Ave Atque Vale!

Halloween has come, and with it, my final post on what has been my blogging home--and my first blog--here at CY. My most grateful thanks to all of you who have taken the time to read us. I'll very much miss working with Bob and Brigid and of course, hearing from all of you.

I hope I've earned a place on your daily "to read" list for the Blogosphere and that you'll visit me at my new site, Stately McDaniel Manor. Of course, you'd be remiss not to visit Bob at Bob Owens and Brigid at Home On The Range.

As Bob noted, we'll be closing CY on November 1, but the archives will still be accessible.

Thanks again for your support and comments!

PS: Just in case, it means: Hail and farewell!

The Volt Reaches New Lows

Are regular readers know, I've been following the misfortunes of the Chevy Volt and similar vehicles for some time. My latest update is at my new site--Stately McDaniel Manor--and discusses GM and the Administration's ridiculous spin about the Volt's sales and future prospects and the reality of producing a grossly overpriced car few are willing to buy. Not a good sign for the future viability of a company partially owned--and arguably mostly controlled--by the Federal government.

Traffic Tickets and You

An article I wrote about the plight of a Florida man who flashed his headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them about the a speed trap and was ticketed for his trouble is now up at Pajamas Media. The good guy won this one, and might win another one. As always, the comments are probably more interesting than my writing. Have a look!

Unexpected Opportunity

Now and then, God places us where we need to be. It's not always a welcome or happy thing, but upon reflection, it's right--of course.

As it has many times in a long and eventful life, it happened again to me on Thursday evening. I've written about it at my new blog. It may be worth your while.

Quick Takes: October 20, 2011

NOTE: This will be the final regular Thursday posting of "Quick Takes" here at CY. It has been grand!

ITEM: Talk About Fast And Furious! Well, it had to happen eventually, didn't it? I'm speaking—of course—about a couple having sex while skydiving. And of course, they had to film and post it on the Net. Yes, I could make the obvious, cheap jokes about "augering in," "premature release," "delayed opening," "blossoming canopies," "high speed, low drag," "terminal velocity," etc., but this blog is far, far too classy for that sort of thing. Is there a Guinness category for this? There probably is now.

ITEM: Well, That Makes Sense… The NFL has picked Arizona to host the Super Bowl in 2015, so of course, someone is ticked off about it. This time, according to Fox News "some Hispanic activists who had organized a boycott of the state after a controversial immigration law passed last year." OK, so let's see if I understand this. Illegal immigrants flock to places like Arizona because its economy provides a far better life than they can ever have in their home countries, which by and large, do not have the rule of law. So it only makes sense that they would oppose the rule of law and try to stop anything that would help the economy of their chosen home—and congressional Dems would, of course, be on their side. Strange times.

ITEM: They did WHAT?! There are some stories that make me ashamed to be an educator, or would, if most people didn't instinctively realize that principals like the subject of this story are complete ninnies. Why? She plans to ban Halloween and Thanksgiving in her school. I'm always amazed when I find "educators" that don't realize they're teaching—you know—children. Ninny. Discuss.

ITEM: The Glories of Socialized Medicine: Wouldn't be nice if we didn't have to wander off into the abyssal wilderness of ObamaCare with nothing to guide us? Wouldn't be grand if somewhere, somehow, another nation had, you know—experience—at that sort of thing? What's that? Who does? For how long? You're kidding! You're not? England does? Go here to the good folks at Powerline for a look into your immediate ObamaCare future. Yes, we will do it as badly and probably worse than the British.

ITEM: What Is This "Honor, Duty, Valor and Integrity" About Which You Speak? William Bennett, in this interesting article, asserts: "When the older generation fails to properly teach the younger males (and females) coming behind them, trouble surely follows." I agree with him. See what you think.

ITEM: And This Guy Could Be The Republican Nominee? Mitt Romney has always been an Anthropogenic Global Warming Kool-Aid drinker, and he has not backed off that stance despite being, arguably, the Republican front-runner. We now know that AGW is a hoax, supported by false, manipulated and ([purposely) "lost" data. We know it is one of the biggest and most expensive scams ever foisted on America, and that it has made the execrable Al Gore very wealthy. Are Republicans really going to make this guy their nominee? Go here for a very good reminder why that might just be a very, very bad idea.

ITEM: They Did WHAT II?! An essential component of ObamaCare was CLASS, a grandmother of all debacles wrapped up in the mother of all debacles. Now we discover that ObamaCare's backers knew it was a fiscal suicide pact even as they forced it down the throats of Americans. We also know that HHS secretary, the disgusting Kathleen Sibelius, has actually pulled the plug on this substantial part of the ObamaCare house of cards. In order for a true Marxist believer like Sibelius to do that, CLASS must have been a fiscal nuke in imminent danger of blowing up in Obama's face during the run up to the election. What remains to be seen is whether any of the Republicans will have the testicular fortitude necessary to make ObamaCare the issue it should be. And if Romney gets the nomination---well, we can probably forget that. Discuss.

ITEM: They Did WHAT III?! You aren't going to believe this one, gentle readers—oh. Actually, you are, and without a second thought. Even though his HHS underlings agree that CLASS cannot possibly work, even though it is indisputably impossible —mathematically—to make it work, Barack Obama is against abandoning it! They're trying to keep it from blowing up in his electoral face, and he keeps relighting the fuse! If there was a clearer indication that Mr. Obama is motivated entirely by Marxist ideology regardless of reality, I'll be pleased to hold the line while anyone provides it…

ITEM: Oh Man. Military Adventures In Africa Never End Well. And we're getting into one. With Iran's attempt to murder a foreign diplomat and hundreds of Americans in NYC still hot on the burner, Mr. Obama is taking bold, manly and forthright military action. That's right: he's sending our troops to Uganda on a vague, ill-considered, sure-to-result-in-tragedy-pseudo-mission. But hey, it's Barack Obama; what could go wrong?

ITEM: It's Unexpected, Completely Unexpected! So let's see if I have this straight: You're a formerly wealthy, beautiful, and resource rich state. You enact idiotic, ruinous taxes, regulations and rules that chase businesses, jobs and citizens to other states as fast as they can rent the transportation, while simultaneously attracting millions of parasite class immigrants. You enact still more idiotic, ruinous taxes, regulations and rules, and when your tax revenues come up $705 million short for the first three months of the fiscal year, it's unexpected? Wasn't, at one time in the distant past, $705 million a lot of money? And what the hell is wrong with those pinheads in California anyway? Discuss.

ITEM: The Ideal Breast Shape: This is something Man, or more appropriately, untold numbers of individual men, have been diligently searching out for millennia. It has been a long and arduous task, dark, sweaty, squalid rooms, high humidity, frantic struggles, screams and moans of anguish, and what has been accomplished? Squat. At least until now, for now a British Plastic surgeon has applied not only his educated hands but science to the task and has actually discovered the perfect breast shape! Well---darn! That kind of limits the old "we have to do it for science—no really—it's an experiment!" excuse, doesn't it? Oh well. Go here for the interesting story, but sorry, no graphic photos.

ITEM: Meow. How would your house cat do in a confrontation with a mountain lion? Zeus, the Maine Coon was one cool kitty. Go here to Fox News for a brief video.

ITEM: He's What? Vice President? Of The United States? You're Kidding! As most of you probably know, Mr. Biden is trying to sell the latest mini-stimulus masquerading as a "jobs" bill by actually saying that if Republicans don't pass it, rape and murder rates will rise. No, this isn't a parody, he's actually saying that, over and over. The logic, such as it is, seems to be that because Mr. Biden is claiming some few paltry billions of the half trillion will go to police salaries—well, you can figure out the rest. Of course, this is only a one time, temporary measure, so won't Mr. Biden be responsible for all those rapes and murders in another year? Sheesh. Go here for a bonus video demonstrating the superior temperament—for which they are justly famous--of the highest levels of the Obama Administration.

ITEM: Is There Anything ObamaCare Can't Do? In this case, it's going to price lower waged, unskilled workers right out of the job market. You know, the lower wage people Mr. Obama and the Dems love so much, "the people?" You've heard of them? As with so many associated with The One, if ObamaCare is ever fully implemented, the wheels of the black Darth Vader, Canadian made bus will once again go "thumpity thump."

ITEM: Well, Of Course! Who said: “I guarantee it’s going to be a close election [in 2012] because the economy is not where it wants to be and, even though I believe all the choices we’ve made have been the right ones, we’re still going through difficult circumstances." That's right. His reign has been absolutely flawless, without a single error. He has made all the right choices. Lord only knows how bad things would be if Mr. Obama wasn't the epitome of perfection. "Armageddon" comes to mind…

ITEM: Talk About Playing Right Into Male Fantasies: This one is just about too good to be true. A study has apparently found that in a sampling of heterosexual women, "…60% were sexually attracted to other women, 45 percent had kissed a woman, and 50 percent had fantasies about the same sex." Thought provoking, to say the least. To say the most, it's other—things—provoking too. Discuss.

And with that stimulating thought, it's time once again to bid you all a fond farewell and encourage you to drop by Stately McDaniel Manor where I'll carry on these little blurbs on a more or less daily basis. Thanks so much for all of your previous visits and I'll hope to see you there!

A Letter From The Teacher: Wherefore School Sports?

NOTE: This will be my final Letter From The Teacher education post on Confederate Yankee. I'll be cross posting this article to my new blog, and will continue my education writing there in a slightly different format, beginning Tuesday, October 25, 2011. Thanks for reading our work, and I look forward to seeing you at Stately McDaniel Manor where I am already posting.

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Bob, My Most Steamed Colleague
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Wherefore School Sports?

Dear Bob:

I hope you don't mind if I vent a bit. And you might not share this one too widely; it will, no doubt, tick people off. On second thought, when have we ever been worried about that? Anyway, here's a necessary disclaimer that may ward off at least a few of the death threats: I support athletic endeavors. Many of the apologies and arguments in their favor are, in lesser and greater degrees, true. I have been an athlete all of my life as a runner, martial artist, European fencer, Japanese fencer, soccer player, and now, with age and the ravages of many knee injuries, an avid bicyclist. I have, of course, played most other sports including football, baseball, tennis--you name it--from time to time.

I don't reflexively oppose sports in the schools for I believe they do provide valuable benefits. Rather, I oppose waste, fraud, inefficiency, and anything that steals even a minute of the precious class time of my students.

It has been said that high school sports aren't our focus; they're our religion. Indeed, some pursue them with that kind of fervor, even if only as fans. Is "fantasy football" a sort of devotion or merely escapism?

As it's the season, let's discuss football. It was only recently that I realized our football team of a bit more than 30 kids has a coaching staff of at least 23. I can't get anyone to confirm more, though I suspect they exist. This, as I understand it, is not uncommon in many parts of the country. Amazed, I dug out my own high school yearbook from the year of my graduation, back in the 1400s. Lo and behold, there were, in the team photo, about 30 players and two (two!) coaches. My memory was correct. As I recall, our teams won some games, lost others, but always managed to play football, presumably enjoying the experience.

I did a bit of digging and discovered that we pay a stipend of around $6000 each for those assistant coaches. That's $132,000 dollars for football alone! The budget for our entire academic department doesn't amount to a fraction of that. In fact, I'm pretty sure the combined budgets of all of our academic departments don't come remotely close to that figure, which again, represents only the salaries of assistant coaches.

Another interesting fact: All of those coaches produce no better results than the two coaches of my youth. Yet in the last decade, we've built, with enormous cost overruns, a multi-million dollar stadium many colleges would be glad to have, and a variety of other expensive athletic facilities as well as all the goodies that go along with all of those major expenditures. Members of our school board and community went full Costner, actually believing "if we build it, they will win." Sadly, with few exceptions, that mystical, Field of Dreams miracle has not come to pass.

It's not just a football facility; it's for everyone," our school officials intoned.

Right. I'll reserve it for my English classes right after the social studies department is done reenacting the Battle of the Bulge in the bleachers.

"But football teaches important life lessons about sacrifice, dedication, perseverance, duty and team work!"

Perhaps, but only to the benefit of a group of some 30 boys comprising a fraction of the student body.

"But every student is a member of the team. That's why we have pep rallies, so they can participate and feel school spirit."

That I'm not so sure of, though I am sure that most kids love getting out of their regular classes for any reason. I suspect few of the kids consider themselves to have any real involvement with the football team.

Don’t get me wrong: we're not nearly as sports-berserk as many other schools, but I've often wished we put the same amount of money, energy and promotion we expend for the benefit of a handful of boys into academics which benefit every student. The books I could buy! The insights I could share! Instead, those kids are often gone, as are their 20+ coaches, leaving subs in their place—when any can be found for the paltry wages we pay. That's not unusual either.

"But sports keep many kids in school. If it wasn't for football, they'd drop out!"

Really? And their parents allow this kind of behavior? We encourage it? Who are the adults here and who are the children? Who is actually in charge? What are the life lessons we're really teaching with this kind of thinking? If we don't give kids the diversions they demand, they'll be allowed to take their toys and quit? This is responsibility? This teaches sacrifice, dedication, perseverance, duty and team work?

"But sports build sound bodies and minds!"

Indeed they do, but at what point do we bother to evaluate whether they do so at the expense of academic preparation and accomplishment, which is, as far as I'm aware, still the primary reason for the existence of schools.

A few years back, one of my students—let's call him Marvin—was extolling his enthusiasm for football in near-religious terms. Football was his life, and would be his life in the future. He would be a professional football player. I told Marvin to enjoy himself, to have fun playing his chosen sport, but to develop his mind above all, gently pointing out that he was only 5'6" tall and weighed only 150 pounds. The cruelty of genetics would deny him a future in the NFL, as they do countless kids much larger, stronger and better at the game, perhaps only because they are a tenth of a second slower in the 40 than someone else.

I'd like to say the scales fell from his eyes at that moment, that he took my advice and had fun playing a game, but redoubled his efforts to improve himself academically in order to have a better, attainable future, but he didn't. Instead, he struggled through the year, keeping his average just high enough to maintain his eligibility for sports, often coming to class late because various coaches kept him too long, which certainly contributed to his low grades.

Didn't we spark and encourage his entirely unrealistic beliefs? Didn't we play some role in delaying his intellectual development?

I don't have all the answers, but I suspect all of our students might be better off if, instead of promoting just a few costly sports that directly benefit only a few kids, we focused on lifetime sports in a greater variety and sponsored primarily intramural competitions. We could easily afford the best equipment—and plenty of it--for far more sports and involve far more of the student body. And without the need to travel, missing entire days of school, the kids would have a much greater opportunity to learn while more of them would reap the unquestionable benefits of sports. After all, isn't that really what we're supposed to be doing?

What do you think?

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

Death By Cultural Misunderstanding

"The Iranian terror plot: Why would Iran do it the way they allegedly did it?" So goes the title of an article by Allahpundit at Hot Air. It is representative of many, not only on the Internet, but across the conventional media. Allahpundit is not nearly as credulous as many and raises several good points.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is former Federal Prosecutor Andy McCarthy—whose article is also linked in Allahpundit's article—who concludes:

"But, as night follows day, the State Department and other administration officials are out throwing cold water on these claims with their usual tap dance: Iran is very complicated; the IRGC is like a government within a government; there are various rogue elements, so this was probably a rogue operation; just because somebody in the Iranian government may have been complicit does not mean muckety-mucks like Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei were involved; diplo-blah, blah, blah. It looks like we will keep chasing the Holy Grail — rationalizing inaction in the face of ever-mounting provocations while we keep searching for “moderates” embedded somewhere in the regime who will somehow maneuver Iran into a new era of good relations with the Great Satan. Continued good luck with that."

