him twice. He was obviously present, yet the Detectives ask no questions about him or his orders to Mendiola or the other officers, nor does Mendiola volunteer that information.

FINAL UPDATE 14 THOUGHTS:

Detectives investigating a homicide—and all police shootings are investigated as homicides until all of the evidence is in and a final, unassailable conclusion can be reached—must be absolutely meticulous. They must be certain to discover and reveal every detail, every fact, every potential piece of evidence whether it is physical or testimonial. When doing interviews, they never know what they'll learn or need to know, so they are as complete, as detailed as possible. Perhaps this will be their only chance to interview a given suspect or witness. Perhaps the suspect or witness will be run over by a bus or struck by a meteorite tomorrow. They have no way of knowing, so they take full advantage of their opportunities. Competent investigators know that they will inevitably discover things during the interview process that will require them to again speak with people they have already interviewed. The fact that the interviews of the three officers known to have shot Erik Scott took only 10-15 minutes each is, to put it kindly, absolutely inexplicable and grossly unprofessional.

This fact alone indicates that these Detectives—apparently Detectives assigned to Homicide—are alarmingly incompetent. The only alternative is that they are not asking the absolutely necessary and vital questions that any competent detective should ask because they have already decided what happened. They already know the narrative, they know the outcome of the investigation long before all of the facts are in, and they are asking only sufficient questions to be sure that the narrative is established and that the police have some wiggle room in the future. Why would experienced detectives be willing to appear to be rank neophytes? Only because they are acting under orders, or because to do their jobs properly would produce embarrassing, damaging results that would be much, much worse than appearing to be incompetent.

No doubt, they are comfortable in this because in the past, they have never been seriously challenged. They have never had to face the reality of consequences. Whatever Metro said was grumbled about, but generally accepted and eventually went down the memory hole and was forgotten as Metro moved on to the next police shooting and repeated the narrative, altering some facets here and there as each situation dictated. There is evidence to believe that the response to the Scott case, and the certainty that it will not go down the memory hole, has Metro very surprised and worried indeed.

Consider too that of the huge numbers of officers present at the Costco at various times (at least 65), only five were interviewed. Apparently only five had any relevant knowledge of what happened there, and two of them, Officers Bundy and Vietmeier, can only say that they saw what looked like a black gun on the ground near Scott after the shooting. Surprisingly, Officer Mendiola apparently can't say that much and the detectives certainly did not ask him about it.

The fact that so few officers had anything to say about this case should raise real suspicions. Were they that unobservant? Did no one else—such as the mystery Sergeant--do anything of any consequence in dealing with this case? Where is the statement of the officer (officers?) who was given Scott's handgun in the ambulance? Isn't that an important part of the case? Where are the statements of the officers who entered and searched Scott's home with the help of the Public Administrator's office? Isn't that important? Where are the statements of the officer or officers who handled the Costco video equipment? Surely this is worth recording?

The Detective's almost complete lack of curiosity about the actual shooting is inexplicable. Professional investigators would nail down every action, every facial expression, every word, every single factor from second to second in as much detail as possible, yet these Detectives seem only to be checking boxes for their preferred narrative. Everything rests on the idea that Scott pointed something black which could have been a gun at the officers so they immediately had to start shooting him in the middle of an enormous crowd.

Everything about the Officer's statements, as incomplete as they are, stretches reality and possibility to the breaking point. Stark and Mendiola heard shooting, perhaps thought they saw something black in Scott's hand, something they now say they thought was a gun—Stark wasn't solid on that—so they had to immediately shoot Scott too, despite they fact that they didn't know with any degree of certainty that Scott fired? They heard nothing or almost nothing of what Mosher said, and nothing of what Scott might have said, yet assumed that Scott must have not only heard Mosher, yet refused to obey the commands that they could not hear. And despite the fact that Mendiola and Stark didn't see the beginning of the confrontation, and that it lasted only about two seconds, they were focused on establishing a clear backdrop for shooting, and could describe their actions in seeking that clear backdrop in detail, even while moving and simultaneously shooting a moving target, all of this despite the fact that their grasp of detail about virtually everything else was shaky at best only a few hours after the shooting. Any competent investigator would know that such statements were—to put it kindly—troubling, yet these detectives not only accept them at face value, they prompt them and drop any lines of questioning that might not yield the answers they obviously want.

To competent investigators, the total lack of interest in the officer's handguns and their expended ammunition is surreal. In reality, each officer's handgun and magazines would be almost immediately taken into evidence and a complete accounting of each round fired, each round remaining in the guns and magazines, and each expended cartridge casing would be carefully and completely documented. Even the backup guns these officers were carrying would be treated in exactly the same way. A substantial portion of any competent interview would revolve around this issue. The fact, so casually mentioned by these Detectives, that Mendiola's weapon had a magazine capacity of 17 rounds but he was carrying only 15, would require conclusive and exhausting documentation. Why was he carrying only 15 rounds? Did he do that only that day? Where—or in what--were his other two issued rounds? No competent police officer would start a shift without being certain that his handgun was loaded to capacity. No competent officer would fail to report his missing rounds as soon as he knew they were missing if for no other reason than the trouble he would be in should their absence somehow be discovered before he could report them missing. No competent detective would be so incurious about such a glaring potential problem and obvious violation of policy and procedure.

There are other bizarre, contradictory matters that are not addressed. For example, Mosher says that he feared that Scott was wearing body armor or carrying additional weapons, yet didn't search him or confirm that he was wearing body armor. Perhaps the blood gushing from the bullet wound in Scott's chest might have enlightened Mosher to the fact that Scott was not wearing body armor, and perhaps even the Detectives interviewing Mosher might have realized this. In any case, their apparent refusal to ask such an elementary question, to clarify such an obvious contradiction clearly suggests gross incompetence or cover-up.

Another incredibly obvious anomaly that the detectives did not touch is why it was necessary to confront Scott in the middle of crowd of hundreds. If Scott were raving, waving a gun around, there would be no question of justification. The officers would have been negligent if they did not confront him then and there, yet Mosher's statement indicates that Scott presented no threat, none at all. He was not aware of the officers or that they were seeking him. He was calmly walking into the parking lot with the other customers. He was not raving, threatening, behaving unusually, he was simply walking away at a normal pace in a completely unremarkable manner. The officers had no indication that Scott actually injured or even threatened anyone in the Costco. Yet as soon as Scott was pointed out to him, Mosher, rather than simply watching Scott for even five seconds to see if he actually presented a threat, rather than carefully considering the presence of hundreds of citizens all around him, rather than coordinating with the other officers who were mere feet away and the plethora of additional officers arriving every second, his handgun drawn long before, provoked a deadly force encounter, all within a handful of seconds. He did not exercise due diligence. He did not stop to think. He did not behave with professional restraint and tactical sense. And the detectives asked nothing.

Once this line was crossed, Erik Scott was dead. Nothing he could have said or done, even standing stock still—and many witnesses saw him do exactly that--could have prevented Mosher from shooting him and Stark and Mendiola from adding their "me too" shots, for they didn't know who fired or why, but it looked like Mosher fired, so using the same kind of tactical deliberation Mosher used, they fired too.

It should go without saying that any competent prosecutor reading such reports should have the same concerns and questions I've raised here. That they obviously did not is, to say the least, troubling. The same would be true of any competent police supervisors or administrators. That they too apparently did not is, to say the least, absolutely horrifying, for this case is not by any means a close call based on the incredibly lame and confusing statements of the officers alone.

Ultimately, as I mentioned in past updates, Erik Scott is dead largely because everyone involved did everything wrong from the start. The officers involved used horrible tactics. They were never in control of events, and their incompetence resulted in the death of an innocent man, a man who posed no threat to anyone, a man who was doing nothing more threatening than walking to his car when he was stopped, challenged, and killed, all within two seconds.

If Off. Mosher, instead of immediately confronting Erik Scott in the middle of—by his own description—hundreds of people, simply did nothing for just a few seconds, if he allowed Scott to continue walking into the parking lot, away from the crowd, if he communicated with the other officers and they approached Scott intelligently, calmly with their guns holstered, there is little doubt that Erik Scott would be alive today. Instead Off. Mosher, having Scott pointed out to him, could think only of immediately and aggressively confronting him, his gun already drawn as he did, while surrounded by innocents, despite the fact that even Mosher cannot say that Erik Scott posed the slightest threat to him or anyone else at the time. Mendiola and Stark certainly can't identify Scott as a threat; they reacted primarily to Mosher's shots. Even though they had no idea who actually fired Mendiola said he heard Mosher's gun, but how could he possibly tell? Does he know the report of Mosher's Glock so well?

There is now no doubt in my mind that it is indeed a miracle that Erik Scott was the only person killed at Costco that day (we know that at least one elderly woman was injured, probably from falling in the panic of the shooting). There is also no doubt in my mind that there is no possible justification for the actions of Metro officers and those supporting them, before, during and after the shooting of Erik Scott.

Issa Demands Retraction of NY Times Hit Piece

I wrote earlier this week about the sorry excuse of a journalist Eric Litchblau, an ideologue that is one of the NY Times go-to writers who attacked Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that is closing in on corruption in the Obama Administration like the Allies closed in on Berlin.

Issa is not taking the Litchblau hit piece laying down, and has demanded a retraction based upon 13—yes,THIRTEEN—erroneous statements (or as well call them, lies) in the front-page Times smear job.

Below is the formal request for a retraction sent by Rep. Issa’s office yesterday to editors of The New York Times:

On behalf of Rep. Darrell Issa, please accept this as a formal request for a full front page retraction, including the headline, "Helping His District, and Himself," that ran in the Monday, August 15 edition of the New York Times. The request for a full front page retraction is based on numerous errors that invalidate the primary assertions made in the story that is a false and sensationalized account Rep. Issa's efforts to conduct congressional oversight of the Obama Administration and other matters.

This request is being sent after New York Times reporter, Eric Lichtblau, who wrote the story, refused to share the contact information of his editors for a discussion of errors in the story as requested by Rep. Issa's congressional office.

The central claim in the New York Times story is an allegation of self-dealing on the part of Rep. Darrell Issa, as the story describes, "with at least some of the congressman's actions helping to make a rich man richer" and "specific actions that appear to have clearly benefited his businesses."

The New York Times story cites three central examples it believes justifies these allegations:

• A medical complex purchased by Rep. Issa in 2008 that the Times story alleges enjoyed a 60 percent appreciation as it increased in value from $10.3 million to $16.6 million, "at least in part because of the government-sponsored road work" that Rep. Issa supported.
• That he "went easy" on Toyota during 2010 hearings on unintended acceleration due to "his electronics company's role as a major supplier of alarms to Toyota."
• An alleged 1900 percent profit Rep. Issa's charitable foundation made on an investment of "less that $19,000" that was sold seven months later for $357,000 "months before the stock market crashed."

All central examples, however, are wildly inaccurate, and the truth deserves to be told.

• The medical complex the Times story alleges enjoyed a 60 percent appreciation since it was purchased for $10.3 million and is now valued at $16.6 million is a patently false claim. According to the buyer's final settlement statement, the property in question was not purchased for $10.3 million as the New York Times reported but for $16.6 million – the exact same figure of its current tax assessment. According to these numbers, the appreciation is not 60 percent but roughly zero. In addition, the government sponsored road work noted in the article has not even begun and Rep. Issa's requests for the project (which were publicly announced and made on behalf of and at the request of the City of Vista, and the San Diego Association of Governments which is the regional transportation planning authority) all came before the 2009 property purchase.
• The allegation that Rep. Issa "went easy" on Toyota during 2010 hearings because of "his electronics company's role as a major supplier of alarms to Toyota" is again an example of a factual error in the Times story that lends no support to the story's central premise. While the Times story tells readers that Rep. Issa's former company, Directed Electronics, is a "major supplier of alarms to Toyota," the story offers no evidence, and Directed Electronics is, in fact, not a supplier to Toyota. The New York Times also fails to note that Rep. Issa does not have a personal financial interest in Directed Electronics.
• The "1,900 percent" profit allegation is, again, based on reporting errors by the New York Times. This is assertion is based on an incorrect form obtained by the Times. According to a financial transaction record, the Issa Family Foundation's initial investment in the AIM Small Company fund was not $19,000 but $500,000. The asset was later sold for $375,000 resulting in a $125,000 loss – not a 1900 percent gain as was reported.

In other words, the claims leveled against Issa by Litchblau entirely fabricated. The writer and his editors totally failed to fact-check their claims. The real question here is, "Where did they get their information?"

I'm guessing the same place that plagiarist Sari Horwitz got her smear piece in Pravda on the Potomac, which was Barack Obama's White House.

Now back to the demand for retraction.

In addition, the lede line of the Times story – an attempt by the New York Times to foreshadow a corporate image of Rep. Issa's congressional office – contains a factual inaccuracy in introducing intentionally distorted imagery. The story begins, "Here on the third floor of a gleaming office building overlooking a golf course in the rugged foothills north of San Diego, Darrell Issa, the entrepreneur, oversees the hub of a growing financial empire worth hundreds of millions of dollars." As this video shows, however, the office building located at 1800 Thibodo Rd. in Vista does not overlook a golf course. Because of these errors, and another error the New York Times did correct that grossly exaggerated the value of some holdings held by Rep. Issa, the following lines in the New York Times original story that ran August 15 are incorrect or made on baseless assertions:

• The title, "Helping His District and Himself" implies that Rep. Issa has engaged in self-dealing. The only evidence the story offers for this assertion are factually flawed assertions.
• The lede, "Here on the third floor of a gleaming office building overlooking a golf course in the rugged foothills north of San Diego, Darrell Issa, the entrepreneur, oversees the hub of a growing financial empire worth hundreds of millions of dollars." The building where Rep. Issa's office is located does not overlook a golf course as the reporter Eric Lichtblau implies he personally observed.
• "Mr. Issa has … split a holding company into separate multibillion-dollar businesses." Rep. Issa does not own a single multi-billion business (The Times has issued a correction for this error).
• "As his private wealth and public power have grown, so too has the overlap between his private and business lives, with at least some of the congressman's government actions helping to make a rich man even richer and raising the potential for conflicts." The only examples the New York Times raises of Rep. Issa's public actions benefiting his private holdings are the erroneous examples previously noted.
• "In one case, more than $800,000 in earmarks he arranged will help widen a busy thoroughfare in front of a medical plaza he bought for $10.3 million." The story erroneously reports the property's purchase price which was, in fact, $16.6 million. It also fails to mention that at the time he sought funding for his district he did not own this property.
• "At the same time, the value of the medical complex and other properties has soared, at least in part because of the government-sponsored roadwork." The roadwork in question has not begun and, as noted previously, the New York Times' assertion that the value of the medical complex has "soared" is based on false information. The Times' statement also conflicts with the statement of a quoted source in the story, Dean Tilton the local commercial property broker, who describes this as the worst market in twenty years. The Times suggests road projects miles away from those owned by Rep. Issa benefit him. By this logic, wouldn't the entire area be booming as a result of Rep. Issa's earmarks?
• "But beyond specific actions that appear to have clearly benefited his businesses, Mr. Issa's interests are so varied that some of the biggest issues making their way through Congress affect him in some way." The New York Times fails to provide accurate examples of "specific actions that appear to have clearly benefited his businesses."
• "After the forced sale of Merrill Lynch in 2008, for instance, he publicly attacked the Treasury Department's handling of the deal without mentioning that Merrill had handled hundreds of millions of dollars in investments for him and lent him many millions more." The New York Times fails to note that Rep. Issa's transactions with Merrill Lynch have been appropriately disclosed in his annual ethics filing.
• "In Mr. Issa's case, it is sometimes difficult to separate the business of Congress from the business of Darrell Issa." Again, the New York Times story fails to provide factually accurate examples for this assertion.
• "Then, Mr. Issa brushed aside suggestions that his electronics company’s role as a major supplier of alarms to Toyota made him go easy on the automaker as he led an investigation into the recalls." Rep. Issa's former company is not a supplier to Toyota.
• "In one 2008 sale, months before the stock market crashed, his family foundation earned $357,000 on an initial investment of less than $19,000 — a return of nearly 1,900 percent in just seven months, the foundation reported to the Internal Revenue Service." This assertion is based on an incorrect document. The actual purchase price was not $19,000, but $500,000 and resulted in a $125,000 loss.
• "That suggests the foundation may have acquired the shares from a third-party broker." This assertion is based on the false 1900 percent claim.
• "Mr. Issa is keenly interested in Goldman's performance." This statement lacks a basis in fact as Rep. Issa does not have investments dependent on Goldman Sach's performance.

I appreciate your attention to these thirteen errors contained in the August 15 story and look forward to hearing your response to our request for a front-page retraction of the story due to the inaccuracies that fully undermine the premise of the article.

Thank you,

Frederick Hill
Director of Communications

According to journalistic ethics (not that the MSM uses them anymore), a retraction should go on the same page in roughly the same place as the original article. Considering the blatant and numerous failures in researching and editing this article, the New York Times clearly owes Congressman Issa a front-page, above-the-fold and detailed retraction, along with an explanation to their readers of how such a smear made it into print.

In an ethical paper, I'd also expect suspensions or firings for the writer and editors involved, but since we are talking about the Times, I have no expectation of such competence.

The Erik Scott Case, Update 14.2: The Officers Speak--Sort Of (Continued)

(2) Date/Time: 07-10-10, (app.) 1724-1728
Duration of Interview: App. 4 minutes
Officer DUSTIN BUNDY
Interviewed By: Det. Jensen and Det. Wildemann
Also Present: Sgt. Stephen Lehtinen and PPA Rep. Tom Reid
General Counsel Kathy Werner-Collins

SUMMARY:

Bundy says that on the way to the Costco, he remembers Dispatch telling him that Scott had a gun in his "back waist," and that he was being "really belligerent" with the manager, was ripping things off the wall, said he was a Green Beret, and could do whatever he wanted. Bundy said that as he got closer, radio traffic told him that Scott was getting "a little more irate with everybody."

Bundy said that when he arrived, he took his car's shotgun and noticed people already leaving, saying "there's just a sea of people in the, in the entrance of the, of the place." Bundy said that he was pushed by the crowd (?!) behind one of the large rock-faced pillars at the front of the building and could not see what was happening in front of the store.

Bundy said: "Um, all of a sudden I hear the word gun, kind a perks my ears up." He said he looked in "that direction" and heard gunfire. He said people were "falling toward me, and rushing toward me," and he tried to maneuver around the pillar and ran into a line of shopping carts, and he had no idea who was shooting or why.

Eventually, Bundy was able to get close enough to see Scott (he could not name him) on the ground and several officers "standing there." It was then that he said: "…and, ah, I seen the, ah, there was a gun a few feet away from him laying on the ground." In response to a question, Bundy describes the gun as: "…a black semi-automatic gun. Ah, it looked like it was still in the holster."

The detectives prompt Bundy who remembers Sterner (he didn't know her name) yelling at the officers. The detectives confirmed that Bundy didn't fire his weapons and didn't actually see the shooting, and that he didn't actually hear any commands given to Scott.

ANALYSIS:

Officer Bundy didn't see anything and didn't hear anything. The detectives did not try to clarify or obtain greater detail from him. Why was he interviewed? Let's examine the checklist:

(1) Dispatch said Scott dangerous/drugged, possibly involved in crimes? Sort of check: dangerous maybe, no drugs.

(1) Scott drugged? No idea.

(2) Officers forced to act in middle of huge crowd because Scott so dangerous (by walking normally toward the parking lot)? No idea.

(3) Scott ignored officer's clear commands? No idea.

(4) Scott pulled, pointed gun at officers? No idea.

(5) Officers heroically shot to protect themselves, public? No idea.

(6) Gun on pavement by Scott's body? Check.

(7) Handcuffed Scott? No idea.

(8) Searched Scott (sort of and didn't find anything, especially not a gun which we can't mention right now anyway)? No idea.

(9) Didn't see Sterner (who was feet away, screaming at you not to kill Scott) until after you killed Scott? No idea.

So why was Bundy interviewed? Because he could add one more vital check: he saw a gun, the same black semi-automatic pistol that wasn't actually black at all, but was in a black holster that Mosher said he saw. Even for a four minute interview, the detectives were remarkably incurious, but they got what they wanted, the most important check, one of the checks absolutely vital to the Metro narrative.

NOTE: Keep in mind Bundy's description of the sheer number of people and the atmosphere of panic, such that not only could he not see what what happening, he, a uniformed officer brandishing a shotgun, was actually pushed and jostled and could not move where he wished.

(3) Date/Time: 07-10-10, 1738-1740
Duration of Interview: 2 minutes
Officer DEAN VIETMEIER
Interviewed By: Det. Jensen and Det. Wildemann
Also Present: PPA Rep. Tom Reid

SUMMARY:

The detectives actually remembered to mention the kind of gun Vietmeier carried on duty at the beginning of this interview despite the fact that it had no part in the case.

Vietmeier was on a traffic stop when he overheard the Costco call of a person with a gun. The detectives, prompting furiously, get Vietmeier to say that Scott (Vietmeier did not know his name) was "acting erratic," and was "tearing packages apart, throwing packages." Vietmeier said that he thought that Costco management "tried to confront the guy to get him to leave 'cause I guess they don't allow people with firearms in the business. So." They also prompted Vietmeier to say that he heard via radio that Scott had a handgun in his "back waistband," though Vietmeier could not say if Scott had a holster.

When Vietmeier arrived: "that's when all the people came running out, and then the shots were fired." Vietmeier said that he only heard about the shots on the radio—another officer announced it--and saw nothing. Vietmeier said that he drove to the front entrance where he saw Scott on the ground, "So I drew down on him, and, ah, I had him there. Vietmeier said that Mosher immediately handcuffed him.

Vietmeier said that he saw Scott's gun on the ground by his left foot, and after being prompted, said that it was in a black holster, but that he knew nothing else about it because "I just saw it real quick."

Vietmeier said that he heard no officer commands, and saw people running out even before the shots were fired. He thought Sterner (he didn't know her name) was screaming at the officers, and that there was another woman—name unknown—"screaming hysterically behind me."

ANALYSIS:

Officer Vietmeier, like Officer Bundy, did not see or hear the actual shooting, so why was he interviewed. Let's return to the checklist:

(1) Dispatch said Scott dangerous/drugged, possibly involved in crimes? Sort of check: dangerous maybe, criminal maybe, no drugs.

(1) Scott drugged? No idea.

(2) Officers forced to act in middle of huge crowd because Scott so dangerous (by walking normally toward the parking lot)? No idea.

(3) Scott ignored officer's clear commands? No idea.

(4) Scott pulled, pointed gun at officers? No idea.

(5) Officers heroically shot to protect themselves, public? No idea.

(6) Gun on pavement by Scott's body? Check.

(7) Handcuffed Scott? Check: Mosher did it.

(8) Searched Scott (sort of and didn't find anything, especially not a gun which we can't mention right now anyway)? No idea.

(9) Didn't see Sterner (who was feet away, screaming at you not to kill Scott) until after you killed Scott? No real idea; saw someone he thought was his girlfriend screaming, but that's about it.

Like Bundy, Vietmeier can provide one useful check: he saw a gun—no idea of anything beyond that—in a black holster on the ground near Scott's body. But the detectives made a significant mistake: Mosher claimed that the gun fell forward to the pavement as Scott fell, several feet in front of him, toward Mosher, yet Vietmeier saw a gun on the ground near Scott's left foot, some 8-10 feet away from where Mosher placed it. This is a significant and dangerous contradiction. Whether incompetence or part of the narrative, this is very, very clumsy, focusing attention on something they obviously would rather gloss over, and this, despite having interviewed Mosher only an hour earlier. Oops. Apparently Officer Mosher isn't the only Metro officer with memory problems.

NOTE: Again, when reading Officer Stark's account, keep in mind the accounts of Officers Bundy and Vietmeier as they describe the pandemonium present as the crowd did whatever they could to avoid being shot, including obstructing a clear view of what was happening.

Date/Time: 07-10-10, 1805-1815
Duration of Interview: 10 minutes
Officer JOSHUA STARK
Interviewed By: Det. Jensen and Det. Wildemann
Also Present: Sgt. Chris Halbert and Police Protective Association General Counsel Kathy Werner-Collins

The detectives begin by noting that Stark carries a Glock 17 (9mm) with 17 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber, but make no mention of how many rounds were fired or how many were found in the magazine after the shooting, but Off. Stark tells them that he fired one round.

Starks's description of the information he received from the Dispatcher via radio focused on describing Scott as "acting more erratically" and "possibly ED." He also said that he was "reasonably certain that he had a gun in his possession," and that Scott "disobeyed the Costco employee's orders to leave the store, and he was, um, rampaging in the store by taking things off shelves."

Stark said that he arrived third, after Mosher and Mendiola and that when he arrived, a "large crowd" of people were already leaving. Seeing Mendiola near the entrance speaking to someone he assumed was a Costco employee, he went to Mendiola. He said that Mendiola was relaying information from the employee to the Dispatcher about Scott's location in the store and repeated that Scott was "…the subject with the gun, um, acting irrationally." He placed Off. Mosher to the East, by the exit door.

The detectives prompt Stark to tell them that he is a CIT officer and that Mosher was originally assigned as the primary CIT officer. Stark said that he was self-assigned to the call.

Stark said that he heard Mosher "issuing loud verbal commands," but could only make out the word "ground" because of all the people and the noise they were making. Stark said that he was to the left of Scott, and that Scott wasn't obeying Mosher's commands. He said that Scott "…was reaching back behind him with his right arm, right arm, um, trying to get something from what appeared to be the rear of his waistband." Stark said that Mosher moved away from Scott and "…that's when the suspect's right arm came forward with a black gun, ah, what appeared to me to be a, a gun. Um, he pointed it straight forward at Officer Mosher, and that’s when the shots were fired."

The detectives prompted Stark, asking: "Now when he made that, when he made that motion forward with the gun, was that a, a, a motion where he would have been surrendering the gun, or was it, did you consider it an aggressive motion?"

Stark replied: "No. Everything about the suspect's movement were, was an un-compliance with, ah, Officer Mosher's verbal commands that he was telling him. He wasn't listening to anything Officer Mosher was saying. Un, and the, he was making this it was a, a, ah, a very aggravated movement trying to pull out, um, the gun from his waistband, and he shot that thing straight forward. He just threw his arm straight forward pointing it at Officer Mosher."

Stark described the shooting: "Um, Offic-shots were fired. I wasn't sure whether Officer Mosher had been shot, or the suspect as well. Um, I made movement, and gained line of sight to where there was no, um, civilians around, ah, in the backdrop of when I fired so I was sure of my shot. And ah, the suspect was moving backwards when I fired my shot."

The detectives prompt Stark to better describe his backdrop, and he described one of the large, rock-faced pillars at the front of the Costco. The detectives tried to place Stark and the others involved, but don't go into any real detail, leaving their positions and movement vague. In response to questions, Stark says that he did not know who fired at the time of the shooting. This exchange took place:

Q: "Okay. But why did you fire?"

Stark: I fired because, um, Officer Mosher was in imminent threat of death from the suspect's gun, as well as everybody else around him, behind him, we were completely surrounded by other people."

The Detectives ask Stark about Sterner, but he said that he didn't see anyone with Scott, and that he could not hear Scott say anything. He said that Scott fell backwards and his gun was five or six feet from him, toward the Costco. Stark said that Mosher handcuffed Scott and that no one moved Scott's gun.

They again prompted Stark regarding Sterner and he replied: "There was a female, a Hispanic female with long black hair that I saw that was yelling. Um, that said that I can't recall exactly what she said, but something about him coming back from the military, and you killed him."

The Detectives prompt Stark about the time frame of the confrontation and Stark said that from the time Mosher began giving commands until Scott pulled a weapon took only a few seconds, but said that "…it took him several seconds to actually get it out."

ANALYSIS:

Checklist:

(1) Dispatch said Scott dangerous/drugged, possibly involved in crimes? Mostly check: drugs and dangerous.

(1) Scott drugged? Check.

(2) Officers forced to act in middle of huge crowd because Scott so dangerous (by walking normally toward the parking lot)? Check.

(3) Scott ignored officer's clear commands? Check.

(4) Scott pulled, pointed gun at officers? Check.

(5) Officers heroically shot to protect themselves, public? Check.

(6) Gun on pavement by Scott's body? Check.

(7) Handcuffed Scott? Check: Mosher did it.

(8) Searched Scott (sort of and didn't find anything, especially not a gun which we can't mention right now anyway)? No idea/no mention at all.

(9) Didn't see Sterner (who was feet away, screaming at you not to kill Scott) until after you killed Scott? Not a good check; saw someone screaming.

Stark's interview ran only 10 minutes, and like that of Mosher, was amazingly devoid of the kind of detail that is absolutely essential in such cases. The Detectives again made sure to cover all of the primary narrative/checklist points. And Stark, like the other officers, makes clear they were surrounded by a great many people leaving the Costco.

Stark was standing some distance from Mosher and Scott and could only hear the word "ground," yet somehow knew that Scott was not complying with Mosher's commands, the commands he could not hear. Remember that in the middle of that crowd, it would have been highly unlikely that Erik Scott could hear the commands, particularly after being startled by the unexpected sight of Mosher pointing his handgun at him. Stark also confirmed that from the moment Mosher began giving commands until the first shot was only seconds, yet he apparently felt that a few seconds—we know that it was only about two seconds—was sufficient time for Scott to do what Mosher was ordering him to do, despite the fact that he admitted that he had no idea what Mosher was ordering Scott to do.

Stark also makes it clear that he saw something black, something that appeared to be a gun, and with prompting, what appeared to be a gun was being drawn with "a very aggravated movement," yet the movement took "…several seconds to actually get it out." A reasonably rapid draw can be accomplished in ¾ of a second, and substantially less time for well-trained shooters, yet Scott's motion was "very aggravated." Pantomime a draw taking from 2-3 seconds until the weapon is pointed at your imaginary target. Two to three seconds might sound fast, but it's actually amazingly slow, particularly in this context. No rational person could characterize the almost comically slow speed of such a motion as "very aggravated."

It should also be noted that the detectives did not establish how, in a crowd of hundreds of people who were constantly in motion, he could have a clear, consistently unobstructed view of everything that was happening, including Scott's alleged drawing of a specific handgun, nor does Stark offer such information.

Despite having no idea who actually fired or why, Stark rushed closer and apparently while running and drawing, he took the time to be absolutely sure of his backdrop before firing. His "safe" backdrop was one of the huge pillars, a pillar made of concrete and steel and faced with embedded rocks, making a perfect random ricochet generator.

Having heard only the word "ground," having seen what had to be a comically slow, yet very aggravated drawing of something black that he thought was a gun, having heard an unspecified number of shots, and being completely surrounded by people, Off. Stark felt that he had to shoot because Mosher was in imminent danger, as were all the people surrounding them, and he shot at Scott as he was falling backwards, a moving target surrounded by innocent citizens.