What we now know is that the Iranian used-car salesman from Texas who was apparently the prime broker in the plot was actually trying to arrange not only the murder by explosives of the Saudi Ambassador in a Washington DC restaurant, but attacks on American and Israeli embassies possible in simultaneous strikes. Not only was this used-car dealer traveling between Texas, Mexico and Iran, but was prepared to deliver $1.5 million dollars to the DEA informant posing as a representative of a Mexican drug cartel. It is not known with certainty, but it seems we may have intercepted this plot for no reason other than that the Iranians blundered—by pure chance—into one of our assets rather than the Mexican killers he sought. If so, this is truly one of the most remarkable cases of serendipity on record.

Some excerpts from Allahpundit:

"As Iranians struggled Wednesday to comprehend an alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, analysts here agreed that even if U.S. charges of official Iranian involvement were true, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his government likely had nothing to do with the scheme…"

"The Quds Force is Iran’s A-team, equivalent to the Mossad in Israel. As Robert Baer, a former CIA analyst, told WaPo, “If they wanted to come after you, you’d be dead already.” And yet, their big idea for striking a blow against the Great Satan and its Wahhabist puppet in Riyadh was to … hook a used-car salesman from Corpus Christi up with an alleged member of a Mexican drug cartel? Seriously?"

In its 30-year history of attacking the West, the Quds Force went out of its way never to be caught with a smoking gun in hand. It always used well-vetted proxies, invariably Muslim believers devoted to Khomeini’s revolution. And when the operation was particularly sensitive, they gave the job to Lebanon’s militant Shi’ite Hizballah, organization the Iranians themselves had founded and which has an unsurpassed record in political murder. Hizballah has cells all over the world, including in the United States. But the point of it all was that if caught — and they were, more than once — Iran still enjoyed plausible deniability, a commodity in this business worth its weight in gold. So, if this plot was genuine, why didn’t the Iranians use tried and tested Hizballah networks and keep Iranian nationals, much less unknown Mexican narcos, out of it?"

Allahpundit suggests that the Revolutionary Guards have somehow gone rogue and are conducting, dangerous, provocative operations on their own, outside of the knowledge and control of the Iranian leadership. Another possibility is that the democratic Iranian opposition is trying to frame the Mullacracy in an attempt to bring the United States into a direct conflict that might unseat the hardliners, allowing democracy to flourish.

McCarthy is less apparently conflicted:

"Iran’s brazenness. It is surprising to hear suggestions that Iran has suddenly crossed a line by — allegedly — plotting to kill a Saudi diplomat on U.S. soil. As Iranian provocations go, this one is pretty tame. I related the history here a couple of years ago, and the best accounting is found in Michael Ledeen’s books — most recently, Accomplice to Evil. To highlight just a few things: Iran killed 19 members of our air force at Khobar Towers in 1996; it has had a working relationship with al Qaeda since the early nineties; it was likely complicit in the 9/11 attacks (a matter the 9/11 Commission strongly suggested — but on which neither the Commission nor anyone else in government followed up); and Iran has been plotting against and killing American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade. Compared to that rich record of direct attacks against Americans, the current plot is no more than par for the course."

In my conversations with adults, and in the classroom with teenagers, I am endlessly fascinated to discover that most Americans seem unable to truly understand that the peoples of other nations are so utterly different than Americans, so actually alien in the truest sense of the word. Americans seem to believe that since other peoples wear blue jeans, watch American movies, have McDonald's, speak English, even attend college in America they must be more or less unusual looking Americans with funny accents. My students, for instance, are universally amazed when they learn that hundreds of millions of people have never seen toilet paper, using their left hands instead.

In the same way, Americans tend to think of religion only within the American framework of separation of church and state and tolerance for the faiths of others. Americans may think adherents of some faiths to be a bit odd--holy Mormon underwear, people going to church on Saturday, eating only fish on Fridays—but they are generally accepting of that, and the fact that Americans are free to change religions and churches as often as they change their socks. Many Americans take their faith seriously, but the idea of killing in its name is—alien, as alien as the idea of being ruled by ministers, mutilating the genitals of their wives and daughters, killing their wives and daughters for violating family honor, killing friends, even family members who leave the faith, or killing anyone not of the faith for that reason alone.

Perhaps the most pitiful—and potentially deadly--example of American inability to understand Muslims in general and other cultures in particular is Mr. Obama who has a tendency to want everything both ways. Mr. Obama is Muslim, or at least, observant Muslims would certainly consider him to be Muslim. In every Muslim culture, the children born to a Muslim father are themselves Muslims. It is not a matter of choice. Muslims do not leave the faith, for if they do, they immediately become apostates and there is one punishment in Islam for apostasy: death. It is the duty of all Muslims to defend the faith by killing apostates.

Mr. Obama has declared himself to be Christian by choice, and has denied that he is, or ever has been, Muslim. His supporters cry racism and foul if anyone speaks or prints his middle name: Hussein. Yet for a Christian POTUS, he seems determined to do everything possible to support Muslim sensibilities and causes. For example, he told newly appointed NASA chief Charles Bolden that NASA's new primary mission was to make Muslims feel good about the scientific accomplishments of their ancient ancestors. Mr. Obama reflexively supports—or at the very least shows great deference toward—Muslim despots. Because of our cultural and Constitutional heritage, we think nothing of those who choose to change faiths, or who profess no faith. Not so in the Muslim world.

Mr. Obama traveled to Cairo and extended a hand to Muslims. What could they have thought of this? Did they recognize his Muslim middle name, hear his words of conciliation and peace, believe that he was one of them, a man they could trust and with whom they could do business? Hardly. Most would simply ignore him. True believers would want to kill him, not only because he is the President of the United States, but because he is a self-confessed apostate. The Iranians almost certainly see him as a weakling, a fool not to be feared but manipulated. They believe their actions against us will have few, if any, consequences, and thus far—since 1979--they've been right.

In a very real way, we are dealing with medieval thinking, a mindset that sees the world in black and white terms. There are the strong and the weak, the elect and infidels. There is, above all, the Dar al-Islam—the realm or land under Islamic control—and the Dar al-Harb—the realm of war or chaos, the land of the infidels where Islam is not in control. In the Dar al-Islam, Sharia—Islamic law—reigns supreme. It is a medieval code of conduct and justice administered by Imams, essentially Islamic ministers, who have absolute power over life and death. In Islam, there are no individual freedoms, not separation of church and state. The church is the state and individuals live—or die—at its whim.

Islam and Sharia are absolutely incompatible with freedom of religion and individual liberty. Christianity teaches the inestimable worth of each individual, the incalculable value of each human life, not just during its earthly journey, but because each human being possesses an immortal soul which can have, by means of faith, eternal life. These beliefs are the foundation of our Constitution and our criminal and civil laws, yet no American is required to pay them deference or to adhere to these beliefs. A nation where ministers decide civil disputes, hand down brutal, medieval punishments, treat women little or no better than cattle, afford children no rights at all, is almost unimaginable for Americans, yet this is the reality of daily life for the Dar al-Islam.

Christianity does not demand that its adherents conquer—in the spiritual or military sense—the world. It suggests only that they spread the Gospel; it is an entirely voluntary faith. Therefore, Christianity does not proscribe specific steps to be observed in the waging of war, nor does it demand that those who do not accept Christianity be treated as second-class beings, with a complete set of rules for how such beings may be enslaved, treated, taxed, even killed. Islam does all of this and more.

Winston Churchill observed that individual Muslims may have "splendid qualities," and indeed, most Muslims wish only to live in peace with their neighbors. However, it must be clearly understood that these Muslim are not, in fact, following the dictates of their faith. It is those who war against the Dar al-Harb who are being true to the letter and intent of their religion. And if there are only ten million such Muslims in the world—and there are surely that many—who are determined to follow the clear dictates of their faith to the letter, it's not hard to see the depth of our problem.

The leaders of Iran, those who so brutally crushed the Iranian democracy movement—the movement Mr. Obama studiously ignored—are very much determined to conquer the world for Islam, to turn the entire globe into the Dar al-Islam. The Koran holds special enmity for Jews, specifically preaching their destruction. It is no accident that Iran's leaders constantly refer to America as "the Great Satan," and Israel as "the Little Satan," for when they mouth these labels, they mean that Satan is the fount of all evil and must be destroyed by those faithful to Islam.

In waging war, Americans generally abstain from striking the first blow, are incredibly cautious about harming non-combatants, even risking and losing American lives rather than accidently killing innocents. Americans even avoid unnecessarily destroying property. For Americans, there are specific laws regulating the conduct of soldiers. None of this is true for Muslims waging Jihad—holy war aimed at establishing a global Dar al-Islam. They kill indiscriminately, ignore the international laws of war, use innocents as human shields, and commit inhuman atrocities as common practice.

In the pursuit of Jihad, Islam encourages and allows Muslims to lie to infidels. However, it requires Muslims to give infidels a chance to convert to Islam. If they do not, they may be slaughtered at will. When Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens America and Israel and suggests conversion to Islam, he is not doing this because he has a sincere religious concern for the souls of Americans and Israelis, but because he is adhering to Islamic rules for war.

Americans make the mistake of hearing what they think is yet another preacher trying to convert them and think ignoring them will have no consequences just as it does in America. They fail to realize that when they don't immediately convert to Islam, the safeties have just been released on Muslim weapons.

Jihadists recognize no international laws, no "international norms," no treaties, no diplomatic protocols. There is only the struggle to conquer the world, and apart from the Islamic rules for waging war, they observe no restraints, even killing other Muslims, which the Koran forbids.

Islam is a culture of death; Christianity is a culture of life. Islam preaches that the most sublime pleasures of paradise are reserved for those who die in Jihad. Christianity teaches love for all and the attainment of paradise through steadfast faith, mercy, kindness and tolerance.

One of the most dangerous misconceptions Americans have is confusing the political realities of America with those of other nations, particularly Islamic nations. "We can't attack Iran," our State Department says. "It's only the leaders of Iran that are bad. The people love us. There are many factions. There are moderates. Why, the leaders of Iran may not even know what is being done in their name!" Idiocy.

Doubtless many Japanese in 1941 had no desire for war. Many Germans were likewise peaceful people, but nations are responsible for actions done in their name, using their resources--$1.5 million and more in this case--pursuing their stated national goals. All of these factors are clearly present in the thankfully foiled plot.

Islamic nations, particularly rogue states like Iran—unquestionably the foremost terrorist nation on the planet—do not brook internal opposition. There is no democracy, no debate, no effective political opposition. Iron-fisted rule extends from the top down. And while it is true that millions of young Iranians think well of the United States and would welcome having the heel of the Islamic boot lifted from their collective necks, this is a tactical, not a strategic concern.

It is not as though we are contemplating turning all of Iran, or even its major populations centers, into a sheet of glowing, radioactive glass. Alone in the world we possess the military means to strike with amazing precision, severely limiting collateral damage. Our assets could, with a few days of overwhelming strikes, severely damage, even obliterate Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons and wage war.

But Iran would be angry with us! Iran would strike out at us! Iran has been doing just that since 1979. Not only have its agents been caught on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have captured its munitions, specifically designed and manufactured to kill American soldiers. There is no doubt that Iran is arming and training our enemies, enemies that have killed Americans and the citizens of our allies. Iran declared war on us in 1979 and has been actively pursuing that war on multiple fronts.

Yet, Iran has exercised some restraint. Its leaders understand that in a conventional military conflict with the United States, it wouldn't last a week. But they also understand that we are tied down in two conflicts. It works with China, North Korea, Syria, any nation opposed to America, to keep us occupied, to limit our ability and willingness to respond. Above all, it knows that with Barack Obama in the White House, there is virtually nothing it cannot do—even producing nuclear weapons it has sworn to use against Israel and America—that would provoke Mr. Obama to punishing military action.

Would Iran conduct an attack against Americans that would cause hundreds, even thousands of deaths? Of course it would. Iran has been killing hundreds, even thousands of Americans for years. But iran has never done anything so brazen before! You mean like seizing hundreds of American diplomats hostage and keeping them for more than a year? You mean like killing hundreds of Americans through proxies and by providing purpose-built weapons to them? But this hasn't been Iran's modus operandi—their method of operation—in the past!

Even if that were true—and it isn't--it is now.

Mark Twain said that one should be careful in reading health books because they could die of a misprint. Americans must now be careful in interpreting the clear words and actions of one of our most deadly and determined enemies. They say: "we will kill you all," over and over again. If we don't take them at their clear words, if we don't understand their mindset, millions of Americans and Israelis could die of a cultural misunderstanding.

The Literature Corner: Kill The Light, Hymie...

This will be my final installment of the Literature Corner at Confederate Yankee. I'll continue it at Stately McDaniel Manner, cross posting this story, and adding new stories beginning in November.

There is a classic scene from Mel Brooks’ Get Smart TV series. The bumbling secret agent Maxwell Smart was working with a prototype human-appearing secret agent robot named Hymie. On the way out of a room, Smart said “kill the light Hymie.” Hymie, not understanding the idiom, pulled out his gun and shot it. Robots, it turns out, aren’t alone in taking things too literally.

All cops begin their careers as patrol officers. It’s in that job that they learn all of the basics of police procedure, the law, and most importantly, how to deal with people without unnecessarily ticking them off. The best cops—because they have an innate feel for human nature--can talk people into doing just about anything, and as a result rarely have to use force. Master officers are easy to spot: people they arrest sincerely thank them for doing it.

Cops usually start by attending a state mandated basic training academy, and larger agencies also have their own in-house academies. Virtually all police agencies have a field-training program. Some are very brief, little more than a rookie riding around with an experienced cop for a few weeks. Some are very specific and lengthy—up to six months--but the idea is to team up the new officer with an experienced officer who rides with them in a patrol car, watches over them and teaches them what to do and when, and most importantly, what not to do and when. In professional law enforcement agencies, new cops aren’t allowed out on their own for a year or more.

Many people think anyone can be a teacher. Not so. Being a Field Training Officer (FTO) is a surprisingly difficult and demanding job. A good FTO can anticipate each trainee’s needs and accurately recognize and help them overcome their problems. A really good FTO can remember their own beginning experiences and can help to make the transition from rookie to seasoned professional seemingly easy for a new cop. Great street cops aren’t always good teachers of street cops. Just because they can do their jobs very well doesn’t mean that they can teach others to do the same. Very different skill sets are involved and are sometimes mutually exclusive. The best FTOs learn as much as they impart.

It took several years before I became a FTO. Having many years of prior police experience, to say nothing of being the only officer on the force of any rank with an undergraduate degree in education (with years of teaching experience), made me suspect rather than an obvious choice for the job. Go figure. But when the time came to appoint new FTOs, my qualifications were so far ahead and above whoever was in second place, it would have been too embarrassing not to give me the job, so there I was, to the chagrin of the Chief, a guy who gave lip service to hiring only highly educated, smart cops. The problem was, he wanted them only smart enough, and not too smart. Cops that are too smart aren’t very easy to trick or control, but that’s another story.

My trainee was Steve McCandless. He was a young guy from a state that mandated all potential officers complete an authorized training academy on their own time and at their own expense. He did just that, but couldn’t find a job in his preferred city. It wasn’t his fault, really. He had a bachelor’s in law enforcement, an academy certificate on which the ink was not yet dry, but no one was hiring. With a new wife as fresh as his certificate, he needed a job and ended up with us, one state to the left.

Steve was a bright kid, very anxious to go to work, but like most new cops, had no real idea how much he had to learn. He was particularly frustrated because he had to attend, at our expense, the state law enforcement academy. Yes, he already graduated from an academy, an academy that was likely far superior to ours, but the law is the law, and off he went to several months of near fatal boredom. Now, with two still dripping academy certificates on his wall, Steve was assigned to me, his second FTO.

His second? The program moved a trainee through several phases, all taught by different officers. It was assumed that this policy assisted new officers by exposing them to a variety of styles and techniques. Maybe yes, maybe no. In Steve’s case, his first FTO turned him into a basket case.

The guy, let’s call him “Jerry,” was appointed a FTO because he was “one of the boys.” That tends to count for a great deal in law enforcement. He wasn’t an incompetent cop, but he was an awful FTO. He had a fatal flaw: He couldn’t shut up. No matter the situation, he just kept running his mouth, usually saying little or nothing for hours on end, even when talking was potentially dangerous. We used to joke that he would be effective in interrogations. Just put a criminal in a room with Jerry and within 20 minutes he’d be begging to confess to any crime we cared to name—sinking the Titanic, leading the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, 9-11--just to get out of the room. But we knew any court would throw out such a confession on 8th Amendment grounds (the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment). Jerry was so bad, so unable to control himself, that on a SWAT field exercise (yeah, being one of the boys counts there too) which included an overnight component, another officer, who had been, until that night, completely sane and rational, had to be forcibly restrained from killing Jerry with a combat knife when he refused to shut up and let everyone sleep.

How do I know about this guy? You guessed it; he was one of my FTOs when I first joined the force. Jerry was talking constantly, just rattling on about everything and nothing, day in and day out. He was actually obstructing me, making it impossible to concentrate, to hear the radio, to do my job, and I had more than enough prior experience to know what the job should be. I finally had to tell him, loudly and not very nicely, to shut up so I could listen to and answer the radio.

Because of my past experience, I knew enough to go to the FTO program administrator and get a transfer to another FTO. It was clear that new officers would have a hell of a time under Jerry. I knew better. Steve didn’t, so by the time he finally got to me, Jerry had put him on probation, written a ton of bad daily evaluations, and so poisoned the well that poor Steve was expecting to be fired at any moment. That tends not to be a good way for new guys to build confidence and ability.

I suspected as much when I learned that Steve had Jerry before me. It was obvious when Steve got into the car. He was nervous and wouldn’t do anything without being told. He kept glancing at me, waiting for me to start blathering. He had been nitpicked to death, unfairly and irrationally criticized for any and everything he did or tried to do or didn't do, so he did what most people in that situation would do: he shut down.

I immediately pulled him off the street and into a quiet, out of the way office, and told him to relax—he was tensing up, expecting the career death stroke. I laid it out, told him exactly why I thought he was behaving as he was, and exactly what I thought—what I knew—happened. He was amazed, I’d hit it squarely on the head, and he was indescribably relieved.

When we went back to the car, I told him to relax, and most of all, to have fun. By the end of the shift, it was obvious Steve had what it took to become a good cop. He was smart, observant, and had developed most of the basic skills he needed. It wasn’t his fault he hadn’t fully developed the remaining skills, and I knew he’d catch up quickly. I told him that he would pass the FTO program. Months later, when he was out of the program and patrolling on his own, he told me that his wife cried for joy that first night. Who says good deeds aren’t their own reward? To keep my word, I made sure the FTO administrator knew what happened and why. By the end of our time together, Steve was transformed--as I knew he would be--into a confident, capable cop who breezed through the last phase of the program.

The domestic violence call was in a nice neighborhood. Dispatch told us that an ex-lover broke into the house, and the occupants locked themselves in a bedroom. The ex-lover was banging on the bedroom door, trying to get in. Dispatch told us they could hear the banging and someone yelling over the phone. They also said the ex-lover might be drunk.

We parked a good distance away, and as we approached on foot, we saw two young women waving to us from an open window on the side of the house. I asked Steve how he wanted to deal with it, and he thought we should talk to the women first, and so we did. I let Steve handle the conversation while I kept an eye out. We could both hear the ex-lover, who appeared to be female, banging loudly on the door, and sloppily yelling. She sounded drunk indeed. After a quick conversation, Steve decided that it would be a good idea to climb in through the window, and so we did.

Climbing though a window in full patrol regalia isn’t very pretty, but we were soon through, and I took stock of the two ladies. They were in their pajamas, and looked pretty upset. Not terribly frightened, but upset. They kept close together and kept glancing nervously at the bedroom door. Both were in their mid 20’s, one slim, tall and blonde and the other shorter and brunette.

Steve wanted to speak with me out of earshot; we huddled near the door. “They said the ex-lover’s name is Mary, and she’s really drunk,” Steve told me. “She broke up with the blonde a couple weeks ago and has been bothering her ever since. They were getting ready for bed when Mary let herself in and started yelling at them, so they locked themselves in and called us.”

“Right,” I said. Did she assault anyone? Break anything?”

“No, but I think they’re, they’re…” Steve stuttered, glancing at the women.

“Lesbians?”

“Yeah! That’s it!” Steve exclaimed, surprised. I later discovered he had not dealt with any gay or lesbian folks since he began. He apparently thought there was some unusual technique involved.

“OK. Does that change our procedure? Are there any special lesbian provisions or exceptions in the law”

Steve thought about it for a few seconds. “Uh, I guess not…”

“Good answer,” I said. Steve smiled, obviously relieved. “So what do they want done?” I asked. It was obvious he hadn’t asked, so I suggested he do that. They told him they wanted her removed. I questioned them to clarify—for Steve's benefit--that they had asked her, repeatedly, to leave. So I huddled with Steve once more. “OK. So what charges do we have?”

Steve thought a few seconds. “Trespass?”

“Good. How about burglary? Are all the elements present?” I asked.

“Well, no theft…she didn’t commit any felony—yet…”

“Still good,” I replied. “How about a domestic violence charge? Elements?” I was asking Steve about the elements of the various offenses for a good reason. The real world is not like TV. The police must know the law very well, because every law has specific “elements,” acts that an offender must perform in order to break the law. It those elements aren’t present, no arrest.

“Nope,” Steve said. We just reviewed those statutes the night before. “No assault.”

“Good again,” I replied. “Trespassing then?”

“Trespassing,” Steve said, nodding emphatically.

Mary was still slurring loudly and banging on the door. Steve seemed a little hesitant, so I prompted him. That’s where I made my Hymie mistake. “When you’re ready, pop the door open and take her down,” I said. What I meant was that Steve should quietly and calmly arrest Mary, handcuff her, and we’d leave. I scarcely got the last word out of my mouth when Steve started bouncing up and down, pumped up like an NFL wide receiver on speed, flung the door open, and in a flash of blue, streaked into Mary, who let out a piercing scream of surprise.

Equally surprised, I followed Steve into the living room in time to watch him execute a textbook arm bar take-down that, with extraordinary speed, flopped her face down on the floor, driving all the air out of her lungs with a loud “whoof!” As she lay, gasping like a freshly landed trout, Steve whipped on the cuffs in the flashy manner of a rodeo cowboy wrapping up a steer he just wrestled to the ground. He was so excited I was afraid he might chuck her out the same window we entered, so I quickly leapt in and helped him lift her to her feet, allowing her to catch her breath. Steve was grinning like a kid on Christmas morning that just unwrapped the toy he'd been badgering his parents about for months.

The women who called were standing in the doorway, clutching each other. The blonde was crying a little and the brunette was looking at Steve, who was still bouncing up and down, with a mixture of awe and wariness. Steve's neatly wrapped package wanted to say something, but was still gasping. It was time to refocus and redirect Steve.

"Officer McCandless, I'll be happy to take this young lady to the car if you'll gather all the necessary personal information from these nice ladies," I said, nodding toward them. Steve suddenly focused on me and stopped bouncing.

"Oh, right. I'll do that," he nodded vigorously and pulling the small spiral notebook I convinced him to buy out of his shirt pocket, began the ritual of information gathering I drilled into him early on.

By the time I had her in the back seat of the car, Mary could talk again. I asked if she was OK and if she needed medical attention. She told me she was fine, but it was obvious she thought Steve was a cross between The Flash and The Incredible Hulk. And of course, she started crying. It was the usual tale of true love gone wrong—cops hear that all the time. After hearing her out and nodding at all the right places and making all the right comforting noises, it was pretty obvious that Mary wouldn't have come over if she hadn't been drinking. Booze sparks a huge portion of police business.

By that time, Steve was done and returned to the car. I quickly filled him in and we drove Mary to the jail where I let Steve handle the booking procedures after first telling him to carefully observe Mary, get on her good side, and fill me in afterward. He handled her well. Steve was a good scout who actually liked people; amazingly, not every cop does. He came to nearly the same conclusions, and I helped him the rest of the way.

When we debriefed his handling of the entire affair after shift, Steve demonstrated his ability for self-examination, again, not a quality every cop shares. He realized how hyped up he was, and while he didn't use excessive force or do anything truly wrong, he also realized he needed to be much calmer and more in control in the future. Shaking his head, he said "Man, I really bulldogged her, didn't I?"

It was at that moment he received his police nickname. One of the more senior officers was walking by, overheard what Steve said and Steve immediately became, to his embarrassment, "Bulldogger."

I learned the most important lesson that night: It's never smart to assume that new officers, no matter how bright, understand even simple procedures until they've demonstrated they do. Bulldogger made me a better FTO and my Hymies didn't kill any more lights.

Lanny Davis Arrives to Spin Gunwalker

You can gauge how serious a political crisis is by who the people under fire bring in to shore up their defenses. Clintonista Lanny Davis, who represented former President Bill Clinton during his impeachment, has now stepped up to issue an op-ed piece that attempts to make a molehill out of a mountain.

Davis' article in the Huffington Post is a perfect culmination of the spin that has been offered so far by the Justice Department, the White House, a smattering of loyal House Democrats, and the media. As such, it offers one-stop shopping to debunk all of the deception being offered to undermine the pursuit of the most deadly and damning political scandal in American history.

Davis begins:

If ever there is an example of hyper-partisanship, the recent personal attacks challenging the honesty and competence of Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the ATF's errors in its "Fast and Furious" gun-tracking program should be Exhibit A.

Davis is entirely correct... just not in the way he intended. Under Eric Holder, the Department of Justice has been packed with far-left wing ideologues and Stalinesque snitch programs designed to silo and isolate employees, compartmentalizing the sweeping and radical changes that the Administration seems to implement, as noted in Christian Adams' new book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department. As for Eric Holder's credibility, Davis "forgets" to mention the Attorney General's two previous bouts of forgetfulness on the stand, regarding the pardons of nationalistic terrorists and financier Marc Rich in years past. The only question regarding Mr. Holder's sworn testimony is why he isn't required to present it while wired to a polygragh.

Then Davis gets very creative with his description of Operation Fast and Furious.

This was a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) program in which guns were allowed to be illegally purchased so that they could be tracked to gun traffickers and Mexican drug cartel leaders. But the ATF, which now is supervised by the Justice Department, lost track of the guns -- which were "allowed to walk," as the parlance goes. Some of the guns were later found at the scene of murders of law enforcement officers.

Davis is desperate to compartmentalize the scandal as a rogue operation carried out in isolation by local ATF agents. The facts are that Operation Fast and Furious was a multi-department, multi-agency operation.

In the Department of Justice alone, the ATF, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (and the directors of each), and a dozen top Justice Department officials, including Deputy Attorney Generals, Assistant Attorney Generals, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals, and U.S. Attorneys were aware of the plot, with documentation already revealing that the #2 man in Justice was getting detailed briefings, in addition to the at least five reports that crossed Attorney General Holder's desk.

Operation Fast and Furious also could not have occurred without extensive interaction with the State Department, which would have had to authorize the shipment of thousands of weapons in what would otherwise be felony violations of the Arms Export Control Act.

The Department of Homeland Security, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol would also have been in the loop, and it was agents from these agencies that have become the first known U.S. law enforcement agents murdered by guns provided under Operation Fast and Furious other alleged gun-walking programs.

The Treasury Department also played a role in the task force, specifically the IRS Criminal Investigative Division (IRS-CID).

The White House National Security Council (NSC) was also briefed directly from agents in the field.

This wasn't an isolated operation, but a cabinet-level orchestration seeking to achieve unofficial, illegal, unconstitutional, possibly terrorist and treasonous policy goals.

There is no question that the program was botched -- Eric Holder has called it seriously flawed and immediately established a DOJ Inspector General investigation. But the Republican haste to blame it all on Holder and accuse him of lying to Congress -- even calling for a special prosecutor -- seems to me to be way over the top.

Let's be crystal clear on this next claim by Mr. Davis, so that there can be no mistake. There was nothing "botched" about Operation Fast and Furious. There wee no mechanisms in the program to track weapons, specific, documented incidents where federal agents interfered on behalf of weapons smugglers who were interdicted by state law enforcement, and at least one incident where an ATF agent bought weapons with taxpayer funds, authorized by a senior ATF agent, and delivered weapons directly to cartel members.

ATF agents have testified in sworn statements in front of Congress that the purpose of Operation Fast and Furious was to put thousands of American guns in the hands of the Sinaloa cartel. Interdiction was dissuaded, and tracking impossible. Supervisors were elated when OFF turned up at the scenes of murders. This was government-sanctioned arms smuggling to narco-terrorists locked in a near civil war with the legitimate government of Mexico. Nothing was "botched," and there was never an attempt to enforce laws until Brian Terry was killed and whisteblowers came forward to shut the program down.

Here are the facts I believe congressional Republicans making these personal attacks on Holder know, or should know.

First, Republican congressional leaders know that this is not the first time this type of ATF gun-tracking program has gone wrong. A similar program with similar problems began under the George W. Bush administration. As CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson reported, "Operation Wide Receiver" was implemented in 2007 during the tenure of then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. A source told Attkisson that during this program, hundreds of guns "walked" across the Mexican border.

Davis would love to be able to muddy the waters of the scandal by implying that the previous Administration was involved, but the facts do not support his spin.

Where Operation Fast and Furious was a multi-agency, multi-department plot involving high-ranking government appointees and possibly elected officials, Operation Wide Receiver was a local BATF operation, using untested new technologies in an attempt to interdict and capture weapons smugglers. Wide Receiver used RFID chips placed in weapons shipments and surveillance aircraft in hopes of tracking smugglers to their bosses. The plan failed because agents did not know how to install the RFID devices competently, shortening the range of their broadcast signals, combined with the fact that smugglers were far more cunning than the agents allowed. Aware of the limited loiter times of then-current surveillance assets, the smugglers would wait until the monitoring aircraft had to refuel, at which point they would sprint to the border. Wide Receiver's failures were apparent and the operation was shut down after hundreds of guns made it over the border. Operation Fast and Furious was designed explicitly to walk guns, and succeeded wildly, successfully delivering thousands of guns, responsible for the deaths of 200+ people before ATF agents finally blew the whistle.

Second, Republicans know Holder was asked a question during a congressional hearing about when he first learned about this program in the context of prior questions concerning the mismanagement of the program. He said he first learned about it -- meaning the problems and faulty tactics -- in the spring of 2011.

Republicans know that the former U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona, the jurisdiction in which ATF was implementing the program, and the former acting director and deputy director of ATF supposedly in charge, have said they also did not know about the problems in Fast and Furious until just recently, and that they had not briefed the attorney general until this year, as he testified.

The "former U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona" Davis refused to name is Dennis Burke, a political appointee elevated to that position due to his loyalty to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Burke was Napolitano's Chief of Staff while she was Governor of Arizona, and he is now the "former" U.S. attorney due to his actions in the gun-walking scandal.