Stark was right. There was imminent danger, but not from Scott, only from the officer's abysmal tactics and their panicky shooting.

The detectives do not inquire at all about any search of Scott or any of the hundreds of details that they should have nailed down, including what happened to Scott's or Stark's handguns. Again, amazingly, they asked the union lawyer to participate in the questioning, but she had no questions.

NOTE: The final officer interview of ex-Metro Officer Thomas Mendiola, which is followed by summary analysis of the entire 14-series Updates, will appear on Saturday, August 20.

RE: The American Iliad

A blogger calling himself "The Catholic Knight" passed along a link to a piece he wrote called, "The American Iliad."

It's a rather weighty read and I cannot say how accurate the history cited in this article may or may not be, but it provokes thought, one way or the other.

We are at a very troubling juncture in our Republic's life, and it seems that those who should be leading us are instead dedicated to ripping all we stand for as a nation. At times such as these it is good to remember where we came from, as that cultural memory, both of good things and bad, can help remind us of the kind of country we would like to be.

Quick Takes, August 18, 2011

ITEM: Old Crazy Eyes Is Back! One of the favorite, and most idiotic, of the tricks of the Lamestream media is running photographs of conservatives to make them look as unattractive, stupid, crazy or evil as possible. Remember the famous "demon eyes" photoshopping of Condoleeza Rice? One would think that such people would try to hide their bias with a bit of subtlety, but no, these folks are stuck in the middle school locker room. Go here to the invaluable Michelle Malkin to examine what passes for intellect among the self-styled elite.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Climate Change Division: I'm shocked, shocked! that Al Gore, the Goracle himself, would descend to obscenities and screaming. Why, it would almost seem like the self-appointed redeemer of mankind is…well…off his rocker. I guess having the election stolen from him by those dastardly Florida voters has more of an effect than we imagined, or maybe it was wearing all that hemp clothing so as to look more manly. Oh well. Go here to see the mess.

ITEM: SEALs Are So Cute, Especially The Baby Ones! Go here to The Mellow Jihadi (written by a currently serving Naval officer who began as an enlisted swabbie) for an interesting look into the lives of Navy SEALS and those who work with them.

ITEM: Yes, I Know About the Mammalian Diving Reflex, but sometimes miracles really do happen. Go here to see one.

ITEM: Just Desserts. Go here to read that the life of the subhuman animal responsible for killing 38 allied troops on a Chinook in Afghanistan was blown to atoms in an F-16 strike in Afghanistan. It's cold comfort for the survivors of the warriors killed in that attack, but I can't help but wonder whether we'd be safer if we pursued each and every terrorist demon that even thought of harming Americans with this kind of determination. If they knew that there was no doubt that America would swiftly avenge any attack on Americans, wouldn't it stand to reason that our safety would be enhanced in at least some way? And what would be the negatives costs of such a defense posture? None that I can imagine. Discuss.

ITEM: Vacation? What Vacation? Go here to see Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney suggest that Mr. Obama's upcoming 10 day vacation on Martha's Vineyard (you know, that cheap, sleazy, cut-rate dive) isn't really a vacation at all, and that Americans won't begrudge Mr. Obama some time with his family. Hmmm. He isn't with them in DC? And in other news, after a 400 point rally on August 9, the Dow dumped more than 500 points on August 10. Perhaps the market might be in a begrudging mood even if the American people aren't.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Vote Fraud Edition: Yes, those Merry pranksters of ACORN were slapped with a maximum fine for voter registration fraud in Nevada (here) recently. Those who support and commit vote fraud are not treated with nearly the disdain they deserve, for their actions strike at the very heart of democracy. Oh yes, Mr. Obama was closely aligned with ACORN, teaching them their craft. He lied about it. Discuss.

ITEM: She's Smart, Witty, Well Read, Eloquent…and OK, she's beautiful too. That's still OK to say about a women, isn't it? Maybe? Go here to see what Ann Coulter has to say about the British riots. Good stuff, as always.

ITEM: I Thought They Just Bronzed Baby Shoes! OK. So other than baby shoes, what would be the most logical thing anyone would want to bronze? c'mon…think hard…that's right! Justin Bieber (I think he's a pre-pubescent rocker star) and Selena Gomez (I have no idea who she is)! Actually, they're not actually bronzed, but there is now a bronze statue of them, naked of course. And at their feet is a duck or goose and an armadillo, which as everyone knows symbolizes armored, er, quacking, which is an ancient symbol for…for…bronzing prepubescent rockers. Anyway, go here for the story and inspiring photos. Does anyone know why? Discuss.

ITEM: There's A Lot Of Them Out There In Them There Hills! Despite being in serious financial trouble, California continues to spend itself to the bottom of the Marianas Trench while simultaneously making life as difficult as possible for business owners. The result has been a mass population and business exodus from the much-tarnished golden state for a very long time now. Go here to read the farewell of yet another productive Californian on the way to—gasp!—Texas.

ITEM: Triumphs of Smart Diplomacy: Remember when the advanced, stealthy helicopter supporting the mission to eliminate Bin Laden crashed at his compound in Pakistan? How did our allies, the Pakistanis, at the behest of the administration that promised to restore our standing in the world, the foremost practitioners of "smart diplomacy," handle it? They let the Chinese photograph it and take material samples! Hope, change, betrayal. Go here for the story.

ITEM: The Rarest Words Any Politician Can Say: "I made a mistake." So said Texas Gov. Rick Perry regarding his 2007 executive order mandating HPV vaccinations for Texas girls. The vaccine would have prevented cervical cancer, but the public and Legislature overruled Perry. Now, running for President, he made what appears to be an honest admission, an admission of which Barack Obama is absolutely incapable. Go here for something exceedingly rare.

ITEM: And Speaking Of Rick Perry, the Obama Campaign will attack him with every dirty trick in the book and many that have not yet been invented, and the onslaught has already begun. What's the truth about Rick Perry? Go here to discover it. Informed reading. I suspect it will make you more likely to be supportive of Gov. Perry.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, ObamaCare Division: Remember Rep. Joe Wilson (R. SC) who accused Mr. Obama of lying on camera when Mr. Obama claimed that ObamaCare would not cover illegal immigrants? Well, I was shocked, shocked! to learn that HHS is doing exactly what Rep. Wilson accused Mr. Obama of lying about. I'm doubly shocked, shocked! that Mr. Obama would lie about something like this, truly! Go here for Rep. Wilson's justified vindication.

ITEM: But He Has A World-Class Temperament! Go here to see how Mr. Obama actually handles one of the impertinent little people. I suspect we'll be seeing more and more of Mr. Obama's true self in the months to come. Those who have paid attention have always seen it, but more and more, he can't help himself. Go here to see how the elite deal with uncomfortable truths and troublesome villagers.

ITEM: ARRR! Can We All Be Salty Sea Dogs Now? I love salt. I can't imagine not eating it. Salt-phobics stare in absolute horror at the amount of salt I use on my food. Now it turns out that the anti-salt hysteria of, well, most of my life, may well be just that: hysteria. Go here for an article that might help take the fear out of sodium again. Oh, pass the salt, will you?

ITEM: Oh Yeah! The Eleventh circuit has found the individual mandate of ObamaCare to be unconstitutional. It was this circuit that heard the case brought by the Attorneys General of 26 states arguing that the mandate exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The entire case is now, ripe—as they say—for the Supreme Court. This poses enormous problems for Mr. Obama who would desperately like the matter to go away before the 2012 election. If the court promptly grants cert, its decision will be handed down shortly before the election. If it strikes down ObamaCare, that will be very harmful to Mr. Obama. If it supports it, that too would be very harmful and would tend to bring out Republican votes that might not otherwise appear. It's likely a lose/lose situation for the Dems. Go here for the story.

ITEM: Global Warming Is An Inconvenient Truth! Inconvenient indeed; truth, not so much. Go here to Powerline to see a brief and compelling illustration why the AGW hoax is just that. This one is over, Greenies. Move on to destroying western civilization through other means.

ITEM: Nobody Knows The Trouble He's Seen. Go here to the invaluable Byron York to read about Mr. Obama's bad luck and his comparison of himself to Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Obama, I knew Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was a friend of mine. You're no Abraham Lincoln. Heck, you're not even a Jimmy Carter.

ITEM: Even a Dog Knows The Difference Between Being Tripped Over and Kicked. And our military knows the difference between a Commander in Chief who truly respects and cares for the military and Barack Obama. Need proof? Go here to the New York Post for the story. A hat tip to Curtis F. for pointing me in this direction.

ITEM: ObamaCare Quicky: Go here for a brief video by Reason on why ObamaCare absolutely will bankrupt America.

ITEM: Illuminated Russians! Go here for an interesting YouTube video of what is apparently a Russian fellow shooting a fully automatic Glock 17, eventually with tracer ammunition. If language is an issue for you, he does utter one ubiquitous American obscenity. I know; you're very sensitive. The video is interesting on several levels, primarily for the slow motion frames that reveal just how quickly a pistol's slide cycles. It's fun, and women will love the guy's accent, but the shooting techniques are horrifying. Don't try this at home.

ITEM: The Cold Smack In The Face of Reality. So you're a college student who agrees with President Obama: It's best if the wealth is spread around. Make the rich pay more; give it to those who don't have as much. It's only fair, right? Maybe, as long as no one is asking you to give up something you've earned. Go here to see how reality tends to overcome liberalism, even in college.

And with that cold smack in the face, it's time once again for me to thank you for reading my wretched scrawling and to invite you to stop by again next Thursday for another edition of Quick Takes, the fastest growing Quick Takes on Confederate Yankee on Thursdays!

Ray Stevens Explains the Obama Budget Plan

Vacation + Presidency = Vacancy

Like OJ chasing the "real killers" of his wife and Ron Goldman across the golf courses and country clubs of America, Barack Obama is chasing economic recovery from one vacation hotspot to another as the economy falters.

In the third year of his Presidency, he still doesn't have plans to create jobs or reduce the deficit, and you won't see anything, either, until after Labor Day.

The official who disclosed details on Obama's jobs and deficit plans spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama has not yet disclosed them. No final decisions on the economic package have been made.

Seeking re-election in a dispiriting economic time for the nation, Obama's rollout plan allows him to come into September swinging after one of the roughest periods of his presidency.

The economy has improved from the deep recession Obama inherited, but growth and hopes have stalled.

The unemployment rate is at 9.1 percent. No president in recent history has been re-elected with a jobless rate nearly that high.

He doesn't want to do the work that goes with the job, he just likes the power and the perks. Far from being one of our smartest Presidents, Barack Obama is proving to be the most peevish and lazy President to ever occupy the Oval Office. The sooner he is primaried, the better it will be for both parties and the Republic.

Sponsered link: online bingo games

President Obama’s Un-Plausible Deniability

What did he know, and when did he know it.

When we see a cover-up being orchestrated, we should rationally assume that the cover-up exists to hide criminal culpability. When we see corruption spread across the highest and most connected levels of government, we should rationally assume that the person at the top, President Obama, likely was involved.

My latest at Pajamas Media.

At What Point Are There Consequences?

Far Left blowhard Ed Shultz deceptively edited video of Republican governor and Presidential candidate Rick Perry in order to provide "evidence" that Perry made a racist comment, calling Barack Obama a "black cloud hanging over America."

The problem is, Perry did nothing of the sort.

Perry was speaking to a crowd about the exploding national debt being a "black cloud hanging over America." The video in full context clearly shows that the candidate is clearly talking about the debt, and nothing but the debt.

Caught red-handed, Shultz apologizes for deceptively editing the video clip. He does not—in any way, shape, or form—apologize for doctoring the video footage to support his slander of Governor Perry as a racist.

At what point does NBC News and MSNBC display a modicum of journalistic integrity and respect for their audience by suspending or terminating firebrands that fabricate evidence and tell terrible lies to deceive their viewers?

Does NBC News and MSNBC have so little respect for their viewing audience that they feel it is acceptable to lie to them without care or consequence, other than the occasionally half-hearted "I'm sorry that I was caught" non-apology apology Shultz issues here?

The news media wonders why respect for their profession has plummeted. They can find their answer with a glance in the mirror.

The Erik Scott Case: Update 14: The Officers Speak--Sort Of

Note To Readers: I've experienced a bit of difficulty posting this Update in its entirety, so I'll be breaking it up into three separate posts, with 14.2 on 08-19 and 14.3 on 08-20. Sorry for the inconvenience, but on further reflection, this will probably make a long post more readable in the long run.

Every rational police officer lives in fear of being involved in a shooting. This is so for many reasons, but a few reasons haunt the nightmares of all competent, honest cops. No decent human being wants to take the life of another. Surely, police officers train to prevail in deadly force situations, perhaps even wonder how they would perform (do they have the right stuff?) but no sane person wants to kill others.

Beyond that primary reason, all police officers worry—with varying degrees of justification—that if they are involved in a shooting, no matter that it could be used in a police academy textbook as an example of a righteous shooting, their administrators might very well throw them to the wolves. They might do it simply because they don't like them, or like Barack Obama, they never let a crisis go to waste. Police officers are strong-willed, assertive people, people used to being in control, people who don't like to back down. They tend to make enemies, and none so vicious or lasting as fellow police officers, particularly higher-ranking officers.

Officers might also be thrown to the wolves due to incompetence. Not their incompetence, but the incompetence of higher ranking officers, people promoted not because of their demonstrated knowledge or excellence, but because they were too dangerous to leave on the street, or because they are political hacks willing to quietly, and without complaint, do administrative dirty work. Finally, they may be destroyed for political reasons that won't manifest themselves until after the shooting. Perhaps the officer shot the wrong color person, or someone belonging to a minority or group currently enjoying some degree of influence and power. Perhaps the Chief or Sheriff will see political advantage in doing away with a "crooked cop," whether that cop is crooked or not. For the rational, thinking cop, there's just no way to know in advance that their agency will be competent and honest and will afford them the professionalism and protection they deserve.

Even in police agencies like Metro with powerful police unions and a long history of protecting officers involved in shootings regardless of the facts, no officer can be sure that they are safe. It is the very nature of a corrupt, highly politicized agency that introduces doubt. Being charged with a crime, particularly some form of homicide is career ending for any police officer. If they are convicted and sent to jail, it's likely life ending for nothing increases the status of any con more than killing a cop.

With this in mind, any detective investigating an officer-involved shooting (OIS) will take great care to nail down every possible detail. When they interview the officers involved, they will carefully and relentlessly question them about every possible issue and fact involved. They will leave no stone unturned, no question unasked. Because they will be making such interviews shortly after the shooting, they will have no idea whether the officers were completely justified or criminally liable, and they must approach the interviews with the primary goal of finding each and every fact, of revealing the truth, because they can have no idea what other evidence will eventually turn up and what it will mean. No investigator wants to go off half-cocked with an unsupportable theory of the case, a theory they'll have to eat without ketchup later. They also know that any rational officer will eventually get smart—if they weren't smart from the start—and lawyer up, so their first interview might well be their only interview. They'll take the time—often hours—to go over every detail again and again, to make sure they get as much as they can and that the information they obtain is as accurate as possible. They have to keep open minds, but these things motivate them.

No final conclusions about exactly what happened will be made for weeks, sometimes months. It takes time to interview all of the witnesses. Interviewing witnesses invariably brings up information that makes essential re-interviewing some—or all—of the witnesses again. The greater the number of potential witnesses, the more time is involved. In many cases, merely finding all of the potential witnesses is a very time-consuming matter. It takes time for ballistics, DNA and other forensic tests to be done and the results compiled. It takes time for the investigators involved to assemble and review all of the evidence and to come to conclusions supported by the evidence. It takes time for those conclusions to be reviewed by the upper levels of the agency, and time for them to come to a final decision.

It should also be noted that it is, in many states, a crime for anyone, including the original author/officer, to change a police report or document after it has been officially submitted. It is likewise a crime for any officer, higher-ranking or otherwise, to encourage anyone to change a report. Any additional information or corrections must be done by means of an addendum or attachment to the original report or document bearing the same unique identification number. Even where no law controls these matters, it is universal police practice. To do otherwise renders every police report or document suspect and liable to suppression in court.

In professional, competent police agencies, complex, politically-charged investigations take a great deal of time. There is no investigation as potentially complex or as potentially politically charged as an officer involved shooting that results in the death of a citizen. Commonly, only the most experienced, most capable investigators are assigned to such cases. Apparently not so with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police. There is substantial evidence to indicate that their narrative, their official version of the case, was etched in stone within a few hours of the death of Erik Scott, and that the goal of Metro in the post-shooting phase of evidence gathering and analysis was not discovering the indisputable truth, but in supporting the narrative concocted shortly after Erik Scott died.

This update will examine the official Metro interviews of the officers involved. I will first summarize the very brief and incomplete interview transcripts, and then explain what is present, what has been omitted, and what all of that might mean.

OFFICER STATEMENTS:

(1) Date/Time: 07-10-10, 1640-1655
Duration of Interview: 15 minutes
Officer WILLIAM MOSHER
Interviewed By: Detective B. Jensen, Det. M. Wildemann
Also Present: Sgt. Chris Halbert and Police Protective Association General Counsel Kathy Werner-Collins (wife of PPA President Chris Collins—interesting coincidence)

SUMMARY:

Off. Mosher said that Scott—he didn't use his name—was reported to have been under the influence of drugs, perhaps experiencing "excited delerium," and could be "irrational and extremely dangerous." He also said that store employees asked Scott to leave several times but he refused. He said after arriving, he went to the south exit of the Costco.

Mosher's statement about how the evacuation came about is very confused. He speaks of talking with people about evacuating-- suggesting that he ordered the evacuation--yet speaks of another unnamed officer doing it:

""Um, that time, uh, based on the details of the call, and based on the situation with an individual with a handgun inside the business, and the threat to public safety that he posed, uh, officer began evacuating, ah, quietly evacuating citizens…"

Mosher said that Off. Mendiola arrived before he did and also positioned himself at the exit.

Mosher said: "Ah, myself and Officer Mendiola will be the only officers on scene at that particular time, ah, made the determination not to go in and engage the suspect, due to the fact that with his mental state, and then the handgun that he might cause a shooting inside the business…Uh, the business, or the security, security officers were communication with Officer Mendiola, stated the subject was still inside the business and still acting erratic and being uncooperative, and refusing to leave, and that he was in the center of the business."

Mosher does not say whether he and Mediola had any idea where Scott was at any given moment, and the Detectives, amazingly, don't ask. The telephone transcript of the 911 call indicates that the dispatcher was not giving the officers regular or accurate position updates. In short, the officers had no real idea where Scott was or what he was doing at any time and the detectives don't bother to ask questions that might have clarified this important tactical factor.

Mosher said that a store employee (he apparently didn't know Costco Security employee Shai Lierley's name) pointed out Erik Scott to him, obviously after Scott walked right past him while leaving the Costco, though Mosher did not say this. Mosher did say that Lierley pointed Scott out quietly. Scott was unaware of it; Mosher did not have to confront him in the middle of a very large surrounding crowd.

In response to a question, Mosher said that Scott was in "…a very large crowd…" so he couldn't tell if anyone was with him.

Mosher said: "At that time, ah, due to the crowded situation, I—the suspect with his back turned to me, I attempt to make contact. Ah, I don't know if, I might of, I may have patted him on the back to try to get his attention and have him turn around, or I yelled at him. I'm not sure which I did 'cause it happened very quickly."

The crowded situation made it essential that Mosher contact Scott at that moment?! For any competent officer, the exact opposite would be true. When surrounded by a crowd of innocents, the absolute priority would be to do nothing at all to escalate the situation and to separate the potentially dangerous person—who in this case was showing no sign of danger at all—from that crowd.

In response to questions, Mosher said that he was at arm's length from Scott and that Scott appeared "…somewhat startled." I've no doubt Scott appeared startled. Who would not be in that situation? Mosher also said that Scott turned to face him and he saw "…a, uh, black semi-automatic handgun in his waistband." Scott's weapon was dull silver in color and was under his shirt. Mosher could only have seen an outline—if he saw anything at all—which suggested a handgun. He could not have identified anything about the handgun at that point.

Mosher said he had already drawn his handgun, and backed away from Scott to a distance of about six feet and told Scott to get on the ground. He said: "…but almost as soon as I gave the verbal command, he said 'I have a gun,' and reached into his waistband, making a furtive movement. And, ah, at that time he removed the, what, what appeared to be a black semi-automatic handgun from his waistband and pointed it in my direction."

In response to questions, Mosher continued: "At that time, uh, fearing from my safety, the safety of other officers, as well as the safety of hundreds of citizens in the immediate vicinity, and being concerned there'd be an active shooter situation, uh, I engaged the suspect, uh, firing my weapon approximately two to three times to incapacitate the suspect." The detectives don't bother to try to clarify how many rounds Mosher fired. This is a matter of some importance.

Mosher said that he handcuffed Scott, who was on the ground, saying that he was concerned that he might be wearing body armor or have "additional weapons on him," but Mosher does not say that he actually searched Scott for weapons or body armor, or that he found either, only that he handcuffed him.

The following exchange took place:

Q: "In, ah, just prior to your shooting, were you, were you aware of what your background was, if there was people nearby, or anything that you could of injured by firing your gun?"

Mosher: "Uh, I didn't observe any people behind him, just a, ah, open parking lot Ah, prior to the, ah, shooting there were a lot of people but they, ah, immediately began moving out of the way, as the situation unfolded."

Q: "So you had a pretty, you had a pretty clear backdrop behind you."

Mosher: "Yes."

Q: "At 12:47 in the afternoon. A lot of people around?"

Mosher: "Yes."

Q: "Okay. What happened to his handgun, ah, after the shooting?"

Mosher: "Ah, his handgun, uh, it fell out of his hand, and landed on the ground in front of him."

Q: "Okay. Was it in a holster or anything?"

Mosher: "It appeared to be a, ah, appeared to be a black semi-automatic handgun, possibly a .45, and it was in some type of a pancake holster. The type of holster that, ah, that you can take on and off your belt, ah, very easily."

Q: "Okay. Did you move that gun at the scene?"

Mosher: "No."

Q: "Do you know of anybody else that moved the gun?"

Mosher: "Not to my knowledge."

The detectives try to prompt Mosher to recall Samantha Sterner's behavior and statements, but he is quite vague and they drop that line of questioning. They also try to prompt him to say that radio traffic specifically said where Scott was carrying his handgun, but again, he's vague and they drop that too.

The detectives try to prompt Mosher to paint Scott as obviously impaired, and this exchange takes place:

Mosher: "I felt that he was under the influence of some type of, ah, narcotics, and he seemed very excited and very agitated, uh, upon making contact with him."

MW: "So the way he said it was not like, uh, and I'm just throwing this out here, he didn't say, 'Hey I have a gun.' It's more of an excited…"

Mosher: "Excited more. It was excited."

MW: "…almost, is it almost a scream?"

Mosher: "It wasn't a scream, but he seemed very excited, and very agitated about something at the time."

MW: "Okay. All right."

Mosher: "It made me, in my training and experience, to believe something wasn't right."

At this point in the brief interview, the detectives try to clean up things Mosher left out:

MW: "Okay. Uh, did you happen to pat him down after you cuffed him?"

Mosher: "I made a quick pat down of his, ah, lower immediate access, and then I made a determination, ah, not to, to further contaminate the crime scene after he was cuffed and, and after being cuffed, I didn't see any movement, so I decided not to go further with the search at that time, a complete, ah, pat down."

At this point the detectives prompt Mosher to imply that if Scott would have obeyed his commands, he would have been peacefully taken into custody. And again, the detectives try to prompt Mosher to clarify that Scott pulled and pointed a gun at Mosher rather than attempted to merely show him that he was carrying one. They ask where Scott's hands were:

Mosher: "I don't remember where his hands were exactly. I just remember it happened very quickly. I just remember him reaching for the gun.

At this point, the detectives turn the questioning over to PPA attorney Kathy Werner-Collins. She tried to prompt Mosher to say that as an officer trained in crisis intervention that he was actually dispatched to the Costco in that capacity:

Mosher: "Ah, I would of tried to make it safe first, and establish some type, try to establish some type of dialog, in order to, ah, effect, ah, a safe, make the situation safe, and take him into custody safely."

KWC: Um why did it not unfold in that manner?"

Mosher: "Uh, there was simply no time."

KWC: When you say no time, um, your, your initial commands to him were to get down on the ground, correct?"

Mosher: "Yes."

KWC: "And at that point you would of tried to communicate with him verbally?"

Mosher: "Yes."

Werner-Collins then prompts Mosher to say that he carries a Glock 21 .45 ACP handgun with a 13 round magazine and one round in the chamber. However, there is no further mention of exactly how many rounds remained in Mosher's handgun after the shooting, or any additional details.

At the end of the interview Sgt. Halbert says: "I have something, if, if and when."

One of the detectives—the transcript does not identify him—says: "It can wait," to which Halbert replies "Okay," and the interview ends.

ANALYSIS:

This interview is one of the most bizarre and jaw-dropping I've ever seen. First, consider that it lasts only 15 minutes. This is the interview of a police officer primarily responsible for killing a citizen only about three hours earlier, and it lasts only 15 minutes? During my police career, I routinely conducted interviews many times longer for far less serious crimes; every investigator I ever knew did. The lack of detail in this interview is simply amazing. Any of my past supervisors reading this interview would have been chewing enormous holes in my posterior for that failing alone ("This interview took you only 15 minutes?!"), and it would have been very unlikely that I was ever allowed to handle any important case again.

Every competent investigator understands that it is imperative that officers and other witnesses be interviewed, at great length and absolutely completely, as soon after the incident as possible. With time, memories fade or begin to change their shapes. People convince themselves that they saw things that did not happen or didn't really see things that did. Conversations with others subtly change their memories. Before doing an interview, detectives must be as well prepared as possible, and must take copious notes, notes that will be essential in preparing for the interviews that follow.

Off. Mosher does not supply the kinds of simple details any competent police officer would routinely supply, and the detectives do not ask for them. They simply fail to ask the kinds and amounts of clarifying questions one would expect of any competent investigator, and I'm not talking about Sherlock Holmes kinds of deductions and inferences, but the kind of logical follow up questions Mosher's lack of detail should provoke, particularly considering the nature of the case and the person being interviewed: Mosher is the one person most responsible for everything that happened. He is most responsible for Erik Scott's death.

Mosher's account is full of omissions, misstatements and contradictions, yet the detectives do nothing to clarify those problems. Mosher said that the dispatcher told him that Scott might be under the influence of narcotics and that employees told him to leave several times and he refused. The police telephone transcript and dispatch records indicate that the dispatcher did suggest there might be drug involvement and said that Scott was asked to leave only once, yet Lierley, the only person speaking with the dispatcher, did not tell her that. She apparently assumed it, and the drug involvement. Lierley told her only that Scott was acting "a little erratic," "dodgity," "fidgety," and was "kinda talking loud to his girlfriend." Despite remembering this with clarity, later in the interview, Mosher could not recall if the Dispatcher told him particularly where and how Scott was carrying his gun, allegedly because he was so busy paying attention to his driving.

Mosher adds, apparently remembering it at the last minute, that Scott was possibly exhibiting signs of excited delirium. The dispatcher asked Lierely about this, but Lierley did not confirm it, quite the opposite, and the dispatcher is not known to have transmitted that specific information to officers.

Mosher confirms that he and Mendiola were self-posted at the exit doors of the Costco and apparently that the evacuation was already underway when he arrived. He also confirms that there were, in his own words, "hundreds" of citizens leaving the Costco.

Mosher says that Mendiola was in contact with store security officers—the only possible person could have been Lierley—who told him that Scott was still inside the business, was still erratic and uncooperative and refusing to leave. Neither Lierley nor the telephone transcript confirm this account. In fact, when Mosher arrived at the door, Erik Scott and Samantha Sterner had not had any contact with store employees for some time, and were simply walking out of the store with all of the other customers who had been told to leave. Lierley was on the phone with the dispatcher and was clearly telling her that Scott was not behaving strangely and was simply walking out of the store with Sterner. There is no evidence at all that any store employee ever directly asked Scott to leave the store, or that being asked, he refused. In fact, when asked by Costco employees to leave, he did, just as every other customer in the store that day.

Mosher describes Scott, but confirms—by failing to say it—that Scott was so unremarkable that he walked right past him and Mendiola despite matching the description Mosher provided, and Mosher was not aware of him at all until Scott was already past him and heading for the parking lot at a normal walking pace when Lierley—whose name he did not know—pointed Scott out to him. Again, bizarrely, the detectives do not clarify any of this.

Mosher again confirms that Scott was among "a very large crowd," and here Mosher suffers a remarkable lapse in memory. Mosher cannot recall if Scott is with anyone, which is significant in that Sterner repeatedly screamed at Mosher that Scott was no threat and begged him not to shoot, and she was standing within mere feet of Mosher. Sterner's testimony is confirmed by multiple witnesses.

Clearly, Mosher is behind Scott, and both he and Scott are facing toward the Costco parking lot. Scott is walking away from him, walking toward the parking lot. Despite the crowd surrounding them, rather than allowing Scott to walk out of the crowd, into the parking lot where he could be safely approached and the risk to bystanders lessened or eliminated, Mosher acted impulsively and without regard for the tactical situation or the safety of the public.

Mosher said that due to the "crowded situation (?!)" he "attempted to make contact." Mosher said that he either patted Scott on the back to get his attention or yelled at him. He couldn't remember which because "it happened very quickly." Mosher would have us believe that Scott posed a deadly risk to him, to the other officers and to the hundreds surrounding them, a threat so dangerous, so imminent that he had no choice but to immediately confront Scott. Mosher had to approach him then and there, yet all Scott was doing, by Mosher's own account, was simply walking, in a completely normal, unremarkable fashion, to the parking lot. Scott clearly had no idea that the police were interested in him or considered him a threat. Mosher paid no attention to Scott as he passed him while leaving the store, and Scott paid no attention to him. So Mosher either patted him on the back or yelled at him--opposite ends of the "could I speak with you please, Sir?—spectrum. And despite fearing for his life and the lives of everyone around, he positioned himself within arm's reach of a man he feared represented an imminent threat of death to himself and the hundreds around him.

This alone is such a fundamental departure from police training and competence as to be stupefying. Officers are taught, over and over, that distance is life. Only putting distance, and when possible cover—materials capable of stopping bullets—between yourself and a deadly threat, can ensure your survival. No competent, rational police officer knowingly puts himself so close—within touching distance!--to a potentially deadly threat that he cannot clearly perceive a threatening movement or react in time to avoid or stop it.

Remember too that Mosher told the detectives only minutes earlier that he and Mendiola did not enter the store to confront Scott out of their concern for getting into a gunfight inside the store. However, Mosher apparently lost his concern for the public when they were outside the store and surrounding him and Scott was simply walking away from him, unaware of his presence or intentions.