Third, the Republicans know Holder could not be expected to have remembered a few lines making general reference to this program among hundreds of pages of reports from 24 departments regularly delivered to the office of the attorney general. Even if Holder had read every line of every report -- and Republicans know he didn't and it would be unreasonable to expect an attorney general to do so -- it is a fact that none of the references to the program included any disclosure of the problems and errors in the Fast and Furious program, as Republicans also know.

Davis asks us to believe that a high-risk, politically-motivated multi-department, multi-agency plot that measured its success in the body count of Mexican citizens was something that the Attorney General not only was unaware of while it was being run, and that even after whistleblowers brought the program down he had no interest in learning anything about the program in the months before he was asked to testify under oath. If you find that credible, Mr. Davis would like you to be part of the jury pool when the criminal trials start.

Fourth, congressional Republicans should recognize that ultimately, this is a law enforcement issue that needs bipartisan support and assistance, not political cheap shots. You would think that conservative Republicans, who are known to emphasize law enforcement, would be providing the ATF and other law enforcement with the maximum number of tools to control and track these guns. These include closing loopholes in laws that facilitate following guns across the border and imposing strict reporting requirements for gun purchases to help combat gun trafficking. Unfortunately, many of those most vocal in criticizing Holder have opposed this legislation.

As we have well established in our continuing coverage of the scandal, there was nothing like a law enforcement operation that came out of Operation Fast and Furious, or the nine other alleged gun-walking operations in five states. The obvious and apparent goal of the plot was to ship as many guns into Mexico as possible, so that when they were recovered at crime scenes, they could lend credence to the 90-percent lie that President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton and others had staked the reputations on.

Americans have become so tired of politicians in Washington politicizing virtually everything.

Mistakes can never be honest. Motives are always questioned. Members of the opposition are not only the subjects of policy disagreements; they must be demonized.

I say respectfully to Republicans responsible for these unfortunate attacks on Eric Holder what I have previously said to Democrats who unfairly personally attacked Bush Attorney General Gonzales:

Enough.

We are all sick of this -- in both parties.

Enough.

The only honest mistake related to Operation Fast and Furious was the mistake that field agents had that their supervisors and the political appointees they reported to cared about law and justice more than political opportunism.

Three American Federal agents were shot with guns walked by the Obama Administration, and their sacrifice pales in number when compared to the 200+ dead that the Mexican Attorney General has claimed in her investigation into this betrayal.

A bipartisan group of Arizona sheriffs (5 Republicans, 5 Democrats) have called for an independent counsel to prosecute those involved in the murderous scheme.

They too, have cried out, "Enough!"

Mr. Davis isn't supporting them.

I guess they couldn't afford his retainer.

Quick Takes, October 13, 2011

ITEM: Technology Waits For No Man: The rotary (Wankel) engine always held great promise. Small and lightweight for it's power output, for a time it seemed a viable alternative to its more conventional brethren. Mazda, alone among the automakers, exploited the engine, most famously in its sports cars, most recently the RX-8. That's apparently now coming to an end. Fox News has the story.

ITEM: Ah! So That's What A Real Supreme Court Justice Is Like! Leftists, of course, excoriate Antonin Scalia for the crime of interpreting the Constitution rather than imposing the "progressive" policy preferences of the moment. In this fascinating story via Hot Air, we have the pleasure of his own words and his opinion that legislative gridlock inside the Beltway isn't such a bad thing after all. When hearing of the horror of gridlock from a Beltway denizen, I've often found myself thinking: "And Congress not being able to enact new laws is a bad thing because…?" See what you think.

ITEM: And In The "Oh Goody" Department: we learn that the EPA, those never-resting saviors of bait fish and obscure flora and fauna are going to implement new regulations in January 2012 that could almost immediately shut down from 8.9% to 25% of American electrical generating capacity. Uh, don't they know that people are going to die? Of course they do, but Barack Obama's pre-election promise to destroy the American coal industry is far more important than the deaths of people who use coal! Take your blood pressure medication before reading this one.

ITEM: Who Knew It Could Stop Rapes And Murders? Vice President Biden is at it again. At an October 12 speech in Flint Michigan, Mr. Biden said that if Mr. Obama's so-called "jobs" bill is not passed. Flint would experience far more rapes and murders. Mr. Biden tied his prophetic increase to lower police staffing. Michigan, whose major cities have long been under Democrat control, has had horrendous economic problems for a very long time. But who knew that not only would Mr. Obama's bill—which was voted down in the Senate—solve our unemployment problem, but our crime problem too! Maybe Mr. Obama really is the smartest human alive--nah.

ITEM: Joe "The Sheriff" Biden II: Speaking to CBS, Mr. Biden observed that the Obama Administration plans to continue its policy of sanctions and engagement which has been so successful in moderating the behavior of a nation run by lunatic Islamist murderers in the first place. No wonder Mr. Obama picked him as a running mate. What could possibly go wrong?

ITEM: A Hot Friend Cooling: An observation by Brutus in the final act of Julius Caesar. Shakespeare knew human nature well. So does Victor Davis Hanson, who well explains Mr. Obama's current woes. Not long and worth your time.

ITEM: Why Do Women Have Prominent Breasts? Uh, you're kidding, right? I mean, who doesn't like them so much the question is irrelevant? I know I'm pretty fond of them. After all, I admire beauty of all kinds. Several gay chaps of my acquaintance are fond of them too. In any case, "The Chronicle of Higher Education (?)" posits several theories. Read it and see what pops up, er, out, er…

ITEM: Well, It Is Italian Food…And in the "they did WHAT?!" category, we discover that an Olive Garden restaurant in Oxford, Alabama refused to allow a banquet meeting of the local Kiwanis Club to display their Kiwanis banner and the American flag. Apparently the reason given was an attempt to avoid "disrupt[ing] the dining experience" for other customers. Uh-huh. Go here for the story. I've never been overly fond of the cuisine at the OG, so my continued lack of patronage likely won't be missed. How about yours?

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Flip Flop Division: DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Shultz recently observed that the American people don't elect Washington pols to create jobs. I'm shocked, shocked! What about those billions and billions of jobs the Obama administration has been "saving and creating" for the last several years? What's that? They haven't actually done that? Oh. I'm shocked, shocked! Does Barack Obama know about this? Oh. It was his idea, then? Right.

ITEM: Forgive Me Father, For I'm Going To Sue Your Vestments Off! It had to happen sooner or later. The Supreme Court has granted cert in a case that will directly pit religious liberty against the Americans with Disability Act. Guess which side the Obama Administration is on? The ADA? Darn! How'd you know? Hot Air has a good, brief explication of the case and the issues.

ITEM: Kicking Traitors In The—You Know What—Department. Over at The Mellow Jihadi, Navy One, an active duty Naval officer, engages in some delightful and satisfying fantasy. By all means, stop by and read a literate and humane voice in our armed forces. We really are the good guys. Well, except for the present Administration, I mean.

ITEM: …But Why Would Chris Christie Endorse Mitt Romney? You're joking, right? Christie is no conservative (No, I have no idea why Ann Coulter is so enamored either). He's at best a centrist, which in a state like New Jersey makes him virtually a charter member of the John Birch Society, at least to the average denizen of that state. For genuine conservatives seeking a genuinely conservative Republican, Mitt Romney is far from a desirable candidate. But he's certainly of a kind with Governor Christie. Allahpundit has it out at Hot Air. You'll particularly like Mr. Christie's tirade in support of RomneyCare. I mean "like" as in "find disgusting, sniveling, false and self-serving," of course.

ITEM: Baby Rhinos? Miniature Burros? A Carrot-Red Baby Monkey? Zoo Borns has them all and more. If you haven't had your weekly quota of "Awwwwwwwwwww," here's your passport. The baby Wallaby is particularly cute.

ITEM: Zombie Youth Department: Mark Steyn has a way with words. Most recently, he discourses on the precious, entitled twits defecating—literally--all over Wall Street and other places. If you've not read Steyn, this will be a worthy introduction. By all means, make his acquaintance.

ITEM: So Even THEY Are Admitting It? Admitting what? That "green energy" is a boondoggle and scam of truly epic proportions, a vast money pit down which we are throwing billions of dollars to create virtually no jobs at a million or so each. Only billions? Hey, in the Age of The One, that's pocket change. We can just tax millionaires like Steve Jobs—what's that? He did? Oh. Well, we can tax GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt then. He can make up the difference. What's that? He's one of Mr. Obama's cronies sucking funds out of the Treasury like a Dyson vacuum turned vampire? Oh. This article at National Review will help explain it.

ITEM: Ah, Those Tall, Willowy Young Women With Their Slender Necks (and prominent other stuff)! Are apparently prone to the horrendous affliction of "text neck." I used to think people complaining of neck problems were weenies—until I got a neck injury when attacked by a lawyer and his family at a domestic violence call. I don't harbor that delusion any more. I do harbor tall, willowy young women with slender necks-- and other stuff. Details at The Frisky.

ITEM: Our Troops Are Needlessly Dying? Yes, according to the inestimable Michael Yon. Yon, a former Special Forces troop, is perhaps our premier combat journalist, getting stories and photos no one else can. The photos shot with night vision equipment are fascinating, as fascinating as the story is infuriating. Read this one.

ITEM: "Obama's Earplugs And Blinders Prevent Job Creation." That's the headline of a story at the Washington Examiner. It’s brief but highly informative. By all means, take a few minutes to read this one. It might not be a bad idea to be sure your blood pressure meds are up to date first.

ITEM: Say, Do You Happen To Have A Music Video Of Cats Wearing Hats? You know, I'm glad you asked…

And with that bit of inspired whimsy, it's time to bid you a fond farewell and once again encourage you to return next Thursday for another edition of Quick Takes! Meow!

This Is A Parody--Right?

Well, now they've done it, and the United States is fighting back with every tool at its disposal:

1) The United States "…will use the plot to marshal international pressure…" against those responsible.

2) Attorney General Eric Holder said: "The United States is committed to holding [them] accountable for [their] actions."

3) A "State Department Official" called it a "flagrant violation of international law."

And then we brought out the really big gun:

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said we'd work with allies to "send a very strong message that this kind of action, which violates international norms, must be ended."

She also said:

This "crosses a line," and she and President Obama are calling international leaders to tell them what happened. She said Mr. Obama and she intend to "pre-empt" any efforts by [them] to deny responsibility, and to "enlist more countries in working together against what is becoming a clearer and clearer threat…"

One might be tempted to think that this situation—whatever it is and whoever it involves—is a very serious matter and that our government will respond with the kind of righteous rage demonstrated after 9-11. It is a very serious matter indeed, but that's where reality breaks down.

As reported at Fox News, we've intercepted an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to America, with explosives, on American soil. Iranian members of the Quds Force," a paramilitary spy/internal security force pursued a hit on the Ambassador by trying to hire what they thought was a Mexican drug cartel to make the attack. Two Iranian agents were captured and others remain at large.

Would this be the same Iran:

1) that constantly threatens to obliterate Israel and the United States?

2) that has been killing Americans and American soldiers for decades?

3) that is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world?

4) that sponsors terrorists that kill the citizens of our allies around the world?

5) that threatens to turn the Middle East in a charnel house of unimaginable proportions?

6) that is feverishly producing nuclear weapons and which plans to use them in an EMP attack on America?

7) that is building missile bases in Venezuela and infiltrating every Latin American country that will have it?

8) that is working daily to infiltrate sleeper cells into America for future attacks?

9) that is working with cartels and Marxists south of our border to facilitate any and every kind of harm to Americans they can devise?

10) that declared war on us in 1979 when they seized our embassy and took hostages?

11) that is ruled by Islamist lunatics who want to provoke Armageddon because they believe it will produce the return of the "hidden Imam," and lead to a new caliphate?

Yes. It's that very Iran.

Our elected representatives are resolute and incensed:

"Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., urged the administration to revisit a request by dozens of senators to target the country's central bank, calling it the 'paymasters' for the Quds Force.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., called the plot an 'outrage' and called for increased sanctions against Iran.

[Senator Durbin has now, without question, cinched the title of the most-irony challenged politician of all time. He's calling for financial sanctions, which will have to be imposed through the cooperation of the very banks he first slammed with idiotic legislation, and then excoriated for implementing the completely predictable results of his ill-considered stupidity.]

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, speaking on Fox News, called the plot an 'act of war' against the United States.

'We have to do something,' he said, saying the specifics of the response should be left up to the Defense Department and the president."

And which serious steps commensurate with Iran's actions against us since 1979 is the Obama Administration planning?

"But a senior Defense official told Fox News the announcement Tuesday "'s not a trip wire for military action in Iran.' '
'No one should read into this as a pretense for any type of military response," another senior Defense official added.

Speaking to Fox News on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the subject, the officials said the Pentagon sees the alleged plot as a criminal act that is rightly being handled by the Department of Justice. "

"The Treasury Department said the other Quds officials named were also involved in the plot. The sanctions will freeze any U.S. assets held by the individuals and prohibit anyone in the U.S. from doing business with them."

Mrs. Clinton is reported to be planning to speak with the Swiss Ambassador to Iran who will in turn likely present a strongly worded message to the Iranians on our behalf.

There are several possible scenarios at play. With the Gunwalker debacle and the Solyandra scandal threatening to overwhelm the Obama Administration and absolutely devastate Mr. Obama's already fast-failing re-election chances, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Obama Administration is exaggerating the involvement of the highest levels of the Iranian regime, and Stratfor, the private intelligence firm, is suggesting just that, according to Fox. However, Stratfor also notes that the Iranians have been conducting "preoperational surveillance," in the US, but have not yet carried out a high profile attack. Obamites would surely welcome the diversion of public attention from the alleged malfeasance and possible criminality of the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice, and a plethora of federal alphabet agencies. As more and more damning evidence against the Administration and its allies becomes public, the Obama Administration must be desperate to escape scrutiny.

A lengthy civilian trial—the Obamite preferred vehicle for dealing with enemy combatants--of Iranian agents extending well into the election season could potentially help Mr. Obama burnish his anti-terrorist warrior credentials when even the Lamestream Media has taken to calling him isolated and withdrawn from the day to day performance of his duties.

But the possibility that the Iranians, emboldened by what they must surely believe to be the unlimited fecklessness of Mr. Obama, would embark on such a provocative course cannot be dismissed. If Mr. Obama will take no obvious, affirmative steps to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons it has repeatedly sworn to put to immediate, genocidal use, why should the Iranians worry about Mr. Obama's response to a much lesser provocation? What will he do? Threaten to impose really serious sanctions by a date certain, and this time—unlike all the previous times--he really, really, pinky swear, double dog dare, means it?

What must the Iranians think of our response thus far? We're imposing sanctions on individual Iranian spies? American firms won't be able to do business with them? Just how many Americans firms, pray tell, do a considerable portion of their business with Iranian operatives such that these sanctions will have any effect—other than provoking uproarious Iranian laughter—on Iran? Will the threat of treating their spies as common criminals accorded the full protections of the Constitution the Iranians not only refuse to recognize but see as a sign of weakness strike fear into the hearts of the hardened terrorist murderers running that despotic nation? Will it cause them to abandon their nuclear designs? Beg for mercy and forgiveness from Israel?

At least Hillary Clinton knows the score. Our own "Lady Of Jello" knows that Iran's action "violates international norms." She recognizes that Iran represents a "clearer and clearer threat." She believes that working with other nations might "further isolate Iran." This is a parody—right? Right?

On the international stage, Mr. Obama has made several noteworthy accomplishments. One of the most remarkable has been making the French seem—compared to Mr. Obama--resolute defenders of freedom. Another has been making it possible for fiscal basket case nations to lecture us on our economic policies. But the most truly noteworthy accomplishment of Barack Obama and his Administration has been the absolute transcendence of parody. Ironhawk? The Onion? Reality? Who can say with certainty? Who would wish to expend the effort?

It is not unreasonable to wonder if even a nuclear attack against Israel, American interests, or even America itself would provoke the Obama Administration to anything beyond strong language, a stirring invocation of the "international community" and "international norms," criminal charges against individuals and sanctions which might "further isolate Iran."

America—and the world—will be very fortunate indeed if our many enemies do not take advantage of what they must surely believe to be a historic opportunity between now and November of 2012. On the other hand, with leadership that bows to despots, reflexively supports Marxist and Islamist despots and which actually delivers arms to our deadly enemies as a cynical and incredibly stupid means of imposing anti-freedom domestic policies, do we really need enemies?

A Letter From The Teacher: Is Teaching A Profession?

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Bob, My Most Steamed Colleague
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: Is Teaching A Profession?

Dear Bob:

I read a column the other day wherein the author was spouting the usual thoughtless rhetoric: teaching isn't a profession; anyone can teach; public schools are utter failures--you know the drill. We've heard it a hundred times, but it does raise an interesting question: is teaching a profession? Regardless of the answer, there is a related question: are teachers professionals?

As you know, I'm a "professional" singer. I have a degree in voice. I'm a composer, arranger and conductor. I'm classically trained and have more than four decades of experience. I sing every year with a fine symphony orchestra performing the works of the masters, and with a fine chorale that only last year debuted a new work and also performed the Mozart Requiem Mass in Dm at Lincoln Center in New York City. The promoters, people who regularly hear the finest choirs in the world, honestly said that ours was the most professional choral sound they heard in many years. I'm actually paid to sing for a church choir, which I gladly do every week. I'm paid to do solo work upon occasion. All this and more, still I'm not, in the strictest sense of the word, a professional.

It might be wise to provide some definitions. I'm sure you'll agree that most Americans have been misusing these words their entire lives:

Neophyte: A beginner.

Amateur: One who does it for love.

Professional: One who makes their living from it; one who performs at the highest levels of their profession.

Many years ago in college I was offered the opportunity to pursue a master's in voice. I auditioned for a famous teacher under whom I would study. They said: "a big voice; could be an important voice. I could have been granted a scholarship, studied under great teachers and had the life of the unquestionably professional singer, always on the road, living out of a suitcase, constantly singing and hoping the voice stayed healthy. I turned it down. It just wasn't that important to me, and most importantly, I wanted to remain married (the smartest decision I've ever made; you know my wife). Had I chosen otherwise, I would have been, unquestionably, a professional. I would be making my living from my efforts while performing at the highest levels of my profession.

As it turned out, that ancient decision was smarter than I could have imagined, for about five years later I started getting the chronic sinus infections that plague me to this day. I've learned to deal with them, but they would have made my voice far too unreliable to sustain a true professional career. I've never regretted that decision.

So what am I now? I'm not a neophyte—a beginner—but I'm certainly an amateur. I do it because I love it, because it nourishes my soul. Yet I'm also paid for my work each and every week, and on other occasions. I certainly don't make the majority of my living from music, but I do make a not-inconsiderable amount of money.

What are missing are the four primary qualities of a true profession:

(1) The profession requires substantial and lengthy education, preparation and practice.

(2) Those in the profession set the standards for admission to the profession.

(3) Those in the profession set their own compensation.

(4) Those in the profession regulate the profession.

As a teacher, I'm arguably more of a professional than I am as a musician, at least in some ways. I make most of my living in the pursuit of teaching, and if my evaluations are to be believed, I perform at the highest levels of my chosen profession. I occasionally receive a bit of minor recognition for my work, but I'll never be "teacher of the year." I'm not a ruthless self-promoter and I don’t do the kinds of extra-curricular public relations garnering things that spark such awards. I'm certainly not a neophyte, yet I am an amateur, for I love it madly.

It is in the qualities of the true profession that we are potentially found wanting. Teaching certainly requires substantial lengthy and ongoing education, preparation and practice, but teachers surely don't set the admission standards of their profession. We certainly don't set our own compensation, and we don't regulate our professions. All of this is done by legislators and administrators. I know that some might argue that unions do it all, but even in union states, legislators still have control. Wisconsin teacher's unions, to their chagrin, can confirm the truth of that assertion. We don't hire and we don't fire and we don't stand in judgment of our fellows. In many ways, plumbers are more professionals than we.

However, teaching transcends these definitions. Good teachers, teachers performing at the highest levels of their profession, can accomplish great things. They can inspire those who resist inspiration. They awaken possibilities in those who never before imagined them, and they make such imaginings possible. They introduce kids to their better, wiser selves and send them off in pursuit of who they might, with effort, one day be.

Most importantly, we convince kids of the necessity of learning how to be in the instant, of paying attention. That's a hard lesson, a lesson the wise work a lifetime to implement, never with absolute success, yet without its life-long pursuit, no accomplishment of value is possible.

we'll never make six-figure salaries, but that doesn't matter. As with music, I'm content to be an amateur performing at the highest levels of my profession. After all, how much more can any of us hope to achieve? I'm doing what I love, where I want to do it, and I make a living more than merely adequate to my needs. Knowing that I do make a real difference in the lives of others makes the fact that I'll never be rich—even by the miniscule standards of Barack Obama—of no consequence.

When the bell rings and I close the classroom door, I'll be smiling every day. Ultimately the kids know the difference between the pros and those who are merely phoning it in.

That's what really matters---isn't it?

By the way, do you have any idea when we're going to be getting some Scotch tape? I'm just about ready to ask kids for used gum to stick things on the walls.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

Teaching certainly requires substantial lengthy and ongoing education, preparation and practice, such as returning to school or learning while working with online masters degree programs, but teachers surely don't set the admission standards of their profession.

Welcome to PoopStock

Here's all you need to know about the temper tantrum known as the "Occupy" movement, as a disgusting Occupy Wall Street denizen defecates on a NYPD car.

The photo seems verboten in the U.S. mainstream media that is cheering heavily for the movement as a counter to the Tea Party, even though the "Occupy" gatherings have nothing resembling a common cause, and seem to be nothing more than angry hipsters mad at everyone for not having an easy life of success handed to them on a plate, and union thugs trying to co-op the movement for their Democratic masters.

Crapping on America. That's Poopstock, and the "occupy" (bowel) movement in a nutshell (Credit for coining Poopstock goes to @SamValley).

Useful Idiots, Part II

"Revolution, man!"
"Yeah, like anarchy, man!"
"We're gonna take it back from the fat cats, man!"
"Power to the people!"

A bad LSB flashback to the 60s? Unfortunately, no. I refer to the "Occupy Wall Street" and similar protests that define "Astroturf" in a way never possible with the Tea Party. There are many parallels between the rebels without a clue of the 60s and these equally clueless children of privilege, including no understanding of the system they wish to overthrow or the horrors unleashed should they be successful.

As history has revealed, the protestors of the 60s really were "useful idiots," a derogatory term used by Marxists for their lackeys in democratic nations working toward the destruction of their own freedoms. Now, they're being manipulated by the same Marxist ideology, except this time the Marxists are in the White House and Congress.

For any member of Congress, or the President, circa 1965 to utter support for Marxist protesters would have been unimaginable. Now, it would be unimaginable only if people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama did not utter support, and they have not disappointed.

We live in irony-rich times indeed, yet never have so many been so irony-challenged. Witness the spectacle of protestors weighed down under the burden of the products of their oppressors: iPhones, video cameras, eyeglasses, iPads, designer jeans, laptops, Starbuck's coffees and all of the other hallmarks of industrialized society. Yet they argue for the destruction of all that they so witlessly take for granted, apparently unaware that food does not appear, neatly packaged, in the wild, nor do iPhones grow on trees.

Delightfully ironic is the fact that these contemporary rebels without a clue have unwittingly allied themselves with the ultimate manifestation of "The Man," the POTUS himself, the Marxist-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. Such alliances drag along a great many bureaucracies, chief—and most potentially destructive—among them: The Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.

According to Hot Air, the Institute for Energy Research has reported that as soon as January of 2012, EPA regulations tightly restricting coal-fired electric generating plants will almost instantly obliterate 28 gigawatts of America's electric capacity, or 8.9% of our total. The authors of the report call it "very conservative," and note that the estimates of others of a loss of up to 80 GW—app. 25% of our total capacity—is possible. In a democracy no president would allow this to happen. Losing even 5% of our capacity would be a catastrophe. Imposed upon us by a foreign power, it would surely be considered an act of war, yet Mr. Obama embraces it, fulfilling his pre-election promise to bankrupt the American coal industry. How can this be?

Mr. Obama, the POTUS, is a Marxist. Marxists care nothing for "the people," who are merely an abstraction, useful only in their temporary, situational utility to the state. Marxist leaders and their states have no conscience, recognize no limits on their power, and if history is any judge, inflict upon 'the people" terrible suffering such that it eventually destroy the very state they claim must be immortal, for Marxist theory can never be wrong, it can never be falsified even as the state crumbles around their ears.

Marxism is utterly incompatible with democracy. When these world views conflict, one must give way, which in our democracy causes Marxists to settle for varying degrees of Socialism just as leftist Bill Clinton was forced to settle for centrist policies. But Bill Clinton is not Barack Obama. Mr. Clinton was a conventional leftist American politician while Mr. Obama is an entirely different political animal.

The protestors want Revolution? Since the coronation of Mr. Obama, millions of patriotic Americans have been urgently motivated to return to the first principles of our Founders as embodied in Thomas Jefferson's 1787 aphorism:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

What, such Americans wonder, would be sufficient cause for rebellion? What would cause Americans to rise against the federal government?

Obamites freely call patriots contemplating these profound questions terrorists, radicals and worse, but how can those contemplating our foundational principles be radical? Our Founders well understood that freedom, once gained, is not eternally secured. They knew that the threat of armed conflict to regain freedom lost would always be present. They knew that it would once again become necessary to preserve liberty and to secure the inalienable rights of men, among them, life, liberty and property.

Marxists recognize and honor no such rights. They admit only to state-bestowed privileges which may be altered or revoked without notice or concern for the welfare, health or the very lives of "the people," they rhetorically claim to love and represent.

Here are the seeds of Revolution, but not the safe, secure Revolution imagined by the pampered children of privilege. Weak, unschooled mentally and physically in the arts of survival, they would be among the first to perish in the kind of conditions they foolishly seek to create. What might be the triggers of the real kind of Revolution the Founders foresaw?

Colonial Americans were far from united on the specific usurpations, or their degree, which might spur them to armed conflict against their Government. So it is today. Marxists recognize only that Revolution which brings them to power and which maintains it. American patriots seek that bright line, that trigger, hoping it is never necessary to cross it.

What conditions might provoke real Revolution? Running thousands of guns to Mexican killers to provoke support for gun control policies is a good start (remember, Marxist states have no conscience). National economic collapse such as the kind now more and more possible certainly will. Wiping out from 8.9 to 25% of our electric generating capacity surely will. The blackouts in periods of peak demand, particularly in southern and northern states, would cause unprecedented suffering, plunging entire regions of the nation into the social conditions of the late 1800s. Hundreds of thousands, even millions, will die with the elderly, the very young, and the ill among the first to perish. As food spoils in unpowered refrigerators, as water cannot be pumped to homes, as sewers no longer function, as trucks can no longer deliver food which can't be refrigerated anyway, as all manner of communications we have come to depend upon vanish essentially overnight, Americans will be provoked to unimaginable despair, desperation and rage.

They will be particularly provoked by the fact that none of it was necessary, by the indisputable fact that Barack Obama chose to make it happen and the Congress did not stop him. Americans watching children, parents, spouses and friends dying on the altar of environmental and Marxist economic purity will not be moved to tolerance, moderation and accommodation. None responsible will be safe.

Americans will put up with a very great deal, but the Obamites and the rebels without a clue occupying Wall Street foolishly seek to implement policies that will inevitably unleash forces they are utterly unprepared to resist and which they will not survive.

Am I advocating armed rebellion? Certainly not, but even as staunch a liberal as Hubert H. Humphrey understood these issues:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

I pray that sufficient Americans will oppose, through democratic means, all of Mr. Obama's usurpations, and will correct our national mistake in 2012. To whatever degree Americans have been forced to contemplate rebellion, the fault rests on the doorstep of the White House.

We appreciate aphorisms because they not only remind us of our essential nature, but illuminate useful, universal truths. Obamites and faux-rebels would be wise to heed this one:

"Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it."

The Literature Corner: Desperate Love

One common problem that drives police officers crazy is domestic violence. There are few people more despised by the police than those who harm children or women—maybe people who hurt animals—but the situation is often not as clear-cut as some would has us believe. Officers are always careful in such situations, for as they handcuff and try to remove the offending male, the battered, bleeding woman may very well attack them. The fact that battered women often return to their abusers despite Herculean efforts by officers and others in the system is also a major cause of frustration and disgust.

This edition of The Literature Corner pays a true, early morning visit to the ravaged apartment of just such a couple as related in court.

Desperate Love

“And after Officer Doucett asked for backup, what did you do?”

The prosecutor, a young guy fresh out of law school, was nervous. It was one of his first serious (multiple felony) cases and he was doing his best not to look like the neophyte he was. The bad guy was pleading guilty after a particularly disastrous (for him) preliminary hearing and I was testifying at the sentencing hearing before the judge. He plead guilty to two of four felony counts so he was looking at a maximum of only 20 instead of 50 years in the pen. And who knows? Maybe he’d be able to cry some crocodile tears, sloppily profess heartfelt remorse, and the judge would be suckered into giving him probation. Couldn’t hurt to try.

“I was only a few blocks away, so I immediately drove to the apartment complex. While I was still on the way, Officer Doucett radioed for me to cover the north side of the building, so I parked at that side and approached on foot.”

“Did Officer Doucett tell you why he needed help and who was involved?”

“Yes Sir. He told me that Terry Wilson attacked a woman in the apartment, and wouldn’t let her out. He said that he was afraid he would harm the woman.”

“And did you know Terry Wilson?”

“Yes Sir.”

“How did you know Terry Wilson, Officer?”

“I had several past contacts with Mr. Wilson for a variety of reasons, including drunk driving, assault and domestic violence.”

“So you knew Mr. Wilson to be potentially violent?”

“That’s correct.”

The defense attorney--a public defender--wasn’t going to object. He and I were friendly, and he knew I wouldn’t go overboard to dump on his client. Besides, his client had already admitted the offense. The judge only needed to get a more immediate sense of what happened--that and read the pre-sentencing report from the probation office--before rendering a verdict. If the defense raised unnecessary, obstructive objections, it would only annoy the judge, and that wouldn’t help his client.

“What happened then, Officer?”

“I noticed that one of the windows was broken--someone broke it from the inside out--and I could hear people screaming inside. A woman, who I later learned was Anita McComb, came to the window and screamed something at me. I was able to make out ‘help,’ but not much else. She was crying, her head was bleeding, her blouse was torn, and she looked very upset. It appeared that someone suddenly pulled her back out of sight, but I couldn’t see them. It was dark inside the apartment.”

The apartment was one in a large development of low income, subsidized housing units. We had many, many calls there. I didn’t need to mention that. Everyone in the courtroom was familiar with the place. By "everybody" I mean the judge, the prosecutor, the defendant, his attorney, the court reporter, a deputy, me and two other attorneys waiting for their cases. There is seldom TV-like drama in such cases in the real world.

“Did something cause you to go to the front of the apartment, Officer?”