Mosher said that he already had his gun drawn when Scott turned, and noticing Mosher—obviously pointing a gun at him—was "somewhat startled." Imagine that. This is significant as I'll reveal in the next update which sums up the statements of civilian witnesses, that several noticed that the officers—certainly Mosher and Mendiola—had their weapons drawn long before they ever laid eyes on Scott.

Despite having no idea how he actually got Scott's attention, Mosher says that he saw Scott's handgun "in his waistband," a handgun covered by Scott's shirt. Mosher does not clarify this, nor do the detectives. This is an example of the remarkable lack of curiosity displayed by the detectives. What competent investigator would not clarify how it was possible for Mosher to have seen the handgun—and to be able to partially describe it—while it was under Scott's shirt, and while he was quickly turning in response to whatever Mosher did to get his attention? Even if it was clearly exposed—and all evidence suggests just the opposite--Mosher could have had only a fleeting glimpse of it, yet this seems an unimportant detail to the detectives.

Mosher's memory is equally vague regarding what he said to Scott, and the detective's lack of curiosity continues in this. Mosher claims only to have told Scott to get on the ground, but the telephone transcript, including the audio version about which I wrote in Update 4 (available in the Erik Scott Archive in the right hand side of the CY home page), reveals Mosher—and possibly other officers--yelling only, and in this order: "Put your hands where I can see them now; drop it; get on the ground; get on the ground," and all in one constant stream of screamed commands, obviously not in response to separate actions by Scott, as from the moment of the first word the officers say until the first round is fired, only about two seconds—give or take a few fractions of a second--elapse.

Consider what we know was said, what is clearly audible on the official record: There is no evidence to suggest that Scott's hands were not visible—Mosher certainly can't remember anything about their position—so why would it make sense to tell him to show his hands? And if his hands were not visible—instead of holding his Blackberry, which was found on the ground near his body—wouldn't Mosher have been able to remember that? If Scott had not drawn his handgun until a fraction of a second before Mosher shot him, what would compel anyone to tell him to "drop it" earlier? And what sense does telling him to get on the ground, particularly considering the first two commands, make? Considering that all of these commands took place within less than two seconds, who would know what to do and when? Even if it was possible to process each individual command and begin to comply (the fastest humans can do this within about a quarter second—for most, it's much longer), each command was interrupted by another command that contradicted the command preceding it, making response impossible.

(NOTE: Consider also that Erik Scott suffered from "Tanker's Ears." In other words, like many people who are subjected to loud and continual noises as a result of their occupation, Scott had difficulty distinguishing anything that was said in crowds. Due to all of my years involved in shooting, even with consistent ear protection, I too have this difficulty. When many people are talking simultaneously, even in restaurants, I have difficulty hearing what people at my table are saying. This will become even more important shortly.)

Yet Mosher says that in response to his command to get on the ground—which was actually said to Scott only fractions of a second before he was shot, Scott reached "into" his waistband, "making a furtive movement." Mosher said that Scott pointed a "black semi-automatic handgun" in his direction.

Any competent detective who was trying to get all the facts, who was trying to discover the truth, would have had, at the very least, these questions for Mosher at this point:

Which hand reached? How did he reach? What do you mean by "into his waistband? In the front? The side? The back? What do you mean by "furtive?" ("Furtive," in cop-speak, normally means stealthy or secretive, as in someone furtively trying to hide or dispose of drugs—it's not a bold, alarming movement) Was his hand moving slowly? Quickly? When you say he pointed the gun in your direction, what, exactly did he do? Which hand was holding the gun? How was he holding the gun? Where, exactly was it pointing and when? What did he say? Did he utter a threat? Did he make eye contact? What was his facial expression? How did you know he presented a clear and imminent danger? Yet the detectives asked none of these basic, absolutely logical, simple yet vital questions.

The rest of the transcript relating to the actual shooting is formulaic, almost as if read, clumsily, from a stilted Hollywood B-movie script. Despite the fact that Mosher says he was worried that Scott might have another weapon or might be wearing body armor (under a t-shirt in Las Vegas summer weather?), he says nothing at all about actually searching Scott, merely handcuffing him.

Mosher is not sufficiently competent to speak to his backdrop when firing; he has to be prompted by the detectives, who, for a change, are relatively detailed in asking about it. Even so, Mosher blows it saying vaguely: "Uh, I didn't observe any people behind him, just a, ah, open parking lot. Ah, prior to the, ah, shooting there were a lot of people but they, ah, immediately began moving out of the way, as the situation unfolded."

The detective added: "So you had a pretty, you had a pretty clear backdrop behind you."

Mosher replied: "Yes."

We are asked to believe that Officer Mosher, who could not remember what the dispatcher told him about the location or details of Scott's handgun because he was concentrating on his driving, who could not recall whether he patted Scott on the back or yelled at him because everything happened so quickly, who could not recall where his hands were, or what he said to Scott, yet who could see and identify a handgun through opaque clothing, took the time to ensure where the hundreds of citizens surrounding him were before he opened fire? He is correct about one thing: As soon as the officers opened fire in the middle of the crowd, people were indeed "moving out of the way," as in ducking, running for their lives, throwing their loved ones to the ground and putting their bodies between them and the officers. I'll address this in the analysis of civilian witness statements in the next update.

And just what is a "pretty clear backdrop?" Does that mean that 25% of the crowd was in the line of fire? Only 15%? In police work officers either have a completely clear, safe backdrop or, absent having no choice at all, in a situation so dire that possibly hitting an innocent would be the clearly justifiable lesser of two evils, they do not shoot. There are no quibbles; they do not shoot. It is the detectives who prompt Mosher into this fuzzy standard of safety and they do not clarify beyond it.

And again, the detectives have to prompt Mosher, step by step, into telling what happened to Scott's gun. Mosher just says it fell to the ground and the detectives have to prompt him into stating that it was in a holster by asking him specifically: "Okay. Was it in a holster or anything?" Mosher again gives a vague and factually incorrect answer, not even particularly describing the holster or its color, and again, the detectives are satisfied. Remember too that until the Detectives prompted him, he said nothing at all about the gun being in a holster. This too is a matter of some importance.

This is a real problem in this case in that Scott's holster was an inside-the-waistband holster—not a pancake holster as Mosher said, which is a completely different type--with the rough side of the black-dyed leather visible. With this type of holster, all that is visible of the weapon is a tiny portion of the back of the slide including part of the rear sight—that only from a certain angle--and the grip of the weapon. Scott's .45 ACP Kimber was dull silver in color with black grip panels. If Scott was holding it by the grip, as though to shoot Mosher, as he implies, particularly with everything happening so fast, the only thing Mosher could have possibly seen was the indistinct shape of the black holster. He could have seen nothing of the handgun, particularly if things happened as quickly as he claimed, and because of his unnecessary and reckless provocation and escalation of the incident in the middle of a large crowd of innocents, it did happen just that quickly. Mosher correctly identified the color of the holster, not the gun. He got the caliber wrong as well, and this only after he supposedly saw it after the shooting.

The detectives while ignoring virtually every other detail, are keen to prompt Mosher to say that he was totally unaware of Samantha Sterner, who was standing right next to him begging him not to shoot Scott, until after Scott was down and dying or dead. Only then, according to Mosher, was he aware of her and what she was saying. While this is possible due the "tunneling" effect officers often experience when under great stress (their field of vision actually narrows; they see and hear only what is directly if front of them), it again flies in the face of his purported ability to remember things obviously impossible for him to have seen and the many things he should have seen and remembered but did not.

The detectives are also motivated to prompt Mosher to portray Scott as under the influence of drugs. Remember that Mosher had only approximately two seconds to observe Scott face to face before he shot and killed him. Yet in those scant seconds, Mosher felt that Scott was under the influence of narcotics, was very excited and agitated, and in his "training and experience," he believed that "something wasn't right." Remember that this is the man who couldn't recall whether he patted Scott on the back or yelled at him, couldn't accurately recall which commands he gave Scott—or how many--yet he, in two seconds, accurately diagnosed Scott's level of drug impairment while simultaneously shouting commands he couldn't recall, scanning the parking lot and hundreds of people to determine that it was a "pretty clear backdrop," observed Scott well enough to determine that he was trying to shoot him (while incorrectly identifying the color and caliber of the weapon—a weapon he could not see because it was completely encased in a holster), and delivered two shots into Scott's body--all of this within two seconds.

They next prompt Mosher to remember that he patted Scott down after handcuffing him, but again, Mosher is vague and unsure, saying that he made "a quick pat down of his, ah, lower immediate access," stopping then so as to preserve the crime scene. This is, to put it kindly, idiocy. Remember that Mosher said that he was worried about a second weapon or body armor, yet he only does a quick pat down of Scott's "lower immediate access?" Just what is his "lower immediate access?" The detective's utter lack of curiosity keeps them from asking. Normally such an odd, confused answer would automatically prompt any competent investigator to ask clarifying questions.

In all police training, safety comes first. This is drummed into officers from their basic academy onward. In such situations, officers ensure, first and foremost, that the suspect is no longer a threat, which means a complete and competent search, and if this in any way makes the work of crime scene technicians a bit difficult, too bad. Lives trump all else. For Mosher to suggest that with the smell of burnt gunpowder in his nostrils, looking at the bleeding Erik Scott on the ground before him, he had the presence of mind to think that he had better not search Scott, despite roughly handcuffing him, so as not to muss the crime scene, is absolutely ludicrous.

What is also very interesting is that the detectives don't ask about Scott's Ruger .380 LCP pistol which was supposedly found in his pocket, his second gun which was supposedly found in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, the gun which Mosher must have missed while searching Scott's "lower immediate access." It would be essential to have asked Mosher why he did not find this gun during his "search," particularly since it was supposed to be in a pants pocket and would have been easily visible through the material, to say nothing of being easily recognizable as a handgun if Mosher had actually touched it. Metro's narrative would have required that the officers—and certainly the detectives—were aware of that gun, which was supposedly found in one of Scott's pockets at around 1315 in an ambulance, only a few minutes after the ambulance left the scene of the shooting enroute to the hospital.

An essential part of selling that part of the story is that Mosher missed it, making it possible for it to be found by a medic in the ambulance. Unless these detectives were just the sort of really sensitive, new-age kind of police who would never embarrass a fellow officer, there is only one explanation: They didn't bring it up because when they were conducting the interview of Mosher, they had no idea if they could find it and use it as they intended. Remember that they were aware of the existence of the gun. Scott's blood stained blue card (local handgun registration) was found in his billfold, which was given to them by a medic before they took Scott to the hospital. Scott always kept it in his right front pants pocket, which would have meant that he could only have carried the Ruger—and the spare magazine the police "found"--in his right rear pocket. In that pocket, no competent officer could have missed seeing it imprinting through Scott's clothing.

The detectives did know that Sterner's car had been searched in the Costco parking lot, despite the fact that it had no relationship to the events at the Costco. It was just one of hundreds of cars parked in the Costco lot. They had no reason to search it, but obtained Sterner's permission while she was still in shock, and did not find the Ruger, which is the only logical reason they could have had for searching the car. They could not have found the Ruger in her car, but didn't know that at the time.

The problem was that the police weren't able to get into Scott's home until about 1900 using the cover of the Public Administrator's office to enter and to seize that gun and other items. Scott's home had nothing whatever to do with the events at the Costco. There was no legal justification, no need to search it. So why were the police so desperate to do so? Why did they persist in trying to gain permission from Kevin Scott who had no legal standing to consent, from shortly after Erik Scott's death until they finally entered the home?

Scott never carried the Ruger; he did not carry a backup gun. On the day he died, it was left, as it always was, in his home. The detectives did not ask Mosher about the gun because they did not have it when they interviewed him, and because they could not be sure they would find it to use as a part of the narrative. Mosher was completely unaware of the gun because he failed to search Scott, not out of fear of mussing the crime scene but out of dumfounded incompetence. The detectives, having no idea if they could find and use the gun, would have been very unlikely to have mentioned it to Mosher or anyone else unless and until they knew it could be found and fit into the narrative.

For those have not been following the case, the evidence suggests that Scott never drew his gun—even if he understood Mosher, he simply did not have the time—and that it was this weapon, his .45 ACP Kimber in its black inside-the-waistband holster that the medic found inside Scott's waistband in the ambulance. Scott was taken to the hospital almost immediately after being shot. It was only then that the officers realized, to their horror, that there was no gun at the scene, only Scott's Blackberry. The Kimber was hastily returned and placed at the scene, but there had to be a gun that the medic "found" in the ambulance. The medic knew it, the ambulance driver likely knew it, who could tell how many others they would tell? The police could not be sure that they would play ball. The police had Scott's blue cards, they knew about the Ruger, which was perfect. It was small enough to be concealed in a jean pocket, and failing to find it would be stupid and dangerous, but much easier to explain than failing to find a full-sized 1911 pattern pistol. Better to appear to be incompetent than the alternative in this case. Recall, please, Mosher's pitifully vague memory of any kind of a search of Scott after he was shot, handcuffed, unmoving and bleeding out.

Then they prompt Mosher into saying, again quite clumsily, that if Scott had only obeyed his confusing, contradictory, shouted commands within the second and a half available at the fastest possible human recognition and reaction speed, Mosher would simply have worked out the whole situation peacefully.

One detective makes a final stab at details, but only to try to solidify Mosher's claim that Scott tried to shoot him, not to gather every possible detail. The best Mosher can do is say: "He goes in his waistband and comes out with a gun." This despite the fact that all Mosher could possibly have seen—if he saw anything at all—was a black holster that completely covered Scott's handgun. They keep trying, but Mosher can't remember where Scott's hands were, all he can remember is Scott reaching for something black (Scott's Blackberry was black and ended up on the ground near his body) he thought was a gun but was actually a holster that would have prevented Scott from firing the gun (it completely covered the safety and trigger guard—Scott could not take the weapon off safe or reach the trigger) even if he wanted to.

At this point in the transcript, something very unusual happens. Kathy Werner-Collins, PPA attorney and wife of PPA President Chris Collins, is actually invited—by the detectives--to take over the questioning! I have never heard of such a thing. While it is not uncommon for police agencies to allow union representatives or attorneys to be present in interviews of officers, to allow them to participate in the investigation by questioning the officer is simply bizarre. No rational attorney should have any part of such a thing as it removes them from their role as attorney, breaches attorney-client privilege, and makes them a witness, a witness who may be called to the stand to testify about the questions they asked and answers they received as well as their motives in asking them.

That said, Werner-Collins tries to rehabilitate Mosher to portray him as a sensitive, caring kind of guy who was only trying to establish a meaningful dialogue with Scott, but again, things just happened too darned fast for Mosher to non-violently save the day.

Things get really strange when Werner-Collins does the detective's job for them and gets the only vague details about the gun Mosher used to kill Scott on the record. The detectives, displaying their usual competence, do not question him about it at all. They don't ask what he did with it after the shooting, who took the gun and spare magazines from him (as far as we know from this interview Mosher still has them; they were never entered into evidence) when that happened, or any of the absolutely essential details necessary to establish that Mosher did not in any way tamper with that vital evidence after he shot Scott. This is Basic Investigation 101, yet they totally ignore it.

It would be interesting indeed to know what Sgt. Halbert wanted to ask Mosher, because the detectives cut him off the record. I suppose that's understandable, as Officer Mosher had already been subjected to 15 whole minutes of grueling interrogation and may have been on the verge of exhaustion.

This entire interview makes little sense. It makes the detectives look like rank incompetents. It makes Mosher look barely sentient. It does not provide real, indisputable—even plausible--grounds for shooting Erik Scott. Mosher does not clearly explain why he had to provoke a deadly force encounter in the middle of a crowd of hundreds (by his own estimation), nor do the detectives ask him to explain it. It ignores an incredible number of important, indispensable details. Considering the gravity of the situation, it simply isn't even remotely long enough to be a competent interview.

Unless, that is, it was designed not to be a competent interview, but to solidify and fulfill a narrative that was already mostly completed. For that narrative, this checklist would be sufficient:

(1) Dispatch said Scott dangerous/drugged, possibly involved in crimes? Check.

(1) Scott drugged? Check.

(2) Officers forced to act in middle of huge crowd because Scott so dangerous (by walking normally toward the parking lot)? Check.

(3) Scott ignored officer's clear commands? Check.

(4) Scott pulled, pointed gun at officers? Check.

(5) Officers heroically shot to protect themselves, public? Check.

(6) Gun on pavement by Scott's body? Check.

(7) Handcuffed Scott? Check.

(8) Searched Scott (sort of and didn't find anything, especially not a gun which we can't mention right now anyway)? Check.

(9) Didn't see Sterner (who was feet away, screaming at you not to kill Scott) until after you killed Scott? Check.

As you continue to read this update (14.2 & 14.3), remember this checklist and the narrative it fulfills.

Think Progress Lies About Rick Perry's Response to Reporter's Question

If someone asks you an obtuse question about someone else, and you chose to answer by replying, "I dunno, you need to ask him," is that fairly characterized by saying that the person who was asked the question was the one doing the questioning?

In the community-based, radically-warped views of Think Progress the apparent answer is, "Yes! if we can get away with it."

Do you hear that sound? That is the sound of desperation, my friends, and it permeates the agenda-driven media space that demands Barack Obama be re-elected, no matter what.

BEASTWEEK: Evil Christian Candidates Want to Rule World, Bring Back Slavery

Radical progressives are just peachy with 7th Century ideas if the offending party prays to Allah instead of Jehovah, but if you happen to be a Christian—especially a living, modern-day one—rest assured they can't wait to smear you as a nutter.

The author, Michelle Goldberg, seems to be a progressive feminist with half-baked delusions of Christanity tied together with murky and tenuous associations and assertions. It would be amusing if fellow leftists weren't so easily duped into thinking that such off-the-wall conspiracy theorizing wasn't well, the gospel.

And yet in every election in recent memory where the Republican challenger is a practicing Christian, the left trots out their "theocracy" scare card.

That Tina Brown's rage-rag is reduced to retreating to this schtick so early in the 2012 Presidential run merely serves to indicate how badly the left thinks Obama will fare.

The early panic is, I dare say, heavenly.

MIKE ADDS: I've been fascinated and disgusted by this utterly insupportable tactic of the left. The only truly political movement of contemporary American Christians was the Moral Majority, led by the Rev. Jerry Fallwell from 1979-1987. It collapsed of its own internal political and theological contradictions, and while it could claim some electoral successes, since its self-extermination there has been no organized Christian political movement that could claim even a tiny fraction of the influence of the Moral Majority.

Cal Thomas, a high ranking Moral Majority figure, left that organization in 1985 and in 2000, published Blinded By Might, in which he repudiated the imposition of Christianity through politics and once again fully embraced the Gospel. Many others have done the same.

In truth, the Christian political threat imagined by Leftists hasn't existed since before 1987. In fact, the Gospel does not support such political machinations and never has. The Rev. Fallwell and many of his followers were surely guilty of hubris, but were never capable of coming remotely close to imposing a theocracy. Ms. Goldberg and others are erecting a smokescreen to distract people from the real and continuing threat of Islamism and the related machinations of the Left. To paraphrase Shakespeare: "Methinks she doth protest too much."

Shoot Twice And Go Home

The famous story goes like this: In 1912, the German Kaiser, knowing of the fearsome reputation of the Swiss for marksmanship and of the forbidding terrain of Switzerland, and knowing that the Swiss militia was then composed of a quarter of a million men, asked what the Swiss would do if the Germans invaded Switzerland with half a million men. A Swiss replied, no doubt completely deadpan: "shoot twice and go home." The Kaiser did not invade, nor did Adolf Hitler during WWII. Smart choices.

"Si vis pacem, parabellum:" If you desire peace, prepare for war. The Swiss have always understood this, and their martial tradition—and their fortunate terrain—has stood them in good stead. Even today, Swiss militiamen keep their fully automatic military rifles—real assault rifles, not the fake "assault weapons" invented by American gun banners—in their homes and frequent shooting competitions, attended by and participated in by entire families occur all over the nation.

There is a lesson in that, I think, for all who wish to remain free. Mr. Obama and his sycophants in the BATFE, DEA, FBI, DHS, DOJ, Department of State and likely other agencies understand it all too well and are always, always working with their non-governmental allies in and out of America to strip Americans of their Second Amendment freedoms. Gunwalker is only one very clumsy, illegal, idiotic and deadly manifestation of the realization of the Left that only through citizen disarmament can they ever truly control the American public.

Go here for a brief article and interesting photo that illustrates the reality of Switzerland, a nation that remains free and lives on its own terms because it understands that only free men have that option, and that only arms wielded by free men can establish and maintain it.

Letter From The Teacher #14: Belaboring The Obvious

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Mr. Steven Nunsense
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Belaboring The Obvious

Dear Mr. Nunsense:

It was good to hear from you again. I really enjoyed having Hannah as my student two years ago, and I'm looking forward to having Steven Jr. this year. You asked many good questions, and I hope that I did them justice in my last e-mail. But as I noted then, it would not be possible to do your final question justice just then. I have enough time to do that now, so I'll explain why teachers so dislike in-service classes and how that effects education.

It's worthwhile to understand that there are essentially three major groups involved—to greater and lesser degrees--in the delivery of education: teachers, principals and administrators. There are, of course, school board members, but their primary concerns are getting their names on new buildings and making sure the local football team is properly pampered (I'm kidding—mostly).

Teachers have virtually no power. They don't hire or fire, have little or no input into policies, don't make decisions about discipline, and deal almost exclusively with the daily business of presenting the best educational opportunity possible in the hope that at least some of the kids will take advantage of it. Providing that educational opportunity is the ultimate mission of education and they are the people carrying out that mission.

Principals are almost always former teachers. Sometimes they have substantial experience as teachers, but often, very little. They became principals just as soon as they could. If they are good principals, they understand that they have two jobs: To ensure discipline so it's possible for teachers to teach, and to see that teachers have everything else they need to provide that educational opportunity. If they're not good principals, they can single-handedly derail the educational opportunity train, and teachers and students can lose entire years. Even with the best principals, there is often quite a gap between the daily concerns and reality of teachers and principals. Oh yes, principals commonly make from double to four times a teacher's salary.

Administrators are usually former principals who, once they became principals, began wrangling almost immediately to become administrators, who can make double to four times the salary of principals. Their primary concerns are pleasing and manipulating their school board, getting their names on new buildings, and making sure that everyone under them doesn't do anything to embarrass them.

Lower ranking administrators are always trying to impress their superiors and making a name for themselves that will allow them to get a more powerful and better paying job somewhere else, usually by means of ramrodding—literally and painfully—some grand educational scheme or fad that will dramatically change the face of education and make them look like a rising star. Such fads are virtually always nothing more than some old, dusty fad refurbished with a fresh coat of paint and new terms that make what didn't work the first time sound much more impressive. There are loads of companies selling such products, and they aren't cheap, particularly those designed for sequel after sequel, year after year. The trick is that once a lower ranking administrator has hooked a school district into a fad, it's almost impossible for them to abandon it even if it is clear to everyone that it's a fraud and a waste of money. Admitting that would be admitting that school administrators are fallible, which is, of course, simply not possible. So year after year, teachers are subjected to mind-numbing drivel provided at exorbitant cost.

One of the major problems with such classes is that if you're an experienced teacher, the material is so elementary and so obviously poorly recycled that it's a direct insult to your intelligence. If you're brand new, what you really need to know is all of the details of not only teaching, but of teaching in your particular school and district such as which novels to teach, where bathrooms are located, how to grade, how to discipline, what to wear, and a hundred other things you weren't taught in college and thought you knew when you were a kid in high school, but actually had no clue about.

Allow me to provide several examples from in-service classes years past:

In one soul-wrenching class we were taught that if you did not have scissors, you could adapt by actually tearing paper! In another, we were taught that items such as scissors, staplers, pencils, pens and anything that could be manipulated with the fingers should henceforth be called "manipulables" because the mere act of using that term would somehow magically transform education for teachers and students. My favorite was being told that when dealing with students who do not read, write or speak English, one should speak very slowly and loudly: "WHAAAAAT IS WROOOOOOONG WITH YOOOOOUUUU? WHY DON'T YOU UNDERSTAAAAAAAND MEEEEEE?" These were the highlights of those benighted classes. The rest was worse, much worse.

My favorite was years ago when we were sent to a nearby school district to learn how to teach a miraculous reading program. The lady teaching the class turned out to be a retired elementary school teacher who spent every minute of the allotted day—when we weren't on lengthy breaks (the only thing that prevented massive brain damage)—talking about her children and grandchildren and tossing in the occasional rambling, folksy, disjointed anecdote about past students. One of my colleagues, a bright woman taking up teaching in middle age, kept asking pertinent questions that only annoyed the folksy facilitator, so I took her aside during a break and clued her in. We suffered the rest of the day in silence while nodding and smiling pleasantly. Her fee was, no doubt, thousands of dollars, and we ended the day probably knowing less about the reading program than we did before she spoke her first word.

At the beginning of each school year, teachers are called in for in-service classes usually at least a full week before the first day students arrive. They are commonly excited and anxious to get to work to prepare for the kids. Instead they are subjected to classes usually comprised of about 30 minutes of potentially useful information stretched to cover eight hours. Sometimes, there is no potentially useful information. It's rather hard to stretch nothing, but they always manage, usually by making us engage in discussions about methods or concepts we wouldn't touch with 20-foot poles or by making us do "lessons" no competent teacher would ever inflict on their students, as a means of demonstrating what they want us to inflict on our students.

Such classes usually have handouts that consist of templates for accomplishing the most common things, actions competent people have internalized decades earlier. The promise is that if everyone adopts the magic templates as a model for doing what already works, educational achievement will reach heretofore unheard of heights. Whenever I walk into such a class and notice little Tupperwear boxes filled with markers, stick on notes and a variety of similar items spread around the room, particularly when accompanied by sheets of butcher paper or similar paper, I know I'm in for it. I know that because we're going to have to write touchy-feely things on the stick on notes and stick them on paper around the walls, and then we’ll have a "gallery walk" which means we're going to walk around the room reading what other people wrote on stick on notes and this will transform education.

Last week we had what was the fourth or fifth sequel of what is called "Constant Improvement" or "Continuous Improvement" or "Constipated Improvement" or something like that. Each year it's virtually the same thing but slightly repackaged. It's been no secret at all that these classes make teachers suicidal, but apparently some administrator has bet their career on them, so we get constipatedly improved over and over again.

Let me give you some examples from our debacle last week. The "presenter" (or was it "trainer" or "facilitator?" They really love "facilitator.") was a nice lady who apparently retired after teaching something somewhere for many years. The problem was that she was essentially reading the pre-programmed script/handout, complete with accompanying PowerPoint presentation with additional hard copy and web resources available at extra cost.

The focus on this particular presentation was on teamwork. The greatest irony, of course, was that we were wasting a day talking about working in teams instead of working in teams getting work done. She began with a false assumption: teachers have trouble making transitions from one activity to another in classes. Perhaps some brand new teachers have trouble with this, but competent teachers have no more trouble in this area than with blowing their noses.

Here are some of the gems of educational insight we endured:

* Meetings should have a format and they should have a start time and an end time. What an amazing insight!

* While not all trout are fish, not all fish are trout. Similarly, all teams are groups, but not all groups are teams. Uh, OK…

* If you don't look at the game film after a football game you're missing an opportunity for improvement. Uh, OK…

* We learned the definition of "collaborate." Yeah. I had no idea of that one.

* It's important that kids know the content vocabulary in their classes. Really? We should actually teach kids about things like symbolism, theme, alliteration, grammar, and similar things? Wow! I'd no idea!

* Teachers having meetings should have a purpose. I guess that's why our meetings never accomplished anything before now. Our mandatory test scores in the mid 90s must just be flukes.

* We can have a "Round Robin," which is not a rotund bird, but everyone in a meeting expressing their opinions in turn. I always thought that was called "taking turns expressing your opinion," but I'm just a teacher; what do I know?

* You should be on time for meetings. What? No more being fashionably late for no reason?!

* If a teacher has a really good reason for not attending a meeting, there should be discussion about whether to allow them to be gone, or how to punish them, or something. Uh…what?

* If there is a fire in the building, one person should make the decision to evacuate rather than having a meeting to discuss the issue. Wow! Whoda thunk it?

There were forms for planning meetings, forms for writing meeting agendas, forms for analyzing what people said, forms for documenting what happened in the meeting, forms for evaluating the meeting, forms for scratching your nose, eating lunch, and breathing. OK, I'm exaggerating a bit on the last three, but not by much. The people who wrote the program apparently have no idea that teachers have a device known as a "brain" which is capable of storing and retrieving things called "memories" and "processes," and which can "evaluate" events without the use of expensive forms.

Much of the time spent was discussion time in our department groups, er, teams, er, somethings, so that we could evaluate the aforementioned points and implement their wisdom. Apparently the people selling the product have no idea that competent teachers have been having completely effective meetings long before this money making program was ever conceived. So we sat, joked about what we were being asked to do, conducted whatever business we could at the time, and generally appeared to be busy and participating in the class, for teachers are generally quite polite. However, looking around the room I had the distinct impression that the Russians at the siege of Stalingrad probably looked perkier and happier than the assembled teachers.

Why is this a problem apart from wasting a day of teacher's time? Because it is wasting a day of teacher's time, and every minute of their time is precious. It is, in a very real sense, time for which the public is paying and time affecting each student's educational opportunity. The public is also paying the hefty expenses for these all but useless programs. How much? That's hard to tell. Administrators are not the least bit interested in revealing such things to mere teachers, and anyone asking might very well wind up on double secret probation. In the current economic climate, that's not a good idea. My guess is easily tens of thousands of dollars a year. In the current economic climate, that's not a good idea either.

Some people might be tempted to say: "Well at least they're trying to provide some continuing education, and that's better than nothing." No, I'm afraid it is not. Wasting a teacher's preparation time at great financial cost to the public is not better than nothing because nothing in this case is a teacher doing what they're paid to do: preparing well and effectively for their students.

In any case, I hope that this gives you a little insight into what we often have to endure. Thanks again for your concerns and questions, and please let me know if I can be of help in the future.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

Times Reporter Eric Lichtblau's Hit Piece on Issa Full of Fact Errors, Reported Plagiarism. Bears Marks of Obama Administration Desperation

Eric Litchblau is not a reporter. He never has been.

What Eric Litchblau of the New york Times happens to be is a political ideologue with few scruples, and undeveloped sense of right and wrong, and honor... well, it simply was never in his DNA.

He was infamously part of the Times reporting team (along with James Risen)that leaked the existence of a NSA program that included intercepting terrorist communications in an attempt to politically hobble the Bush Administration. The disclosure served to tip off terrorist plotters to use other forms of communications, and was ultimately deemed legal by the federal court.

Before that final confirmation, however, Litchblau played fast and loose with the truth on more than one occasion, and even reversed the facts of stories so that he was essentially fabricating the news.

Old habits, unpunished by a rabid and unscrupulous editorial staff, once again surfaced today in a hit piece directed at Congressman Darrel Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that has been ranging in the Obama Administration in the Gunwalker scandal and a number of other questionable activities.

Perhaps out of desperation, Litchblau's latest article simply makes up facts... those it doesn't apparently plagiarize from left wing blogs, that is. Even left wing radicals that are the Times biggest idolators are calling him out for his theft.

My big question regarding the Litchblau piece is whether or not it was even written by Litchblau. Actually, I suspect Litchblau wrote the story—at least the parts he didn't allegedly steal—but the question remains as to why he would put such a poorly researched, easily debunked and roundly condemned article, unless he was doing it as a political favor to the the Administration.

It was, after all, the White House that shopped a hit piece targeting Issa just months ago that had similarly desperate and sloppy details in a story so weak that a number of news organizations and even a left wing blog passed on it for being not credible.

The hit piece seems to confirm that Issa is damaging the Administration with his Oversight committee probes. As more federal agents, supervisors, and political appoints come forward to point out corruption and criminality, you can only expect the media to publish more manufactured smears in hopes of tarring the reputations of the men and women who just might make the 44th President of the United States the first one ever impeached, put on trial in a criminal court, and extradited to face even more criminal charges.

Update: An editorial in the Washington Examiner suggests that it is DHHS, and not DOJ and DHS that has spurred the White House attack dogs in the press to attack Issa, and they make the very accurate point that these are not just attacks, but in-kind contributions to the Obama campaign.

The simple fact of the matter is that Issa is determined and was released as chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform committee in the most target-rich environment in the history of American government... and that he is very good at his job.

Krugman's Sanity Leaves Via Anal Probe

The Nobel-winning economist has gone around the bend in trying to defend the failure that is Keynesian economics, and now admits that just about the only thing that can save the Obama presidency and his own delusions of adequacy are invading space aliens.

If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better –

I think the next word out of his mouth before he was interrupted would have been "off"... and Krugman certainly is.

Off his rocker.

"I just can’t imagine anyone dumb enough to think you could keep this a secret."

Patrick Richardson, one of my partners at Pajamas Media working on the Gunwalker scandal, has an excellent interview posted with Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC). The Congressman seems to think... well, why don't you just go read the article directly, and see for yourself.

At this point, I don't think it a bold move at all to predict that the crimes committed by the government under the color of law in Gunwalker, and the ensuing (and on-going) coverup) will take down the Obama Administration from the inside in coming months. Months, not years.

More whistleblowers are coming forward out of enlightened self-interest ( the secure, encrypted email account gunwalkertips@hushmail.comexists for this very reason) and out of patriotism to share what they know of the operation, and it seems very likely that Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and the White House are neck-deep in either the original crime, and/or the cover-up.

With a few notable exceptions, the national media is avoiding covering this story as much as possible, but with more Congresspersons and Senators speaking out, and the exposure of other possible gun-walking operations approaching critical mass, even the most recalcitrant media outlets can't avoid covering the story forever.

Elements of the Obama Administration participated in a scheme that ensured the arming of the violent Sinaloa drug cartel with 2,020 firearms, and as a result, hundreds of Mexican nationals and at least three U.S. federal agents were shot, two fatally.

They are accessories to murder, and they will be held to account for their felonies.

The Eric Scott Case: The Permit

Bill Scott, Erik Scott's father, is an accomplished man. A former test pilot, Scott is an accomplished writer with well-respected books to his credit, primarily in the aerospace field, and a sought-after consultant. He has appeared on a number of History Channel specials.

In response to Eriks' death, Mr. Scott has been writing a serialized web novel called The Permit. While clearly fiction, those with knowledge of the Scott case will detect fascinating similarities to reality and perhaps even clues to reality not fully in the public domain.

The Permit can be accessed here. It's well done, interesting reading and would surely be of interest to those who have been following the Scott case. However, the book stands on its own for those who have not.

Mr. Scott's website is here, and the website he has established as a memorial to Erik Scott is here.

The Erik Scott Case, Update 13.2 Stalling and Consequences

For some time, the updates in the Scott case have dealt with issues not consistently directly related to the outcome of that case. I've focused on issues such as attempts by the Metro Police Protective Association (union) to do away with the newly minted inquest rules, and bizarre cases of Metro officer misbehavior and brutality that tend to illustrate the incompetent and corrupt culture of Metro from the lowest officer on the street to the Sheriff, Doug Gillespie.

This update will deal with two primary issues: The continuing case of Officer Derek Colling who beat and falsely arrested Mitchell Crooks for filming what was apparently completely proper police behavior, and the continuing efforts of the PPA to shelter Metro officers from having to fully account for their actions when they kill citizens.

However, on Wednesday, August 17,2011 I will publish Update 14, which is quite a lengthy analysis of Metro's actual interviews of the officers that shot Erik Scott. While long, it is very much worth your time. Until I was able to obtain copies of Metro's official reports and related documents in the Scott case, my only sources of information were the testimony of officers at the inquest, media accounts, and information gathered from willing sources in informed positions. What the metro reports reveal is very much in line with my earlier analysis, but is even more disturbing. Metro's culture and behavior is bizarre and unprofessional beyond anything I had previously imagined. Don't miss Update 14.

Before I begin, here are the links to previous updates and other sources quoted in this update:

(1) Go here for a Las Vegas Review-Journal story about a sort of half-disposition in the Colling case.

(2) Go here for a Review-Journal story on the continuing obstruction of the new inquest process by the PPA.

(3) Go here for a Las Vegas Sun article on the battle over the inquest process.

(4) Go here to Update 10.2 where I first addressed the issue of Off. Colling.

(5) Go here to Update 11.2 for a follow up on that case.

(6) Go here to Update 10.3 where I began addressing the attempts by the PPA or interfere with the inquest process.

(7) Go here to Update 12.2 for continuing information on that issue.

(8) Go here to Pajamas Media where I published an article on the law relating to citizens photographing police officers. The Colling case is mentioned in that article.

(9) Go here for a Review-Journal article on the potential resumption of inquests.

NOTE: Every article relating to the Scott case is available in our dedicated archive. Go to the right hand side of the CY home page. It's under "Archives by Category": "Erik Scott Case".

THE MITCHELL CROOKS CASE:

On July 29, the Review-Journal reported that Mitchell Crooks, the victim of a beating and false arrest by Metro Officer Derek Colling, received notice from the Metro Internal Affairs Bureau that Colling violated Metro policies. It was also reported that Colling has been on paid suspension since April 1, which was apparently not previously made public. However, the internal investigation is still ongoing, and Metro is not releasing the specific policies Colling may have violated, nor has any punishment—if any—apparently been decided.

Crooks is suing Colling and Metro, as are the parents of a 15 year old man Colling shot and killed. In 5 and ½ years working for Metro, Colling has shot and killed two citizens, much like William Mosher who in about the same time frame, shot three, killing two. Crooks reported that in June he was stopped and cited for no insurance by an officer who apparently recognized him. According to Crooks, that ticket was dismissed, which would tend indicate that Crooks did have insurance or the judge involved was otherwise convinced the charge had no merit.

Several lower-ranking Metro officers were not on Colling's side. One said: "The majority of us think Colling made a mistake. All the officers I talked to understand that citizens will see this video, and yeah, we know it looks bad."
ANALYSIS:

The beating and false arrest of Mitchell Crooks took place on March 20, 2011. As I mentioned in earlier updates, Metro seems to take an unbelievably long time to deal with disciplinary issues. It is nearly five months after the incident and the matter is not resolved? In professional Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), such things are commonly handled in days or weeks at most.

The process would normally work like this: When reading reports at the end of a shift, a supervisor (usually a Sgt.) would recognize a problem and begin an informal investigation. If warranted, he would begin a formal investigation, and this would normally be started within a day or two. In smaller agencies without an internal affairs unit, the shift supervisors (Sgt/Lt.) would normally complete the investigation, identify which specific policies/rules had been violated, and recommend appropriate punishment. Their report on the incident and recommendations would normally be forwarded to their division commander (usually a Capt. or higher) and then to the Chief who would review and alter, or sign off on, the recommendations of the shift supervisors and division commander. For smaller, more routine violations of policy, this could be completed within just a few days. For more serious incidents which could result in an officer's firing, a few weeks might be required, or a month at the outside.

It's important to keep this in mind for several reasons. Professional agencies can't afford to keep officers in limbo for any length of time. They don't have the resources and it's terribly damaging to morale, not only for the officer(s) involved, but for every officer to realize that they might be hanging over the precipice for months, perhaps years, because higher ranking officers can't make decisions or are testing the political winds. It's also terrible public relations. The public has to wonder why things are taking so long. In the real world of work, it doesn't take months, even years, to figure out if someone has done something wrong, or realizing that they have, to assign appropriate and rational discipline. Even if the public doesn't understand the workings of police agencies, they know that when things take so long, something is fishy. This is a state of affairs that no professional LEA welcomes for any reason.

Why has this matter taken so long? It would not be unreasonable to believe that Metro is so unprofessional, so corrupt that they are simply unable to do in months what other LEAs routinely accomplish in days or weeks. One might also be tempted to believe that something underhanded is afoot, or that Metro is trying to run out the clock and allow this case to go down the Vegas/Metro memory hole like so many others.

As with the Erik Scott case, we also see what is apparently thuggish harassment of Mitchell Crooks by other officers. As regular readers will recall, in the aftermath of the Scott killing, many Las Vegas Residents put magnetic remembrance ribbons on the rear of their vehicles, and many were repeatedly followed, stopped and cruelly taunted and made to fear for their lives by Las Vegas and Henderson officers, including Erik Scott's girlfriend, Samantha Sterner, who was standing mere feet away when Scott was gunned down.

As I noted in past updates, professional officers do their best to avoid people who are involved in ongoing litigation. If they have no choice but to act, they do so professionally, briefly and with witnesses, but smart officers know that even the appearance of harassment or retaliation is terribly damaging, not only the ongoing cases, but to the reputations of police officers everywhere. In addition, officers understand that they might be criminally liable for tampering with witnesses. Apparently Metro has no such professional worries or fears.

Note that one unidentified officer said that Off. Colling "made a mistake," and that they realize the video "looks bad." That officer is reported to be speaking for the majority of Metro officers. There is indeed a code within law enforcement whereby officers tend not to speak ill of other officers, particularly to the public and press. This is both good and bad. On one hand, the public and particularly the press, don't understand the stresses and demands of the job and are often quick to misunderstand or take innocent comments in the worst possible light. Being circumspect about such things is a necessary and rational bit of protection for all officers against people willing to blow minor mistakes out of proportion and false, malicious charges. On the other hand, officers deserving of discipline might be given unwarranted cover.

Consider that this unnamed officer was willing to say—for public consumption--that Colling made a mistake. This likely means that among themselves, officers are saying the Colling really screwed up. Likewise, saying that the video looks bad is very much an understatement. Professional officers know that the video looks absolutely horrible, because any citizen might see them selves in Crooks' position. They have to wonder: If this guy is out there attacking citizens for no reason, how many more are doing the same? What happens to me if I run into one of them?

Speaking from an officer's perspective, when I saw the video, the first thought that came to mind was "this guy's screwed," meaning he was obviously and unmistakably deserving of being fired and sued. Speaking from a supervisor's perspective, there was no doubt in my mind—having no idea of Off. Colling's past—that Colling should be fired, not only because he was obviously unfit to be a police officer, but because to keep him on the job would subject his supervisors and Metro to unnecessary liability for negligent retention. Obviously, Metro doesn't think this way.

It might also be worthwhile to wonder about the minority of Metro officers who apparently don't think that Colling made a mistake. How large, exactly, is that minority? Five percent? Twenty-five? Do they believe that Off. Colling's behavior represents the reasonable exercise of professional police behavior? That Metro—or any LEA—might employ people who think that Off. Colling is blameless is very, very disturbing.

THE OBSTRUCTION OF INQUESTS:

By the end of July, nine months had passed since the last coroner's inquest, conducted under the old, rubber stamp rules. Since the implementation of rules giving the survivors of Metro killings substantial rights and the ability to ask questions of officers, not a single inquest has taken place.

Initially, the PPA swore that officers would not cooperate, in essence that they would ignore subpoenas, and tried to trick the legislature into passing a law that would have allowed the DA or Coroner to simply decide not to have inquests. That law was written in such a way that it would have applied only to Clark County. When that failed, the PPA made its threats of officers refusing to testify or otherwise do their duty more clear and strident and filed a lawsuit to block implementation of the new rules.

At first, the Clark County Commission canceled all scheduled inquests and planned to wait out the legal process. However, on July 25, 2011 the Review-Journal reported that 14 inquests were on hold (two more officer-involved shootings have since occurred) and speculated that the legal battle wouldn't be resolved until at least 2013, by which time the number of inquests would have more than doubled.

County Commissioners have expressed frustration on behalf of the survivors of victims of police shootings. Commissioner Steve Sisolak has even suggested that officer shootings be adjudicated by a grand jury. Sheriff Gillespie has suggested that he might allow his internal use of force board to clear officers and return them to duty regardless of whether an inquest is ever held.

The usual suspects maintained their usual thinking. PPA head Chris Collins said: "We're saying this process is not fair to ... anybody carrying a gun and a badge in this town." Collins continues to suggest that inquests be abandoned and that the DA be the sole official deciding on criminal charges. Collins then went even further than previously. According to the R-J story: "Even if the coroner's inquest returned to its previous form without an ombudsman, Collins said he doubts officers would ever participate, especially since they face no repercussions if they don't. 'I think the damage has been done,' Collins said."

DA Rogers, whose office has never criminally charged a Metro officer in the death of a citizen, also wants to do away with inquests in favor of making the decision alone. The R-J said that Rogers would "post every report and piece of evidence on a website for public review." Rogers made his familiar complaints about the work necessary to conduct inquests, and suggested that because of the backlog, it would be impossible to do future inquests, to say nothing of those already awaiting hearing: "I doubt we'll ever catch up" he said.

Former District Judge David Wall was to have been the ombudsman capable of questioning officers in the first inquest scheduled under the new rules. He noted that police resistance to the new inquests is based on the fact that officers will be, for the first time, subjected to potentially adversarial questioning. Wall observed: "To me that just perpetuates the notion that the tough questions weren't being asked."

Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani is also concerned. She said: "It's extremely frustrating. I'm especially worried about the families being caught up in this legal gamesmanship."
Giunchigliani suggested that the inquests could have proceeded even if the officers took the Fifth on the stand, believing that this would allow the process to proceed and would have, according to the R-J: "allowed closure for families and officers while helping police and government officials identify training and policy shortcomings that could be addressed to prevent future shootings." Giunchigliani said: "If people want to sue, fine, but it shouldn't stop our process."

On July 31, 2011, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Commissioner Sisolak—who opposed the creation of an Ombudsman—was suggesting that inquests be handled entirely by the DA or a grand jury, a potential change very much favored by PPA head Collins who said: “if they make that change, I’d be in favor of it becoming permanent.”

However, on August 3, the County Commission ordered that the next inquest in line (not the inquest currently being litigated) be scheduled and held, while noting that if the PPA filed a lawsuit to stop that inquest, the Commission—and the public—would be right back where they started.

ANALYSIS:

Inquests are mandated by Nevada state law, and considering that the performance of Collins before a committee of the legislature not only thwarted the PPA's efforts to legislatively overturn inquests, but convinced many legislators not to touch the matter with a ten foot pole in the future, suggestions that Clark County can simply abandon inquests may be wishful thinking. In order for a judge to grant the PPA's attempt to obstruct inquests, he would have to essentially declare the relevant state law unconstitutional, which seems unlikely at best, making this little more than a harassing and delaying action on the part of the PPA and its member officers.

Putting inquests in the hands of DA Rogers would be no different than the old inquest process, even if Rogers kept his promise to post all evidence on line. In either case, Rogers decides exactly how much—or how little—evidence is involved. The same is true of taking cases before a grand jury. In each case, the public would know only what Rogers (and Metro) wanted them to know. It is often said that a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich because a DA alone decides what evidence they hear. In addition, grand jury proceedings are secret, defense attorneys are not allowed, and no transcript is made public. A grand jury would be even less transparent than the all but opaque old inquests, the inquests, which with the Erik Scott case caused such public outrage that the Commission had no choice but to at least give the appearance of making inquests more transparent.

No wonder Collins would be in favor of such an arrangement. Not only would things return to the bad old days when officers could be assured that they would always be vindicated, the public would know even less than ever. Ms. Giunchigliani is apparently well meaning, but the point isn't about a process that changes none of the problems of the past. Nor would such a process allow Metro to make changes for the better; they've had decades to do just that and have apparently seen no need. Having officers refuse to testify would hardly bring "closure" to anyone except corrupt officers and officials who would never face justice.

Restarting the inquest process is nothing more than a political ploy. The commissioners surely know that the PPA will simply file another lawsuit for each and every inquest the Commission tries to hold.

The primary issue was clearly identified by Judge Wall: Metro fears anyone asking officers questions, particularly while under oath, about their official actions in the killing of citizens. In the past, Metro officers could be certain that the DA would rubber stamp whatever they did. In 34 years, and some 200 inquests, a Metro officer was found criminally liable in only a single case, and the prosecutor declined to prosecute in even that case.

As I've mentioned in past updates, any Nevada police officer who refuses to cooperate with his own agency in such matters may be punished for insubordination; this is state law. The larger issue is that of taking the Fifth Amendment on the witness stand. Any officer who does this had better be able to conclusively prove that they are taking the Fifth because they are being unfairly, even criminally framed or made the scapegoat. Otherwise, what is the public to think? Isn't a police officer taking the Fifth in regard to their official, public duties, particularly when the death of a citizen is involved, saying that if they told the truth about what they did, they would be criminally liable? Of course they are, and the public can come to no other reasonable conclusion.

An officer who takes the Fifth under such circumstances has opened a very ugly can of worms. How can any honest, honorable police officer trust him in the future? How can the public trust him? True, he cannot be held liable by the justice system for taking the Fifth, but the court of public and officer opinion has no such stricture. They can and will try, judge and find him wanting. And in finding that officer untrustworthy, many citizens will make no distinction between him and every other police officer. Judges and attorneys--prosecution and defense-- will have no confidence in his reports and testimony. Officers will have no idea whether he will truthfully support them. Citizens will fear for their safety, even their very lives whenever an officer approaches.

Such an officer will be an albatross, yet the Metro PPA is intent on putting officers—and Metro—in just this insane position. They have even said that officers who merely witnessed the actions of officers taking the lives of citizens will take the Fifth! There is, of course, no possible justification for this as it might arguably amount to witness tampering, obstructing justice, or even the subordination of perjury should an officer feel compelled to testify by modifying the truth rather than taking the Fifth.

And then we have DA Rogers, the chief prosecutor of Clark County, pledged to faithfully and impartially uphold the law. Rogers is essentially adhering to the PPA line. Instead of demanding full accountability and transparency, he would be happy to do away with inquests entirely, releasing only that evidence he deems appropriate. Based on his past actions and statements, one might be forgiven for believing that such evidence would be very sparse indeed and that 34 years hence, another 200 or more killers of citizens will have been found to be blameless. Surely even 1% of such killings might be criminal?

FINAL THOUGHTS:

The Erik Scott civil trial is going to occur and is now in the discovery phase. In recent weeks Metro has reached several multi million dollar settlements with innocents harmed by Metro's unprofessional, corrupt actions. Even in a town with as much money floating about as Las Vegas, the eventual judgment—a settlement is highly unlikely--rendered in the Scott case will likely be sufficient to give even a casino owner pause. It will surely be much more than any Las Vegas taxpayer wants to pay in higher taxes.

The inquests will one day continue under the new rules. The PPA's lawsuit---almost certainly their lawsuits—will be combined and heard as one (unless, of course, the Commissioners simply give up and let the PPA run Clark County) and will be dismissed as the frivolous and cynical attempt to protect the guilty and deceive the public that they are. Then the next chapter in the battle will be played out.

Officers will likely fail to honor subpoenas to appear in court. If judges do not hold them in contempt of court and hand out substantial punishment, the matter will end there and the PPA will win. If judges do their jobs and protect the public, officers will be forced to make the choice between perjury and taking the Fifth. In either case, there will be hell to pay.

PPA head Collins is betting that there will be no consequences for behavior that would cause officers to be fired and/or imprisoned virtually anywhere else in America. Remember that even if the inquests returned to their old form where officers endured only the most friendly possible questioning by the DA, Metro officers would no longer participate, as he put it: "especially since they face no repercussions if they don't." Collins is betting that Las Vegas judges—and Metro police supervisors and administrators—will not impose consequences. Las Vegas history would suggest that he could be right.

I can assure readers that professional officers—the majority in America—look at the kind of bizarre behaviors taking place in Las Vegas in absolute wonder. They can't imagine how any police officer could possibly get away with even a portion of what goes on in Las Vegas every day. They know that in their communities, they'd be fired in a moment, and every rational officer would expect the same.

I can also assure readers that professional police supervisors are wondering what is wrong in Las Vegas. In police work, Sergeants are much feared and respected. Their word is law. Officers expect their Sergeants to discover and swiftly and effectively deal with wrongdoing. In order for the kinds of behaviors that are obviously happening daily in Metro, a substantial number of Sergeants and higher ranking officers are either incompetent, corrupt, or both.

Some might think that corrupt officers around the nation might be tempted to go to Las Vegas where they would find fertile hunting grounds. Perhaps they already have.

ADDENDA: What follows is a copy of the August 2, 2011 letter Bill Scott, Erik Scott's father, sent to the Clark County Commissioners.

Dear Commissioner,

As the parent of a Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department shooting victim, Erik Scott, I'm asking that you take immediate action to reinstate coroner's inquest hearings under the new process. The latest Metro killing, that of Rafael Olivas, marks yet another senseless death-by-cop, the ninth this year. This one touched you and your fellow Clark County public servants. Will the next Metro shooting strike even closer? Will the victim be YOUR son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father, mother or other loved one?

A few months ago, you, as a body, courageously ruled to change an extremely flawed, unjust coroner's inquest process to one more fair to all parties involved. Since then, the local police union has tried repeatedly to undermine and negate the will demonstrated by you and your constituents, Clark County citizens. The PPA's recent frivolous lawsuit filing is nothing more than another desperate tactic to end-run a lawful, more-just process that finally gives victims' families a voice.

The PPA has made its position ultra-clear: Chris Collins and his ilk do NOT want police officers held accountable for shooting and killing citizens. The PPA's arrogant, above-the-law attitude and actions are self-serving and repugnant. Since Sheriff Doug Gillespie is either unwilling or incapable of exercising proper leadership by ordering his officers to cooperate with investigators and testify at inquest hearings, that task falls to you, the Clark County commissioners. Otherwise, you fuel a rapidly growing perception that Metro cops are out of control, the PPA is running Metro, and that you, taxpayers' elected officials, are powerless or unwilling to exercise oversight responsibilities.

In American communities that adhere to the rule of law and civilian control of police forces, the following is the norm:

* Any police officer involved in an officer-involved shooting, who refuses to cooperate with the investigation of that shooting, is immediately charged with insubordination under state statutes. That officer automatically is placed on unpaid administrative leave.

* Any officer refusing to appear and testify at a coroner's inquest hearing or before a grand jury is subject to the same action: Charged with insubordination and placed on unpaid administrative leave.

* Any police union advocating that its members defy the orders of a police chief, sheriff, other department leader or an oversight entity (eg., county commission) to testify at a coroner's inquest hearing or grand jury is declared an illegitimate representative of those public employees. For example, you, the Clark County Commission, can declare that it no longer recognizes the Las Vegas PPA as a legal representative of police officers, and refuses to negotiate contracts or other matters with that union. Ronald Reagan did exactly that in the 1980s and fired thousands of air traffic controllers. You have the authority to do the same with uncooperative Metro police officers and the local PPA.

Citizens are infuriated that their elected representatives are bending to the screeches of in-your-face union thugs, instead of carrying out taxpayers' will. For the safety of both your fellow citizens and the remaining professional, good officers on the force, it is absolutely imperative that you take action to reestablish civilian control over the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

The first step in that direction is to immediately reinstate coroner inquest hearings under the new process and procedures. There's absolutely no justifiable reason to delay these hearings any longer. It is time to allow victims' families to be heard, and for Metro officers to be held accountable for their deadly decisions and actions.

I respectfully implore you to reject the PPA's weak, pathetic arguments and desperate legal maneuvers. Please allow ALL pending coroner inquest hearings to proceed without delay.

Regards,
William B. Scott
Father of Erik B. Scott

Booth in Trouble?

I've been following convicted felon Lee Booth from the perspective of his seemingly illegal involvement with three firearms companies, the revelation of his status as criminal informant for the government that possibly kept him out of jail for his apparent gun crimes, and his recent arrest for assault with a deadly weapon.

What I haven't delved into to any great degree is the lawsuit against Booth regarding the demise of Pace Airlines (formerly Hooters Air), and missing equipment and parts related to the airline that some have speculated Booth has his hands on, all quite illegally.

It now seems something seems to be stirring on the Pace front, as Booth's property is about to be searched:

A U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge overseeing the case of Pace Airlines Inc. has ordered a hearing for 2 p.m. Wednesday to discuss the request by the bankruptcy trustee to review company property held by Lee Booth. The hearing is set for the Bankruptcy Court at 226 S. Liberty St. in Winston-Salem.

Edwin Allman III requested the expedited hearing to gain access to any facilities and warehouses owned by Booth or his company, Luft Spares Inc. Allman said he wants to inspect, photograph and inventory the contents. Allman has listed Booth as a co-owner of the defunct company along with William Rodgers Sr.

Booth said Friday that he has consented to the request and is arranging an inspection of his facilities next week.

Presumably, the Pace attorneys have serial numbers for the missing Pace Airline assets, which Booth has apparently denied having. If any of these assets turn up, or if the trustees turn up any evidence that proves he was in possession of these missing assets and made a profit on them, then I suspect he'll be in deep trouble.

Who knows? Maybe they'll even find some guns.

Why We Can't Afford to Have Ron Paul as President

A reader asked me why I have such a low opinion of Rep. Ron Paul and his fan base. I gave him a rather lengthy answer, but my opposition to the candidate himself is summed up well enough in this reference from Rep. Allen West, who has a much better grasp of the way the real world works.

Paul's "hand's off" philosophy if implemented after World War II, would have gleefully let Russia pile nuclear missile batteries in Cuba, and expand in Central and South America unopposed. It would have let the Iron Curtain extend fully over Western Europe, Africa, and the Korean peninsula. It would have certainly led to our decline as a world power, and quite possibly would have plunged free populations into tyranny, or even a third World War.

Simply put, Paul's beliefs, if implemented as policy, would constitute a clear danger to this nation's very existence.

My second objection to Paul is the cult-like followers he has attracted. That are every bit as zealous as the Obamites, and their constant screaming and yelling at events is off-putting (to put it mildly). I've seen enough of cult-leaders with destructive policy agendas. No more.

I'd contemplate sitting at home if it came down to Paul versus Obama. Sadly, I suspect more Americans would simply vote for Obama again in a landslide, assuring our fiscal collapse.

Lounging in The Federal CAFE

As regular readers know, I am singularly unimpressed with the meddling of government in our automotive affairs. Well, yes, I'm unimpressed with their meddling in any of our affairs, but let's talk cars for a minute. The CAFE average (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) is a lovely governmental invention that greatly increases the cost of new cars while greatly diminishing utility and safety. Until the age of Obama, changes in the CAFE mandate tended to be incremental and at least slightly rational. That has changed, and by 2050, the CAFE number is 54.5 MPG across every manufacturer's fleet. Thank you Mr. Obama!

There are essentially three ways to do that: (1) amazing technological breakthroughs the laws of physics in real world as opposed to Obama world may very well not allow; (2) Greatly reducing vehicle weight; (3) greatly enhancing aerodynamics to the point that we're driving rifle bullets on very few, very skinny, very high inflation tires.

In any case, the good folks at Pajamas Media have published my latest scribbling on CAFE (here). Stop by and be sure to also check out Bob's latest article on Gunwalker--it will not make you a happy camper. Come to think of it, neither will my article. Bummer.

News That Doesn't Matter

In the Iowa Straw Poll, Bachmann edged out the insane clown posse, some dude from Minnesota came in a distant third, and the folks who are most likely to end up with the nomination weren't even on the ballot.

Next.

The Literature Corner for August 13, 2011: The Bixby Letter

The Literature Corner for August 13, 2011: The Bixby Letter

Continuing with the theme established in The Literature Corner for last week, I present another of the essential letters of America. As I wrote last week, there are some writings, some documents that should be well known by every American, yet are too often ignored in favor of "celebrating diversity" and multi-cultural consciousness raising. The result, all too often, is Americans graduating from high school and even college with no idea of the depth and meaning of our foundational documents, and of the stature and character of those who wrote them. Substituted instead are the self-referential writings of people of far, far less importance and import than the author of the simple letter that is today's offering.

The Bixby Letter was written by Abraham Lincoln in 1864, and wide-spread interest in it was rekindled by its reading in the movie Saving Private Ryan. The original is lost, but in 2008, a Texas museum found what may be an authentic government copy of the letter. Go here for a story on that document and for history on the original.

In these simple, heartfelt lines, written in a time when correspondence was handwritten, providing ample time for reflection, it is both touching in its genuine sympathy and thrilling in what it reveals about its author. It is impossible to read this letter without understanding that you are reading the thoughts, hopes, and sorrows of a truly great man, one of the indispensable men that seems to appear in America's darkest hours, when they are needed most.

If you've never read the letter, now you have the chance to be sure that your children read it, and understand the immeasurable sacrifices made by so many for the idea of America. There are times when a speech or letter is simply perfect for the occasion. It is not possible to do better. This is such a letter. God grant that we may again find such a leader.

Executive Mansion
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

To Mrs. Bixby, Boston, Mass.

Dear Madam,

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,

A Lincoln.

It is Going to Get Bad. It is Going to Get Bloody . The Question is How Bad, and How Bloody.

Over at Hot Air Jazz Shaw points to a new Rasmussen poll that indicates roughly half of Americans expect violence when it comes time to pay the piper.

Nearly one-out-of-two Americans (48%) think that cuts in government spending are at least somewhat likely to lead to violence in the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But that includes just 13% who feel it’s Very Likely.

A bit less than have thinks that cuts will not lead to violence. These would be you victims.

I stopped by one of my local gun shops Wednesday night to drop off a part I had that belonged to the owner, and the gentleman behind the counter (who knows me as a gun blogger) took just a few minutes to tell me about the significant increase in calls about firearms just this week.