“Yes Sir. I called Officer Doucett on the radio and told him what I saw. Within seconds, he called back and told me that he was kicking in the front door. I ran around to the front--the south side--of the building just in time to see Officer Doucett and Officer Bower break through the door. I entered the apartment just behind Officer Doucett with Officer Bower right behind me.”

“And what did you find inside the apartment?”

“The only visible light was coming from the upstairs, which was at the opposite side of the apartment from us. What I could see of the apartment was a mess. Chairs and a couch were overturned, and there were several fresh holes in the drywall. We were all stuck in a narrow entrance hallway, and Mr. Wilson was standing several feet in front of us, holding an aerosol can of some kind in one hand and a Bic-type lighter in the other. Ms. McComb was sitting on the floor several yards behind Mr. Wilson. She was bleeding profusely from a large cut above her left eyebrow, and she was dazed. She was moaning and crying.”

“And what time did you say this was again, Officer?”

“It was about 3:10 in the morning when we entered the apartment, Sir.”

“I see. You said that Mr. Wilson was holding an aerosol can and a lighter. Was this significant, even dangerous?”

The defense attorney tensed and began to rise from his chair. He appeared to be about to object to the “dangerous” part. I paused and everyone looked toward him like some kind of dramatic movie moment when someone leaps up and identifies the real killer, but he thought better of it, relaxed and sat down. Everyone relaxed and I continued. “Yes Sir. Mr. Wilson was pointing the aerosol can at us, his finger on the spray top. The hand holding the lighter was at his side. He had an odd look on his face. He was grinning, but he looked angry. All he had to do was raise the lighter, light it, and hold it in front of the aerosol can to make a field expedient flame-thrower. We were packed tightly into the narrow hallway; we couldn’t easily retreat.”

“What happened then?”

“He screamed some sort of bizarre war cry and began to move toward us. I delivered a front thrust kick to his leading thigh. It rattled him and stopped him in his tracks. He didn’t see what I did, but it surprised him. I stopped him within arm's length of us. There wasn’t any doubt in my mind that if he ignited the aerosol can we would be in range. I drew my handgun and took a ready position and Officer Doucett ordered him to drop the can and lighter.”

“A ready position?”

“Yes Sir (I was always unfailingly polite to every attorney; it made defense lawyers look hostile and unsympathetic to judges and juries). My handgun was pointing downward, approximately at Mr. Wilson’s belt line and my finger was off the trigger. It allows me to see what he is doing, but to fire quickly and accurately if necessary.”

“And had the other officers also drawn their weapons?”

“Yes Sir, they had.” I didn’t mention that Bower, Doucett’s trainee, was very hyped up, and that the muzzle of his .40 S&W Glock, which was visibly shaking from his adrenaline-fueled death grip, was nearly against my left ear. If he fired, I’d lose an eardrum at the least. People just don’t realize how loud gunfire is in enclosed spaces. They’re used to the movies where heroes blast off thousands of rounds indoors without the slightest discomfort. Bower wasn’t experienced enough to know better--he was completely focused on what he could see of Wilson--and I couldn’t afford to take my attention off Wilson to calm him down. Things were moving very quickly.

“What happened then, Officer?”

“Officer Doucett kept ordering Mr. Wilson to drop the aerosol can and the lighter, but he didn’t. I locked eyes with him and as I did, I felt that he was trying to decide if he wanted to die. He knew if he raised the lighter the second he tried to light it, we’d fire. Again, we had no way to retreat or duck. His eyes hardened--he made a decision--and I put my finger on the trigger and began to take up the slack. Just before I had to bring the muzzle online and complete the pull, he suddenly dropped the lighter and aerosol can and raced for the back of the apartment, toward the stairs and the light.”

“How close were you to firing, Officer?” The prosecutor was doing a pretty good job, and he was fascinated by the story. The judge was leaning forward, listening intently too. The defendant--Wilson--was avoiding eye contact with me. He looked very nervous.

“It’s hard to say exactly. Within a few pounds of the seven pound trigger pull of my weapon, perhaps.”

Wilson winced.

“What happened then?”

“We immediately ran after Mr. Wilson. We had no idea if he was running for another weapon or trying to escape. He hit Ms. McComb on the head with his fist as he sprinted past her. She cried out and fell to the floor. Mr. Wilson sprinted up the steps and turned right into a bedroom with Officer Doucett just behind him. As I rounded the corner, I saw Mr. Wilson throw a punch that glanced off Officer’s Doucett’s forehead. Officer Doucett grabbed Mr. Wilson and punched him in the face several times. Mr. Wilson fell to the floor, but continued to struggle wildly. We all grabbed Mr. Wilson, and after a brief struggle, handcuffed him.”

“Was Officer Doucett injured?”

“I could see a darkening red spot on his forehead that was beginning to swell.”

“Was Mr. Wilson injured?”

“A little blood was trickling from his left nostril, but other than that, he appeared to be unhurt and he continued to struggle with and scream at us.”

“Did Mr. Wilson ever cooperate with you after that?”

“Not really Sir. He continued to scream and began to spit at us. Officer Doucett and Officer Bower held his arms and head, so he couldn’t spit on them and pretty much had to carry him down the stairs. He was screaming obscenities, kicking, and trying to wedge himself against the walls so we couldn’t remove him. When we reached the ground floor, he continued to struggle, and tried to kick Ms. McComb as we moved him past her, but Officer Doucett and Officer Bower pulled him away and he missed. When we reached the entrance hallway, he managed to kick several large holes in the walls, but we finally carried him outside.”

“What happened then?” Wilson was avoiding making eye contact with anyone. He wasn’t exactly looking like a saint and he knew it.

“Officer Doucett and Officer Bower tried to put him in the back seat of their vehicle, but he would not sit down and braced his legs against the car body. We tried to calm him down and asked him to come with us, but he became even more angry and violent and narrowly missed biting Officer Bower on the ear.”

I didn’t mention that Bower made a rookie mistake and left his ear hanging in range of Wilson’s teeth. I saw what was going to happen and pushed Wilson’s head away at the last instant. If I hadn’t, Bower would have looked like he went a few rounds with Mike Tyson.

“What did you do then, Officer?”

“I put him in a vascular neck restraint and encouraged him to cooperate.”

“What is that?”

“It’s a technique that momentarily restricts blood flow to the brain by compressing the carotid arteries on either side of the neck. It causes no permanent harm, and causes temporary unconsciousness.”

“Did he cooperate then?”

“Yes Sir. Just before he passed out, he agreed to cooperate and we were able to seat him in Officer Doucette’s car. He was pretty woozy and didn’t act up again for awhile.”

“Did you speak with Ms. McComb?”

“Yes. Officer Doucette asked me to conduct the investigation while he took Mr. Wilson to jail.”

“What did you learn?”

I opened my mouth to speak…

“Uh, your honor, to save the court’s time, “ the defense attorney interrupted, “we would stipulate to the Officer’s report regarding the subsequent investigation.” Good move. He didn’t want me to say what McComb told me aloud. If I did, it might be more effective--more harmful to his client--than if the judge merely read it.

“Mr. Berman?” The judge asked the prosecutor for his take on the issue.

“Your honor, surely the officer can testify to what he saw and heard.”

The judge turned to me. “Officer, I’ve read your report. Does it fairly and completely represent your findings?” I’d appeared before him often before. He knew my reports were very detailed and complete and that I didn’t take liberties with the truth, but he was asking for the record to avoid being overturned on appeal.

“Yes your honor, it does,” I replied.

“Very well. The court is satisfied; move on Mr. Berman.”

“Yes your honor. Officer, is there anything else you’d like to add?”

“Just that I have only come so close to having to shoot another human being just a few times in my career. I don’t know why he decided to drop the aerosol can and lighter, but if he had not, I almost certainly would have fired within the next few fractions of a second. I don’t like having to make that choice.”

“Do you believe that he would have caused serious bodily harm or death to you or the other officers if he used the flame thrower?”

“I have no doubt of it.”

In fact, our evidence section tested the aerosol can and lighter to be sure they worked--they did--and bought an identical aerosol (it was a type of hair spray) and lighter and videotaped a fully suited and helmeted firefighter touching it off. It was a pretty spectacular sight, and the flame would have nailed us. We could have been burned or blinded--that’s “serious bodily harm” under the law and ample justification for shooting. After seeing the video in the preliminary hearing, the defense wisely decided they didn’t want a jury to see that in a trial and quickly did a plea bargain.

“And would you have killed Mr. Wilson if you had to fire?”

“I would certainly have stopped him.” The prosecutor didn’t know the game very well, but caught on quickly and dropped it. We always testify that we shoot only to stop, to stop the bad guy from doing what he was doing that gave us justification to shoot him in the first place, never to kill. If he dies as a result of being stopped, good for us/bad for him, but the point is stopping, not killing.

I sat in as Wilson did the obligatory performance. He was very, very, very sorry that he attacked and injured Ms. McComb, his live-in girlfriend. He was off the booze and drugs, found a job and was attending anger management classes. How many times had I heard those lame lines before at sentencing hearings? And oh yes, he desperately loved Ms. McComb (who got her stitches out only last week), who was again happily living with her one true love, Mr. Wilson. Ain’t love grand? Love is a many-splintered thing. He even managed to cry a little, but the tears were far more because he got caught than for his girlfriend.

The judge gave him ten years probation with a variety of completely unreasonable requirements he couldn’t help but break: Obeying the law and not drinking or using drugs among them. I suppose it was a reasonable sentence. He had a ton of misdemeanor convictions, but this was his first felony.

What happened to Wilson? Within a few months--to no one’s surprise--he violated probation by getting stoned, roaring drunk and beating up his one true love. He became a guest of the state for the next five years and change.

She was there, bruised, freshly stitched, weeping and desperately clutching as the Sheriff’s van left, heading east for the Pen, carrying Terry Wilson. Love can be desperate indeed.

Holder vs White House: Who Is Accountable?

Game on.

Gunwalker, Guerena and Self Protection

For those interested in a bit of web-surfing, you might want to take a trip over to Pajamas Media where the good folks there are kind enough to publish me. I have a new article up on the Gurenea case. For those who have been reading my detailed posts here, it's nothing new—actually a summary of the last several updates for general consumption—but it's a pretty decent summary. Of course, I may be somewhat biased in that assessment… In any case, it's fun to read the many comments and PJM is a first class blog. If you don't know it, by all means, visit regularly. Bob has a great new Gunwalker article there too.

I've also been asked to write for the Gun Values Board and just posted a little article on the fact that the Police generally cannot be sued for failure to protect any individual citizen. The lesson: We're on our own; we're responsible for our own protection. For those who read my five-part article on gun ownership and the reasons therefore in the last year, it's a shorter version of one of those articles, but again, it's a pretty decent summary and a nice blog with which to acquaint yourself.

A Hilariously Unscientific Poll

Consider this scenario: You have been told, at least five weeks in a row, by memo—memos it is your job to read and act upon—that something very wrong is happening. You do nothing, and things blow up in everyone's face. The boss asks you about it, and you tell him that you have no idea what's going on; you only found out about it when things blew up. He says: "Oh, OK then."

Right. How about if you say: "Oh, I didn't understand your question." Or "I was responding to another question about some other context." How about: "Memos? What memos? I never saw any memos." Or better yet: "Memos? I don't read memos!"

Q: What is the chance of keeping your job:

A) Zero
B) Zip
C) Less than nothing
D) Hahahahahahahahaha—gasp---hahahahaha! Keep your job?! Hahahahaha…

Comes now Tina Korbe at Hot Air who writes:

"It was never a comforting thought to think the Attorney General just can’t be bothered to read his weekly briefings, but it was at least plausible to think Eric Holder overlooked one or two memos about the pernicious and fatal Fast and Furious program. But make that five memos and the AG’s incompetence and negligence appear especially gross:
Senator Chuck Grassley and Congressman Darrell Issa today said that Attorney General Eric Holder received at least five weekly memos beginning in July 2010, including four weeks in a row, describing the ill-advised strategy known as Operation Fast and Furious. The memos were to Holder from Michael Walther, the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center.

The Attorney General told Issa during a House Judiciary Committee in May 2011 that he had just learned of Fast and Furious a few weeks before. Yet, on January 31, in a previously scheduled meeting, Grassley personally handed him two letters about Fast and Furious. Grassley and Issa said they find it very troubling that Holder actually knew of Operation Fast and Furious much earlier, and in greater detail than he ever let on.

The memos specifically said that the straw buyers were 'responsible for the purchase of 1500 firearms that were then supplied to Mexican drug trafficking cartels.'”

Mr. Obama also weighed in at a press conference on Thursday:

"I think both Holder and I would have been very unhappy if someone had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America."

So we now know:

1) Senator Chuck Grassley, on January 31, gave AG Holder specific information about Fast and furious.

2) Holder received at least five weekly briefings, very specific briefings, about the case beginning in July 2010.

3) In May of 2011, Holder told Rep. Daryl Issa in a congressional hearing, under oath, that he heard of the case only a few weeks earlier.

I'll give Ms. Korbe the benefit of the doubt and literary license for understatement. Is it plausible that Mr. Holder missed a memo or two? It's plausible. However, let's consider that Mr. Holder is a man intimately involved in an Administration famous of power mongering, ignoring the law, and micromanagement. Let's further consider his absolutely mind-blowing, bald-faced lying regarding his role in securing a pardon for Marc Rich. Incompetence? Negligence? Certainly, but that doesn't account for what now appears to be absolute proof that Mr. Holder was lying under oath.

I caught Lanny Davis, former Clinton lawyer and Democrat apologist on the O'Reilly Factor last night. He suggested—and this with a straight face—that Holder has no reason to lie. Well, apart from the fact that he may be implicated in multiple federal crimes including conspiracy, murder, treason, terrorism, etc., I'd have to agree with Mr. Davis. Yup. No reason to lie at all.

Gentle readers, let's hear from you. What do you say about these three questions:

1) Is AG Holder lying?

2) Is Mr. Obama involved (and lying)?

3) Did they push Gunwalker to build support for anti-gun policies they couldn't obtain through the Congress?

Could Obama Administration Officials Face Life in Prison or Death Penalty Charges for Gunwalker?

Allegations are that the Obama Administration had gun-walking operations in at least 10 cities in 5 states, including the Midwest and East Coast states. The operations were not feeding weapons just to cartels, but street gangs, contributing to the murder of an unknown (for now) number of American citizens, in addition to hundreds of deaths in Mexico.

If we take Operation Fast and Furious (2,020) guns and assume it was one of the larger operations, and from that assume an average operation provided half that amount (1,010), we're looking at an estimate of 10,100 guns.

If we assume OFF was a representative sample of the number of guns an average Obama Administration gun-walking program distributed, we're looking at 20,200 guns given to criminals, enough to arm a U.S. Army division.

It seems reasonable to assume that our President, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney General were responsible for contributing to what U.S. code defines as international terrorism, and what could very much fit the definition of treason.

Our President and members of his Cabinet have committed the most serious criminal crimes in American political history, and could face the rest of their lives behind bars or execution for it.

Do you understand yet why they will fight this tooth and nail? The people will do anything to save their own necks, and have already demonstrated that your lives mean nothing to them.

Is this sinking in yet?

Quick Takes, October 5, 2011

ITEM: They WHAT?! The Holder Justice Department has filed criminal charges against Continental Oil and six other oil companies hard at work in North Dakota. Their vile crime? Killing 28 birds which were not endangered species. Harold Hamm, owner of Continental thinks the Obamites are harassing oil producers. I think he's right. Go here to read the entire story (much more than just birds), which will make you, hopping, screaming mad. These people really are trying to harm America. What other explanation is possible?