The calls were in response to the S&P downgrade, the rioting in Great Britain, and the mob racial violence in the Midwest and Northeast in recent weeks. It can happen here, and people are starting to say so.

A majority of calls were from young families that had not owned guns before, but who were now concluding that they need firearms to protect themselves.

Interestingly enough, the majority of callers seemed to be requesting information about AR-15 pattern rifles, similar to what our military carries but without the option of automatic fire. Most of these callers were hit by the shock shock of the cost of an AR ($750-$1500 and up) and didn't have the money to purchase them, and so turned their attention to pistols and shotguns.

People are scared, and the clerk lamented that a lot of people now in the market aren't going to get the training they should, and are going to end up shooting people they don't legally have a right to shoot, and a lot of these people are going to end up in jail.

We're going to have to severely cut social programs. As much as liberals are burying their heads in the sand (or other warm, dark places) to avoid dealing with that fact, we simply have to cut spending, and that is going to mean significant entitlement reform. Combine that with an entitlement mindset and a consumer culture with eroding moral guidance, and you have the recipe for the kind of violence you saw in the United Kingdom, and the very distinct probability that it will happen here to some extent.

The big question no one can answer is that we don't know how widespread or deep the rioting and violence with occur.

Will it be mindless, but weapon-free looting and racial attacks like we've seen in recent weeks that just sent a few people to the hospital, or are we going to see cities burn again?

Will the violence be confined to small isolated incidents quickly stomped out by effective policing, or will President Empty Suit dither as America burns?

It is likely to get bad. How bad, we simply don't know.

Houston, We Have a Problem

Can an American news agency that knew that Operation Fast and Furious was "walking" thousands of firearms to Mexican drug cartels face criminal and civil charges for their role in covering up the program?

That is a question the Washington Post, its editors, reporters, and lawyers should be sweating, as evidence emerges that the newspaper may have been aware of the multi-agency "Gunwalker" program that led to the deaths of an estimated 150 Mexican police and soldiers or more, the shooting of three American federal agents, and countless casualties on both sides of the border.

Neil W. McCabe reveals the stunning allegations in Human Events with an article accusingly titled, The Washington Post has a Partner’s Share in Agent Terry's Death.

The story--which must be read in its entirety--reveals that Post reporters James V. Grimaldi and Sari Horwitz, research editor Alice Crites and staff writer William Booth worked extremely closely with the ATF in Houston, TX, over a period of months to write a series of articles called "The Hidden Life of Guns."

Grimaldi and Horwitz shared a byline on a key story in the series, As Mexico drug violence runs rampant, U.S. guns tied to crime south of border, which McCabe claims as evidence of the incestuous relationship that had developed between the journalists and the ATF:

This team worked for months with the ATF so closely that when the article was published the paper, it had prepared maps and charts based on ATF-provided statistics. Its online presentation included a video narrated by ATF Special Agent J. Dewey Webb, and a video of an interrogation of an illegal alien picked up in a weapons case in a private room with an ATF agent, apparently without the detainee knowing he was being recorded.

The statistics cited by the Post in the article, maps, and charts were apparently based upon gun trace data using Operation Fast and Furious statistics. McCabe argues that the relationship between ATF and the Post writers and editors was so close that the reporters must have known that the ATF and other federal law enforcement agencies were allowing straw purchasers to walk the weapons into Mexico and arm the cartels with weapons used to murder hundreds.

If that is indeed the case--and that is a big "if"--then the Post has crossed an major ethical line in what it decided to conceal to protect their assets, similar to what CNN did when it looked the other way as Saddam Hussein's thugs were raping and torturing Iraqi citizens.

The allegation of collusion between the Post and the ATF isn't the only reason the Houston ATF should be worried this week. Houston area gun shops supply a surprising number of guns showing up in central and southern Mexico, suggesting the possible existence of a Gunwalker program that is equal to or even dwarfs Arizona's Operation Fast and Furious.

Congressional investigators with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are focusing on the ATF's Houston office, one of the three additional areas where an operation like Operation Fast and Furious may have occurred, as reported in a previous Pajamas Media report.

Congressional investigators are researching an initiative that sounds very, very familiar.

...congressional leaders want to know if similar problems happened in Houston during an investigation done under the auspices of an ATF initiative called "Gunrunner." The operation targeted "straw buyers" in border states recruited to legally purchase handguns and high-powered rifles only to hand the weapons over to members of the drug cartels.

"The ATF agents encouraged them to go through with the sales," said Houston attorney Dick DeGuerin, who represents Carter's Country, the largest independent gun retailer in our region.

DeGuerin said starting in 2006, Houston ATF agents asked Carter's Country for help by alerting agents when a suspicious gun buyer tried to purchase multiple weapons. DeGuerin referred to this effort as a "stall and call."

"Stall the purchaser, call the ATF, let an ATF agent come out and watch the sale so they could follow it," DeGuerin said.

"Did the ATF always show up?" asked Local 2 Investigator Robert Arnold.

"No, they didn't," DeGuerin said.

If that sounds familiar, it should... Carter's Country is the exact same gun shop savaged by the Post reporting team in the article that drew McCabe’s attention at Human Events.

Carter's Country is now in a legal battle with the ATF, with the ATF attacking the gun store for supplying weapons to straw purchasers which found their way south to the cartels, and the gun store claiming that it was doing exactly what the ATF asked it to do.

DeGurein claims to have documentation that correlates their version of events, and ATF Houston has declined to talk.

Senator Charles Grassley sent a statement to KRPC in Houston that pulled no punches:

"Knowingly allowing guns to be purchased by straw buyers and then transferred to third parties is wrong no matter how you cut it. Whether it's one or 1,800, the ATF's actions in Houston and Phoenix were reckless and ill-advised. The Justice Department and the ATF need to come clean, accept responsibility, and provide honest, straightforward answers from here on out."

The multi-agency task force that took part in these and other suspected "walking" operations in Texas and Florida have a lot to answer for.

So does the Washington Post, which apparently not only knew about the program, but chose to cover it up with a hit piece by one of the reporters involved in the Houston reporting operation that had just returned to duty following a plagiarism scandal.

Neither the Holder Justice Department nor the Washington Post seem to care the least little bit about acting ethically or legally.

No wonder they work so well together.

Don't Listen to the Government. If You do, You're Going to Be Labeled A Terrorist Threat.

Mike Vanderboegh pissed me off last night. No, it wasn't anything he did. He simply emailed a link to his story about how the paranoid Obama Justice Department has decided to label a significant part of the population as a terrorist threat for buying common disaster preparation items.

Yes, while one branch of the government urges you to develop a disaster preparedness kit, another is poisoning the local police against you for doing so.

The FBI handout, entitled "Communities Against Terrorism: Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities Related to Military Surplus Stores" also instructs surplus store owners to:

"Require valid ID from all new customers.

Keep records of purchases.

Talk to customers, ask questions, and listen to and observe their responses.

Watch for people and actions that are out of place.

Make note of suspicious statements, people, and /or vehicles.

If something seems wrong, notify law enforcement authorities."

The handout also instructs surplus store owners to consider as "suspicious" anyone who "demands identity 'privacy'" or anyone who expresses "extreme religious statements" and those who "make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, [or] radical theology."

The list of items that the Feds consider possible indications of terrorist intent are common items set aside by disaster preparedness:

• Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers
  Weatherized ammunition optimized for long-term storage to avoid corrosion is very common, as is the bulk purchase of ammunition in general. Matches work best when they aren't soggy. horrors!
• Meals Ready to Eat (MREs)
  Without question, the single most common disaster preparation foodstuff, almost always bought by the case. Want to eat after a hurricane? You terrorist!
• Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks
  Night vision gear and flashlights are essential for search and rescue for those disasters not conveniently scheduled during the daytime, and have the added benefit of not ruining the night vision of those using them, causing temporary blindness as bright normal lights can. Gas masks can filter out the deadly toxins in molds (which is why you saw construction crews using them after Katrina) and some work as well to filter out particulate smoke and deadly chemicals from fires.
• High capacity magazines
  They are commodities, and your are supposed to have a minimum of five for each firearm for many shooting classes. A person with a half-dozen magazines ("high capacity" is a made-up term) or more for his or her weapon and steely nerve can face down crowds of thugs and looters like those that have set London ablaze.
• Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles
  Make up your minds! you don't want people to have magazines, because you don't want them shooting with any volume of fire. Now you're trying to tell me you want to take away the weapons stabilization platforms that enhance accuracy? Is the FBI trying to encourage innaccurate shooting?

The more I see from this Justice Department, the more it concerns me that they are devolving into armed enforcers (and occasionally covert criminals) for the Executive branch, and that they are creating opportunities to envision solid citizens as threats to their power.

The Osama Bin Laden Dead Cat Bounce

Since the death of Osama Bin Laden, I've seen bits and piece on the Internet that suggest that Progressives and Mr. Obama himself are perplexed and frustrated that sending Bin Laden straight to Hell resulted in only the briefest PR bounce for Mr. Obama. Of course, Mr. Obama can't understand why every American isn't continually singing his praises, saying on more than one occasion, and with substantial indignation, "you [meaning the American people] ought to be thanking me" for this or that.

What is interesting and more than a little disturbing is that I've yet to see anyone touch on the reason. It's not rocket science; it is common sense. Perhaps that's why Mr. Obama and his Progressive sycophants—and the Media (but I repeat myself!)—can't "get" it.

So as a public service, to whatever degree trying to convince Progressives of common sense and the truth is a service (it's probably like trying to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig), I explain why Mr. Obama's "accomplishment" accomplished only a dead cat bounce.

First and most importantly, rational Americans see the accomplishment not as Mr. Obama's, but as our military's, most specifically as the accomplishment of SEAL Team 6. They also appreciate all of the other military and intelligence assets who worked diligently for years to make the successful raid possible.

Those who are well informed know that Mr. Obama dithered for so long to authorize the strike while our warriors sat, ready to go, awaiting his order. His dithering set the strike back a full day, increasing the risk of discovery and the risk that Bin Laden could have been tipped off. While Mr. Obama is due some credit as CINC for this raid, most people see his authorization not as evidence of military or leadership brilliance, but as the very least any American President should do in the same circumstances, yet Mr. Obama dithered for a day! Imagine the PR fallout if his dithering caused the mission to fail.

It's not hard to figure out: If you're the CINC, you ruthlessly pursue America's self-identified, deadly enemies and you have no hesitation in taking them out. This is the default position, the baseline, the absolute minimum required of any American President, yet Mr. Obama and his followers expect a massive PR bounce because Mr. Obama did the minimum? Because he simply did his job, though only after considerable indecision? Indecision about getting Osama Bin Laden?

As I write, I'm shaking my head in amazement that I have to explain this. I doubt that those for whom I am trying to explain are capable of accepting this little bit of reality. What do you, gentle readers, think?

A Cadillac Volt? The Horror!

A Cadillac—Volt? The Horror! Apparently it's alive! According to Fox News (here), Cadillac is planning to resurrect a 2009 concept car then known as the Converj, but in 2014. The concept car received great reviews at the Detroit Auto Show in 2009, but those reviews were based on highly polished sheet metal under lights on a reviewing stand.

According to Fox, the new car, which may have a three letter name like other sporty Cadillac (might I be so bold as to suggest the BZZ?) would use the Volt's powertrain "possibly with better acceleration to suit the Cadillac image."

The original was not brought to market for what sound like entirely rational reasons:

"First, GM could not make a profit at the low volumes the Converj had been planned for. Second, product planners were concerned that the greater weight and additional luxury features of a Cadillac would cut its electric range and performance--reducing its appeal, much as the Lexus HS 250h has sold in lower numbers than expected for Toyota's luxury arm."

For a bit of reality about the potential market for EVs, read my recent post EV Follies for August 10, 2011 (here). Rationality is obviously in very short supply at GM these days:

"Apparently, both concerns have been resolved. One reason for resuscitating the Converj, says our source, is that CEO Dan Akerson is 'all about profit.' The 2012 Volt lists at $39,990, and tops out (before dealer markup) at less than $50,000. If some Voltec cars could be sold not for $45,000 but, say, $60,000, that might enable GM to make money on its first generation of Voltec cars. Or, perhaps more realistically, to lose less money on the technology--until a less-costly second generation can be rolled out."

Not only that, there is evidence that GM has been drinking the hopenchange Koolaid:

"Now, with the Volt essentially sold out and GM trying to boost production as fast as possible, perhaps Converj volumes can go higher, meaning each car may cost less."

The article does suggest what's really going on:

"The Converj is not the only example of turbulence in GM's product plans over the last three years. But now that a deal has been reached to raise corporate average fuel-economy standards to 54.5 mpg by 2025, insiders hope that the GM product plan will settle down. To reach those goals, plug-in cars will clearly become a larger portion of GM's portfolio over time."

Fox did correctly identify two of the many major stumbling blocks of the Volt. In electric vehicles, weight and aerodynamics are absolutely vital because the state of battery technology is such that Volts are averaging no better than 25 all-electric miles in realistic daily driving. Add weight or make the car less slippery and range dramatically decreased. Add accessories that allow GM to charge more for the car and you add weight. This is compounded by the second major problem: Chevy is almost certainly losing money on every Volt they sell. I can't say that with absolute confidence, but Chevy has never claimed to make a penny on Volts, and taking into account the considerable criticism of Chevy for building an unprofitable vehicle for political purposes, Chevy would surely be trumpeting a profit--if one existed.

Notice that the article says the problems have been resolved, but completely ignores the issue of weight and range, and suggests only that if enough of the Cadillac sparky cars are sold at $60,000 each, Cadillac might eventually be able to make enough of them to make at least some profit. The other possibility is a miraculous "less-costly second generation." This would be the much-rumored second generation with a warp drive-like advance in battery technology enabling travel to the outer planets of our solar system on a single charge. No quick charging station on Venus? Too bad.

Cadillac has always been an up-market division of GM which offered two essential features at greatly increased cost: Performance and luxury. Performance is no big deal these days. It's easy and relatively inexpensive to slide a Corvette engine into an aerodynamic Cadillac shell. It is likewise easy to make a basic vehicle much more luxurious. But experience teaches us that when one or both of those features are missing, it's just not a Cadillac and won't sell.

A case in point is the Cadillac Cimmaron of 1882-1988. Based on the four door version of the Chevy Cavalier economy car, GM tried to make it a fuel efficient, small Cadillac with predictable results. Using essentially the same engine and powertrain as the Cavalier, a vehicle not noted for inspiring performance, it managed to make even worse mileage than Cavaliers while being even slower. All of the extra weight required by the luxury trappings could not conceal the fact that it was merely a tarted-up Cavalier, and not, by far, the better class of tart. Traditional Cadillac buyers found it an abomination and other drivers recoiled at paying ridiculous prices for a slower, less fuel efficient Cavalier. It died a merciful death and Cadillac has not, to date, repeated that mistake.

And the Volt is "essentially sold out?" Considering that Chevy sold a total of 281 in February, one wonders just what GM's definition of "sold out" is these days. It must be something like Janet Napolitano claiming that things on the southern border are better now than ever, or Dick Durbin claiming that the economy is great. I always thought that volume had something to do with profit in the car business, but hey, when you lead from behind, I suppose things do look different.

Here are the realities that are going to smack GM executives in their collective snouts: Sticking a Volt powertrain under a larger, heavier Cadillac is going to reduce all-electric power to the 15 mile range, while the already weak gasoline engine will seem positively tubercular to Cadillac drivers. It appears that GM is on track to repeat the brilliant engineering and sales success of the Cimmaron all over again.

The real impetus for this particular automotive white elephant is clearly the 54.5 MPG CAFE mandate required by 2025. So GM will be building ridiculously expensive EVs that make no profit and really don't work worth a damn, but grossly overpaid unions will keep their political power and ability to donate to the corrupt politicians that keep them alive. At the same time, the politicians will be able to maintain the fiction that they are environmentally sensitive while forcing Americans to drive smaller and lighter cars that are far less safe. That's hope and change for you.

See the USA in your Chevrolet, as the Dinah shore commercial used to say, but only if the USA is only about 25 miles wide.

Slutwalk Feminists: Too Dumb to Survive

The chronically confused pseudo-feminists behind the dim notion of "Slutwalks" have offered up some of the least effective self-defense tips ever offered to man or woman-kind.

Somehow, I don't think the girls have the guts to take Breda's far more effective advice of using something that experts agree works.

Lawsuits, Criminal Probe Dog Obama DOJ

Citizens of two countries seek out legal redress for the crimes and edicts related to Gunwalker.

Go here to Pajamas Media for the story.

Mike Adds: As with everything else Bob has been writing on the Gunwalker scandal, this article is very much worth your time.

Radical Leftists Openly Plot Terror Attacks on Financial Centers. Obama Does Nothing. Media Ignores.

We've learned in recent days from such noted Constitutional scholars as Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) that peacefully protesting the government and asking them to undertake such radical tasks as spending within their means and acting within the Constitutional boundaries our Founding Fathers envisioned, amounts to terrorism.

Specifically, they are quoted as saying:

"We have negotiated with terrorists," an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies' misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: "They have acted like terrorists."

Like you, I view the peaceful demands for rational spending restrictions to be the exact same thing as suicide bombing, the sawing off of heads, or crashing airliners into skyscrapers... other than the fact that that viewpoint is certifiably insane.

That said, the media and progressive left (but I digress) certainly seemed to nod along with the suggestion, even when they didn't dare vocalize it.

The rhetoric was ratcheted down, but the underlying vitriol remained, when Standard and Poor downgraded the nation's credit rating from AAA to AA+, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Presidential adviser David Axelrod were quick to again try to blame the Tea Party.

Clearly, Democrats and the bobblehead media view any threat to the nation's credit or economic straits—no matter how farfetched or ill-conceived—as the equivalent of a terror attack.

So why aren't we hearing anything from the White House, Senate, House of Representatives or the editorial pages about the "days of rage," "occupation," and "revolution" targeting the heart of the nations financial sector?

A list of aligned terrorist groups (using the democratic definition) wants to Occupy Wall Street, and advocates the physical occupation and gridlock of our nation's financial nerve center... attempting the exact the same trauma on the U.S. financial markets as the late terrorist Osama Bin Laden did when he chose New York's financial district and the nation's leadership in Washington, DC as his primary targets.

US Day of Rage is one site promoting a takeover of Wall Street on September 17. Their message is as muddled as the logic of adopting a name synonymous with violence that birthed a terrorist group. Maybe they hope to attract bomb-builder and Obama mentor Bill Ayers as guest speaker.

Some in the media are noting the incredible lameness of the "cause," it's incoherence, and it's likelihood of failure.

That's fair.

But terrorist attacks are terrorist attacks, and those who commit them are not deemed to be terrorists only if they succeed.

If the Tea Party can be considered terrorists for merely standing up for traditional American values and fiscal common sense, then radical terror groupss attempting to interrupt the financial markets are most certainly worthy of being shot on sight by police.

I'm sure even our Vice President would agree.

Quick Takes, August 11, 2011

ITEM: Ready For Prime Time: Go here for a list of ten sci-fi predictions that actually came true. From landing on the moon to credit cards, it's an interesting reminder of how much we take for granted.

ITEM: How To Encourage Job Creation: Punish Success! That would seem to be precisely what Mr. Obama intends if one watches what he is doing rather than listen to what he is saying. The invaluable Mona Charen agrees. See what she has to say here.

ITEM: Military Thoughts: Active duty milbloggers have to be very careful about what they say. Go here to the Mellow Jihadi for thought-provoking questions and comments about our current—and future—place in the world.

ITEM: Does He Get It? Does President Obama understand the world-wide threat to the existence of western civilization? Does he have any real idea of the danger, and if he does, any idea how to respond. Everything he has said and done to date would suggest that the answer is an emphatic "no." Go here to Pajamas Media for an excellent article on the subject by the invaluable Michael Ledeen.

ITEM: They Walk—Swim?—Among Us! Go here to Fox News for a brief video showing what appears to be a UFO resembling—are you ready for this—the Millennium Falcon of Star Wars fame on the bottom of the Baltic Sea. Chewie, speak to me!

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Obamacare Division: I'm shocked, shocked! I just can't get my mind around the idea that Obamacare not only will not save money, but will cost a very great deal more than Mr. Obama has claimed! How can this be possible? Go here to find out the latest outrage. You know, I'm almost tempted to think that Mr. Obama actually lies to us!

ITEM: I Can See It Now: The executives of a major, international automotive accessory conglomerate are sitting around a massive table in their opulent boardroom…

Chairman of the Board: "Sales of our little green pine smelling thingies and fuzzy dice are through the roof month after month—(applause and cheers)—but the question remains: What's our next accessory triumph?"

Executive #1: "Chromed silhouettes of naked, reclining women?"

Executive #2: "Nah, that only works on semis."

Executive #3: "Bobbleheads?"

Executive #4: "Nah. We tried that with Obama and got our bobbleheads handed to us."

Executive#5: "I have it! Large multi-colored testicles made of plastic! We'll hang them from the rear of pickup trucks!

All: "Brilliant! Genius! Bonuses for everyone!"

And the rest, as they say, has been history, until a woman was cited by a Bonneau, SC police chief for displaying her testicles (uh…), and now, plastic truck testicles have become a symbol of First Amendment free expression. God bless America! I mean, if your truck can't display its testicles, what's the Constitution for? Go here to the Volokh Conspiracy for the story.

ITEM: Mr. Obama's Seven Deadly Sins. We can hope that the public will think similarly in the voting booth. Go here for an interesting and informative list.

ITEM: We're Not Even Halfway There Yet! So said Mr. Obama in his momentous recent speech. Which one? Er, you know, the one where he said something about something or other…you know, the one where he talked about class warfare…what's that? He does that whenever he opens his mouth? Well, yeah, but what's your point? Anyway, Mr. Obama was blaming George W. Bush again and apparently suggesting that we're not halfway to the midpoint of an eight year term. Hmmm. Please Mr. Obama, keep saying that sort of thing, please? Go here for the take of the boys at PowerLine.

ITEM: Donuts Are Good For You! This was particularly true at a Dunkin' Donuts in Rockaway, NJ until recently. Why until recently? Well, it seems that not only could you get yummy donuts and hot coffee, an attractive employee by the name of Melissa Redmond was also selling her own special brand of sugar on the side! Some fuddy duddy called the cops, and now all you can get are donuts. Go here for yet another urban tragedy.

ITEM: Girls and Guns! In QTs last week, I wrote about the heavenly sight of Helen Mirren firing a Browning .50 machinegun in an evening gown in "RED." There is just something about a woman who knows what she's doing firing a serious firearm. Go here for another brief peek. Thanks to Eric for the heads up!

ITEM: An Abyss? We're not raising the debt ceiling, we're making a deeper debt abyss. So says the invaluable Mark Steyn in a prescient article written before the credit downgrade. Must reading: here.

ITEM: Natural Selection At Work: For those who doubt the veracity of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, go here for conclusive proof. Yes, he shot himself in the pee-pee with a pink gun. How do you explain that to the emergency room doctor?

ITEM: Everything The Dems Would Like You To Know About Economics Under Bush Is Wrong. Go here to an important article by the invaluable Byron York that explains precisely why whenever Mr. Obama's lips are moving to blame George W. Bush for his own economic illiteracy he's lying. But you knew that, right?

ITEM: The Tea Party Did It! That is the newest Dem. talking point, first run up the flagpole by David Axelrod. It was the Tea Party that was responsible for the downgrade of America's bond rating, the first in history. Let me see if I have this straight: The Tea Party, a loose confederation of diverse Americans whose only real message is small government, adherence to the Constitution and low spending, is responsible for the berserk spending binge of Congress and Mr. Obama? I suppose when a man with no accomplishments of any kind can be president, why can't black be white, day be night, up be down, and the group of people primarily responsible for imposing any degree of fiscal sanity are responsible for the opposite. The Dems are absolutely out of ideas. Integrity—did they ever have any? Bonus: go here for the invaluable Jennifer Rubin's take.

ITEM: Other Than That Mrs. Lincoln, How'd You Like The Play? Once again, as if any additional evidence was necessary, we see the lunacy of Obama economic policies. Remember when Mr. Obama released 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Wasn't that a brilliant, stimulative policy? Not so much. In fact, a bit more than a month later, gas is 10 cents per gallon higher than it was before the release of oil. Sigh. Go here for the whole story.

ITEM: Who Knew It Was That Easy? Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine, the "What, me Worry?" chap had it right after all. According to former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan and every Media talking head's favorite billionaire Warren Buffett, America has no debt problem at all! Why not? Because we can print as much money as we want! We have the paper and the ink! Hmm. That didn’t work so well for the Weimar Republic, if memory serves. Go here for the lunacy.

ITEM: Brilliant! The brain is endlessly fascinating. Go here for ten things you probably didn't know about the brain.

ITEM: Common Sense. Sarah Palin is an idiot, some backwoods hick with too many children. Every sophisticated self-styled elitist knows that, right? Yeah, not so much. In fact, after reading this, you might wonder why anyone ever allows the elite to tell them anything at all.

ITEM: Louis Renault, Wisconsin Division: I'm shocked, shocked! Yes, who'da thunk it? Who could have possibly imagined that when union thugs were removed from the budgeting equation, a city or state could save millions, even billions of dollars? Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for one. Go here to see the mayor of Milwaukee try to suggest that saving at least $11 million dollars is somehow a bad thing. I'm shocked, shocked!

ITEM: What? Is Mr. Obama actually stupid? I tend to think it's a combination of socialist fascism and stupidity, but on the other hand, wouldn't one expect stupid people to be drawn to Socialism and Marxism? Food for further thought may be found here at the Wall Street Journal.

ITEM: Yes, It's The Seminal Sexual—Er, Non-Sexual--Er, Slutty—OK, so no one really knows what it was, but it's called the "Slutwalk," and it took place in San Francisco (surprised?). It's about protesting about being called a slut while simultaneously demanding the sisterly liberation of being a slut, or something. Oh yes, and it's a protest against rape, which as we all know, everyone thinks is just the sweetest thing. Anyway, go here to Pajamas Media where Zombie provides a blow by blow account with many photographs, some of which will not provoke immediate mental trauma.

And with that bizarrely informative link, I must once again thank you for stopping by and encourage you to drop in again next Thursday for another edition of Quick Takes! Keep on slutwalkin'!

EV Follies for August 10, 2011

As regular readers know, I've been following the fortunes—such as they are-of the two electric vehicles—EVs—currently on the market: The Chevy Volt, which is a very expensive pseudo hybrid rather than a pure EV, and the Nissan Leaf, which is a pure EV, running on internal battery power or nothing, and considering the range limitations of these vehicles on battery power, nothing is the rule rather than the exception. If you wish to probe about in the archives to read my scribblings, type "Chevy Volt" into the site search feature on the right hand side of the CY home page.

Presented for your approval: A round up of recent information on these vehicles. Consumer Warning: It will not tend to make you burn with a touchy-feely desire to rush right out and buy a Volt or a Leaf.

#1: Volt Sales Skyrocketing! Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard (here) tells us that Chevy sold 281 Volts in February and thus far, not quite 2700. On the other hand, Chevy is planning to ramp up production to 5000 per month to keep up with—demand? Did they say "demand?" So they did. On the other hand, in the Age of Obama, spending is saving, flushing money down the toilet is stimulus, we've had a "Summer of Recovery" that wasn't, and leadership is done from behind, so I suppose it makes sense to produce 5000 units per month of a car that is only selling 281 per month. I had no idea that's what demand was. Good thing we have people like Mr. Obama, Mr. Geithner and Mr. Bernanke to explain these complex things to us.

#2: A brief story in the Telegraph (here) outlines one of the most powerful reasons not to buy an electric car: battery replacement cost. Apparently only 680 EVs have been purchased in England thus far in 2011 despite a government grant of approximately $8,152 (today's conversion rate) for each EV. The biggest problem, though, is that the Leaf's battery might need to be replaced, according to Nissan, "after a few years," depending on how it's used. Chevy is claiming that Volt batteries will last 10 years and cost anywhere from $8000 to $10,000 to replace, this on top of a MSRP of about $41,000 (not including $7500 government rebate or $2000+ for an optional fast charger), however, 10 year is almost certainly hopenchangey wishful thinking.

Nissan is being far more honest than Chevy, but their numbers are even worse. In the UK, a Leaf sells for $50,545, minus the government grant of $8,152, it's still a hefty $42,393. But the best part is that the Leaf battery, which is comprised of many smaller cells, will cost $31,618 if all the cells have to be simultaneously replaced (a virtual certainty). It's possible I'm making math mistakes here, I am an English teacher after all, but my currency converter tells me that these numbers are accurate, at least today. If that's so, why would anyone want to buy a Leaf, particularly in England? Replacing the batteries is 75% of the MSRP of the car!

#3: Popular Mechanics has recently completed a long term driving test of a Leaf, and in this article, provides a cautionary tale applicable to state of the art EVs. What's up? Starting with an indicated 28 miles of range, the author headed for work, slightly less than 28 miles distant, but quickly discovered that an indicated 28 miles was more like—a whole bunch less in real world driving conditions. The upshot is he was able, by chance, to find a friendly Nissan dealer who allowed him to charge—for two hours (?!)—providing just enough charge to make it to work. Reminder: The commute was lengthened by more than two hours so that the author could just barely make it—in maximum slow, pamper the battery mode—to work. Remind me again why I ever thought of buying a Leaf? Oh, that's right: I never have thought of buying a Leaf! Whew! That was a close one!

#4: Smacked in the face by environmental reality! Our pal Rob at PACNW Righty (here) has a great article on these issues, which includes cost analysis and the eco-realities of building and demolishing EVs and hybrids. Be sure to read the entire article, including the "emotional" section.

Car ownership is a complex matter, and issues of resale value, fuel savings, and reliability often take a back seat to more frivolous matters such as sex appeal, prestige, and in the case of the Volt or Leaf, greenie street cred. This is a good thing for those who plan to buy such vehicles, as they will surely never save money by purchasing a vehicle significantly more expensive than conventionally powered, far more flexible vehicles.

The Continuing Verdict: The technology just isn't sufficiently advanced to make such vehicles commercially viable. Massive government tax credits and grants alone make that clear, but the reality that such vehicles will not save their owners a dime, short or long term, should bring this experiment to a rapid close. I suspect that will be the case should Mr. Obama be retired to the links in 2012.

Interest Clairvoyance

Just a few thoughts, gentle readers, on a rather remarkable but little reported factoid. Mr. Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently announced that he would keep interest rates very low for the next two years. Does this sound remarkable? It should. Consider:

(1) The Fed virtually never makes long-range prognostications. Until now, Fed Chairmen have understood that the economy is prone to unforeseeable changes, and planning more than a few months ahead is foolish. The necessity of corrections is a reality that can't be predicted.

(2) Market forces beyond Mr. Bernanke's control can, and likely will, force interest rates up. The multi trillion pound wheel of the credit downgrade has already started rolling downhill and Mr. Obama and his economic cronies remain stolidly behind it, pushing for all they are worth.

(3) Artificially trying to keep interest rates low could have most unfortunate effects on the economy.

(4) The economy is—how to put this gently—unstable. One of the primary reasons businesses aren't hiring and building is because of this instability. They have no idea what the Obama Administration is going to do from minute to minute let alone two years hence. What Mr. Bernanke has said makes as much sense—and has much in common with—Soviet five year plans.

(5) The performance of every one of Mr. Obama's high-level economic appointees has been less than inspiring. In fact, Christine Romer, first chair of Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisors recently said that the American economy is "pretty darned f***ed." Ms. Romer, recently (thankfully!) retired from government service, was one of the primary architects of that f***ing. This is known as "irony."

(6) One might be forgiven for thinking that rather than being the Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States of America Mr. Bernanke is the shadow chairman of the Obama reelection committee.

Unlike Mr. Bernanke, I can make a prediction that will almost certainly come to pass: If Mr. Obama is re-elected, even if interest rates remain low, American businesses will not celebrate by means of hiring and expansion. They will realize, then as now, that our economy is in fact, "pretty darned f***ed," and that Mr. Obama is the primary economic porn film actor. This too is commonly known as irony.

Typical Leftist Wants to Introduce Us to the Reeducation Camps

Via SayUncle, proof that the violent totalitarianism the pervades leftist ideology remains deeply rooted in their fragile psyches:

Many times I've riffed on a dark, delicious fantasy about rounding up Tea Bagger types and sentencing them to green re-education camps for minimum one-year terms. Not to punish per se but to expose these contemptible morons to facts, to truth, to the way things really are and how they're being played by the rich, and the fact that Boomers have taken almost everything and that diminished lifestyles and economic security are being bequeathed to Genx and GenY for decades to come, and that the best is definitely over.

Like Chance, I'd invite Mr. Wells and any assembly of his friends he can muster to try to make his fantasy a reality.

We're With Stupid

Or should I say, that I'm stuck with him until impeachment, his criminal trial, or his electoral defeat.

I'm sure everyone is rolling their eyes about the possibility of impeachment and a criminal trial, but you're not counting on his intellect the way that I am:

How many times have we heard it said that Mr. Obama is the smartest president ever? Even when he's criticized, his failures are usually chalked up to his supposed brilliance. Liberals say he's too cerebral for the Beltway rough-and-tumble; conservatives often seem to think his blunders, foreign and domestic, are all part of a cunning scheme to turn the U.S. into a combination of Finland, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.

I don't buy it. I just think the president isn't very bright.

Socrates taught that wisdom begins in the recognition of how little we know. Mr. Obama is perpetually intent on telling us how much he knows. Aristotle wrote that the type of intelligence most needed in politics is prudence, which in turn requires experience. Mr. Obama came to office with no experience. Plutarch warned that flattery "makes itself an obstacle and pestilence to great houses and great affairs." Today's White House, more so than any in memory, is stuffed with flatterers.

Much is made of the president's rhetorical gifts. This is the sort of thing that can be credited only by people who think that a command of English syntax is a mark of great intellectual distinction. Can anyone recall a memorable phrase from one of Mr. Obama's big speeches that didn't amount to cliché?

Every bit of available evidence suggests that Barack Obama is every bit as dumb and arrogant as he appears to be. We're pressing forward with our Gunwalker investigation, and it appears more and more likely that fellow conspirators are going to turn against Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, other agency directors, prosecutors, and the White House to save themselves from criminal prosecution for their roles in facilitating hundreds of murders.

Is our President a man evil enough to sacrifice the lives of citizens in two nations to push a policy goal? Read the evidence—or witness the on-going cover-up—and come to your own conclusions.

I'm rather fond of the mental image of ex-President Obama behind bars and facing trail in a Mexican courtroom.

Luckily for us, he's just unintelligent enough to put himself there.

Update: Via sue in the comments, another biting dissection of Obama's alleged intelligence:

It has become obvious, in a sense that cannot be denied, that Obama is a fundamentally stupid man. He has all the equipment, all the training, would probably do well on all the tests -- but it doesn't come together and produces no worthwhile results. He knows all the buzzwords, and how to get them across. He easily impresses crowds and onlookers so long as the questions don't get too detailed. But he can't turn any of this into action. Everyhing he touches, without exception, falls to pieces. He has no single political success to his record. His administration is one endless Gobi, lifeless and bare. Compared to Obama, even Warren Harding, the last man on everybody's list, looks like a beleaguered giant. What we have in Obama is the stupidest man who ever sat in the Oval Office.

That's one part of a harsh assessment. Make sure you read the whole thing.

Mike Adds: I'd quibble with the author in only one respect: there is no evidence that Mr. Obama has done well on academic tests, or that he would do well on such measures. I have no doubt that at least some of the people with whom I attended college would recall that I was quite good at test taking in general, but there appears to be not a soul who could say the same about Mr. Obama. In fact, there seem to be very few people who recall Mr. Obama doing what one does in college: attending classes, writing papers, etc. For an actual college student, college is more than a full time job, and when one is absent from work, so to speak, it is quite obvious. I rather suspect that his inability to test well, perhaps even to complete classes, is the reason that his undergraduate and graduate transcripts are protected by walls of security that would provoke envy in the CIA. Not the sort of thing one sees with the truly intelligent.

Dear London

It seems your quaint and artificial veneer of civility is falling away, as adults trained to be spoiled children by your culture seem intent on burning their neighborhoods—and just about anyone else's—to the ground. It seems that they are a bit put-out because they aren't getting their "fair turn" sucking on the government teat.

At least that is what your fellow socialists claim.

Tell me... how is that working out for you?

Specifically, I mean the part where these leeches rip apart and destroy your homes and livelihood, as your prim little government tells you to stand aside and not dare hurt the poor dears.

Are you still liking the wussification of your nation, and the acceptance of violence, now that it is your world on fire?

Despite the best efforts of our current president and his criminal Attorney General, we don't do that here.

We have a response for looters. From our perspective it's called "outbound fire."

The firearm I am holding in the photo above is just one of many that I have access to; I own several very much like it, and they all fire very real, very deadly bullets. Just before posing for this photo, I had just used this very rifle to repeatedly shoot a 6" target at 150 yards (about 137 meters, a bit longer than a football pitch) with very little effort.

Why? It's quite simple.

Our Creator endowed me with certain unalienable rights—stop me if you've heard this—and also the responsibility to defend the life he gave me from oppressors, tyrants, and thugs.

That right extends to defending the lives of my family, and our home. No one has the right to take away my home or threaten my family, and I have the God-given responsibility to ensure their safety and survival by any means necessary.

We're quite adamant about that, and have taken up arms against entire governments on more than one occasion to ensure our liberties, and will likely do so again at some point.

I'm sure you find our ideals all very quaint as you flee your home for a less combustible location, but perhaps you can reflect upon the idea at a later time. Giving up the rights given to you by your Maker wasn't an intelligent decision, and is perhaps one you may want to revisit.

He expects you to defend the life he gave you, not just the body you inhabit.

Think about that, once you've put out the fires.

The Fit Has Hit The Shan

The economy is going so well that the host of one of the most popular radio morning shows in our rather large market area spent at least a good half hour this morning talking about his disaster preparation plans, and stocking up for survival with like-minded families.

The few callers to the show had an interesting mix of reactions. Some thought he had clearly gone off the deep end, and very bluntly stated—almost directly—that " it can't happen here." Others thought he was very much on the right track.

It was interesting to listen to the host calmly insist such preparation is a form of insurance, which is a sentiment I share. You have home insurance, car insurance, medical insurance, dental insurance, life insurance, flood insurance... all designed around the theory that it just makes sense to be prepared as you can be for those eventualities. Disaster preparation is nothing more than an insurance to make sure that your family has access to food, water, and shelter in the even of natural disaster or economic turmoil that could interrupt our normal just-in-time supply chain.

Quite frankly, you're rather a bad provider if you don't think ahead for your family's security. I think he made the right call.

A Letter From The Teacher, #13: New Year's Resolutions

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Bob, My Most Steamed Colleague
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: What Teachers Know

Dear Bob:

Well, it's that time again. Just four days from now, we're back in in-service classes and a week beyond that, the kids return. I've been working, as you know, most of the summer on preparing for this year, and I've been in my classroom for the last week—and I will be there all of this week—getting things ready. I wonder why people think teachers spend months laying around and soaking up sun in the summer? I can't ever recall having done that. You?

Anyway, most people make their new year's resolutions in late December, but I make mine in early August. I worried a great deal about last year. I just didn't ever feel settled. The year seemed to be passing by very rapidly and always just beyond my grasp. I worry that I didn't do all that I could have done. I worry that I didn't teach the right things in the right ways. I worry that I didn't demand enough of the kids.

I've always believed that the art of teaching lies in mastering the small things, the details. So here are my top ten resolutions for the new year. May it be better and more productive than the last.

(1) When we are, once again, forced to sit through in service classes that not only insult our intelligence but actually lower our IQs, I resolve to do one of two things: Have a heart to heart chat with our Superintendent where I introduce him to reality—in the nicest possible way, of course. I suspect my initial question to him might go something like this: "What the hell is wrong with you people?!" Or I'll simply endure it as always, surreptitiously doing preparation work while a grossly overpaid "consultant" drones on and on, and successfully resist the almost overpowering urge to kill myself to end the pain. OK, OK! So I'll do the latter. I need the job.

(2) I resolve to spend those extra few minutes, no matter how busy I am, to talk with kids, listen to their concerns, and simply ask them questions about their favorite topic: themselves. It's so easy to allow ourselves to be completely caught up in the work of education and to forget some of the process, to simply delight in the kids.

(3) I resolve to force myself to spend at least ten minutes each and every day simply sitting and thinking about what I'm doing. I did so little of that last year, and I think when we don't take that time, we're all the poorer for it. In secondary education we're so busy with classes--one after the other all day--we sometimes forget to think. Aren't we supposed to be thinkers? I know I'm not satisfied with just delivering content.

(4) I resolve to keep close track of all of the interruptions and disruptions that keep me from teaching and my kids from learning every day. I did that about 10 years back and was appalled at the unbelievable amount of time that assemblies, pep rallies, messengers, unnecessary testing and retesting, announcements, and myriad other small annoyances occupy. I'll give the results to the principal at the end of the year. He has promised to reduce that sort of thing this year, but I think it won't hurt to be able to quantify things.

(5) I resolve to spend a little more time—as much as I can—writing back comments to my kids. I already do a great deal of that when I grade their papers, but sometimes, I feel as though I'm rushing, doing it more to get done than to stimulate their thinking. Yes, I know that many don't care, but some do. Don't they deserve our best?

(6) I resolve to continue to do Talk Like A Pirate Day again this year. There is just something about dressing and talking like pirates that the kids love, and their little skits are hilarious. Of course, once they perform for the class that way, they don't bat an eye about doing anything else before the class for the rest of the year. I thought about passing on it this year, but hey, if you can't be a little goofy every once in awhile, what's the point of living? Besides, teachers in other departments always tells me that it's fun to hear the kids talking like pirates around the halls that week, and it does help them to think about language differently. Arrrrrrrrr!

(7) I'm going to have the kids act out "Forbidden Planet" again this year. I've wanted to incorporate more science fiction into the curriculum—all we usually do is "Fahrenheit 451"—and that movie seems to work. The kids enjoy acting out the script, and they really enjoy seeing the movie—with the actors saying "their" lines—afterward. I like the fact that it's also a detective story and that it deals with the fundamental nature of man.

(8) I resolve to give the kids a little less time to complete their research paper this year. Like you, I try new things each and every year and get identical—mediocre—results. As you know, we do other things simultaneously, but I think I'll try focusing their work in a shorter time frame and see if that is useful.

(9) I resolve to be more serious on the broken window issues this year. You know what I mean, right? It's an old law enforcement concept: If a building, even if not currently in use, has a broken window that goes unrepaired, soon all of the windows will be broken. It's human nature, or at least the more perverse portion of it. Handle the small things and the larger behavioral issues tend not to manifest themselves. So I'll enforce the dress code a bit more strictly, and demand that the kids keep their hands and lips off each other a bit more strictly. I do that more than most already, but I suspect it might help everyone with disciplinary issues if we all were just a bit more vigilant about such things.

(10) I firmly resolve to accent basic civics more completely this year. You know that I always do that, but with our current political situation, with our economic mess, with people believing that America is in decline, I need to remind the kids how fortunate they are to be Americans. I need to use our literature to remind them of the better angels of human nature, and to reinforce their role in the social contract. I need to help them to become better people, better citizens, and better Americans. Above all, I need to help them to believe in the idea of America, and to understand why America truly is the one indispensable, unique nation in world history. If they don't know it, if they don't believe it, we’re truly lost. I'm not going down without a fight.

I'm also going to try to spend more time actually speaking to people rather than e-mailing them, and I'm even going to try to go to the occasional pep rally, but I'll have to buy new ear plugs if I hope to retain what little hearing I have left, to say nothing of what little sanity I have left. And I think I'll try to take the time to actually say hello to all my colleagues every morning. A smile is a nice way to start the day.

So there you go. I expect you'll help to keep me on track to uphold these good intentions. I'm going to have fun in every class every day, as always. In the study of Kendo, I often tell my Sensei that I will reach perfection tomorrow, always tomorrow. For all of us, it's not reaching perfection, but making the effort and what we learn and become on the journey that's important. I'll be a perfect teacher tomorrow. You?

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

Rhetoric vs. Reality

Perhaps the most obvious sign of Mr. Obama's narcissism is his obvious belief that his words have magical powers. He has almost certainly used "I" and "my" more frequently and blatantly than the sum of all presidents before him. He surrounds himself with fawning sycophants, fake Grecian columns, the great seal of Obama, tells members of his party that they can't fail because they have him, travels to Cairo to show Muslims his glory, travels to Germany to show Germans and Europeans his glory, plays golf and vacations like there is no tomorrow and throws a massive, command performance birthday bash for himself—charging as much as $38,000 each for the privilege of attending—while the nation's economy is melting down in unprecedented fashion before a horrified world. He actually said that his reception of the Democrat nomination would be recorded by history as the moment that the seas began to recede and the planet began to heal! Yet all of that pales in significance compared to the narcissism of a man who firmly believes that what the nation—what the world—needs is yet another teleprompter reading from The One.

America is, more than anything, an idea. It is a set of beliefs and values that bind together peoples from all over with the world because they believe that only in America, only in a nation where individuals truly have inalienable rights, where there exists the rule of law, and where the government exists to ensure equality of opportunity, only there can they live in freedom. Only there do they have the opportunity, with the sweat of their brow, with their intellect and abilities, to thrive, to prosper and to instill the American ideal in their children. When enough of the residents of this nation no longer believe, when enough of those who live within our borders no longer see any advantage in being known as an American, America is over.

Our financial problems are a symptom. That we have allowed ourselves to fall into this abyss, and to continue to dig, indicates that many of us have abandoned the idea of America, if indeed they ever embraced it. Yet it is not too late. One of the most significant powers of the presidency is, as Teddy Roosevelt said, the Bully Pulpit. Our president can use the power of that pulpit to persuade, but only if he too believes in America. He does not. He believes only in the Socialist worker's paradise that, after the fundamental transformation of America through his brilliance, will exist.

Mr. Obama's August 8th speech was indistinguishable from virtually every other every other day speech on the economy he has to date given: class warfare, demands to raise taxes, blaming everyone but himself, suggesting that borrowing money to pay people to do make-work federal jobs will somehow lower the deficit, euphemisms, evasions, and as always, no actual plans, no actual proposals, no remotely rational solutions, not a dram of leadership. So impressed were the markets that mere minutes after his latest teleprompter readings, the stock market fell an additional 200 points.

Mr. Obama has truly established himself as the post-American president. He cares nothing for America, a nation he has spent his entire life criticizing. He cares nothing for Americans, a people he considers to be beneath him. He seems to be waiting for the real job, the job beyond, above the presidency, the really important job befitting his superhuman abilities to which he will ascend when he has transcended his labors ruling the ungrateful and unwashed. But until then, he will blame others, establish commissions, panels, and support economic advisors who have no experience in the real world, who can't so much as pay their taxes, and whose brilliant advice has flung us into the abyss, all the while blaming it on a loose confederation of Americans who argue only for smaller, more responsible government that lives within its means. "Tea Party Downgrade" my American posterior.

But above all, remember that for Mr. Obama rhetoric is reality. Talk, for the most narcissistic president in American history, is cheap indeed. While Mr. Obama seems to believe that whatever he says is reality, and as such, requires no actual actions that would make it manifest, rational Americans tend to want to see results. And now, international rating agencies want to see the same. Fewer and fewer Americans are bothering to listen to Mr. Obama—you've heard one Obama speech, you've heard them all--and few of those who do take anything he says at face value. Yet he cannot imagine that we don't eagerly anticipate his speeches, hang on every word, revel in his clichéd syntax as revealed truth and fall to the floor weeping that one so magnificent would take the time to speak to such as us: bitter God and gun clingers who have antipathy for those not like us.

That's narcissism on a previously unimaginable level. What we need is common sense--such as realizing that you can't save money by spending money—and a genuine belief in the idea of America. Leadership would be nice too, but only if it leads us away from the edge of the abyss.

Mr. Obama claimed that America will always be a AAA nation. Of course, he meant that he is AAA, and how dare anyone think otherwise. We are not, unlike the companies and unions Mr. Obama favors, too big to fail. Only results, not rhetoric will forestall that failure. And all Mr. Obama can do is talk.

Words, Like Light, Illuminate Much

There is a lot to be revealed by a man, in the words he uses, and why. Words can be used to hurt, they can also be used to free.

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --JAMES MADISON (Drafted Virginia Constitution, Member of Continental Congress, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, named "Father of the Constitution", author of Federalist Papers, author of the Bill of Rights, Congressman from Virginia, Secretary of State, 4th President

After a busy week, I finally had a chance to catch up on some of the news, so much of the media spinning darkness into their own version of truth. Yet there are those beacons of light out there, those who are not afraid to speak up as what what is is important about our country, what we can lawfully and with honesty, hopefully get back.

It's a country which was once governed for us, by us, with openness and debate. It was a house in which We The People could speak, not the rampart its become, like one of those fortresses of the Middle Ages, planted with stakes against truth and against the liberty in which to question and be given the answer is the right of man. We need to turn up the light to lay the words bare for examination. Words of the Constitution. Words that could have been scribed in blood, in which you can not just see, you can hear those that fought and died for those freedoms, there in a volley of fire and the diminishing thunder of hooves. Better that, than to be cloistered away in walls of our own making, with only the far away sound of circumvented wind, carrying hollow words that that fly away as dust, without weight.
Brigid

Dow Down (Bumped) Closes -624.24 (-5.45%)

This isn't pretty.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has plummeted to begin the trading day after the nation's credit was downgraded from AAA to AA+ by Standard & Poor's after the market closed Friday.

Keep your fingers crossed, folks, that this is just a downgrade and that we aren't headed for a complete collapse of the economy as the Cloward-Piven-Obama left so giddily hopes it is.

Update: 10:15AM Down-down-down: Dow at -242.11.

Update: 10:30AM Dow at -343.15

Update: 11:00AM Dow at -347.84. Stabilizing?

I'm going to try not to look again until noon.

Update: 1:59PM G U L P! Dow at -445.85, and now below 11,000.

Update: 4:00PM Dow closes at -624.24 (-5.45%), but soon hits -633.17 (-5.53%) and continues to fall after hours.

Yeah. Right.

President B+ gives us a AAA.

He has to. Otherwise, it might interfere with really important matters, like using taxpayer-funded transportation to attend two fund-raising events tonight to raise cash for his reelection campaign.

S&P Now Downgrades Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

The hits just keep coming:

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services on Monday downgraded the credit ratings of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other agencies linked to long-term U.S. debt.

The agency also lowered the ratings for: farm lenders; long-term U.S. government-backed debt issued by 32 banks and credit unions; and three major clearinghouses, which are used to execute trades of stocks, bonds and options.

All the downgrades were from AAA to AA+. S&P says the agencies and banks all have debt that is exposed to economic volatility and a further downgrade of long-term U.S. debt. Their creditworthiness hinges on the U.S. government's ability to pay its own creditors.

Expect the Obama Administration and their Democrat allies in Congress and the Media to now do the very best they can to utterly destroy Standard and Poor's.

They don't know how to solve problems nor do they care to learn how to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again.

They just intend to shoot the messenger (again), while reassuring Turbo Tax Timmy he's doing a great job on the way to default.

Another D O W N G R A D E Possible in Just Months

While our favorite trolls continue to sippy-cup and regurgitate whatever talking point excuses the lefty elites trot out to explain away Standard & Poor's downgrading of the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+, the credit agency warns again that if reckless government spending isn't reined in, our debt crisis may force them to lower our credit rating yet again.

The U.S.'s new double A+ rating "could go down more in a time frame of six months to 24 months," to double-A, depending on government action to cut the deficit, John Chambers, managing director and chairman of Standard & Poor's sovereign ratings committee tells FOX Business senior vice president and anchor Neil Cavuto in an interview on FOX News Saturday.

That means the U.S. government effectively has until at least February to find additional cuts to meet S&P's demand for at least $4 trillion in total deficit reductions over the next decade. The debt ceiling deal cuts $917 billion over the next decade and at least $1.5 trillion from a new bipartisan super committee in Congress by November.

For the first time in history, Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S.'s vaunted Triple-A rating to double A+ after the market's close on Friday night, a rating it has held at S&P since 1941.

You can repeat the basic economic facts on a middle school level as many times as you would like, and it will not matter.

Congress was given horrific power when allowed to spend without a requirement to balance the budget every year. We are now so deep in debt as a nation that there is no way—even with 100% taxation of the so-called "rich"—that we can ever raise taxes high enough to bring in enough revenue to offset spending. We must slash spending, and deeply, including the sacred cows of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

But progressive ideology demands followers to believe that:

• Government is the best mechanism to accomplish _______.
• If the _______ government program isn't working, providing more money to _______ is the solution.
• There will always be enough money to fund _______, we just need to raise taxes to pay for it.

As a result, we will continue to hear blame-casting from the political left and would be elites. They would rather demagogue those arguing for fiscal responsibility (and call them terrorists) and drive the country into default than be forced into recognizing that a free market economy will not work with their demands for an massive, all-providing government.

It is really too bad that they have so little faith in the intelligence, initiative, and grit of the American people.

We will not only handle the needed deep cuts to big government; we'll thrive as a result.

Of course, that is precisely their biggest fear.

The Wages of Progressivism

Mob violence—in Wisconsin? The birthplace of modern Progressivism? The state that until recently successfully resisted allowing its own citizens to lawfully carry concealed weapons? Wisconsin indeed, as Bob noted in his post titled "Just One More Reason To Carry A Concealed Weapon."

It would be tempting to observe that Progressivism has been less than a civilizing, positive influence in Wisconsin. Consider that union thugs disrupted the traditional Governor's opening of the Wisconsin State Fair, and the bizarre, Mad Max-like attacks on white fair goers by gangs of rampaging black thugs (oops! I mean: "disaffected youths of color expressing their legitimate grievances against the oppressive radical Tea Party power structure"). Yes it would be easy to say all of that and more, but this post is primarily a reminder of the realities of carrying concealed weapons, a practice that I suspect, given the behavior of unions and certain disaffected youths of color—to say nothing of Democrat politicians—will be much on the minds of rational, responsible residents of Wisconsin these days.

For those who would like to do more in-depth reading on the issues raised in this article, may I be so bold as to suggest a five-part series I wrote entitled "Me? Own A Gun?" The series explores not only the philosophical, but the moral, legal and practical issues in considerable depth. For that series go to these links:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

WHY CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON?

The short answer is because evil exists and it can and will attack anyone at any place and time. Evil recognizes no boundaries, respects no persons, no race, no gender, no national origin. Evil exists to destroy, to humiliate, to maim and kill. It cannot be reasoned with or appeased. It must be confronted and obliterated. Anyone taking the links in the first two paragraphs will become acquainted with evil, and if they are wise, will realize that those innocents thrown to the ground and brutally beaten as they were leaving the Wisconsin State Fair certainly didn't expect to be attacked that night, nor did they do anything to provoke those attacks. That's the nature of evil, and evil is particularly likely to manifest itself in crowds, but we'll deal with that shortly.

Another part of the answer is because the police cannot protect you. In fact, the police have no legal duty to protect any given citizen, nor may they be successfully sued for failing to protect any individual. For those interested, the primary US Supreme Court case is Castlerock v. Gonzalez. In that case, the estranged husband of Mrs. Gonzalez kidnapped and killed their three daughters. Despite the fact that Mr. Gonzalez was violating a protection order, and despite the plaintive and repeated pleas of Mrs. Gonzalez over many hours the police did nothing, nothing that is until Mr. Gonzalez attacked the police station, firing a handgun. He was shot and killed by officers. The bodies of his daughters were found in his truck, which was parked nearby.

This might sound outrageous, but is actually quite sane. If any citizen injured by criminals could sue the police for failing to protect them, could any municipality afford a police department? Who would be a policeman knowing that their homes and property, and everything they might own during their lifetime would be forfeit for their failure to protect someone they could not possibly hope to protect?

Most importantly, we must consider the very nature of humanity and its primary imperative, more important even than procreation: The preservation of the self, or self-defense. This is actually the foundation for the positions of those on both sides of the politics of the Second Amendment: those who believe that the fundamental natural right is the right to preserve one's life versus those who recognize no such right, but tend to see individuals as valuable only in their utility to the state.

If you believe that each man must have the right to defend his life, it logically follows that each man must have access to the means to defend that life, for not every man is as large, fast, strong or martially skilled as others. This is particularly so for women who tend to be, on average, substantially smaller and weaker than men. If also follows that the means must not be restricted to only a single type of weapon, but to those weapons most effective and most conveniently carried by any man or woman. Circa 2011, this means the handgun.

If, on the other hand, you recognize no right to self-defense, the mere existence of such convenient weapons is an enormous threat to your view of the world, for they give any mere man or woman the power, literally in their hands, to resist the power of the state. As much as such people crow about their great concern for the welfare of "the people," it is clear that "the people" are only a politically useful abstraction, and that the individuals who make up "the people," have value only to the degree that they fully support the goals of the statist elite. All others are a threat and are the natural prey of the predators created by other statist policies who are, as members of favored victim groups, particularly useful to statists.

In Wisconsin, until recently, those who recognize no right to self-defense held sway. They are very, very angry that their power over the lives of others has been diminished, and they will not surrender that power easily or willingly, as the continuing turmoil in the land of cheese hats so clearly indicates. But do keep in mind the ultimate foundation of the struggle. Those who would deny the right and the means of individuals to maintain their very existence enable and support the kinds of mobs who attacked innocents at the Wisconsin State Fair.

Why carry a concealed weapon? Because it could be necessary at any moment and at any place, and without it, you or those you love could be maimed or killed. It's very much like a fire extinguisher. Most people will live a lifetime without ever having to use a fire extinguisher, but when they need one, they need it immediately, badly and nothing else will do. The same is true of handguns.

THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE:

Disclaimer: Keep in mind that each state has specific laws with specific language relating to the use of force, and of deadly force. It is always imperative to be intimately familiar with such laws. What follows are the general principles upon which the laws of the several states are based. They are a useful foundation for studying these issues, but again, the final word is found in state law.

There is a word for those who carry concealed weapons because they hope to use them, because they hope to harm and shoot others: criminals. The law abiding who are willing to spend time and money to be thoroughly vetted by the state in order to carry a concealed handgun are among the most law-abiding Americans and are arrested at rates far below the general population. Those whose permits are revoked are commonly less than a single percent of all licensees, and experience revocation primarily for inadvertent technical violations of the law such as accidently carrying their weapon into a prohibited place. No rational man or woman carries a handgun because they are looking for trouble, but because they know that trouble can be—at any place and time—looking for them. In fact, those who carry concealed weapons have a responsibility to go out of their way to avoid trouble. Criminals, tyrants and their sycophants relish the idea of harming others. The rational do not. They understand that to kill another is a terrible, life-changing event, something to be avoided at virtually all costs. However, they also understand that to be unprepared, to allow oneself or one's loved ones to be maimed or killed is worse.

Generally speaking, one can use deadly force when there is an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to oneself or another. The general factors, which must be present for the use of deadly force to be justified, are:

Means: The person or persons liable to be shot must have the means—a gun, knife, etc.—to make good on their threat.

Opportunity: They must have the opportunity to carry out their threat. They must be close enough and obviously able to carry it out. If they are waving a knife at you from 100 feet away across a river while threatening to kill you, they have neither the means nor the opportunity. If they have a gun, they arguably have both.

Jeopardy: They must be placing you in imminent danger. They must be demonstrating the intention to cause you or another serious bodily injury or death. Again if they are holding a knife from 100 feet across a river, you are in no real jeopardy. However, if they have a rifle, the moment it begins to swing in your direction, there is no doubt that you are in jeopardy.

I would argue that anyone carrying a concealed handgun has a duty to do all that they possibly can to avoid any situation that might turn into a deadly force encounter. If this means that there are certain places or situations that they must avoid, so be it. A large part of avoiding trouble is being aware of your surroundings, of developing situational awareness. Most people are blissfully unaware of what is happening around them; they cannot anticipate or identify impending danger. However, it is the nature of life that the unexpected can occur, and that is why we carry concealed weapons in the first place. This is also why enlightened states have enacted Castle Doctrine laws.

THE CASTLE DOCTRINE:

These laws basically allow citizens who are lawfully present in any place or vehicle at the time they are attacked to stand their ground and defend their lives or the lives of others. They have no duty to try to retreat or to run away, and the attacker, not their victim, is presumed to be at fault. In some states, prosecutors actually expect citizens to flee from their own homes when confronted by armed thugs in the middle of the night, and should they dare to defend their lives, they are likely to be prosecuted for killing those who intended to murder them in their sleep. Castle Doctrine laws prevent such perversions of reality and justice. They also prevent those injured or killed in the commission of crimes from suing their intended victims.

Those who don't believe in self-defense have screamed that Castle Doctrine laws will allow citizens to be vigilantes, murdering helpless criminals at will. Like their hysterical warnings about blood running in the streets when citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, these situations have also failed to materialize.

WISCONSIN AND STATE FAIR REALITY:

Let's take a moment to apply these ideas to the situations facing three citizens at the Wisconsin State Fair. None of these people were expecting trouble, let alone expecting to be placed in a situation where they could be maimed or killed, yet that is precisely what happened to them. Tragically, none of them were apparently armed. They were unprepared to protect themselves or others.