ITEM: When You Look In The Dictionary Under "Class," You Find Her Picture. My co-blogger, Brigid, recently teamed up with another stunning woman to take a friend suffering from cancer to the Indianapolis Symphony. If you want to see what class and kindness are all about, visit her blog here and here.

ITEM: Even Hollywood Couldn't Come Up With This One: A star soccer player is made a kicker on the high school football team and kicks a personal record 31 yard field goal that wins the game. The hometown crowd goes wild! On top of that, they're crowned homecoming royalty at halftime. What's the catch? She's a girl. Is that cool or what? Drop by Fox news for the story. It will put a smile on your face.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Media Manufactured News Division: By now, most people have heard that Texas Governor Rick Perry is a racist. The evidence is, according to the Lamestream Media, damning. It appears that around two decades ago, he and his father leased some land for hunting and somewhere on that land, carved into a flat rock, was the place name that had the prefix "nigger." Some people who hunted on the land with the Perrys apparently saw it. Perry's father not only painted over the rock, he lay it face down on the ground. I don't know about you, but I'm shocked, shocked(!) that the media would pull a stunt like this, particularly against a Republican. Interestingly, a great many Texans of the black persuasion are coming to Perry's defense. Go here for the story. This sounds suspiciously like Democrat and Media desperation, doesn't it? Discuss.

ITEM: Pigs Are Rocketing Into Space and Hell Has Frozen Over! Yes, gentle readers, Barack Obama has admitted that Americans are not better off than they were four years ago! Go here for a story about something you never imagined you might see. What's his angle for this particular con?

ITEM: Louis Renault Award, Lying, Sleazy Politician Division: Here's the quote:

“'No I don’t,' the president said when asked directly if he regretted the $535 billion federal loan guarantee in 2009. 'Because if you look at the overall portfolio of loan guarantees that had been provided, overall it’s doing well. And what we always understood is that not every single business is going to succeed in clean energy.'…
'[The loan] went through the regular review process and people felt like this was a good bet,' he added."

Mr. Obama is speaking of the spectacularly failed solar panel maker, Solyndra. The twist is that virtually every day, new evidence surfaces to indicate that Mr. Obama was directly told—many times by many people—that Solyndra was milliseconds from bankruptcy and he approved the loan guarantee anyway. I'm shocked, shocked(!) to learn that Mr. Obama would do such a thing and would lie about it! Shocked! Hey, he's the President! Who you gonna believe? Him or your own lyin' eyes and ears?

But wait, there's more! That's right ladies and gentlemen, not only can you throw half a billion down the toilet, you can up the ante with another half billion, but hurry before the company goes bankrupt before they can cash the second check! Call now and we'll double our offer! Head to Powerline if you really feel the need to be angry today.

ITEM: Department of Blazing Irony: After the Supreme Court vacated gun control laws in DC and Chicago, politicians and the usual gun control weenies predicted mass slaughter and blood running in the streets. In both cities, precisely the opposite happened. Fox News is virtually the only news outlet covering the story. In all of my years in police work, it was absolutely clear that criminals feared armed citizens far more than they feared the police and would go far out of their way to avoid them. But of course I know this because I was open to common sense and reality. Neither has anything to do with the gun control agenda. Discuss.

ITEM: How Is Barack Obama Bad For Business? Let Me Count The Ways. A bad paraphrase of Shakespeare, but Rick Moran writes an interesting article on a former Obama supporter whose financial self-interest has apparently induced a formerly unnoticed degree of rationality. Drop by the American Thinker to read the brief but informative article.

ITEM: She's Getting Away With Murder! So goes the thinking of some in the Amanda Knox case in Italy. If you'd like to read a brief but definitive article on the reality of this case, John Hinderaker at PowerLine is your man. For the record, I agree entirely with his conclusions. Be glad that Knox is free and once again on American soil.

ITEM: While Fools And Charlatans Demonize Business and Businessmen, men and women immeasurably their betters change the world. Steve Jobs, the co-founder and CEO of Apple Computer, who died Wednesday was just such a man. Jobs' contributions to humankind are real and indisputable and will be remembered and lauded long after the political twits that denigrated those like him and tried to cripple their companies will have faded into well-deserved obscurity. Godspeed Steve. Requiescat in pacem.

ITEM: Preaching To The Choir: I suspect that most people reading this have been enjoying Chris Muir's Day By Day for quite awhile. If not, you owe it to yourself to visit daily. It's one of the smartest, most entertaining toons in the business. My day is certainly not complete without it. Do yourself a favor. Don't you deserve it?

ITEM: Whoda Thunk It? Who could have imagined that the Obama Administration would set its sights on destroying the domestic guitar industry? With its recent raid on Gibson, it is doing just that. Of course, for Marxists, it's all about control and power. The lives of individuals mean nothing and businesses fare no better. Their value lies only in their utility to the state. Go here for a Fox New article about how Mr. Obama is spreading out to destroy portions of American productivity unimaginable only months ago.

ITEM: Louis Renault Award: Spitting On The Rule Of Law Division. Rep. Paul Gosar (R. AZ) is less than thrilled with the Obama Administration, saying that is is "showing an intentional, wanton disregard for the law," relating to Gunwalker. I'm shocked, shocked (!) that anyone could think that the most transparent and ethical administration in history would even think of violating any law! Cough! Choke! Gag! Whew! Even I can't take that much sarcasm! Go here for the story.

ITEM: Superior Temperament Department: Oh yeah, the Obamites are supposed to be the epitome of cool, unless, of course, they think you're not praising them sufficiently. See what happens when a reporter dare question them. It's not pretty.

ITEM: Media Integrity Department: In a related story, it now appears that CBS is pulling an Obama—probably for Obama—and putting Sharyl Attkisson, its reporter working on Gunwalker, under wraps. Hard to be believe, isn't it? Nah. I don't think so either. Here's the story. Haven’t these people learned anything from Rathergate?

ITEM: Hating "Firefly" is Un-American! Well, I think so anyway. So does FIRE. Go here to see lefty academics getting what's coming to them. Heh-heh.

ITEM: So How's That HopenChange Workin' Out For Ya? In the greenie world, not so well. For an investment of a mere $200 million of our money, the Obama Administration has managed to reduce the workforce at one green company by 100 to 150 employees. Oh dear. Now they're not creating a miniscule number of jobs at millions each, they're actually spending millions each to lose jobs! That's what Progressivism is all about: Progress!

ITEM: What Would It Be Like to be deaf for 29 years, and suddenly, to hear? Visit this moving video to find out. If you don't feel joy at this one, you do not—as Rick Perry said—have a heart.

And with that heart-warming story, I must bid you a fond farewell for now and encourage you, once again, to stop by for another edition of Quick Takes next week!

Round and Round

I owe Mike a big thanks for keeping up with the posting here at CY, as I've been preoccupied between a bad ear infection with vertigo and keeping up with Gunwalker. Check out my feed on Pajamas Media, where I've been updating on the Administration's gun-walking fiasco.

It's getting uglier by the day.

Guns, Irony and Prosperity

Time for a bit of heresy: In a way, I almost hope Barack Obama is reelected. Now I've done it. I know if he is reelected America is in deep trouble, Marianas Trench-deep trouble from which we may never escape, but I speak entirely selfishly. Mr. Obama has arguably been the greatest producer of political topics and satire for bloggers in American history. I have no doubt that Bill Clinton might have been in the running, particularly where steamy content and sexually oriented cheap and easy puns are concerned, but it wasn't until after he left office—literally with White House silverware and furnishings—that the blogosphere really took off as a true alternative to the Lamestream Media. We have Dan Rather to thank for that, which is a delicious morsel of irony in and of itself.

Allow me to clarify my heresy: I'll do all I can to defeat Mr. Obama and to overturn virtually everything he did. However, it is entirely reasonable to assert that the "most transparent Administration in history" has been a particularly rich source of hypocrisy, self-parody, outrage, and above all, irony. A prime example is the fact that Mr. Obama is arguably the greatest gun salesman of all time. A slightly less hilarious and tasty counterpart is that in destroying America's economy, he is driving America's gunmakers out of their traditional, coastal, elite environments into the welcoming arms of the bumpkins of Flyover Country, thus further impoverishing his base. Self-defeating irony doesn't get a lot better than that.

An August 9, 2011 story in the New York Times (I said this was ironic!) by Timothy Williams makes clear two trends: Firearms makers in the Northeast and California are considering moving away from the anti-gun, anti-business climates of their traditional, even historic home bases, and midwestern and southern states are competing to be their new homes. Considering the economy and the Obama Administration's never-ending anti-business policies and regulations, even New York Senator Chuck Schumer—one of the most anti-gun senators in American history—is getting on the bandwagon:

"In New York, Senator Charles E. Schumer issued a news release in May praising Remington after it agreed to move a factory from Maine, bringing with it 40 to 50 jobs.

The release made no mention of Senator Schumer’s record supporting gun control. Instead, it said Mr. Schumer had 'led the effort in Congress to repeal the law that limited competition for small arms contracts, so that Remington can now compete for small arms contracts with the Department of Defense.'”

Life doesn't get much more ironic than that.

For nearly two decades, South Dakota has been working to attract gun manufacturers. Many famous manufacturers of high-quality, top dollar firearms have relocated there, including HS Precision and Bar-Sto Precision Machine. SD Governor Dennis Daugaard actively recruits at gun and trade shows:

“'When we approach gun makers, we first make the cultural argument,' said Gov. Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota, a hunter… “People in business want to feel their business is wanted and welcome in the communities where they are located. In South Dakota, the culture is there. We don’t regulate firearms businesses out of existence.”

Irv Stone, owner of Bar-Sto Precision Machine, which makes competition pistols, moved to Sturgis, S.D., from California last year because he said he found it increasingly difficult to operate in an environment where guns are shunned.

'The cultural thing is like night and day,' he said. 'I felt like the bastard child in California. It is not a firearms culture. In California, it was like: ‘Eww, firearms. Really?’ Here, on the other hand, you are looked at kind of weird: ‘Oh, you don’t shoot or fish? What do you do?’"

Draconian firearms regulations have also encouraged gun makers to move. Micro-stamping is a technology that would require specialized firing pins, perhaps even extractors and chambers that imprint unique identifying markings on fired casings. Research has shown the technology to be highly unreliable at best. Requiring it would increase manufacturing costs and retail prices, and it can be defeated merely by swapping parts or the application of five minutes of filing. Aluminum or steel cartridge casings can defeat the technology entirely. It is particularly ineffective in revolvers which do not eject fired brass, and even where semiautomatic firearms are involved, all an enterprising criminal need do is pick up the fired brass. Manufacturers are, to say the least, unimpressed:

"Gun manufacturers say proposed micro-stamping laws could drive Colt out of Connecticut and Remington out of New York, which are among more than half a dozen states where the legislation has been introduced. California, which employs more firearms industry workers than any other state, has already approved a micro-stamping law that is pending.

Carlton S. Chen, a vice president at Colt, said the company would have few qualms about leaving Connecticut if micro-stamping became law.

'At that point, we and other firearms manufacturers doing business in Connecticut would need to seriously consider whether we should completely move ourselves out of Connecticut and relocate to a friendlier state,' Mr. Chen said in written testimony to a state legislative committee in 2008. 'The upshot would be a loss of thousands of jobs.'”

Illinois, home of pay to play and thuggish government, land where the dead rise from the grave for elections and almost exclusively vote Democrat, is also driving out manufacturers:

"And in Illinois, home to several large firearms manufacturers, a law would ban assault rifles and would prohibit manufacturers from selling guns to state residents.

In recent years, Illinois has lost Les Baer Custom Inc., a small company that moved to Iowa, as well as 1,000 Winchester jobs."

Not that Illinois is getting the message:

"Marcelyn Love, spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity wrote in an e-mail, 'I am not aware of an increased effort by other states to lure specific manufacturing sectors from Illinois.'”

Perhaps Ms. Love might want to get in touch with Winchester and Les Baer.

This trend is not entirely Mr. Obama's fault of course, but it is precisely the Statist philosophy embraced by the blue states--which Mr. Obama embodies--that is all but forcing historic firearm companies to move to states where the political and cultural climates are far more welcoming, and where making a profit is actually understood to be a good thing for a private business to do.

Still, some blue states are fighting back—while simultaneously shooting themselves in the foot by pushing policies like micro-stamping:

"But the attempted poaching of its gun makers is not being taken lightly in Massachusetts, which is home to Smith & Wesson, the nation’s largest handgun manufacturer (founded in 1852) and the Savage Arms Company (1894), or in neighboring Connecticut, where Colt (1836), the Marlin Firearms Company (1870) and O. F. Mossberg & Sons (1919) are located.

In 2005, this small region produced 1.8 million firearms, according to the Western Massachusetts Economic Development Council, about one-third of all firearms made in the country.

…Massachusetts has published a brochure promoting its firearms makers that traces the state’s gun culture back to 1777, when George Washington chose Springfield as the site of the country’s first arsenal.

…last year, when Massachusetts sought to ensure that Smith & Wesson stayed in Springfield, the state gave the company $6 million in tax credits to relocate one of its New Hampshire factories there. While the factory employs a modest 225 people, Massachusetts wanted to make sure the company would not start shifting operations elsewhere."

Despite a horrendously anti-gun, high-tax, and insane regulatory climate, Smith and Wesson is staying in Massachusetts—for now.

Here’s some additional irony: should Mr. Obama win a second term, the economy would almost certainly continue to decline, forcing more and more businesses and manufacturers—including gun makers—to more business friendly states with rational tax and regulatory climates, with low costs of living and welcoming populations. The more Democrats win, the more their stronghold states lose. Regardless of federal policy, blue states are increasingly cutting their own economic throats, benefitting the red states they so disdain.

Perhaps the ultimate irony, even more delightful than Mr. Obama's inadvertent support for the firearms industry he would be overjoyed to obliterate is the reality that he, in only a single term, may well accomplish more to advance gun ownership, the movement of manufacturers to states where they can expand and prosper, and will have increased the total number of guns and gun owners far more than any Conservative president could ever hope to do. Now that's ironic joy.

Until The Produce Evidence I'm Calling Bullsh*t: AP Spins for Obama About Operation Wide Receiver

I don't buy any of this:

The federal government under the Bush administration ran an operation that allowed hundreds of guns to be transferred to suspected arms traffickers — the same tactic that congressional Republicans have criticized President Barack Obama's administration for using, two federal law enforcement officials said Tuesday.

...

When Bush, a Republican, was president, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Tucson, Ariz., used a similar enforcement tactic in a program it called Operation Wide Receiver. The fact that there were two such ATF investigations years apart in separate administrations raises the possibility that agents in still other cases may have allowed guns to "walk."

It's damn funny the Associated Press sources Wide Receiver to Bush, when in October of 2010 Obama's minions at the DOJ were passing memos indicating that Wide Receiver was still sealed, and mentioned in a current context along with Fast and Furious and a third unnamed operation.

I would love for AP's Pete Yost to explain who in the Obama Administration told him that Wide Receiver was walking guns in the Bush years. I'm not saying Wide Receiver didn't exist in 2006 or 2007, I'm just not buying the gun-walking angle.

This reeks of political gamesmanship, and I'm not buying the word of anonymous embattled DOJ officials who haven't produced the first bits of evidence to support their claims.

A Letter From The Teacher: How Hard-Working Are Teachers?

Anytown High School, Any State, USA

To: Mr. McClintock
From: Mr. English Teacher
Re: How Hard-Working Are Teachers?