That said let's first examine the psychology of crowds, which is a well-developed field of study. People cloaked by the anonymity of a crowd are often willing to do things they would never consider doing when alone or with a friend or two. This is why gangs of people, gathered informally on the spur of the moment, or as an ongoing criminal enterprise, are so dangerous. Their numbers and the inherent difficulty of defending against them or of identifying individuals emboldens them.
The half-hearted kick delivered to the head of an injured victim by a member of a crowd carried along by the fervor of the moment might very well be the blow that imparts irreversible brain damage or which kills even if the person delivering that kick didn't intend to kill. Human beings are amazingly resilient and amazingly fragile. One blow in the right place can permanently cripple or kill.

In Wisconsin, there appears to have been a clear racial motivation to the attacks: blacks attacking whites unknown to them for no reason other than their race. While those who would deny us all self-defense are often very concerned about racial motivations, race surely meant little or nothing to the victims of their attacks, nor would it make their injuries more or less painful or lasting. While race could be a factor in a decision to use deadly force, it generally is irrelevant.

Let's also keep in mind that anyone using a firearm is responsible for each and every round they fire. We shoot only to stop, never to kill. We shoot because of the overwhelming necessity to stop our attacker(s) from doing what they were doing that gave us the legal justification to shoot in the first place. We shoot only to stop those who must be stopped, not people who present no threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death. If the attacker dies, too bad, but we shoot to stop them, not kill them. This means that the moment they cease their attack, we stop shooting, and if we can then immediately get to cover or another place of safety before calling our attorney and then the police, that's the smart thing to do.

In the practice of shooting to stop, we do not shoot to wound, or fire warning shots. Remember, we are responsible for every round we fire. Any round fired into the air in warning will come down somewhere, perhaps on someone. If you try to shoot someone in the leg, even if you are successful, will that prevent him from pulling the trigger of his handgun or from stabbing you with his knife? You shoot to stop, never to wound. Shooting to wound could even be used against you by an attorney arguing that you doubted your justification to shoot. Why else would you fail to shoot to stop?

This means that if you are justified in shooting another human being (to stop them) you may fire as many rounds as necessary with as large a gun as necessary to stop them, but the moment the threat ends, the shooting stops. If a single round from a .380 handgun will stop your attacker, great. If five rounds from a .45 are required, that's fine too. But remember, when they stop, you stop.

In many ways, the situation at the Wisconsin State Fair was a nightmare scenario for any law-abiding person, but it was more so for those carrying a concealed weapon. Some would be tempted to say that no one, therefore, should carry a concealed weapon, but then you would be placing yourself at the tender mercies of the crowd that injured so many at the Fair. Remember that the police, who were apparently present in some numbers at the Fair, did little or nothing to protect those injured, and apparently did little or nothing to arrest those who caused such carnage after the fact.

SCENARIO #1: Riding your motorcycle, you are pulled from your machine by a gang of 5-10 people who begin to savagely beat you. You have never seen these people before and have had no contact or confrontation with them before the moment they grabbed and began to attack you.

Regardless of your size or physical prowess, you are on the ground, already injured, and under unrelenting attack. By the circumstances and their sheer numbers, your attackers have demonstrated beyond any doubt that they have the means and the opportunity to cause you serious bodily injury or death, and they have already placed you in jeopardy. In fact, your only potential means of avoiding seriously bodily injury or death is a handgun, which can be employed even if you are injured or partially incapacitated.

Shooting two or three might be enough to send the rest fleeing, but you cannot be certain of that and must be prepared to shoot each and every person attacking you. Again, your goal is to stop them, to save your life. When they stop, you stop, but in this situation, you should immediately seek protection from any other potential attackers. The alternative is to place yourself at the mercy of those who have no mercy. Get to a place of safety and call your attorney and then the police.

SCENARIO #2: Driving out of the Fair in your car, you see a crowd of 5-10 people savagely beating someone who is on the ground, absorbing terrible punishment. You have a choice: watch in horror, turn your head and drive away, or intervene. Even if you could call the police, they could not possibly arrive in time to prevent the maiming or death of the victim.

If you choose to intervene, you need not shout warnings, but it would be a great idea to yell something clear and consistent such as "stop hitting him," "don't move," or "stop hitting him or I'll shoot." As they are clearly putting that person in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, as the next blow could be the blow that inflicts that injury or causes their death, you may shoot to stop the assault. If necessary, you may shoot them in the back. This isn't a prize fight, and as the thugs will observe no rules, you will observe only the rules that apply to the use of deadly force, which do not require you to wait until a killer presents a range-perfect frontal silhouette prior to shooting. Waiting for a such a perfect silhouette might also indicate to a jury that you weren't really engaged in a split-second life or death struggle, but had the time to align potential targets before shooting.

Again, if shooting one of them stops the assault, great. But if not, you shoot at many as necessary to stop the assault.

SCENARIO #3: Waiting behind other vehicles while driving out of the Fair in your car, you are surrounded by a group of 5-10 people who scream racial threats, kick and beat your vehicle and appear to be trying to break in your windows. Your doors are locked and your windows are holding—for the moment. Are you and your family in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death?

If it is possible for you to immediately drive off, that would be the smart thing to do, even if one or more of the attackers is foolish enough to be in your way at that time. Remember that when behind the wheel of your car, you are in control of a deadly weapon—a weapon far more dangerous and deadly than any handgun--capable of mowing down everyone in your path.

This situation is somewhat problematic. The moment one of the thugs breaks a window, it would certainly be reasonable to believe that they intend to carry out their express and implied threats. Yes, it's annoying that they are damaging your vehicle, perhaps humiliating you in front of your wife and children, but cars can be repaired and feelings soothed, killing lasts forever. Certainly when they break into the car, and the moment they begin reaching for or striking occupants of the vehicle, the factors for the use of deadly force are present. However, even then you, sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle, unable to easily respond to threats in any direction, are at a distinct tactical disadvantage. The best possible option is using your vehicle to escape, so long as innocents aren't endangered. If any of your attackers find themselves inspecting the tread of your tires from close range, too bad. If not, shoot to stop, not only individuals, but the gang, as necessary. Remember that when they are stopped, you stop. You do not shoot people who are clearly running away or who have clearly stopped placing you or others in jeopardy. Escape to safety and only then call your attorney and then the police.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

I've covered only the bare bones of the issues here. Being involved in any shooting surrounded by people is a nightmare. What if you miss and strike an innocent? What if one of your rounds penetrates one of your attackers and hits an innocent? There are an infinite number of what ifs involved in such situations, which is why it is always smartest for anyone carrying a concealed weapon to be so attuned to their surroundings that they avoid potentially dangerous places and situations.

However, even for the most prepared, avoidance or even escape are not always possible. Sometimes, you must be prepared to stand and fight, for if you are not prepared, if you can't fight, you or those you loved may be maimed or killed.

There are certainly those in Wisconsin—and elsewhere—who will examine the attacks at the State Fair and conclude that it was fortunate that no one there had a handgun, that everyone lacked the means to defend their lives. There are others, and I would assert that these are the citizens who are responsible and rational, who will see these attacks as clear evidence of the wisdom and necessity of being able and prepared to protect our lives and those of our loved ones.

Statists would also oppose a Castle Doctrine law, for it would give too much power to the individual. It would allow honest citizens to kill vicious criminal attackers and avoid being sued when those thugs were transformed in death into virtual saints. If the innocent can do that, the foundation of the statist worldview—the lives of individuals have value only in direct proportion to their utility to the state; they have no intrinsic value—crumbles. The law abiding would see the primary provisions of the Castle Doctrine as a logical extension of the right to self-defense.

Evil exists. The non-statist citizens of Wisconsin are now, perhaps, more aware of that never-changing, eternal reality.

Making The Grade

I just didn't expect it this early. I mean, Gov. Rick Perry (R) of Texas has not yet actually placed himself in the running for the 2012 Presidential race, so perhaps it's a bit premature for the Left (I was going to say the Media, but what's the difference?) to attack him. But then again, it's a different world these days, except when it's not.

By that I mean that one of the most tried and true Leftist attacks is to brand any Republican stupid, usually as evidenced by his SAT score or his undergraduate grades in college some 30-40 years ago. This particularly Leftist cannon has already been fired at Mr. Perry with the claim that he received a C or D or three in some of his undergraduate classes at Texas A & M, which college must, to any sophisticated journalist, surely consist of a pothole-filled dirt road leading to an outhouse and a renovated fried chicken restaurant.

Well, return with me now Gentle Readers to those thrilling days of yesteryear when Sen. John Kerry (D, N. Vietnam/Jane Fonda) was running against George W. Bush, both graduates of sainted Yale. The Left ran the usual academic attacks against Mr. Bush, representing him as an accented Texas dolt with a C or D or three in some of his undergraduate classes. Boy, wasn't that good for a few laughs around the more chic bistros frequented by the self-appointed elite? Well yes, until that is, it was revealed that Mr. Kerry's grades within those ivy-covered walls were even lower. Ooops. Suddenly that line of attack more or less disappeared as the attacks on the Swift Boat Vets—for daring to attack Mr. Kerry by stooping to revealing his actual record (such as his smiling portrait on the walls of the North Vietnamese War Museum shaking hands with equally smiling Communist murderers)—ramped up.

Now we have Governor Perry, a man with a long record of actual accomplishment and success in such insignificant endeavors as running a business and creating a climate conducive to jobs and economic growth, compared to the diametrically opposed record of Mr. Obama whose economic policy consists primarily of saying: "it's George W. Bush's fault! Nyaaah!"

"Oh yeah?" Say Obama sycophants and the press (but I repeat myself). "Perry got Cs and Ds at some no-name school in some backward, red state where everybody marries their sister—or something. So there! Nyaaah!"

Very well. Let's see Mr. Obama's grades then. In fact, let's see his undergraduate and graduate transcripts so that we can see not only which intellectually demanding courses he took, but how the most brilliant human being (a man who was actually able to swat a fly!) ever to walk the Earth fared. This information is currently classified somewhere above top secret in a classification so secret that no one, not even Mr. Obama, knows what it is. Wouldn't it be simple fairness for Americans to see Mr. Obama's brilliance? Wouldn't it be best to spread the grades around, so to speak? If Mr. Obama's supporters publicize Mr. Perry's grades, why shouldn't Americans expect to see Mr. Obama's grades?

How about it Mr. Obama? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, a man whose words you seem more than willing to misuse: "Mr. Obama, tear down this wall behind which your grades hide!"

The Deadliest Day

An American special operations helicopter—most likely a CH-47—was downed last night in Afghanistan in the deadliest single incident of the Afghan war for American forces.

A military helicopter crashed in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops and seven Afghan commandos, the country's president said Saturday. An American official said it was apparently shot down, in the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.

The Taliban claimed they downed the helicopter with rocket fire while it was taking part in a raid on a house where insurgents were gathered in the province of Wardak late Friday. It said wreckage of the craft was strewn at the scene.l

I think I can speak for both Mike and myself in offering our sincere prayers to the families of those lost, and for the souls of these brave warriors.

Godspeed.

Update: The majority of the dead are Navy SEALs from Team 6. The aircrew is probably from the Army's 160th SOAR, and the remainder of those killed were Afghan military. It is beginning to sound like a Taliban gunner got lucky with an RPG as the helicopter shortly after taking off as the mission was completing and the unit was exfiltrating.

Elements of Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden.

I would not be surprised at all if the RPG came from the Pakistani ISI.

The Literature Corner: My Very Dear Sarah

08-06-11: My Very Dear Sarah

This edition of the Literature Corner is devoted to one of the greatest and most touching artifacts of the Civil War: The letter of Union Major Sullivan Ballou to his wife, Sarah. Ballou was killed on July 28, 1861, but wrote a letter to Sarah on July 14, a letter that reveals his premonition of his impending death. It first came to the attention of most Americans when it was featured in Ken Burn's brilliant documentary on the Civil War.

Ballou was a lawyer. He volunteered for service. He left behind Sarah and his two youngs sons, Edgar and Willie. He was only 32 when he died.

The letter speaks not only of Ballou's love for his wife in intimately touching, timeless ways, but of his love for his country, for principles and ideals beyond himself, ideals worth far more than the life of any one man. It is in this letter that we see the soul of America. We see what countless Americans have seen, what they have always understood, and what they have always been willing to fight and die to preserve. We see what Abraham Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

There are some documents, some writings that every American must know. This letter is among them, and if you were not previously aware of it, you now have the chance, the obligation to ensure that your children know it, and that they know what it means. In this simple, heartfelt letter, we have the answer to those who believe—including our President—that America and Americans—are nothing special. Major Sullivan Ballou reveals the depth and majesty of his soul, of the souls of Americans, and of the shallowness of those who would deny it.

Whenever I read this letter, I weep. I weep for the loss of one of the best of us and for those who have paid the ultimate price that I may live in comfort and freedom. I weep for the purity and intensity of his love for Sarah, and pray that my love for my wife might be so sincere and worthy. I weep that any American would be so base as to not understand Ballou or to ridicule his love of country and his countrymen. And I weep as I fear that too many of us may no longer care to understand this letter and men like Ballou. I pray I am wrong.

I am, however, comforted by one unshakable belief: I know that Major Ballou did meet Sarah and Edgar and Willie again, and that it was a meeting joyous and fulfilling beyond our imaginations. They deserved it, and the just and merciful God provided it.

My very dear Sarah:

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days -- perhaps tomorrow. Lest I should not be able to write you again, I feel impelled to write lines that may fall under your eye when I shall be no more.

Our movement may be one of a few days duration and full of pleasure -- and it may be one of severe conflict and death to me. Not my will, but thine O God, be done.

If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready. I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in, the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter.

I know how strongly American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the Government, and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing -- perfectly willing -- to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government, and to pay that debt.

But, my dear wife, when I know that with my own joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them in this life with cares and sorrows -- when, after having eaten for long years the bitter fruit of orphanage myself, I must offer it as their only sustenance to my dear little children -- is it weak or dishonorable, while the banner of my purpose floats calmly and proudly in the breeze, that my unbounded love for you, my darling wife and children, should struggle in fierce, though useless, contest with my love of country?

I cannot describe to you my feelings on this calm summer night, when two thousand men are sleeping around me, many of them enjoying the last, perhaps, before that of death -- and I, suspicious that Death is creeping behind me with his fatal dart, am communing with God, my country, and thee.

I have sought most closely and diligently, and often in my breast, for a wrong motive in thus hazarding the happiness of those I loved and I could not find one. A pure love of my country and of the principles I have often advocated before the people and "the name of honor that I love more than I fear death" have called upon me, and I have obeyed.

Sarah, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me to you with mighty cables that nothing but Omnipotence could break; and yet my love of Country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly on with all these chains to the battlefield.

The memories of the blissful moments I have spent with you come creeping over me, and I feel most gratified to God and to you that I have enjoyed them so long. And hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes of future years, when God willing, we might still have lived and loved together, and seen our sons grow up to honorable manhood around us.

I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me -- perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar -- that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed. If I do not, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name.

Forgive my many faults, and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless and foolish I have oftentimes been!

How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness, and struggle with all the misfortune of this world, to shield you and my children from harm. But I cannot. I must watch you from the spirit land and hover near you, while you buffet the storms with your precious little freight, and wait with sad patience till we meet to part no more.

But, O Sarah! If the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall always be near you; in the garish day and in the darkest night -- amidst your happiest scenes and gloomiest hours -- always, always; and if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall be my breath; or the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.

Sarah, do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for thee, for we shall meet again.

As for my little boys, they will grow as I have done, and never know a father's love and care. Little Willie is too young to remember me long, and my blue-eyed Edgar will keep my frolics with him among the dimmest memories of his childhood.
Sarah, I have unlimited confidence in your maternal care and your development of their characters.

Tell my two mothers his and hers I call God's blessing upon them.

O Sarah, I wait for you there! Come to me, and lead thither my children.

Sullivan

D O W N G R A D E D

Voting to give yourself more credit does not solve your spending problem. Any kid knows this, but Congress and the President thought they played by other rules.

They were wrong.

As a result, Standard and Poor's has downgraded the U.S. economy (PDF), marking this moment as the first time our nation's credit has ever been downgraded.

Further, S&P indicated that conditions for a further downgrade were possible in 12-18 months.

If you aren't sure what that means, let me translate it into more practical terms, when I compare it to the economic equivalent of an ELE.

If Obama really did intend to Cloward-Piven the United States intentionally, he has done so masterfully. We've just become the Nicolas Cage of world economies.

Great job, "elites."

You got the hope and change you were looking for.

All Signs Point to the Top

Middle management doesn't make risky decisions in government. They "go along, to get along."

Anyone remotely familiar with government bureaucracy knows that Operation Fast and Furious had to have come from a directive from the top down, and the trail of bodies points directly to Attorney General Eric Holder... and maybe higher.

Just One More Reason to Carry a Concealed Weapon

Mob violence isn't confined to the Middle East.

An unknown number of victims are hospitalized with serious injuries. One victim was ripped from his bike and beaten unconscious. People were afraid to get out of their cars to assist the seriously injured man for fear of putting their own lives in jeopardy.

An unarmed man cannot stand against a violent mob, but with a firearm, he stands a chance of not just saving his life, but the lives of others.

Contempt Of Cop: Update 2

On July 31, I posted an article (here) about the behavior of Canton, OH police officer Daniel Harless during his arrest of a man legally carrying a concealed handgun. I also wrote about the thoughtless, off-topic anti-gun comments of the President of the Canton City Council, Allen Shulman. Mr. Schulman apparently continues to be concerned by issues other than those of the behavior of Officer Harless and the Canton Police Department. Here’s an example from the Canton Fox affiliate:

"Schulman told Fox 8, 'We've received hundreds of e-mails, all from out of town, not only out of town but out of state, Texas, Arizona, places that seem to love people carrying concealed weapons."

Schulman said the case illustrates the inherent dangers of Ohio's concealed weapon law, which he calls, 'crazy'.

'I believe in people's right to bear arms, but I believe in rational, reasonable gun laws, and these concealed weapons are going to create a lot of problems', said Schulman. 'And my biggest concern is, it's going to end up killing people.'"

As I noted in that article, I sent a link to the article to Mr. Schulman—an attorney—inviting him to respond and promising to print his unedited response. It's unsurprising that Mr. Schulman has not, as yet, responded. I will also send Mr. Schulman a link to this article, and the offer stands.

Many readers raised thoughtful, intelligent points and questions relating to the case, as our readers always do. I hope to address them to their satisfaction in this update to the original article. I hold out this hope as I now have information that was unavailable when I wrote the original. The focus of this article will be to provide readers with insight into the factors any police chief must consider in dealing with the kind of disciplinary issues presented by the behavior of an officer like Daniel Harless. As with much relating to police work, it's more complicated and difficult than many realize.

WHAT'S NEW:

One of the concerns of many readers was my reluctance to say without qualification that Off. Harless should be fired. I was unwilling to make that assertion because I did not have sufficient information about Off. Harless and his background. That lack of information has been rectified.

Go here, here and here for articles and another police dashcam video of Officer Harless on July 29, 2010. In that video, he has stopped a vehicle and finding a small pistol on the floorboard, behaves as he did in his confrontation with Mr. Bartlett. Among his angry, out of control comments were (NOTE: OBSCENE LANGUAGE WARNING):

"Don't fucking fart wrong."

"I'll send you to the fucking grave."

"I'll tell you what motherfucker; I'll shoot you in the face and I’ll go to sleep tonight."

These were not, by any means, his only similar comments, or even his most obscene or ill considered.

Apparently, the Canton PD was not aware of this earlier video as Chief Dean McKimm has said that both videos will be part of the investigation—already underway--into the behavior of Off. Harless precipitated by his encounter with Mr. Bartlett.

While there is information indicating that there have been a number of complaints lodged against Off. Harless in the past, there are no revealing details available about those complaints and what kind of discipline—if any—resulted apart from a reprimand for failing to activate a dashboard camera. The specifics of personnel actions are usually exempt from Freedom of Information laws.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONCERNS:

Police Chiefs must balance a great many considerations. They must uphold the regulations and procedures of their agency, and must also uphold and fairly and uniformly enforce the law. In disciplinary matters, they must be careful to see that the punishment fits the offense, and that similar punishment is given for similar offenses. Officers must be able to feel that when they are falsely accused, their agency will protect them, and that when they make mistakes, they will not be excessively punished or thrown to the wolves. On the other hand, the public must be able to have confidence in its police force and in its professionalism. If the public believes that officers may abuse their authority with impunity, there are many negative consequences for the police and the community, both immediate and cumulative.

Police chiefs must also deal with political issues and must be ready and able to fight off unfair or unwise political whims. And they often have to deal with unions. The Canton PD is apparently a union shop. Officers represented by unions are often able to get away with behaviors that would certainly result in discipline, even firing, in non-union agencies.

They must see that internal investigations are conducted impartially and fairly, and with calm professional deliberation. While they should never rush to judgment—politicians often want an immediate pound of flesh with attendant headlines—they should not unnecessarily delay internal investigations. It is not fair to the officers involved or the public and it tends to greatly harm morale. They must consider not only the short-term effects of their decisions, but the long-term effects as well.

THE HARLESS CASE:

Chief McKimm's comments have already indicated that Off. Harless violated a number of agency policies and procedures, but we do not know the specifics. There is also the possibility of violations of the law. As Off. Harless has worked for the Canton PD for 14 years, the Chief must consider negligent retention. In addition, Chief McKimm has suggested that Officer Mark Diels, the officer accompanying Off. Harless in the Bartlett video, will be investigated for failing to report the behavior of Off. Harless.

The Bartlett video alone clearly suggests that the behavior Off. Harless exhibited was not an anomaly. His rage, obscene and threatening language, and the fact that his anger did not, with time and the diminution of any potential threat, diminish combine to suggest that this is his common behavior. It's rather like anti-aircraft fire directed at fighter pilots. Tracer rounds are loaded only every 10th or 20th round in a belt or try of ammunition, so they see only a fraction of the rounds directed at them. The vehemence and lack of control Off. Harless exhibited clearly suggest that this was only a representative sample of his usual behavior. The 2010 video lends powerful support to this contention.

TOOLS: Police officers use a variety of tools in their daily work. It is important that they use them wisely and properly. Among these tools are:

(1) Apparent—as opposed to genuine—anger.
(2) Misrepresentations and lies.
(3) Real and implied threats.
(4) Use of harsh language.
(5) Bluffing.

Off. Harless is apparently unable or unwilling to use these tools properly and effectively. Misused, these tools can not only be dangerous, but can greatly diminish public respect for police authority. Considering that the police can function only because most of the public is willing to respect their authority at any given time, this is an issue that is never far from a professional police officer's mind.

(1) Anger: Police officers are expected to keep their emotions under control and to be in control of any situation. There are times when it might be wise to make a suspect think that an officer is angry, but this must be a carefully employed device, not an out of control emotion. Yes, police officers must be good actors. The officer must use apparent anger to achieve a desired outcome, he must never allow anger to override his judgment and ability to determine what a desired outcome should be.

(2) Misrepresentations and Lies: Generally speaking, it is best never to lie to a suspect or any member of the public. That doesn't mean that it might never be smart or justified to do that, but it must be used wisely and carefully. If a criminal catches a police officer in a lie, they've blown their credibility and the criminal knows they have nothing to fear from the officer. Police officers who lie to the public likewise run the risk of being discovered and of losing public support.

(3) Real and implied threats: Several readers—and others elsewhere in the blogosphere—have suggested that Off. Harless should be fired solely because of the threats he made to Mr. Bartlett (and now, others). Here it's important to consider not only department policy, but the letter of any applicable laws. Police officers deal with threats every day in many ways. They must determine if a reasonable person would believe that a given threat was a genuine threat of injury or death which the person making the threat had the means to act upon and the intention to carry it out, or whether it was just an idiot running his mouth. It is a good thing indeed that perhaps 95% of all threats fall into the latter category. While it's never nice to be threatened, even most victims, upon reflection, realize that they were never in any real danger and that the person making the threat has no intention of causing them harm in the future.

It is never smart—never—for a police officer to make threats. Professional officers might warn people of the specific possible consequences of their actions and might tell them that they'd prefer not to arrest them, but assure them that they will as a means of encouraging them to behave properly. However, professionals do not make angry, obscene, outlandish threats that no rational person would know that they could not carry out because most people understand that police officers just don't behave that way.

However, in this case, Mr. Bartlett, or any citizen, would have been justified in fearing for their safety at the hands of Off. Harless. How could they know that he would not carry out his threats? Citizens expect police officers to be calm and professional. When people behave as Off. Harless was behaving others tend to call the police, just in case. When the police are behaving that way, whom do you call?

It's interesting that the most credible, disturbing threat, and the threat that any police chief should take very seriously, was the threat to stop and arrest Mr. Bartlett—and tow his car—whenever Off. Harless saw him in the future. Off. Harless was essentially telling Mr. Bartlett that he would falsely arrest him whenever he saw him. Also implied is that other officers would do the same. Could Mr. Bartlett—or any citizen in Mr. Bartlett's position--reasonably believe that Off. Harless would act on that threat? Of course they could and should. Could they reasonably fear that Off. Harless might use the fact that they carry a concealed weapon as a future excuse to shoot them? There is no question about it.

(4) Use of harsh language: Police officers are not dainty flowers engaged in tea parties. They often deal with rough, crude people, people who use "to fornicate" as every part of speech, often in the same sentence. However, police officers also deal with people at every level of society. Smart officers rarely, if ever, use obscenities. It's just too easy to accidently slip into them at inappropriate times and places.

While it's possible that a carefully chosen obscenity might have a desired effect in highly specific circumstances, it's also possible that it might not. For people who do use "to fornicate" as every part of speech, a police officer trying to do the same is as likely to sound odd, out of place and clumsy as he is to seem like one of the f***in' boys. Use obscenities too much and too loudly, and they lose whatever positive effect they might have otherwise had. One might consider "motherf****r" to be the nuclear weapon of the obscenity arsenal. The most powerful weapon in one's arsenal should not be used first. If so, how do you deescalate? If it doesn't work, what's left? Calling someone a "poopy face?"

The other issue with obscenities is that they are generally indefensible, particularly when used with the frequency, vehemence, and crudity of Off. Harless. If a citizen complains how can such language be excused or defended? What tactical utility does it have? What legitimate police purpose does it serve?

Every contemporary police officer must behave as though everything they do will be witnessed. and recorded. I always taught my trainees to treat people as they would want any police officer to treat their mother or wife. Having to explain the kind of language used by Off. Harless on the witness stand before a jury is a losing proposition for any police officer. And if an officer is known to regularly use obscenities, it will be presumed that any complaint lodged against him relating to the use of obscenities is at the very least, plausible.

(5) Bluffing: This is closely aligned with lying and threats. It is best never to bluff, for when a criminal calls your bluff, your credibility and effectiveness are immediately shot. What would Off. Harless have done if Mr. Bartlett called his bluff, if he told him that if he felt he was justified to shoot him? Short of going completely berserk and doing just that, his bluff would have been called. He might have beat Mr. Bartlett, but more likely, he would have descended into screaming, spitting, impotent rage.

OTHER ISSUES: If we assume—and in this case, it would seem to be a reasonable assumption—that Off. Harless regularly behaves as he behaved on the two videotapes, why, in 14 years, has this behavior not been identified and corrected? Are his fellow officers aware of it? Of course they are. Off. Diels' behavior in the Bartlett video suggests that he was trying, as unobtrusively as possible, to calm Off. Harless down. Canny viewers will also notice that when Off. Harless began to go berserk on Mr. Bartlett, Off. Diels quickly intervened and handcuffed Mr. Bartlett, likely for his own protection against Off. Harless. Remember that Off. Diels is also being investigated for not telling superior officers about the behavior of Off. Harless.

Have Off. Harless' shift supervisors been completely unaware of his temper, of his lack of self control? Have they never seen even a hint of this kind of behavior? Again, we still do not know the details of the multiple past complaints lodged against Off. Harless, but surely his supervisors must have seen some disturbing behaviors in the past. If so, what, if anything, did they do? If they did nothing, can we reasonably assume that this kind of behavior is, if not accepted in the Canton Police Department, at least tolerated?

Did Off. Harless violate the law? It's likely. There is a real, not semantic, difference between an officer who, in good faith, makes a mistake, and an officer who, through negligence or malice, makes a false arrest. Would a reasonable officer faced with the circumstances of the Bartlett traffic stop have arrested Mr. Bartlett? No. They would have realized that under the circumstances, Mr. Bartlett did his best to comply with the concealed weapons law. Adding a charge of stopping on the roadway is what is know in police work as a "chickenshit ticket," a ticket that is barely—just barely—legitimate, but which no reasonable officer would write. Professionals don't arrest people—traffic tickets are arrests—who are doing their best to obey the law, and they certainly don't stack chickenshit charges.

If Off. Harless did make a false arrest, he also committed assault and battery. Taking a citizen falsely arrested into custody requires that the officer put his hands on him—battery—and restrain him, depriving him of his liberty. Not only would Off. Harless be potentially criminally liable, he can certainly be sued, and with him, his superior officers, and the City of Canton.

There is also the potential issue of steroid abuse. I have no direct knowledge of the use or abuse of steroids by anyone involved in this case, however, steroid rage is a commonly known phenomenon, and the behavior of Off. Harless is reminiscent of steroid rage. This possibility would be worth investigating.

FINAL THOUGHTS:

Off. Harless has accomplished something quite remarkable. With his two videos, he has essentially established the presumption that he is abusive and unprofessional to everyone he meets. These videos will follow him for the rest of his professional life and will often be used to impeach his character and on duty demeanor. He has convinced most reasonable people that when they meet him, they should expect him to abuse his power and to put them in fear of not only their safety but their very lives. Even in the You Tube age, this is quite an accomplishment.

It is this fact that will weigh most heavily on Chief McKimm. The lawsuit, which will certainly be filed against the Canton PD will allege, in part, negligent retention. It will allege that the Canton PD knew or should have known that Off. Harless was abusive and dangerous, that his future abuse of citizens was entirely foreseeable, yet he was not fired. The personnel file of Off. Harless will be opened, and these videos—potentially others—will be played.

Chief McKimm will surely have to confront the reality that in the future, it will be virtually impossible to defend Off. Harless against clearly bogus charges of abusive behavior and false arrest. He will have to confront the reality that he and his subordinates should have known about Off. Harless and should have either corrected his behavior sometime within the previous 14 years or fired him. Even if Chief McKimm could care less about such behavior, Off. Harless has made this case so public and volatile that he cannot be ignored. Even with the understanding that firing Off. Harless will appear to be an admission of guilt in the civil case that is sure to come, Chief McKimm will have no choice. Retaining Off. Harless is simply too dangerous in many ways.

Knowing only what we now know about Off. Harless, it is apparent that he should not be working as a police officer and that he must be fired. Even with union protection to consider there is no other rational choice. In a professional agency, those who should have known about Off. Harless, and those who did but chose to do nothing, should also face discipline. Whether this occurs will tell the citizens of Canton, Ohio a great deal about their police department and about their elected city officials.

Officer Harless has significantly wounded the respect of the public for American police officers, and has been allowed to do so by his employers, one of whom seems far more interested in denying Americans their Second Amendment rights than in dealing with the issue at hand.

Quick Takes, August 4, 2011

ITEM: Not Ready For Prime Time: If you're interested in aircraft as I am, you'll find this story of ten military aircraft that never made it past testing to be interesting indeed. Many of these fall into the "ingenious solutions to non-existent problems" category. Others the "well, that's not gonna work" category. Still, what America can build, yet never use, so far surpasses the capability of most other nations as to be utterly amazing. Despite what some think, we are indeed the one unique, indispensable nation. By the way, #9 scares the hell out of me. You?

ITEM: Are You A History Fan? I certainly am. In fact, when I returned to college to take my education undergraduate degree, I wanted to be a history teacher with an English minor, but the registrar would not allow me to do that because no one would hire a history teacher who wasn't also a coach! In any case, go here for a fascinating pictorial essay about the toughness of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress of WWII. Awe-inspiring stuff. And of course, the Obama Administration must not allow the legendary aircraft maker to manufacture an equally revolutionary aircraft.

ITEM: Is That Cool Or What? Research into black holes is yielding some surprising results, such as a more effective treatment for cancer using less, and less destructive radiation treatment. By embedding gold or platinum nanoparticles in and around tumors, a much lower dose of x-rays can be used to destroy cancerous cells. Go here for the fascinating story.

ITEM: We're In The Very Best Of Hands: At Ft. Irwin in San Bernardino County, CA, on July 15, twenty-six AK-74 assault rifles and one Dragonuv sniper rifle were stolen. The AK-74s are true, fully automatic weapons. Some have been recovered, but others are still out there. ATF spokesman Christian Hoffman said "We determined that there was a public safety issue with the guns getting out on the street." You think? Some people have no sense of irony. Go here for the story.

ITEM: But He Betrayed His Class! What could have liberals so upset? How about a Harvard-trained lawyer with impeccable academic and legal credentials who joins the Army, serving as an infantry platoon leader with the 101st Airborne in Iraq and Afghanistan? And even worse, what happens when he dares criticize the New York Times for revealing national security information to our terrorist enemies? What happened was that liberals could not believe such a person could exist. He does indeed. Go here to PowerLine for the story.

ITEM: Liberalism: A Luxury We Can't Afford, is the apt title of an article by John Hinderaker at PowerLine. I couldn't agree more except to add that even in times of plenty, Liberalism is constantly working from within as a parasitical infection. We can't afford Liberalism at all, ever.

ITEM: In Union There is…Destruction? If the unions had won the battle in Wisconsin against Governor Scott Walker, Wisconsin would be in desperate financial straits. However, because the unions lost, Wisconsin has been restored to fiscal health virtually overnight. Rather than having to lay off countless teachers, many school districts are suddenly back in the black. It is a repudiation of everything unionism and its proponents stand for. Go here to Pajamas Media and an article by Gary Wickert for the encouraging story.

ITEM: The Price Of Heroism: The price of heroism is often as high as any price can be, and Deputy Bryan Gross of the Converse Co. Sheriff's Office in Douglas, WY paid it in an attempt to rescue a 14 year old girl who jumped into a swollen and fast-moving river because she was reportedly upset about her boyfriend. She survived. His body was found after four days. Go here for the story.

ITEM: Ooops! What happened when The One, the most brilliant, tech-savvy, coolest, just most all-around wonderful human being, except he's more than a human being, to ever inhabit the Oval Office tweeted all of his followers to rally the faithful to support higher taxes and spending in the debt ceiling debate? He lost, at last count, about 37,000 followers. Apparently Mr. Obama's halo has dimmed a bit and perhaps even picked up a few dents. Go here for the tragic story.

ITEM: And Speaking of Tragic: If you pay much attention to Mr. Obama, you could not help but to have heard his claim that our economy was expanding by 2.5% a year. But on July 29—Friday—the traditional slow news/bad news dumping day, we learned that the actual number for the last year for GDP growth was only 1.6%. To put that number in layman's terms, it's bad; really, really, bad. To further put it in layman's terms, Mr. Obama is lying; he's really, really lying. Go here for the story and eye-opening charts.

ITEM: The High-Speed Railway Over The Cliff: If you are one of the constantly growing number of Americans who would like to see Mr. Obama given the opportunity to work on his golf game full time beginning on January of 2013, this article by Salena Zito will be an encouraging picker-upper.

ITEM: It's An Opportunity—For Something… Go here for an interesting story of several top Syrian generals who have defected and are forming an army to fight the Syrian Dictator Assad and his terrorist allies. What will Mr. Obama do? If his past actions are any guide, he'll do, well, something. So here are Mr. Obama's top ten responses:

(10) Threaten sanctions.
(9) Threaten really meaningful sanctions.
(8) Threaten to really mean it this time when he threatens meaningful sanctions.
(7) Extend the hand of dialogue, understanding and mutual respect.
(6) Pull back the bloody stump of dialogue, understanding and mutual respect.
(5) Bomb somebody for some reason.
(4) Think up some new nonsensical euphemism for whatever he is—or isn't—doing in bombing somebody for some reason.
(3) Tweet millions of people to convince them that paying more in taxes and spending America into oblivion will win the future.
(2) Get the ATF and DOJ to send guns to Syria.
(1) Lead from really, really, really far behind, in fact, maybe even from underground or underwater somewhere…

ITEM: But HUD Does Really Valuable Stuff…like, you know, like housing, and developing urbans and stuff like that…doesn't it? Not so much. Go here for a brief article about why HUD—along with the Department of Education, the TSA, the ATF, the EPA—might best be employed as anchors on American warships, or as low-grade crop fertilizer.

ITEM: Obama Leads From Behind; This Woman Passes The Bar Exam While In Labor! Go here for the interesting story. Some human beings are capable of amazing things. Some just lead from behind.

ITEM: A Post-American Planet? The invaluable Mark Steyn (here) thinks so, and I agree. With the debt deal—whatever it may actually eventually turn out to be—sort of maybe done, have we actually accomplished anything or merely kicked the proverbial can down the road just a bit more stealthily than usual? Read Steyn to see what the future holds.

ITEM: And Speaking Of The Future: It's fascinating to hear liberals scream about how Mr. Obama betrayed them in the debt deal. How did he betray them? Apparently he wasn't able to spend more than a measly trillion dollars or so and couldn't raise taxes to unbelievably high levels. And they think this is what American needs? I'm beginning to doubt that people who think like this are even the same species. Discuss.

ITEM: Conservatives Live To Destroy? According to Nancy Pelosi, that is. Have you read Jay Nordlinger at National Review (here)? You should. Here's a quote from a recent "Impromptus:"

"Anyway, I’m going to make a point about the Democratic party. Nancy Pelosi said the following about Republicans: 'They don’t just want to make cuts. They want to destroy. They want to destroy food safety, clean air, clean water, the Department of Education. They want to destroy your rights.'

I want to ask you: How do you do business with someone like that? How do you do business with a party like that? “They want to destroy”? (I’ll grant that we think the Department of Education a total boondoggle.) “They want to destroy your rights”?

I’m reminded of why I revolted against the Democratic party long ago: They all talked like this. They all regarded their opponents as monstrous or subhuman. And I knew it was bunk."

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Vice Presidential Edition: I was shocked, shocked! by Mr. Biden's latest gaffe. My favorite was when, at a campaign rally, he told a supporter to stand up so the crowd could see him. The supporter was confined to a wheelchair. Well, this time, upon meeting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, he welcomed her as a member of the "cracked head club." Multiple reporters heard Mr. Biden say it, and he bragged about it later. Rep. Giffords, you may recall, was shot in the head several months back and is still struggling to recover from her wounds. She will likely experience some significant degree of impairment for the remainder of her life, and her future in Congress is very much up in the air. Imagine, gentle readers, if that had been so much as thought by a Republican. Mr. Biden is a professional; do not attempt this at home.

ITEM: Those Darned Immigrants! You must read this article by the wonderful Mona Charen about Ying Ma, a Chinese girl who, through hard work and dedication, is living the American Dream. Her book Chinese Girl In The Ghetto is the topic of the article. I'm ordering it. You should too. Charen's article will make you proud to be an American, to welcome people like Ying Ma, and show you why the right kind of immigration is what we all must support.

ITEM: A Failed Presidency? That's what Steve McCann argues over at The American Thinker (here). McCann's logic is compelling, particularly if one is a conservative, however, considering everything Mr. Obama will have in his favor in 2012, including a media which will almost certainly still be ready and willing to lie and cover for him in unprecedented ways, that may not be enough.

ITEM: You May Already Be A Weiner! So went the text of one of my favorite cartoons ever. A hotdog was standing by his mailbox (that's funny by itself) with a surprised look on his little hotdog face as he read that text. Well, the folks at PowerLine have announced the weiner in their PowerLine Prize competition. Go here to view it. The "Hands Off My Nuts!" protest sign is priceless! You'll see what I mean.

ITEM: Chrysler Reborn? In last week's Quick Takes, I reported on the fact that Chrysler paid off its government loans six years early! True, we lost $1.3 billion in the process, but in the age of Obama, that's just pocket change, and they paid it off six years early! Perhaps I was a bit hasty. Go here to see how the government threw an additional $3.5 billion into the pot--er, toilet bowl. Take your blood pressure meds first.

ITEM: And Winning The Coveted "Body Of The Year" Award Is… Me! My wife is laughing. Why is my wife laughing? Now she can barely breath. I don't understand. Actually, it's Helen Mirren, and I wholeheartedly agree. She's 66, and one of the most gorgeous sights I have ever seen was Ms. Mirren firing a Browning .50 caliber M2 machinegun while wearing a white evening gown in "RED." Go here for the details and a cheesecakey slideshow, not that any of you would be interested in seeing such things. I mean, who wants to look at beautiful, half nekkid women when you can see so many nekkid male Democrat politicians these days?

ITEM: Movie Emotions. Which film is recognized as the saddest of all time? Which film is recognized as having the most amusing scene (Hint: "Oh God…Ooooohhh God….)? Go here for an interesting piece on the cinematic evocation of emotion.

ITEM: I Knew There Was A Reason I Loved Sarah Palin: Go here to see a recent video of Palin on Hannity's TV show. She drops one of the best pieces of irony I've seen in recent years. It's been my experience that the smartest people are the people who get humor and irony. She is and does.

ITEM: What Does Obama Want? Steven Den Beste explains here. You knew this all along, but this is a good, brief reminder. Read it and be horrified and disgusted.

ITEM: They Want to Kill Children and Old People! So goes the usual Democrat party line about any attempt by Republicans to reduce the size of government or to reign in out of control federal spending. However, the EPA under the Obama Administration is actually implementing policies that will kill just about anybody (and the economy too, of course). Go here for a rundown.

ITEM: The Government Doesn't Have The Authority? So What! As those who have been following the Gunwalker debacle know, the BATF, at the direction of the Obama/Holder Justice Department, has mandated new reporting rules for border state gun dealers. The NRA and the National Shooting Sports Foundation are filing lawsuits ,which allege that such rules exceed the authority given the BATF by Congress. AG Holder basically responds: "Yeah, so what?" Go here for the story.

ITEM: National Treasure. You know the movie plot: A daring adventurer discovers previously unknown riches and archeological treasures where no one imagined they might be. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction, and the real thing has been found in hidden vaults in a 16th century Hindu temple in India. Go here for the fascinating story.

ITEM: They're Terrorists! They're Holding America Hostage! They're Holding A Gun To America's Head! They Want To Blow Up The Country? Who is doing this (and who writes the Dem's lame talking points anyway?)? Why, you and me! Anyone who believes in such radical ideas as not spending money you don't have, and not raising taxes during a recession, and not encouraging job creation by means of creating regulations that destroy entire companies and industries, that's who. Go here to read the latest from the insightful Jennifer Rubin who laments the lack of civility by those who most lament the lack of civility.

ITEM: On The Road Again! Yes, Mr. Obama is going on a bus tour this summer (here) so he can mingle with the little people and allow them to bask in his greatness. According to the NYT, it's an opportunity for Mr. Obama to shift back to jobs and the economy, while he does everything possible to destroy jobs and the economy. Remember gentle readers, for Mr. Obama, rhetoric is reality. If he talks about intending to create jobs, if he talks about caring deeply about jobs, it is so. Reality conforms to the content of Mr. Obama's teleprompter. Didn't you know that? What's the old saying? Talk is cheap? Yes. That's the one.

ITEM: Infrastructure Bank? We Don' Need no Stinkin' Infrastructure Bank! With the debt ceiling bill signed into law, Mr. Obama is already talking about spending untold gazillions we don't have on things we don't want or need. Go here to the invaluable Michelle Malkin to see how he wants to bankrupt American now.

ITEM: A Party? I Love Parties! Since I already did a top ten list, why not one more? Go here where Michelle Malkin lists the top ten Obama birthday party games. More fun than human beings should be allowed to have. Actually, it's more fun the politicians and bureaucrats should be allowed to have. Is is proper to invite people to your birthday party and charge them nearly $40,000 to attend? Mr. Obama thinks so. Discuss.

ITEM: In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time? Go here to read an article by the invaluable Victor Davis Hanson on what might appear to be a run of the mill killing by a run of the mill gangbanger. Lessons:

(1) Evil exists.
(2) Evil can and will strike you at any time and at any place.
(3) Evil must be confronted and destroyed; it cannot be reasoned with or appeased.
(4) You are responsible for your own safety; no one else.
(5) Prepare to confront and destroy evil.

ITEM: What The…?! Married women aren't really satisfied with sex until 25 years into the relationship? Well, that explains a lot! Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds. Go here for what is actually common sensical.

ITEM: It's A Wonderful World, sang Louis Armstrong, and so it is. Take a trip to Zoo Borns (here) this week for a visual reminder that might take your mind off our political worries for just a bit. The Giraffe baby is particularly cute. Aaawwwww!

And with that little respite from the woes of the world, I must once again thank you for stopping by our scruffy little blog and encourage you to return, same bat time, same bat channel next week for another edition of Quick Takes! Holy self-promotion Batman! Shut up Robin.

Nation of Communists Awards Obama His Own Stamp

He has, after all, carried out their policy agenda for the United States better than even Putin could.

Here in the U.S. we're also thinking of commemorating the President's birthday, and I think we agree on the perfect product to bear his name.

"Shovel ready," indeed.

Another Nekkid Yankee Democrat Resigns Over Nude Photos

This time, a New Jersey Democrat, who claims he was "tricked" and says he may pursue legal action against the man who posted the pictures.

At least he wasn't dressed as a tiger.

Basic Mileage Math

It's official: the Obama Administration has set a CAFE average of 54.5 MPG by 2025. On one hand, manufacturers are warning that such unrealistic and politically motivated hocus pocus will raise the price of new cars far more than the market can bear and will dramatically reduce safety while destroying thousands of jobs and further damaging our already fragile economy, even if it is possible to engineer vehicles that can, across an entire fleet, reach such fanciful numbers (it's not). But it's not all bad news! The good news is that a good portion of those thrown out of work will die in car accidents because their vehicles will be smaller and lighter and far less capable of absorbing impact energies. This will, of course, lessen unemployment.

On the other hand, the Obama Administration and its allies claim that the wonders of green technology will save fuel, create or save jobs, cure the common cold, make you more attractive, raise the debt ceiling, make you taller and give you erections lasting longer than four hours which do not require medication or a call to a doctor. To be fair, the claims of these people are only slightly less whimsical and fantastic. What is certain is that their numbers—if you take a moment to analyze them by means of the kinds of highly advanced methods taught only in the finest Ivy League schools—addition, subtraction, multiplication and division—are unicorn horns and fairy dust.

On April 26, I posted an article on the Chevy volt titled An Explosive Automotive Debut. In that article (here) I did a bit of math—always dangerous for an English major—and discovered that even if a Chevy Volt managed 200 MPG, it would take 14 years to break even by means of fuel savings on the difference in purchase price over a comparably equipped, high-mileage conventionally powered vehicle.

It would seem to make sense that a green technology wonder car getting 41 MPG, compared to a comparable model getting only 23 MPG would save money on fuel, and so it would if those two numbers were the only parts of the equation. When we consider the fact that hybrid, hybrid/electric and electric cars cost considerably more than their conventionally propelled competitors, all of the promised efficiency and fuel savings vanish. The Obamite sycophants haven't mentioned that? No? Well then. As a public service, let's return to Mrs. McGillicuddy's third grade classroom and practice a little elementary mathematics.

Let us consider two versions of the same vehicle: the 2011 Ford Fusion, a popular mid-sized, four-door sedan. Keep in mind that it's difficult to make such comparisons with a high degree of accuracy because prices vary a great deal from car to car due to difference in options, so for the purposes of this little exercise in elementary school math, we'll compare only the MSRP of the 14SEL with the MSRP of the base line Hybrid. According to the Ford website, both vehicles appear to be outfitted comparably.

14 SEL Fusion: MSRP $25,300, 23 City/33 highway

Fusion Hybrid: MSRP $28,600, 41 City/36 highway

Initial Cost Difference: $3300.00

Notice that the real mileage advantage of the hybrid is in city driving not highway driving, which is an interesting quirk of hybrid technology. Keep in mind too that for most owners, the initial cost difference is likely to be much greater as there really is no such thing as a basic hybrid (manufacturers assume that people willing to shell out extra thousands for a hybrid are also going to want a much higher level of accessorizing). Depending on the make and model, it's not unusual for hybrids to cost as much as $6000 more (I'm being conservative) than a comparable conventionally powered vehicle. This reality no doubt accounts for the fact that hybrid sales are, in 2011, less than 3% of the automotive market.

If you are in the market for a mid size car and the Fusion looks good to you, the primary reason to buy a hybrid—if we assume that you're not mostly looking for environmental street cred—is because it promises savings over the long run in fuel costs. However, those savings won't be realized until you break even on the difference in MSRP. Let's see how that works out, first analyzing only city fuel economy.

For no reason other than the ease of dealing with the numbers, let's assume that you'll drive 10,000 miles per year and that fuel will remain at $3.65 per gallon. Raise or lower the miles or cost per gallon as you please, but the proportions will remain roughly the same.

14SEL: 10,000 divided by 23 = 435 gallons X $3.65 = $1587.75 per year

Hybrid: 10,000 divided by 41 = 244 gallons X $3.65 = $890.60 per year

Difference: $1587.75 - $890.60 = $697.15 in fuel savings per year

Break Even In: $3300 divided by $697.15 = 4.7 years

Simple math reveals that the proud hybrid owner would not began to save a penny in actual fact until after 4.7 years. You might be tempted to think that's not bad until you realize that, according to RL Polk and Associates, in 2008 (the most recent year I could find for hard figures rather than estimates) the average new car buyer kept their new car for only (you saw this coming, didn't you?): 4.7 years. Therefore, the average hybrid owner, if he kept his hybrid at least 4.7 years, could expect to save exactly zero in fuel costs. Keep it less than 4.7 years and he would lose money.

Current trends suggest that consumers might be holding onto their cars longer than ever, which seems reasonable considering our current economic woes, but we're talking a matter of months, not years, so the figures don't fundamentally change.

Now let's examine the difference using the highway mileage figures. This is where things get really interesting.

14SEL: 10,000 divided by 33 = 303 gallons X $3.65 = $1105.95 per year

Hybrid: 10,000 divided by 36 = 278 gallons X $3.65 = $1014.70 per year

Difference: $1105.95 - $1014.70 = $91.25 in fuel savings per year

Break Even In: $3300 divided by $91.25 = 36 years

Let's make it simple: The proud new hybrid owner would have to keep his hybrid 7.7 times longer than the average new car buyer just to break even, racking up 360,000 miles in the process.

Obviously, the more time the new hybrid driver spends in city driving, the better his numbers and the sooner he'll break even and actually begin saving money on fuel, but the best time frame remains a stubborn 4.7 years. If we make the reasonable assumption that the actual numbers would be somewhere between these extremes, things don't get any better. The midpoint is about 15.7 years, and even if we assume numbers so in favor of the hybrid that they make no sense, say eight years, the hybrid owner would still have to keep the hybrid nearly twice as long as the average new car owner just to break even.

The numbers don't get better for other makes and models. In fact, when we start to consider crossover and SUV hybrids, the MSRP divide becomes greater and greater and the mileage savings smaller, again, placing the reality of savings in the same category as shovel-ready jobs or the recovery summer: non-existent.

There is no doubt that saving money on fuel is often not a new car buyer's primary consideration, but since the Obama Administration is obviously trying to force drivers into a limited number of "green" choices, it's only fair to examine the reality of their calculations. Elementary math makes plain that saving the American taxpayer money isn't part of their equation.

Captain America!

Captain America: The First Avenger, is an entertaining and inspiring movie. My wife and I usually wait for DVD, but this one was worth seeing, and so it will be for you. If you like movies that portray pride in America and American values and exceptionalism, this movie is for you. The good folks at Pajamas Media have been kind enough to publish my review of the film (here).

Always Wrong. Always Excused

We're talking about the mainstream media, of course, this time in relation to their consistent ignorance in reporting on firearms and firearms law. Politico reporter Reid J. Epstein offers himself up as an example of how to get almost everything wrong in a story, in my latest post at Pajamas Media.

Dear Tea Party Terrorists: Buy More Ammo

For a bunch of Tea Party terrorists, you aren't buying as much ammo as you should. So buy more.

In particular, Selliot & Belloit is offering a free tee shirt for $30 rifle ammo orders, so you might as well stock up. A nice side effect is that the referral fee will help me feed my little terrorists, one of which who has already learned to utter "Reagan Akbar" with reverence.

Liberal Flash Cards

Times Columnist: Gee, those Tea Party Types are Just Like al Qaeda, Aren't They?

Joe Nocera, apparent survivor of literally thousands of Tea Party assassination attempts, bombings, beheadings, states that the real threat to the Republic is the, uh, American people:

You know what they say: Never negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them.

These last few months, much of the country has watched in horror as the Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people. Their intransigent demands for deep spending cuts, coupled with their almost gleeful willingness to destroy one of America’s most invaluable assets, its full faith and credit, were incredibly irresponsible. But they didn’t care. Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that's what it took.

Unfortunately for Mr. Nocera, he and the rest of Amy Winehouse Left don't grasp basic principles most of us figured out in elementary school.

• You don't solve your cash flow problems by raising your credit limit. That only makes your inevitable bankruptcy that much more traumatic
• You don't cure an addiction by feeding it

The Tea Party legislators that the Times would like to portray as radicals and terrorists are in fact the only adults in the room. The GOP in general and the Democratic Party in it's totality are committed to making our debt crisis worse by raising the debt limit, ensuring that the government will spend more money that it does not have, driving us deeper into debt and closer to an all but inevitable default.

It is the professional political class that are the terrorists that threaten to blow the Republic apart, driving a truckload of explosive debt into the heart of the nation.

Instead of trying to head off the debt, Nocera snipes at the brave few who are trying to stop the truck.

Don't be surprised. What else should you expect from a radical leftist government headed by a man mentored by a real terrorist?

Letter From The Teacher #12: They're Gonna Mess With Texas!

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Mr. Discipline, Principal, Anytown High School
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: They're Gonna Mess With Texas!

Dear Mr. Discipline:

Let me provide the links to two articles I think you'll find very interesting:

(1) "Half of Texas' Student Have Been Suspended, Study Finds (here), and

(2) "New Initiative Targets 'School-to-Prison' Pipeline" (here)

In the first article, the author reports that:

"Using discipline records of nearly 1 million Texas middle and high school students that cover much of the last decade, researchers found that more than half of them were suspended or expelled at least once between 7th and 12th grades, that the punishments were applied unevenly among students of different races, abilities, and schools, and that students disciplined with these methods were more likely to repeat a grade or drop out of school than students who were not punished in the same way."

The article suggests that " of the half a million times students were suspended or expelled, only 3 percent of those suspensions or expulsions were for behavior Texas law requires be punished that way."

The second article begins:

"A new undertaking from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education targets school discipline policies that end up pushing children into the juvenile-justice system for crimes and rule-breaking on campus—and keeping them from pursuing their education."

The author adds:

" Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan unveiled the Supportive School Discipline Initiative at a meeting of a Justice Department committee meeting Thursday afternoon.

'When our young people start getting locked up early... they start to move out of schools, out of the pipeline to success,' Mr. Duncan said."

Apparently Mr. Duncan and Mr. Holder's initiative has four parts:
"• building consensus for action among federal, state and local education and justice stakeholders; 
• collaborating on research and data collection needed to shape policy, such as evaluations of alternative disciplinary policies and interventions; 
• developing guidance to ensure school discipline policies and practices are in line with the federal civil rights laws; 
• and promoting awareness and knowledge about evidence-based and promising policies and practices."

The author concluded with this:

"Holder and Duncan referenced a report by the Council of State Governments Justice Center from earlier this week that found that more than half of all Texas middle and high school students were suspended or expelled at least once between 7th and 12th grades.

'I think these numbers are kind of a wake-up call,' Mr. Holder said. 'It's obvious we can do better.'"

I can't help but wonder what the "researchers" considered as being "suspended." Unless they counted kids spending a day or two in On Campus suspension (OCS) for mid-level disciplinary issues, the idea that half of kids were suspended—actually temporarily removed from the campus--or expelled—removed for a semester or a year--makes no sense; the numbers are simply too large. I suspect that they cherry-picked the kids involved. Notice that the article very carefully doesn't specify that the "nearly 1 million" kids represented all Texas students in that decade. If half of all kids were suspended or expelled at least once, it would be simply impossible to actually have a school.

I looked it up: in 2011, 4.9 million kids were enrolled in Texas schools. I wonder if the authors involved purposely made it appear that more than half of all kids in Texas schools were suspended or expelled? Yeah. I know the answer too.

I wonder what they mean when they said "…that the punishments were applied unevenly among students of different races, abilities and schools?" That would seem to suggest a one-size fits all disciplinary scheme that treats every kid alike, regardless of the circumstances, their past disciplinary records, or their individual needs. That's all we need: Another bit of "zero-tolerance" nonsense that requires us to abuse the hell out of kids because some boneheaded bureaucrat thinks he knows better than we do and is determined to impose his political ideology on the real world.

I really liked this one too: "… that students disciplined with these methods were more likely to repeat a grade or drop out of school than students who were not punished in the same way." I think we've both seen this sort of thing before by people who say, for instance, that a larger portion of young black males are in prison than the same portion of young white males. They latch onto the statistic and believe that it is indicative or racism or prejudice or some other social ill rather than the obvious: more young black men are committing serious crimes than any other group. They're not the victims of some evil conspiracy, they're criminals who need to be behind bars because when they're not, they're preying on innocent people.

In the case of schools, we both know that the kids who are such serious and continuing discipline problems that they end up actually suspended or expelled are also the same group of kids who will end up repeating a grade or dropping out. It's not the evil schools that suspend or expel them; it's their behavior. And they are being suspended or expelled because that behavior is so constant, so disruptive or so dangerous that when they're in school, they make it difficult or impossible for other kids to learn, or they prey on them. Sadly, all too often their parents don't lift a finger to control them and expect the schools to be their surrogate parents.

These articles obviously assume that the kids they're talking about are some kind of victims of evil school officials who only want to see them kicked out of school and locked up. They don't seem to realize or care that before a kid is subjected to such mild punishment as a day of OCS, they have already exhausted no less than 4-5 (sometimes more) lesser steps on the discipline scale and their behavior is so disruptive that they have to be removed from classes so other kids have the chance to learn.

What I'm really worried about is the federal government getting involved. The Education Secretary's statement says it all: "When our young people start getting locked up early... they start to move out of schools, out of the pipeline to success." Mr. Duncan has no idea what's actually going on out here in the real world. He sees some kids being "locked up early"—whatever that means—and that mere fact—if it is a fact—tells him that something horrible is happening, something that only the federal government can and must fix? Don't these people ever ask questions like: "Do these kids deserve to be locked up?" Ronald Reagan was right. The most horrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the Federal Government and I'm here to help."

The four initiatives are particularly troubling, such as: "developing guidance to ensure school discipline policies and practices are in line with the federal civil rights laws." You know what that means. The Obama Administration is going to decide one-size-fits-all, race, gender and sexual orientation related disciplinary policies for middle school and high schools and is going to side with kids who want to sue their schools for daring to discipline them so that the rest of the student body can learn and doesn't end up being their victims.

Can you imagine federal agencies or federal judges running discipline policies for individual schools? I have no doubt that Mr. Holder and Mr. Duncan can. I thought the federal government was kind of busy with the whole national debt and multiple foreign wars thing. Apparently not. You haven't done anything to annoy these people, have you? I'm pretty sure I haven't.

Anyway, I know you don't have nearly enough to worry about, but I thought I'd better give you a heads-up on this. I suppose we ought to thank our lucky stars we're not living in Texas. The Obama Administration really seems to hate those poor people, and now they're going after their schools. With any luck, they'll be able to turn Texas schools into California or Detroit schools with the same kinds of policies that have made those places the outstanding educational success stories they are today. Perhaps they can start student's unions? I'm sure the SEIU would be interested.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

I Am A Terrorist?

"Joe Biden and Mike Doyle (D-PA) say so:

We have negotiated with terrorists," an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies' misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: "They have acted like terrorists," according to several sources in the room.

Let me tell you something, Mike and Joe.

When I plant a bomb outside your church...

...or kidnap your peers and torture them not for what they know, but purely to cause them the maximum amount of pain, just to send a message...

...or gun down citizens in the streets in a coup d'etat...

...then—and only then—will you have just cause for calling me a terrorist.

Until then, don't confuse your mirror with a window to my soul.

ATF Wouldn't Arrest Gun-Happy Felon, and So He Strikes Again

Anyone who has followed this blog, Pajamas Media, and the gun blog for any length of time knows that I've been investigating a felon by the name of Lee Franklin Booth since late last year. I've tried to warn that he's a dangerous criminal that needs to be put away. The federal government apparently thought he would be a useful criminal informant.

I guess that isn't a secret anymore, but the feds have refused to bring Booth down.

Well, such negligence has consequences, and Mr. Booth apparently took another crack at trying to kill someone in the past couple of weeks.

I'll report on this more as the story develops.

All You Need to Know About the Debt Deal

Only radical idiots think the debt bill accomplished anything.

It put bandage on a malignant cancer, but did nothing to stop its growth or spread.

This was and will continue to be a failure, ensuring an eventual and even greater default.