Dear Mr. McClintock:

I'm glad you appreciate my newest monthly parent newsletter. I've always thought it's important to keep parents aware of what we're doing. I'm one of those teachers that love to have parents visit my classroom, yet it is an incredibly rare experience. I know that most parents work during the day, but I can still hope. Regarding your other questions, that was indeed my car you saw parked in front of the school on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday nights, and most of the day on Saturday too. I was there because I was grading papers, making copies, making lesson plans and in general, preparing for the kids. That's pretty much my usual weekly schedule during the school year.

May I suggest you read this short post from one of my favorite bloggers, Bookworm? She writes about how hard teachers work. Her observations were occasioned by a recent comment by Mr. Obama, who was no doubt trying to boost the fortunes of his union allies:

"Teachers are the men and women who might be working harder than just about anyone these days."

As Bookworm observes, I'm not sure that's terribly accurate. In fact, particularly regarding education, I'm pretty sure it's not, at least not as a general, all-inclusive proposition. I'll have to be careful here, as I risk insulting just about everybody one way or another. Let me start by telling you about my principles and schedule.

During the school year, my students and my obligation to them is absolutely my first priority. My wife—also a teacher—feels the same way. I hate missing school for any reason and often attend while sick as long as I'm probably not contagious and am at least reasonably functional. I think I've missed three days due to illness in the last decade, and I've taken only two personal days in the same period.

I also adhere to a principle that I find to be more and more rare: I hand back work, completely graded, the day after I receive it. I do this because I believe that if I expect kids to be interested and involved in their work, it must be fresh in their minds. What good is an essay that I hand back two weeks later? They'll simply file and forget it, learning nothing. By the way, that's why I write their grade at the very end of any essay. They have to look for it and they're far more likely to actually read what I've taken the time to write on their papers. I tell them I expect them to do that anyway. But as I say, I don't know any other teacher in my building that strives to do this, not on a regular basis at least.

Because I'm an English teacher, I expect to do more work than many of my colleagues in other disciplines. My general observation is that I do more actual work—at least as observable by time spent in the classroom after school hours—than most of my colleagues. It's a truism that if you're going to be a truly effective English teacher, your kids are going to have to do a great deal of writing of all kinds. If they write, you're obligated to read their work, and not only to read it, but to edit—to lesser and greater degrees depending on each assignment and its goals—and to comment and make suggestions for improvement. Of course, I try to plan assignments so I don't end up with too many on any given day, but weekends are usually packed with assignments. I often have 360 or more papers to read and grade at a time. Fortunately, I read very quickly.

How much time is involved? Generally, I work an 8.5 hour school day. Considering I get only a half hour for lunch, that makes for a true 40 hour workweek. I come in an hour before the first bell and stay at least a half hour after the last, but to do my job properly, that's my minimum. That makes for a 42.5 hour week. I commonly spend at least 9 hours per week grading and preparing outside school hours--51.5 hours--and at least 7 hours over the weekends for a total of 58.5 hours. Remember that I get no overtime or comp. time. My salary isn't bad, but I have no idea how families live on the salary of one teacher. A great deal of oatmeal and Ramen noodles and very little in the way of new consumer goods, I suspect. To say that I work 60 hour weeks on average during the school year is pretty accurate as some weeks—when research papers are due, for example—require far more time. Very few require less. I often plan to receive really major assignments just before Thanksgiving, Christmas or Spring breaks and spend most of those holidays grading them.

I certainly know many teachers who come in 15 minutes before the first bell and who leave 15 minutes after the last, which is our minimum requirement. I can't absolutely say that they're not working at home, but I suspect they don't come close to the hours I put in for a variety of reasons. Some have been mailing it in for years. We all know the stereotype of the teacher who teaches from the same set of yellowed notes for 30 years. It's more often true than I like to admit.

I had a college teacher that did that. He was teaching and using tests from the second edition of the required text. He never updated his notes or tests. The bookstore was selling us the tenth edition. I worked out a deal with the division secretary to allow me to sneak into his office to discover the differences between the widely separate editions—he certainly wasn't going to do it--so that my fellow students and I wouldn't unfairly fail. Bless her.

Then there are coaches. You might expect a blanket assertion or two, but I may surprise you. I've generally found that coaches tend to be less effective teachers than non-coaches, but I've often found happy exceptions to that rule. I suspect this is true because people who go into coaching do it not necessarily because they want to teach history or social studies, but because they want to coach. That's their true love and interest and we shouldn't expect otherwise. When our school systems allow them to get away with the kind of neglect of their teaching duties that would result in immediate firing for non-coaches, that's a major problem, and they do bear some responsibility for that too. Let me provide two short stories that illustrate the issues.

When I returned to college to complete my undergraduate degree in my 30s, I was highly motivated. I told the Registrar that I wanted to major in history and minor in English. The conversation went like this:

Registrar: "You can't do that."

Me: "What do you mean I can't do that? I'm paying for this!"

Registrar: "It’s not that. If you teach history, you have to be a coach. No school district will hire you to teach history if you're not a coach."

She meant it, and with a moment's reflection, I realized she was right. I immediately became an English major and a vocal music minor, and the rest is history. I also realized, with horror, why so many of my history teachers had been so mediocre and so often absent.

A few years back, we had one of the most rare coach/teacher combinations: A coach who taught English. Like all coaches, he was gone at least one, and often three days a week, so his students were primarily taught by substitutes for large segments of the year. It was only when he took a job in another district and I received his kids from the previous year that I understood that the 120 or so kids he taught each year were essentially losing that entire year. We were discussing research papers and I found that none of his kids did a research paper as they were required. He totally ignored the subject, probably because it was too much work and possibly because he didn't have a clue himself. I also discovered that most of his curriculum consisted of showing movies utterly unrelated to whatever pathetic curriculum he was teaching. I spent a great deal of time that year making up for what he didn't do, and even so, some of his kids didn't get nearly as far down the path of learning as they might during our time together.

I ended up coaching debate one year, very much against my will. It was a disaster on many levels. I found myself neglecting debate or teaching, and I ended up getting only a few hours of sleep for weeks on end. It's really pretty simple: you can be an effective teacher or an effective coach. Very few can do both. Perhaps we ought to staff our schools with that in mind and hire fewer coaches but require them to be only coaches.

I'm always amazed to still hear people that think teachers have three months off during the summer. Our school year ends the first week of June and begins the second week of August. That's about 10 weeks, usually less. It's a rare year that I don't spend more than a week in various classes and seminars, and I commonly spend about half of my vacation time actively working on updating and improving my curriculum for the next school year. People don't realize that we aren't paid for 12 months of work—I'd love that—but only for the actual school year. No paid vacations for teachers; many of them work during the summer to supplement their school salaries.

As you know, we live in a right-to-work state, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I know that union teachers often have things pretty easy compared to us. For example, we are often short of substitute teachers because we pay so little and during many weeks, particularly Thursdays and Fridays, virtually every coach is gone. On many of those days, we end up filling in for missing teachers and using our precious planning periods, sometimes even lunch—to do it.

One other thing that people don't consider is that teaching, if done properly, is a physically and emotionally exhausting pursuit. I certainly don't burn as many calories as people who do physical labor, and I'm not doing rocket science, but effective teaching demands all of your intellectual and physical energies while allowing far too little time for maintaining physical fitness, at least not if you plan to do anything else with your sparse free time.

I hope I've provided at least a little insight into what we do. And you can expect to find my car at the school regularly, but that's just fine: I knew this bed was on fire when I lay down on it.

Thanks again for your support and interest. Steven is doing just fine. In fact, his writing is really improving this year, and he was very surprised to discover that he likes poetry and is actually pretty good at writing it.

Yours,

Mr. English Teacher

Barack Obama: Anti-Terror Warrior?

I was discussing the recent death of Jihadist Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Al-Qaeda honcho, in a CIA directed Predator drone attack, with an acquaintance. My acquaintance is a fellow I've known for several years who, while not a flaming Marxist, still thinks Barack Obama is slicker than sliced bread, though he is beginning to admit that perhaps a bit of mold is starting to form on the loaf (or is that the loafer?) He's obviously seeking reasons to maintain that old, tingle-up-the-leg, glistening pecs, Obama is a god fervor, and was going on about Mr. Obama's manly mojo in authorizing the strike on Osama Bin Laden and now, the vile and deranged al-Awlaki. To his way of thinking, this—and the fact that Guantanamo Bay is still open for business—is proof positive that Mr. Obama is a genuine, fire-breathing anti-terrorist all-American warrior for truth, justice and the American way. Oh yes: he was also exercised that al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was not given a proper civilian trial before being executed. Irony challenged, my acquaintance.

As to Awlaki's citizenship, the facts are clear. Awlaki was an American citizen, but a citizen who took up arms against America. We know this because he explicitly told us, many times, that he was at war with America. We know that he was a top enemy commander and that he was directly involved in the planning and execution of attacks against America, American interests and Americans, attacks resulting in American deaths, the Fort Hood attack being only a single example.
Arguably, this would make Awlaki guilty of treason, and if captured, he could be tried for that offense. However, capture and trial were not required for one very powerful and well understood—legally speaking—reason: we are at war.

It is hard for most Americans to understand this simple fact: we are at war and have been since at least the first attack on the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993 and probably since the Islamic takeover of Iran in late 1979. Because most Americans have to make no sacrifice, because the ongoing war does not disrupt or directly affect their lives in any way, the very concept of war seems a matter of semantics, a debating topic, not a deadly, personal or national reality. We will almost certainly be at war for a generation or more. We may not consider ourselves to be at war with our Islamist enemy, but he does not share our peaceful convictions.

In war, our declared enemies may be killed whenever and wherever they are found. This simple fact does not change because of the nationality of the enemy. This too is a well-settled fact of law. There are no clear demarcation lines on a worldwide battlefield. Americans have, in past wars, gone over to the side of America's enemies and have as a result become indistinguishable from any other enemy soldier or leader. We have killed them when necessary and captured them when possible. When captured they were tried by military commissions.

Some allude to the Geneva Conventions, but they fail to understand that any declared combatants that do not wear the clearly distinguishable uniform of their nation, that target civilians, that use civilians as shields, or who are non-state actors—all characteristics that describe our Islamist enemy—may be summarily shot when and where they are captured without trial. Such people have none of the protections the Geneva Accords provide to legitimate soldiers acting on behalf of their nation, nor do they deserve them. Even if Awlaki was captured, my acquaintance would doubtless demand that he be tried in a civilian court, a trial for which there is no legal requirement or historical precedence.

Some have suggested that due to the unique nature of our current world wide conflict, the Congress should enact standards for stripping Americans of citizenship so that they may be killed without trial when acting as an enemy of America, but this is unnecessary and likely designed to impede rather than assist America in her war fighting efforts. American and international laws and standards are quite clear on all of the issues involved and have been since the early 1900s.

Mr. Obama and his anti-terror bona fides are quite another matter. He has shown himself, long before his inauguration, to be a man who recognizes no Constitutional restraints, no legal obstacles to his policies and goals. Recall his pseudo-presidential great seal of Obama trotted out during the campaign. Recall his extra-constitutional "Office Of The President-Elect." One might assert that this simply reveals extraordinary arrogance and narcissism—and it does—but it goes much deeper.

There is more than sufficient evidence to acknowledge that Mr. Obama is at the least a Socialist, and likely, a Marxist. Socialism is essentially Marxism-lite. His background is steeped in Marxism, he actively supports Marxist goals, does all he can to damage our capitalist economy, reflexively supports Marxists and Islamists in international relations, and hires avowed Communists (Van Jones) and admirers of Communist murderers (Anita Dunn).

He came into office swearing to close Guantanamo within a year and searched desperately for an alternative, even planning to use an unused prison in Illinois. Fortunately, even in Illinois most people are smart enough to know that the last thing they want is to paint an enormous "come get us, terrorists" target on their community and that suggestion died, even among Democrats. He quickly discovered that no other nation—other than absolute terrorist regimes—want any of the psychotics inhabiting Gitmo, and was certainly told by his more rational advisors of the consequences of turning any of them lose, the reality being that all of the least dangerous were released during the Bush years and more than a fair share of them have returned to Jihad.

He believes that military commissions are evil and that Islamist killers must be accorded civilian trials, trials to be conducted in New York City. Understanding that they have a large terrorist target painted on their collective backs, New Yorkers, and their Democrat representatives, nixed that idiotic idea and to date, only one lower level Jihadist has been tried. The case was a near-disaster. He nearly walked and was convicted on only a single count. Even so, AG Holder—and certainly Mr. Obama—would close Gitmo and begin civilian trials in a second if they thought they could get away with it.

Mr. Obama came into office attacking everything Mr. Bush did, and did away with waterboarding, which had actually been used on only three high value terrorists to great effect. There is no doubt that in those three cases, the technique saved untold lives. However, he not only kept drone attacks; he increased their frequency. This may seem to run counter to his values, but is their epitome.

What would happen to Mr. Obama if we captured a high value terrorist such as Osama Bin Laden or Awlaki and he steadfastly refused to authorize the techniques necessary to extract information from them claiming the moral high ground? Mr. Obama would be in a very difficult predicament. If he authorized anything he had previously taken away, his base and the international community—particularly the Muslims—would go berserk. His political viability would be severely—perhaps fatally--damaged. Yet if he did not authorize whatever was necessary and therefore did not intercept and prevent damaging attacks, particularly on American soil, impeachment and conviction might be the least of his worries.

Drone attacks are the perfect solution. They allow Mr. Obama to adopt the persona of the resolute, anti-terrorist leader while avoiding any real downside. Surely, the usual Leftist suspects complain and raise specious legal and Constitutional arguments, but those have no real political or legal consequence, and other Leftists won't let such minor issues get in the way of enacting their larger agenda through Mr. Obama. There are no high-value terrorists who would not be waterboarded by any rational president, and not waterboarding lesser terrorists represents a much lower attack and political risk and a much more easily defended policy. Mr. Obama would need only to trot out another teleprompter reading with high and moral-sounding rhetoric, claiming that those who oppose him have un-American values. Simply capture no terrorists, kill them instead. That way Mr. Obama doesn’t have to put anyone in Gitmo, and he doesn't have to make any potentially politically harmful decisions.

My acquaintance made much of Mr. Obama's authorization of the raid on Bin Laden. He forgets, or never knew, that Mr. Obama dithered for a full day before authorizing the raid. His dithering cost an additional day due to unfavorable weather. Consider that: Having been in the loop from the first day of the planning phase of the operation, knowing that he would have to decide on capturing or killing America's most wanted terrorist enemy, when the operation was ready to jump off, he took an additional day to make the decision. He was actually seriously considering not doing it! There is every indication that Leon Panetta—of all people—had to insist that he do it.

Imagine what would have happened had he not authorized the raid. Could any American President survive having refused to capture or kill Bin Laden? Imagine if another Bin Laden ordered or inspired 9-11-like attack succeeded. Even democrats couldn't save Obama in such a case, though I have little doubt that the Lamestream Media would labor mightily to save him. Yet knowing this—I have no doubt the more rational among his advisors would have warned him of the dire consequences—he actually considered leaving Bin Laden unmolested. Does such a man deserve congratulations? Does such a man deserve credit for doing the absolute minimum any President must do, particularly considering he took a full day to make that decision after many months to fully consider every ramification?

By the way, wouldn't it have been useful to have Bin Laden? Wouldn't it have been of great value to squeeze him for every drop of actionable intelligence? To use that information to save lives, to pressure hostile governments, and to capture or kill other high-value terrorists? But to preserve Mr. Obama's Leftist street cred, Bin Laden had to die by SEAL bullet or Predator Hellfire. Imagine the Leftist uproar to try Bin Laden in a civilian court, particularly in New York. That's what happens when we elect a President that imposes Marxist values on our abilities to defend ourselves, but not on our enemies.

Barack Obama: all-American anti-terror warrior? I think not.